The Corporatocracy

In 2010 the U.S Supreme Court over turned limitations to Corporations financing political broadcasts in the U.S. They argued that to limit financing from Corporations would be an attack on their first Amendment rights. They didn’t however set how why they have defined Corporations as some kind of living organism that has political rights in the first place. It is a worrying precedent. It means all of a sudden that Corporations are like people. Only richer and more powerful, with very different interests. People tend to vote for safe jobs, better healthcare, safe products, and a decent level of funding for education. Corporations want weak labour laws, low Corporate taxes, and regulations (safe products?) as minimal as possible.

A lifeless, soulless, dead entity like a Corporation, having the rights assigned to people, is an awful step in the wrong direction. Should a Corporation like ITT have rights, in the US? ITT owned 25% of Focke-Wulf, the manufacturer of the Luftewaffe Nazi aircraft that was used to shoot down American airplanes during the war. It then won $27,000,000 in compensation after the Allied’s bombed the Focke-Wulf factory during the war. ITT also made radar and radio equipment used by the Nazis. ITT were funding the killing of Allied troops. ITT also helped to fund Pinochet’s control over Chile. One of the most evil dictators in the World. Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of ITT during the war, was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery for his service to the Country.

Exxon, whose named used to be Standard Oil of New Jersey, are responsible for shipping oil to the Nazis, even after Pearl Harbour. They also contributed, through a bunch of subsidiary companies, to Himmler’s personal fund. They now have the same rights as US citizens.

Profit before people.

The 2010 ruling means that climate change takes a back seat because it isn’t in the interest of oil companies. That the 1% of scientists who dispute man made climate change will be the only ones who are listened to. American Petroleum Institute, whose members include Exxon, have began to finance mainly Republican candidates this year. Martin Durbin, API’s executive vice president for government affairs quite openly said:

“At the end of the day, our mission is trying to influence the policy debate.”

Koch Industries Inc, gave $1.79mn to candidates. 90% of those candidates were Republicans. This of course comes as President Obama proposed ending subsidies for Gas and Electric companies by 2012. Apparently those companies aren’t happy that their Welfare cheque is about to be scrapped. A Welfare cheque that adds up to over $45bn. Their Republican bitches will of course defend them. But no universal healthcare! Healthy citizens = bad. Rich oil companies = great.

Republicans in the US House of Reps voted to cut off all funding to the UN Climate Change panel, the IPCC, because according to Blaine Luetkemeyer, a Missouri Republican:

“The IPCC is an entity that is fraught with waste and fraud, and engaged in dubious science, which is the last thing hard-working American taxpayers should be paying for”

The idea that it is “dubious science” is laughable. And the phrase “hard working Americans” is an empty one. Those same hard working Americans, I doubt want to see their money going to a mass of Corporate tax cuts either. Blaine Luetkemeyer’s claim of “dubious” apparently isn’t without irony, given that in 2004 he introduced a bill, based on Biblical principles, to the Missouri State Legislature, to define marriage as between a man and a woman. All for personal “freedom” as long as he gets to define what “freedom” means.

One the “dubious science” claim surrounding Climate Change, it always seems to come from Republicans. So I wondered why that could be? And then I found this. It shows Oil company contributions for 2010, and which Party – Republican or Democrat – those funds went primarily to. I think it’s pretty conclusive.

Roy Blunt, the United States Senator, from Missouri and whose campaign funds came mainly from big oil ($293,400 altogether) opposes cap and trade and supports drilling for oil on US coastlines. The League of Conservation Voters, who work to turn environmental issues into national priorities said that Blunt is:

“In his twelve years in office, Rep. Roy Blunt has taken good care of Big Oil by maintaining their costly tax breaks while continually voting against opportunities to create clean energy jobs, reduce pollution and improve fuel economy for Missourians,”

One wonders who runs the World? What a wretched democracy we all seem so proud of.

America is not the only country who laughably refer to their Corporatocracy as a Democracy. Britain is just as bad. Our Tory Government is funded heavily by the financial sector and very wealthy individuals. Apparently there is no money left to pay for the care of disabled people, or to keep arts centres open. But there is money, for a 83% tax payer owned bank to offer its CEO a £4.5mn bonus in shares, on top of his 3.2mn bonus for 2010. There is enough money to give one man, a bonus (on top of his salary) of £7.7mn. We are still an economy controlled by the Financial sector. It is not Capitalism.

The Municipal Governing Body of Greater London is the City of London Corporation. It’s main control is over the City of London financial district. There are residents whom live there, but their vote is not very important, given that the majority of the votes for that region, are given to Corporations. They are called “non-residential voters”. Corporate voters. A Corporation may appoint a number of people to cast votes on its behalf based on how many employees it has. The employees don’t get a say, the CEO gets the vote. Those who are appointed voters can vote twice. Once for their Corporation and once for their own vote. Residents of the area can only vote once. It is one big Corporatocracy. The Republicans over in the States would be proud. They’d some how manage to refer to it as “freedom” and “giving power back to people“.

Corporate regulation is essential. Corporations have one legal requirement: profit. Humans, i’d argue are motivated not just by profit, but also by compassion, loyalty, doing the right thing, the advancement of the species and survival. Corporations, by law, must ignore all that stuff if it conflicts with their ability to make profit, and that is a dangerous thing.

Today we learnt that the Tory Government’s next line of attack against its much hated public sector (which, again, remember did no wrong, and caused no problems itself) is the attack on public sector pensions, because they are unfair in relation to private sector pensions. Well, instead of forcing equal misery across the public sector to match that of the private sector, why don’t you make the private sector pay up more?

Damn right i’m a Marxist, especially in this climate of horrendous shock right winged economics.

Let’s stop referring to Corporatocracy as Democratic.
Let’s stop referring to Corporatocracy as freedom.
Let’s stop blaming government for failings, when Government is pretty much owned by the Corporate World.

The point is, Corporations do not deserve rights. They are not people. Government is supposed to work for the people, not for the very wealthy, and at the moment there is no government in the Western World that is not wholly run for the benefit of the very wealthy. It is not democracy. It is not at all what the Founders envisaged.

The Abstraction

Around the year of Muhammad’s birth, the Arabians within the central penninsula were actively resisting the Byzantines and the Persians, and in fact organised religion and empire in general. They did not however, escape the pull and the “meaning” that comes with abstract concepts invented by humanity, plaguing the West at the time. The Arabians instead practiced the concept of “Muruwwah”. This idea stressed the importance of courage and patience, endurance and honour. It kept the tribes going. It was a concept that penetrated every aspect of their lives. They were taught that society would fall apart without it. And yet, when logic prevails, Muruwwah doesn’t actually exist. It’s a subjective man made concept.

Man has always confined itself to abstractions. The problem with abstractions, and in particular abstract philosophies and concepts, is that whilst they attempt to provide dogmatic objectivity, they are by nature, massively subjective.

Humans have always placed an unattainable goal ahead of us, a goal that throughout our lives sucks up our hopes, our desires, our dreams, our human decency, like a sponge. The concept of Heaven, which is largely derived from the concept of an eternal World of Plato and other Greeks, tells us that this life is going to be a bit of a disappointment, but your dreams are going to come true in Heaven. Heaven acts as a sponge for positivity whilst the World we live in is a reflection of negativity. There is no Capitalism in heaven. There is no poverty in heaven. There is no climate change in heaven. And yet, the majority of us do not care to see our fantasy of a Heavenly World reflected on Earth. Why is that? Heaven is a man made fantasy ideal, and yet we place it in a box labelled “other“.

The Nation State is a product of colonialism. The Europeans carved up Africa into Nation States as a way of control. We could control the labour force, we could control slavery, we could control information, we could control the movement of capital. Nation borders are meaningless. They always have been. They are meaningless, because they exist in the collective mind of humanity only. The Nation State did not exist before humanity, it did not exist for the majority of the time humanity has been on the planet, it will not exist after humanity, and it does not exist to anything else other than humanity. And so therefore, it is meaningless, because it doesn’t exist. Like organised religion, the Nation State was used as a method of control by humanity over humanity.

As Capitalism took hold, Nation States no longer had the control over labour, slavery and capital that they once had. Nation States are entirely at odds with Capitalism. In fact, Nation States only really work when an economy is entirely protectionist, and Empires exist. Nation States were never about race, or identity, or culture, or anything of the sort. They have always been about control. Control previously lay at the feet of the Monarch. The State, was the Monarchy. Man and State were the same thing.
Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld says:

“What made the state unique was that it replaced the ruler with an abstract, anonymous, mechanism.”

Nationalism by logic then, is less than 500 years old. Racism grew with colonialism, and whilst the cancer of racism has largely been destroyed, remnants still remain and people are still quite unapologetically racist, with no actual reasons for their racism. Nationalism is an “other”. It is something we think is larger than ourselves, it is largely pathological because before human beings, and after human beings, England will not exist. A land mass that we once inhabited will exist. But England, and it’s abstractions that work simply to disassociate ourselves with the rest of humanity in the same way as Christianity and Islam and America and Pakistan and sexuality does.

Corporations today have more rules, more regulations, more limits on information, labour and capital than any Nation has. Corporations and their laws are just as abstract and nonsensical as Nation States. Corporations are the modern day Nation States. You all look a certain way, talk a certain way, waste your life trying to obtain this subjective and abstract concept of “success”. We are now governed by Capitalism or a form thereof. It tells us if we work hard enough, we can achieve anything we wish. But that simply isn’t true. Capitalism is the dome that we are living under, and it’s promise of ‘everything’ is in the same box as Heaven…. “other”. It is religion.

Catholicism, Protestantism, Capitalism, Democracy, Fascism, Communism, Materialism; they are do not exist. They are ideals that soak up hopes and dreams and say “YOU CAN HAVE THEM IF YOU……. work hard enough/are white/keep buying shit you don’t need/own nothing because the State owns it for your benefit………. but eventually you’ll be the perfect happiness.” They are the “other“. The concept of Heaven is very similar. The concept of Plato’s eternal realm is very similar. Abstractions that don’t actually exist in anything other than man’s mind, are used to control man. The men who create these concepts have created them for the purpose of control. Feudalism was a system of control. Capitalism is not much different. There are still Lords who suck up the majority of the wealth at the behest of the many. The U.S Constitution protects a certain class of person. The USSR protected a certain class of person. Whether or not it was designed with that specific goal in mind is debatable, but perhaps subconsciously a certain class of people always assume they are best placed to rule.

The Catholic Church was set up to spread the word of Jesus, yet ended up being perhaps one of the wealthiest institutions on the planet. In the 16th Century, instead of helping the poor that Christianity swears to do, the Catholic Church took money off of the poor, to finance St Peters. They found ridiculous ways to justify the selling of indulgences because the abstract concept they were attempting to spread, which they had inevitably corrupted, demanded obedience, even though the entire doctrine was based on conjecture, dodgy history and man made abstractions.

Catholicism created a culture of idol worship with the creation of Saints. We in the modern era have took that idol worship that the Bible strictly forbids, and our new idols are National pride, pop stars, sports stars, TV presenters, authors. They are also in the realm of “other“. Their public success is largely fatuous, worthless, and offers very little in the sense of the progress of humanity, but they’re worshipped as idols. We salute a flag that we invented, We wear the clothes that the stars wear, we recite their words, we want our bodies to look like theirs, we concentrate far too much energy on being like them, than being like ourselves. Why is that? Is that natural? Perhaps so. Humans have always created an abstraction that we place above ourselves, perhaps because we cannot cope with the notion that we as a species are the height of intelligence. And yet, we are. We created God. We created Nations. We created all other abstractions, the very same abstractions that today hold us all back and group us together into ridiculous categories.

To break away from these abstractions, and concentrate on reality, is in a sense Anarchism. Libertarianism evolves from the idea that we must break away from abstractions, and whilst I think Libertarianism goes too far to the right, I understand it’s principles. But then Anarchism itself, is dogmatic, and an abstraction……and…………… ARGGGH!!!! I don’t know how to end this blog.

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.

Budget 2009

Firstly, i’d like you all to pay a visit to my alter-ego The British Republican whenever you have a second.

——————————————————-

Whilst Republican America still tries to convince the World that a 3% tax increase on the wealthiest (from 36% to 39%) in the Country is equal to Socialism; Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the United Kingdom yesterday put the top rate of tax up to 50%. By Republican America standards, that would make us Communist (along with Sweden, Ireland, Israel, Turkey, France, Spain, Iceland, Denmark, Belguim, Australia, Algeria, Slovenia, South Africa, Thailand and Vietnam, whose tax rates are all higher than that of the USA).

The budget yesterday was a little disappointing to say the least. And whilst I welcome the new Scrappage scheme aimed at guaranteeing a £2000 trade in deal for cars 10 years old or more, it does not go far enough to cutting carbon emissions by the set 60% by 2050. Setting aside £525m for offshore wing projects, and calling themselves “green” is pathetic. Especially when £340mn seemed to be easy to find when we were paying RBS bonuses for failing.

It was a budget designed to invest in the future, and emerge out of recession prepared for the future.

I stand by the Government on the following: The price of a pint is up 1p. 13p on Spirits. Cigarettes up 7p. £1.7bn for Job Centres, Statutory redundancy pay up from £350 to £380 a week, mortgage backed securities guaranteed by the Government to encourage bank lending, £100m for local councils to build energy efficient homes (although, £100m is not even close to enough), closing of identified tax loopholes, child tax credit to rise by £20 (again, not enough), anyone over 25 and out of work for over twelve months will be offered a place on a training scheme, and £750mn Strategic investment fund to help businesses specialising in emerging technologies.

And whilst I welcome all of those announcements, the problem I have is that it is all based on a seemingly over optimistic view of how the economy will improve by 2011. The bad news was that the Chancellor forcast the economy to shrink 3.5% by the end of 2009. Darling, last year predicted growth of 2.5% by the end of 2009, which he got so massively incorrect it’s difficult to take him seriously when he shows such optimism in recovery this year, and his suggestion that by 2011, the economy will have grown by 3.5%.

It would be wrong to assume that the Chancellor is wrong. We cannot say for certain what is going to happen in two years time. However, investment in the future, in future technologies and in protecting jobs and homes is the only way out, despite the cost. The cost of doing nothing (being a Tory) is far worse. The cost of ignoring those who struggle more than most during recession was an appalling indictment of Tory policy during the 1980s and 1990s. The cost of letting new technology stagnate, letting people lose their jobs, letting banks collapse, letting education lose out on much needed funded, letting repossessions sky rocket is far worse for our children’s future.

Where was the announcement that the VAT cut had been a waste of time?
Where was the announcement on investment in electric cars?
Where was a stimulus designed to get people back to work now? New projects, new housing, new infrastructure? It was a wasted opportunity and a relatively regular budget. But with Government debt set to rise to 79% of GDP by 2013, and borrowing set to hit £175bn, the Chancellor HAS to be right with his prediction, and investment in future technology and job creation HAS to pay for itself over the next couple of decades, otherwise Keynesian economics might prove to be the ultimate failure, in a decade where Neoliberalism itself has also proved an utter failure; leaving millions out of work and home for a very very long time.

The G20: The exciting and the disappointing

The G20 has certainly produced some disappointing and yet paradoxically exciting results for those of us who do not still worship the flawed notion of trickle down economic theory. Disappointing, because there seems to be no radical decision on climate change, and no radical moves to end World Poverty, and no radical global stimulus, like i’d hoped. However, the strict attack on tax havens and hedge funds is very much welcome. The news that The London FTSE 100 closed up 4%; the Dax up 6%, the Dow Jones up 3% and the Nasdaq up 4% for us in the West, can’t be a bad sign. The markets seem to be responding remarkably well to the G20.

American Financial “Experts” have for far too long successfully managed to get around regulation that was put in place to stop this kind of mess happening in the first place. The G20 needed to put a stop to that. The IMF and the World Bank have for far too long acted in the interests of Western Capitalism only. The G20 needed to put a stop to that. Whilst he was European Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson would insist that unless the impoverished Nations of the World offered something of equal worth in return, he’d offer no help whatsoever in regard to access into EU markets. The G20 needed to put a stop to that kind of heartless sentiment.

It has been “tradition” that the IMF and the World Bank be headed by an American and a European. In 2011, the rules look set to change, which means the US will most probably lose it’s veto power, and the rules of the global financial game change on a huge scale.

What was my take on the G20, using my limited knowledge of Global economics?

There are certainly a number of points that have come out of it, that have the potential to literally change the World in regard to financial regulation, the third World, the power that the IMF will now wield among other things. However, perhaps it doesn’t go far enough. It appeared to look good on paper, but when it comes to the poor of the World, I think the fact that the entire Continent of Africa is not represented at the G20 has produced a lack of sympathy and a lack of adequate support. The G20 outcome, whilst beneficial to the West, is lackluster in it’s attempts to please those of us who wanted to see dramatic and radical change when it comes to World poverty.

Of the $750bn hike in available resources that the IMF will be able to lend out, just under $20bn is available for the World’s poorest nations. Those poor nations have suffered immensely recently. The collapse of commodity prices, the downturn in tourism, and the spiking of food prices have brought even further down than they were. They appear to be less important. You can see just how useless an attempt the G20 have made on helping lift millions out of poverty, by contrasting the obscene amounts of money used to help Wall Street, with the fact that Oxfam have concluded that: “the resources devoted to the global financial bailout are sufficient to end world poverty for half a century.” I begin to wonder if perhaps this financial crises hasn’t been such a disaster as to align our priorities in the direction that has been much needed for decades. And whilst Conservatives insist that their distorted version of trade is enough to lift developing Nations out of poverty if it weren’t for their pesky leaders; this simply isn’t true. According to the Hong Kong Deal reached in 2006, by a group of World trade ministers attempting to reach an agreement which would see developing nations given help to trade their way out of poverty; a provision was put into the small print. The idea was to give poorer countries free access to the markets of developed nations in order to trade their goods without being taxed. The USA however decided that it wanted the right to tax 3% of the products to be traded within it’s market. And although this is just a small number, those products are the small amount of products that the poor nation can competitively produce, and so according to economist Joseph Stiglitz; “Thus this exception gives the US scope to exclude the majority of the goods they can actually export.” Our EU politicians continue to ask African Nations to bring something to negotiating tables, regardless of the fact that they have absolutely nothing to “trade” for help, and so they’re just ignored further.
These poorer nations need help developing the means by which trade can be opened up smoothly, creating the prosperity needed, because at the minute they exist as a pawn in the game of Western Capitalism. They need new infrastructure, they need strong government programs, they need new roads, new ports, new trade routes, new regulations and rights. They need that support, and the fact that the G20 has offered spare change found at the back of Sir Fred Goodwin’s couch, is something that disappointed me greatly.

I can’t fault the G20 entirely though, when it comes to the World’s poor. Although the IMF fund is far too low, and even then the use of it’s funds will come with strict conditions, the $250bn in Trade Credit is a welcome inclusion into the business of the meeting. The poorer nations had specifically asked the G20 for help in getting their goods out and moving and trading and bringing in much needed cash flow and address the shortage of available credit. Gordon Brown before the G20 had promised; “The G20 will come out with a concrete proposal to reopen credit lines to support import/export operations”… he appears to have come good on that promise and then some. Originally he’d hoped for $100bn in Trade Credit for poorer nations, so $250bn can only be a good thing. However, that cannot be mistake for a much needed Global Trade Deal.

Lack of a Global Trade Deal may seem disappointing to those of us who were hoping for it. However, it is still early days, we’re still in crises, and the fact – the beautiful and liberating fact that a U.S President referred to the days of unfettered and deregulated Globalisation as outdated, is a huge step in the right direction.

The G20: Excuse my pessimism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Put me in charge of the World.

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

Excuse my pessimism.

Sliming Mandelson

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gopfather

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Business rules the World

“We are not hostile to Corporations; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good.” – Theodore Roosevelt

I’m 1902, President Teddy Roosevelt and his Attorney General at the time, shocked both the Republican Party and the Country on the whole by announcing it’s intention to sue J.P.Morgan’s Northern Securities Company for breaching the Sherman Anti-Trust act. President Roosevelt did not particularly care about the actual breaching of a largely pointless act, he wanted instead to show the Country that the office of President was more powerful than the Office of a banker. He wanted to show that power of the public could not be bought or sold. It was a symbol against the power of private companies, even more so because Morgan ha contributed to campaigns Roosevelt had run in the past. It was an ingenious way of letting big business know “You can contribute all you want, but you do not own power over the public.”

Lately, whenever I turn the TV on, I see an advert, warning people that “we’re coming to get to you”. This is aimed at benefit cheats, it features a neighbour of a lady cheating benefits, calling the office. My instant reaction was “wow, much like when the Nazis asked people to inform them if they lived next door to a Jew.” I simply do not get upset and annoyed by benefit cheats. It doesn’t affect me. In fact, whenever I hear of a single mum struggling on the income she has, to feed her family, I would advise her to cheat the system a bit. Perhaps it’s a little controversial. My stance on this will also annoy people. But I refuse to let any take the moral high ground on the issue of scrounging a little extra cash to feed a poor family, when the tax payer has paid for a mass of Corporate bonuses over the past year, through Governments that metaphorically masturbate the big business men.

John Thain, the last Chairman of Merrill Lynch, who after destroying the company, begged for a $10million bonus, managed to secure $15million from the Bank of America bail out fund; taxpayers money. Within a month, he had offered employees of Merrill Lynch bonuses as much as $4million. He then spent $1.2million of tax payers money on redecorating his office. Thain is working at The Bank of America. Why aren’t the Governments of the World “coming to get” Thain? Surely using $1.2million of public money is a hell of lot worse than a single mum needing the extra £20 she’s “stolen” to feed her kids? Businessmen are exempt from the law.

Fox News, in particular Bill O’Reilly in 2005 began a campaign for America to boycott France, for no other reason than the fact that France are not America’s bitches. O’Reilly claimed that France had damaged America a considerable amount. And so all Americans should boycott French products. In comparison, O’Reilly doesn’t seem to have a problem with America’s destructive relationship with those great proponents of Democracy, the Saudi Royal Family. Could this be anything to do with business deals? If France had a decent supply of Oil reserves, O’Reilly would be inviting us all to his French themed birthday party in celebration of how wonderful France is.

The UK Government has strong ties to the aviation industry. They are, in essence, in the pockets of BAA and Virgin. Misleading figures and the decrediting of leading scientists who disagree and have the evidence to back it up, in order to advance their own agenda, aviation gets billions of pounds of taxpayers money, to keep prices low. BA has claimed to be taking steps to be pro-green in the future, and yet it keeps demanding extra terminals and runways. The BA website claims “Introducing a third runway at Heathrow won’t increase the overall level of carbon emissions in the atmosphere.” Clearly, that’s a lie, and impossible. There is no way that they are helping the environment rather than maximising profits. And the Government gave into them on Heathrow’s third runway.

Recently, the house of Lords has been the subject of much publicity. Four Labour Lords are accused of agreeing to accept £120,000 in exchange for changing to law to suit the person paying the money. Public policy influenced by the money of outside “donors”? No shit! The only difference between the four Lords at the centre of this scandal, and most other politicians, is that these four happened to get caught.

David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party claimed that Lords who misbehaved should be punished. Cameron himself refused to criticise the bosses of Bradford and Bingley after they systematically destroyed the company and can be partly held accountable for the mess our finance system is in today. Cameron told the BBC… “What you won’t hear from me this week is the sort of easy cheap lines beating up on the market system, bashing financiers.” So he’s quite happy to cycle to work, to prove he’s dedicated to climate change whilst his work suit is chauffeur driven in the Mercedes behind him for cheap publicity, but he wont criticise people who have destroyed the banking system? There must be a reason….. ah yes…. The bosses over at Bradford and Bingley are among the chief contributors to the Conservative Party since Cameron took over as leader. What a beautiful coincidence.

The BBC reported a story in 2003 regarding Coca Cola, poisoning a water supply in India. Coca Cola have not been prosecuted for human rights violations, which they should be. Nor has anything been made out of the story that Coke have been draining a water supply from a village in India to fuel their prosperity, whilst living hundreds of local villagers without water. Coke tried to make up for it by sending a truck to the village with the bare minimum amount of water. To me, that’s a disgrace. Local farming had to be abandoned, even though it was thriving up until Coca Cola decided it would impose it’s will and steal the water. Coca Cola is accused of even more…. dumping it’s waste in riverbed, containing lead and cadmium, which can cause cancer, and attacks the nervous system of children. When will someone stand up and say that the disgusting chase for profit, is not worth this? When will a Politician stand up to these disgusting people? They wont…. because big business like Coca Cola are much more powerful than the Governments of our Countries.

I have a deep problem with the Party funding system itself. No body donates a huge amount of money to a political party, out of the good will of their heart. More often than not, they want something in return. The government should not be privately run. It inevitably leads to scandals like the Cash for honours debaucle that plagued the end of the Blair administration.

Where have the Roosevelts of the World disappeared? Why have our governments been hijacked by weak men dedicated to the promotion of Big Business. Big Business runs the World.
Nobody seems to care that business is allowed to profit from war. Shouldn’t that be regulated? No one should be allowed to make money out of death and misery in the perverse way that Halliburton and KBR have. Dick Cheney received $36million in compensation when he left Halliburton in 2000. An extra $1million in deferred compensation followed. In 2004, he’d been awarded an extra $398,000 from Halliburton. KBR, affiliated with Halliburton, has made over $33million from the war on terror, and built Guantanamo Bay detention centre. It all stinks horribly corrupt. Both companies, have strong ties to Dick Cheney, the Vice President in the Bush Administration. Conflict of interest, between an Oil company, and the American public, during a war with a nation rife with Oil rich lands? It isn’t a conspiracy, it’s Modern Politics. It’s just how it is.

It will be of no shock to you, that I believe those like Dick Cheney and John Thain among others, should have a very long prison sentence ahead of them, not a lovely big pay packet to see them through the rest of their lives. They are criminals. Nothing more.

If Capitalists truly want the Government to keep out of Private affairs, then big business should take it’s own advice and stay out of public affairs. Big business, as we’ve seen with the War for Oil in Iraq, seeks only to maximise profit at the expense of animals, the environment, the future of the planet, and humanity. It should be Governments job to stop the trial of destruction big business leaves, before it gets out of hand. This cannot happen whilst those who need to destroy the planet in order to be able to afford a new yaht at the end of the quarter, pay for candidates to be elected officials on their behalf. The government is private.

“Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity.” – Theodore Roosevelt

The right side of history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The term Liberal should be a badge worn with pride. Liberals are on the right side of history.

I now await an influx of Republicans trying to suggest how wonderful they are, how evil gay people are, how Obama is Lenin painted black, how weak liberals are, and how they will continue to pray for me. Oh joy….

In defence of Socialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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