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.

A well regulated Militia….

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” - The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

When I read the second Amendment, I am drawn to the phrase “well regulated“. For me “…well regulated” in the second Amendment, suggests more than anything that The Founders are products of their time, and the right to own a gun, comes from the fear of that time. Fear of tyrannical government prominent during the tumultuous years of the American and French Revolutions. Mass slaughters in the Colonies, and news of slaughters at the Tuileries in Paris whilst trying to overthrow a tyrannical government, shaped the sentiment of fear prominent when this amendment was created. The right to own a gun, isn’t an inherent right, it is a right that can be placed entirely in context of the time. Made out of fear. It must be revised, for the context of today. The social and economic context today, of a land with 300,000,000 people, with an indescribably powerful defence sector; is not in anyway the same as the social and economic context of the time of Thomas Jefferson. It isn’t an America of small farming communities threatened by an overbearing British Empire. Jefferson, or Madison, or Hamilton, or any other Founder, could not have predicted where America might be today, with it’s gang culture, and its assault rifles, and how certain Amendments harking back 250 years, might be exploited.

As well as the Amendment being firmly rooted in 18th Century fear, the use of the word “militia” in the 2nd Amendment, must affect the word “people” in the 2nd amendment. For me, the word “militia” means that the word “people” becomes a collective body, and not the right of each individual to own firearms. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment speaks of a collective gun holding responsibility. Perhaps a place where guns are stored, kept safe until a well regulated Militia is needed to protect themselves as a collective. And so then you have to ask, when will America ever need a well regulated Militia on a State level, given the strength of their military?

Having a gun in your home, for “self defence” raises the risk of being murdered by someone you know, by 2.7 times. The suicide rate for those who keep guns raises by 4 times. These statistics

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” – The National Rifle Association

I’ve always shuddered at that NRA phrase. It’s a horrible argument designed to shut people up, because it’s superficially true in sentiment. Of course people kill people. Of course the gun doesn’t decide to kill all by itself. But it’s a tool used for the prime purpose of killing. A knife, is not designed specifically to kill. Neither is a car. A gun, when used correctly and responsibly, is used to kill. A gun, when used incorrectly, and irresponsibly, is used to kill. The design is purely to kill. To create an instrument designed purely to take life, and not have very strict controls, seems both absurd and dangerous. The latter, is proven time and time again.

According to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, you are five times more likely to die as a result of a gun attack, than you are as a result of a knife attack. Not only that, but according to the Department of Justice, one in every eight violent crimes, involved criminals carrying hand guns at the time.

The level of gun ownership – that is, arming everyone, to defend themselves, against…everyone – is directly related to the number of deaths by gun fire.

During the firearms amnesty in 2003, following the 1997 ban on handguns in the uk; 43,000 guns were handed in. That’s 43,000 less on the streets. That follows the amnesty directly after the two 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Acts, which resulted in 162,000 guns being handed in. Do I feel safer with almost 200,000 guns less on the streets? Absolutely. In the US most gun related deaths, are carried out by those who legally own the gun. That, is horrendous.

Now, the 2nd Amendment was written as a way to arm citizens against government tyranny. If we are to use the same argument today, we must be consistent. If the big bad Obama administration violently decides to invade Alabama…..a few citizens with semi automatics aren’t going to be much use in defending the State. They are going to need to be as armed as the Federal Government. I look forward to the NRA calling for the right of citizens to be armed with chemical and biological weapons, F16s and nukes. For the sake of consistency….. which I know, isn’t something the Right are famed for. ‘Arms’ in the 2nd Amendment refers to Nuclear weapons, just as much as it does to semi automatics, just as much as it does to 18th Century Muskets.

In 2008, there were over 12,000 gun related murders in the US. Comparatively, in 2006 in Japan…… total gun related murders…… 2. When guns have such harsh controls, that hardly anyone has one, the death by gun rate doesn’t rise (as the US neo-con’s appear to think it would)… it falls dramatically. Japans law is polar opposite to the 2nd Amendment in the US. In Japan, the law states:

“No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords.”

- As industrialised countries go, when it comes to gun control, Japan is doing it right.
In contrast, here are a list of mass killings as a result of an archaic obsession and misreading of the 2nd Amendment in the US, since Columbine, put together on Think Progress

December 11, 2012. On Tuesday, 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts killed 2 people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon. His motive is unknown.
September 27, 2012. Five were shot to death by 36-year-old Andrew Engeldinger at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, MN. Three others were wounded. Engeldinger went on a rampage after losing his job, ultimately killing himself.
August 5, 2012. Six Sikh temple members were killed when 40-year-old US Army veteran Wade Michael Page opened fire in a gurdara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Four others were injured, and Page killed himself.
July 20, 2012. During the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, CO, 24-year-old James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58. Holmes was arrested outside the theater.
May 29, 2012. Ian Stawicki opened fire on Cafe Racer Espresso in Seattle, WA, killing 5 and himself after a citywide manhunt.
April 6, 2012. Jake England, 19, and Alvin Watts, 32, shot 5 black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in racially motivated shooting spree. Three died.
April 2, 2012. A former student, 43-year-old One L. Goh killed 7 people at Oikos University, a Korean Christian college in Oakland, CA. The shooting was the sixth-deadliest school massacre in the US and the deadliest attack on a school since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.
October 14, 2011. Eight people died in a shooting at Salon Meritage hair salon in Seal Beach, CA. The gunman, 41-year-old Scott Evans Dekraai, killed six women and two men dead, while just one woman survived. It was Orange County’s deadliest mass killing.
September 6, 2011. Eduardo Sencion, 32, entered an IHOP restaurant in Carson City, NV and shot 12 people. Five died, including three National Guard members.
January 8, 2011. Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head when 22-year-old Jared Loughner opened fire on an event she was holding at a Safeway market in Tucson, AZ. Six people died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll, one of Giffords’ staffers, and a 9-year-old girl. 19 total were shot. Loughner has been sentenced to seven life terms plus 140 years, without parole.
August 3, 2010. Omar S. Thornton, 34, gunned down Hartford Beer Distributor in Manchester, CT after getting caught stealing beer. Nine were killed, including Thornton, and two were injured.
November 5, 2009. Forty-three people were shot by Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan at the Fort Hood army base in Texas. Hasan reportedly yelled “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire, killing 13 and wounding 29 others.
April 3, 2009. Jiverly Wong, 41, opened fire at an immigration center in Binghamton, New York before committing suicide. He killed 13 people and wounded 4.
March 29, 2009. Eight people died in a shooting at the Pinelake Health and Rehab nursing home in Carthage, NC. The gunman, 45-year-old Robert Stewart, was targeting his estranged wife who worked at the home and survived. Stewart was sentenced to life in prison.
February 14, 2008. Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University, killing 6 and wounding 21. The gunman shot and killed himself before police arrived. It was the fifth-deadliest university shooting in US history.
February 7, 2008. Six people died and two were injured in a shooting spree at the City Hall in Kirkwood, Missouri. The gunman, Charles Lee Thornton, opened fire during a public meeting after being denied construction contracts he believed he deserved. Thornton was killed by police.
December 5, 2007. A 19-year-old boy, Robert Hawkins, shot up a department store in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, NE. Hawkins killed 9 people and wounded 4 before killing himself. The semi-automatic rifle he used was stolen from his stepfather’s house.
April 16, 2007. Virginia Tech became the site of the deadliest school shooting in US history when a student, Seung-Hui Choi, gunned down 56 people. Thirty-two people died in the massacre.
February 12, 2007. In Salt Lake City’s Trolley Square Mall, 5 people were shot to death and 4 others were wounded by 18-year-old gunman Sulejman Talović. One of the victims was a 16-year-old boy.
October 2, 2006. An Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster, PA was gunned down by 32-year-old Charles Carl Roberts, Roberts separated the boys from the girls, binding and shooting the girls. 5 young girls died, while 6 were injured. Roberts committed suicide afterward.
March 25, 2006. Seven died and 2 were injured by 28-year-old Kyle Aaron Huff in a shooting spree through Capitol Hill in Seattle, WA. The massacre was the worst killing in Seattle since 1983.
March 21, 2005. Teenager Jeffrey Weise killed his grandfather and his grandfather’s girlfriend before opening fire on Red Lake Senior High School, killing 9 people on campus and injuring 5. Weise killed himself.
March 12, 2005. A Living Church of God meeting was gunned down by 44-year-old church member Terry Michael Ratzmann at a Sheraton hotel in Brookfield, WI. Ratzmann was thought to have had religious motivations, and killed himself after executing the pastor, the pastor’s 16-year-old son, and 7 others. Four were wounded.
July 8, 2003. Doug Williams, a Lockheed Martin employee, shot up his plant in Meridian, MI in a racially-motivated rampage. He shot 14 people, most of them African American, and killed 7.
September 15, 1999. Larry Gene Ashbrook opened fire on a Christian rock concert and teen prayer rally at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, TX. He killed 7 people and wounded 7 others, almost all teenagers. Ashbrook committed suicide.
July 29, 1999. Mark Orrin Barton, 44, murdered his wife and two children with a hammer before shooting up two Atlanta day trading firms. Barton, a day trader, was believed to be motivated by huge monetary losses. He killed 12 including his family and injured 13 before killing himself.
April 20, 1999. In the deadliest high school shooting in US history, teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold shot up Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. They killed 13 people and wounded 21 others. They killed themselves after the massacre.

- How many more need to be added?

According to Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International, The gun deaths per 100,000 of the population of the United States, in a 2001 study, was 3.98. In comparison, Italy, Switzerland, Canada, Finland, Australia, France, England, Wales, Scotland, and Japan combined came up to less than the USA. Why? Why is this the case? Well, a weak interpretation of the Constitution is of course one reason, perhaps add to that an underfunded mental health sector, along with a for-profit healthcare system in general, we also know that economic inequality plays a large part in violence. This graph shows homicides per million, in relation to economic inequality. Just look at the US.

Only a change in attitudes can put this right. The Right Wing of America has to acknowledge the sheer hypocrisy in the voices shouting pro-life sentiments whilst advocating the joys of one of the biggest killers in the Country. Countries with strict gun control laws, and a more equal income distribution have fewer deaths. Liberals must be far more willing to fight the cause, and to educate people on the dangers of weak gun control, because shouting “we need gun control” on its own, doesn’t work. There needs to be informative campaigns against gun ownership, tougher sentences for those convicted of gun crime, make guns less accessible, reduce the supply of guns, and most of all, there needs to be a real careful look at whether the context of the Constitution – with its fear of a Red Coat invasion – might not quite be interpretable the same way today. Use common sense. The NRA’s slogan is nonsense. However, so is the naive liberal notion that immediately outlawing gun ownership, will solve a Nation’s gun crime problems. All it would do, is promote the growth of a new black market, and then you have a whole new problem on your hands.

The Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment was ambiguous because it had no idea what the future might hold. It cannot be claimed that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry an assault rifle. The 2nd Amendment does not give the right to all Americans to keep a gun in their homes, but similarly, it does not say that Americans must not keep a gun in their homes. The framers left it up to the Democracy of the future to come to their own conclusions. This, is the genius of the American Constitution, but also it’s failing.

Gun ownership is no longer about protecting the Nation against a tyrannical government – the very reason it was included in the first place – It is now about protecting each other, against each other, because one of the two parties might shoot first. That is the legacy of lax gun regulation. One big social cold war, against each other.

Edit. 14/12/2012:

Today, in Newtown Connecticut, a man has shot and killed at least 18 small children. It is a tragedy beyond any human comprehension. My heart goes out to the families of the victims this evening. I cannot begin to fathom the unimaginable grief that they must be feeling. It is horrendous.

There has been a lot of talk that today isn’t the day to be politicising gun control. I disagree. Today is absolutely the right day to be politicising gun control, as a matter of urgency. It is also the right day to be discussing the failings of the mental health system. In a week’s time, everyone will be talking about the ‘fiscal cliff’ again, and suddenly the passion for progress withers away. Days like today are preventable. Do not let anyone tell you that a killer will go into a school and kill children whether he has a gun or not. That simply isn’t true. “Politicising” sounds like a terrible word, but it is, in reality, the people looking at a situation, and asking how to stop it happening again.

Yesterday, in Michigan, lawmakers passed a law that allows people who have undergone eight hours more training, to carry concealed guns into a school, day care centre, bar, or sports event. I am horrified by this. The arguments for this disgusting little law, is that maybe if teachers are armed, the killer might be stopped early. What happens if the killer is a teacher? And in a bar? Mixing guns and alcohol? Really? What if the teacher, in the panic of a killer on school property, shoots, and misses, and hits someone else? The moment one person dies as a result of the passing of this law; the Republican legislators of Michigan who voted for it, have blood on their hands.

I just don’t see why anyone would take the chance, in allowing a weapon designed solely to kill, to be concealed and carried in a school. It is truly horrifying.

Guantanamo deepens

The whole issue surrounding the closure of Guantanamo bay detention centre has gained World Wide attention. Those on the Liberal side of the fence suggest that Guantanamo is merely a place of torture against those who haven’t actually been charged with any crime, which in turn leads to growing antipathy across the World toward America.
Conservatives meanwhile argue that Guantanamo is an essential deterrent to any would be terrorist, that if you mess with America, you’re going to be sorry.
Both the Liberal and the Conservative stance on the issue have good points worth paying attention to. Both want the same ending, but both go about it a different way. This is the nature of Democracy.

I put myself slightly more in the liberal camp when it comes to Guantanamo, purely because although there are doubtless terrorists rightly locked up in that detention centre, whose human rights I have very little time for; there are also those who are not guilty or haven’t been charged or are there simply for resisting American aggression. These people, have largely been ignored in the debate. Suddenly, the debate should become not whether Guantanamo is needed for the protection of America, but should be whether Guantanamo is actually Constitutional. An intelligent American cannot substantially claim to be against Gun regulations because it’s unconstitutional, yet be in favour of a camp that for some, holds their right to detention without trial as inconsequential. Of course, the placing of Guantanamo puts it out of reach of the law of the Constitution, which is convenient to say the least.

I do not however succumb to the ultra-Liberal belief, despite my Liberalism, that the World will be better without detention centres like this, or that terrorists will suddenly decide to stop their string of hatred toward the West. Nor do I accept that ultra-Conservative view that with the closure of Guantanamo, suspected Terrorists will be freed, and allowed to live next door to us, in the same way that I don’t accept our British Countryside Alliance, who seem to think that banning fox hunting will means the Country is over run by a mass Fox offensive stealing our jobs and raping our women.

Over the past eight-teen months since the ‘abdication’ of Tony Blair and the arrival of the guy at the Treasury, who had been waiting for the top job for fifteen years; Gordon Brown, we have seen exactly how disastrous this man really is. Mismanaged the economy before taking over as Prime Minister by claiming to do away with boom and bust, and yet not saving money when the Country was doing brilliantly well economically; abolishing the 10p tax band, hitting Labour’s core support base the hardest and alienating them some more; Using the phrase “British Jobs for British Workers” which has subsequently come back and attacked him viciously through the slogan being attached to placards used by the strikers recently.
Brown has, in affect, had a terrible eight-teen months. However, none of that comes close to the revelation this week that a British detainee at Guantanamo had been tortured, and that the British Government were complicit in it. The story is that the U.S had absolutely no evidence against Mr Mohamed when they charged him with conspiracy to build dirty bombs whilst in Kabul, and then later dropped the charges. Mr Mohamad was then charged again, this time by the new Office of Military Commissions, and then the charges were dropped.

Whilst being held at Guantanamo, Mr Mohamed claimed to have been tortured, humiliated, and injected with heroin to get him addicted. He claimed that those who tortured him had information about his life that only the UK Government could have provided. In July 2008, the British Government sent a letter according to The New York Times, to Benyam’s Lawyer ‘Clive Stafford Smith’ confirming that it knew and had detailed information about Mr Mohammed’s apparent abuse at Guantanamo. In July 2008, Smith and a team of lawyers filed a petition to make the Foreign Office hand over the evidence, so it could help Benyam’s trial hopes. However, the evidence was never made public because the High Court said that if the Foreign Office thought that making the documents public would affect the special intelligence relationship with the U.S, it should be kept away from the public domain.

Partially released rulings from the hearing to release the documents by the High Court who are fighting to release them fully, stated that the Bush Administration threatened to stop intelligence sharing with the UK if the documents citing the alleged torture of an innocent man was made public, because it threatens the National Defence of the U.S. According to inthenews.co.uk “Forty-two separate British intelligence services reportedly demonstrate awareness of Mr Mohamed’s torture.” Which is just incredible. The level of secrecy is unimaginable.
Clive Stafford Smith is quoted as saying: “For the foreign secretary to give in to these illegal demands by the Bush administration is capitulation to blackmail, pure and simple. It is hardly Britain’s finest hour.“

If this in fact true, if Benyam Mohamed is innocent, and if he was tortured. It does not in any way threaten National Security other than revealing to the World that the Bush Administration condoned the torture of those who had not been found guilty or even charged with any crime. It is merely a way for them to cover their tracks. For me, this is a scandal of the greatest proportions. If the Bush Administration knew about this and did try to surpress it, they need to be bought to justice. If I were to torture someone I suspected of threatening me, i’d be locked up for years.

If the U.K Government were complicit in the torture and the covering up of information that would prove Benyam Mohamed is innocent and that he was tortured for no reason, then every problem Gordon Brown has had up until now, will be nothing in comparison to what is to come.

Cori Crider, a lawyer, speaks for me and every other Liberal and Conservative who feels somewhat disgusted by these allegations, when she said recently : “Secretive and lawless to the last, one of the final acts of the Bush administration was to try to bully its closest ally into sweeping Binyam Mohamed’s torture under the rug. This is repugnant to the principles of open justice on which both our societies were founded. “

Both the Attorney General and the Intelligence Services Committee are investigating any legal wrong doing. However, as we’ve seen with the Hutton Enquiry into the 2003 death of Dr David Kelly, these Committees and these investigations will do nothing of worth, and always clear the Government.

The Foreign Secretary, recently back from a trip to Washington in which he smiled joyfully along side his American counterpart, Hillary Clinton, is under increasing pressure to explain himself. According to the Beeb, “The Tories say he needs to explain why he had not asked the new US government to allow intelligence material about the man’s treatment to be published.” The Tories in this case, are right. However, Miliband has said he feels no obligation to lobby the Obama government on this issue. Which suggests, further covering up. They want this issue ending without having to admit they acted completely unlawfully. Therefore, they are no better than the Bush Administration. Similarly, if the rumours that Obama has also already asked that the documents be withheld, then the Obama government i’m afraid to say, is also complicit and in the same realms of immorality as the Bush administration.

Unfortunately, I do believe this wont go any further. No charges will be bought. No deep independent investigation will take place and justice will never be served. That’s the way of the modern World and modern Politics.

The Paradox of America

The issue facing the Founding Fathers during the period 1787-1788, was the framing of the Constitution and how they would justify the problem of slavery. How could they reconcile the 1776 Declaration of Independence, with the need for a new Constitution based on their ideals of freedom from imposed rule, when they themselves were imposing rule over others?
Clearly, even back then, Slavery proved to go against everything the Revolution stood for. The Revolution itself can be referred to quite rightly as the Freedom Revolution. The Founding Fathers, Jefferson, Adams, Burr, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison and Washington are perhaps the most important and greatest political figures since Cicero, Caesar, Octavian and later Trajan. But that very issue of slavery which had no affect on the hearts of the citizens of the Roman Republic, would have a considerable affect on the brand new American Republic, purely because if ignored, it would suggest America was born on a gigantic contradiction, of epic proportions. Maybe so. But without that contradiction, and because slavery was so instrumental in the lives of the ordinary man pre-Revolution in America, the question of whether or not America could survive without it, was immeasurable.
America was of course built on contradiction. Built on paradox. The 55 delegates, often known as the framers of the Constitution constantly argued about how best to word it. Jefferson and Hamilton were the equivilant today of Liberal and Conservative. But they managed to frame arguably the greatest document of modern history, despite their differences. And America was born.

(Please excuse my simplistic overview of the American Revolution and framing of the Constitution, i’m young, and i’m from England, and haven’t been exposed to American history all that much, other than what i’ve taught myself from books. So excuse the simplicity.)

“In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis” – President Obama.

It strikes me as ridiculous that the very notion of big bankers and business owners who have been on the receiving end of bail out funds – tax payers money, should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. It strikes me as utterly inconceivable that they appear to try to justify six figure salaries despite destroying the economy. They should be in prison if anything.
It should absolute disgust us all, that the CEOs of Chrysler, GM, and Ford have the nerve to ask for $25bn yet will fly home in their own private jets. Those of us who keep the topic of social injustice at the front of our minds, who know people die every day because they cannot get the food they so desperately need, stand united in our absolute outrage at these disgusting, greedy human beings.

Obama, quite rightfully put a stop to it, by capping the wages of CEOs at $500,000.
Obama, The President, yesterday is quoted as saying…
“This is America. We don’t disparage wealth. We don’t begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded. But what gets people upset – and rightfully so – are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. “
Thankfully, some Republicans have actually supported the cap on CEO wages. Richard Shelby, on the Senate Banking Committee, and Senator for Alabama, said quite rightfully: “In ordinary situations where the taxpayers money is not involved, we shouldn’t set executive pay, But where you’ve got federal money involved, taxpayers’ money involved, TARP money involved, and the way they have spent it, with no accountability, is getting close to being criminal.” He’s correct, in many ways. It’s a pity those blinded by the aspect of competition in the marketplace do not have the same outlook. Those such as “Clarence” commenting on a piece on Swamppolitics.com merely, and quite ridiculously state “Obamas Socialism starts“. But then, to these people, if Sean Hannity mentions ‘Socialism’ then it’s pretty much unanimous within the limited intellect of the Fox News Audience that Socialism rather than responsible Capitalism, is on the rise.

Let’s address the issue of the so called “rise of socialism” being thrown into the argument by those such as John McCain, who as early as October 2008, was referring to Obama as Socialist. And up to and including, the mass of Right Winged bloggers, who insist on calling anyone who isn’t a ‘pro-life‘ (the most misleading concept since ‘Freedom‘), anti-homosexual, Religious, right winger a ‘Socialist‘. Obama is not Socialist. He is as far from a Socialist as a Left winger could be. He’s Centre-left, at best.

So is the stimulus Socialist? No…

Job-creating investments in health: $153bn

Job-creating investments tax cuts for small businesses: $21bn

Job-creating investments in education and training: $138bn

Job-creating investments in infrastructure and science: $165bn

Tax cuts for working families: $247bn
….. Allow me to draw your attention to the second point…. “Job-creating investments tax cuts for small businesses: $21bn” – In what way, other than the mess of a Republican mind, can that be considered Socialist? Even if a video of Obama, dressed up in Soviet attire, speaking Russian, quoting Lenin was to come to light, it wouldn’t change the fact that $21bn in tax cuts for small businesses, is not Socialist.

It is not a Socialist ideal, to bring Wall Street back to levels of human decency and responsibility. Much like it’s not Fascism to allow those companies to exploit the World, make six figure sum salaries, and then run the company into the ground, whilst the government refuse to acknowledge that they’d done anything wrong; like the Bush Administration did and like the ultra-Conservative Republicans still seem to be advocating.

A socialist, says things like “Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.” If you were to claim to be Socialist to Vladmir Lenin, or Per Albin Hansson, or Fidel Castro, and one of your main points to your Socialist agenda, was …. “We don’t disparage wealth. We don’t begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded“, you’d probably be punched in your ‘dirty capitalist face‘. If he were then to repeat what the White House website states about the apparent decay of the Capitalist system: “We must also work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and repair the financial system we all depend on.” He’d be taken outside and shot, as a traitor to the cause of Socialism.
I shouldn’t have to explain the huge difference between Obama’s plans for America and Socialism. Those who support Obama, know that the Conservatives are trying everything they can to discredit Obama. Perhaps because he can put a full sentence together, which is something the Republican White House has lacked for quite some time. Or perhaps it’s to take the blame away from those who actually caused the financial mess in the first place; themselves. Either way, the fear tactics employed by the Conservatives wont work.

Capping the wages of the bail out CEOs is not an act of a Socialist agenda, it is the act of a President trying to make an irresponsible Wallstreet, accountable to the people who are now bailing them out. If the President were to simply allow Merril Lynch to hand out a mass of Corporate Bonuses, whilst CEOs who systematically destroyed the economy, think it’s perfectly acceptable to then take home six figure sums; not only would the bail outs mean absolutely nothing, not only would Corporate morality remain in the gutter, but we’d also be setting ourselves up for another major economic disaster further down the line.

John Thain, who used taxpayers money to redecorate his office and give out handsome $4bn bonuses after losing $15bn in less than a year, is quoted here as saying “If you don’t pay your best people you will destroy your franchise“. The problem I see with John Thain here, is that ….. you don’t have best people!! Similarly, the argument being used by the Conservatives is that if Obama restricts the pay of bail out CEOs to $500,000, those people will just move to companies offering more money. Firstly, why would any company offer a six figure sum of money, to a CEO who has ran his company into the ground? Secondly, if those CEOs do move on, great, give someone else a chance, they can’t do any worse than has already been done.

From a GOP which has pledged $150 million cut to the Violence Against Women Act, and would instead spend that money on tax breaks for the rich, I do not know how anyone can take their flawed, and rather despicable side in this debate. If a $150 million cut to the Violence Against Women Act, is the prevailing of a Capitalist society over a Socialist society, I think i’d rather live in what they consider to be a Socialist society.

Obama is being used by the Republicans and Conservatives through their tried and tested Fear machine. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney specialised in it. Republican bloggers and members themselves have embraced it. The fear machine that relies on the idea that the past eight years just didn’t happen. It relies on being unable to acknowledge that it was actually the Republicans who caused this mess in the first place. It’s ignored. It’s ignored, because they know that the moment the word ‘Socialism’ is mentioned, the attention suddenly shifts from how a Republican Party in Government could allow CEOs and top bankers to systematically manipulate and destroy the system, and moves onto how the Democrats propose to fix it. When the truth of the matter is, the bail out Obama has proposed is unprecedented. No one knows how it will turn out. No one knows if it will succeed. It is a pity those same Republicans who attack the stimilus by suggesting they know for sure it will fail and kill America once and for all, didn’t have the same vision before they voted for Bush.

Is Obama really such a huge threat to the future stability of America? No. He is slowly already improving America, collecting it from the gutter in which it was left after the Bush regime. Will America survive Obama, despite Senators like Republican Senator Mel Martinez refered to Obama as a ‘threat’?. The answer, of course, is yes, America will survive Obama, and i’d suggest, America will come out of the Obama Presidency a lot better placed within the World than the isolation of America under Bush.

The paradox of the founding fathers in 1787; the fight for freedom despite the continued use of slave labour, is echoed down the centuries in the unforgivable paradox that the Republicans have created a mess of a system, in which CEOs and Bankers are taking public money that they have not earnt for themselves in absolutely huge amounts whilst the rest of America struggles to feed their families, who could have used that money for themselves. America was born on paradox. It will overcome it again, through the measures put forward by the Democrats, to bring morality back to Wall Street.