…solidarity to pure wind

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidarity to pure wind.“
- George Orwell

Everybody on the planet is capable of synesthesic thought. Usually we only identify the most extreme and unusual cases of synesthesia and single them out for investigation at the most and a nice little story to tell your mates at the pub at the least. Synesthesia is the ability to transfer the sensation of the stimulation of one sense, to the sensation of the stimulation of another sense. For example, people who see colours and hear a sound corresponding to that colour. Or vice versa. The truth is though, we all do, every moment. The simple way to measure this affect is the bouba keke test. Look at the picture underneath and decide to yourself which is called bouba and which is called keke:

If you are like everyone else, you will call the rounded shape bouba and the spikey shape keke. The reason is the rounded shape we see, corresponds to the rounded sound of “bouba“. Around 1% of people who take the simple bouba keke test will not instantly see bouba as rounded and keke as sharp and spikey. Similarly, 99% of people will not instantly understand why someone else sees green when they think of the number 2. It similar to seeing a bright green shirt and calling it loud. In short, synethesia is involuntary metaphor.

You have all no doubt seen this. Try to say the colour, rather than the word:

This is an example of cognitive dissonance. The tension we feel when the literal translation is somehow impaired by another perception we are simultaneously holding. The above will make you struggle when you get to the word and colour that conflict with each other, because human thinking cannot disregard what we consider to be the literal meaning. We cannot shake that.

This brings me onto the point of this blog.
A few days ago, was the Royal Wedding. Predictably discussion turned to Patriotism. There is a sort of expectation in the minds of the collective, that we are supposed to feel a sense of sacrificial pride to the landmass on which you were born, loyal only to the abstraction of the National flag under which you had no choice in. And I am left in two conflicting minds.

I cannot fight the powerful urge to feel a sense of community when England play (and inevitably hopelessly lose) at a World Cup. I feel a defensive sense of anger, when I hear American Republicans insist that a British style NHS will result in refusal to treat the elderly. When I’m abroad and I hear a British accent, I feel a slight tinge of kinship, even though I have no idea who that person is. The feeling of patriotism is there. The idea of a Nation creates an automatic expectation within each individual to feel a sense of loyalty and pride toward it. Yet, it doesn’t exist. It is the solidarity of pure wind.

The sense of Patriotism and its expectations are quite unnerving. It is a type of respect and loyalty that is supposed to be given without question. We bow in its presence as if its worship is just as natural as breathing. To even question the validity of such authority is considered unpatriotic. We group ourselves, not on merit or on objective morality, but on the idea of where we were born. When the British armed forces are in Iraq, they are there for “our freedom“. Our, being the key word. We are all apparently connected by an abstract principle. They are the “heroes” and those fighting against “us” are “terrorists“, “extremists“, “insurgents” or any other noun we choice to aimlessly proscribe to entire groups of people who don’t agree with the mainstream cultural sentiments of that specific country. We are asked to look at the “enemy” as an “other“. They are not like us, because they are not from our land and our land means we are all one. They are the “enemy” because they are from another land. We look at what happened on 7/7 and see a great evil, we see the deaths of innocent people amplified because “they” are “us”. We hear news of a bombed town or village in Fallujah, and we ignore it, because “they” are far away. But if “they” shoot “our” troops, we get angry.

When Wikileaks released the video of the the American Apache pilots killing twelve innocent people, and talking about it as if it were a video game, or when video was released of American soldiers firing into a prison and throwing a grenade at the building whilst laughing and joking, no one called these people animals, or criminals, or terrorists (in fact, what we do instead, is imprison the guy – Bradley Manning – who released the video). We ignore it. We ignore it, because we have built a Patriotic narrative that whatever crime they commit, they are heroes, but the “enemy” are always “terrorists“.

This comes at a time when Americans are on the streets celebrating the death of Bin Laden. One wonders why? It will almost certainly cause a revenge attack and America may well be the target. Celebrating a death of what is perceived to be the enemy (remember, much of the World considers America to be a great threat and enemy) simply seeks to perpetuate division. President Obama said justice had been served. Justice? Hundreds of thousands of people have had to die in a war, to seek one man? And that’s justice? It isn’t a video game.

The ultra-Patriotic movement in America also creates its antithesis. There is a section of the Left that is so viciously anti-war it presumes and subtly declares as loudly as it can, that America perhaps deserved 9/11 or at least had it coming. The problem is that America didn’t create militant religious activity, it is simply a case that Nation States that aren’t built around militant religion will always come into conflict it, because the abstraction of a Nation is similar to that of religion; divisive.

It isn’t a case of Islam vs America. America, by its very nature has always been imperialistic and expansionist. It has had designs on Cuba for centuries and it shares this trait with organised religion. When Nation States mix with Capitalism, it is inevitably going to create a strain on religions, and the old power structure in which religion was built into the system is slowly eroded away to the dismay of those who quite liked the old ways, and having had the opportunity to follow the industralised Nations of their own accord, rather than being forced to for the sake of profit.
That tension between the old religiously-led system, and the new more secular way of governing was essentially forced upon the Muslim World for the sake of a more integrated global community, imposed by those in the West who thought our way was somehow “better”. Hassan al-Banna, the creator of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920s said:

“Politics is part of religion, Caesar and what belongs to Caesar is for God Almighty alone Islam commanded a unity of life; to impose upon Islam the Christian separation of loyalties [into church and state] is to deny it its essential meaning and very existence.”

- Here is the conflict. Islamic nations under the control of fundamentalist dictatorships consider religion to be a necessary part of the existence of the Nation State. The West doesn’t. I would up and leave the UK if we were even to impose strict religious theocratic guidelines to the politics of the country. Islamic nations in the 1920s (and arguably today) are not ready to accept the separation of religion and state, and they must be allowed to walk down that path to religious freedom themselves, without America claiming to be on a moral mission, whilst plundering the area of its resources. We cannot impose Lockean principles on Nations that are not ready for it, because by definition that is not Lockean in itself. That being the case, it is absolutely no excuse to fly planes into buildings killing innocents. If they believe their religion promotes that kind of act, then that religion deserves no respect. If it can be interpreted to include violence and death against innocent lives (which it can) then it deserves no respect. I am deeply suspicious of anyone who tells me I am offending their religion, when their religion says people like me will burn in the pits of hell for eternity. I do not respect that religion. Any religion. In the same breath, I do not respect the armed forces of a Nation who are in a foreign land, killing, to protect its resources. The two systems do not work well together. There will never be peace whilst Nation States and Religion exist.

There was a sudden burst of outrage against the “ground zero mosque” on the grounds simply of “us” and “them“. Nothing more. It was right winged outrage and very hypocritical. The right wing of America tend to have an almost Messiah-like obsession with free market capitalism. But only when it works in their favour. The buying up of the space for the what they have termed the “mosque“. It is like saying “We want no government interferen……what? They’re building a mosque for brown people? WHY ISN’T THE GOVERNMENT STOPPING THIS!!!” It is surely property rights that the American Right believe the government should not be interfering with? Property rights for everyone except those that don’t fit the American Right’s narrow vision of the World? As I stated on my blog entry last year, on the the subject, it wasn’t just a Mosque, it was the Cordoba Center. It will include a Theatre, a Performing Arts centre, a Basket Ball court, Bookstore, Child care, Prayer space, Restaurant, culinary school and fitness centre. It is already being used as a place of prayer for Muslims, and has been for quite some time. As I stated in that blog:

There is nothing that honours the victims of religious intolerance more, than a center dedicated to building relations, and showing that there does not have to be such separation, anger and fear. A symbol of the coming together of Islam and the West, and particularly Islam and America is a stage in contemporary times that we REALLY need to get to, and this Centre is an attempt to provide that link. We should be celebrating it. We should be celebrating that we are trying to move away from the past decade. We no longer want people like Palin and Bush and Cheney making sure fear is the order of the day. Innocent, decent Muslims are no different to innocent, decent Americans.

I stand by that today. Artificial, yet deafening boundaries like religion (built by faith) and nationality (built by patriotism) are dangerous and lead only to violent tension – always has.

The Imam of the Omar-E Farooq Mosque in Madrassa, Kabul in Afghanistan teaches his students to hate America. He does this, not for political reasons, but, as he puts it:

God says… we can never be friends with unbelievers

Whatever the foreign policy of the United States, Imams like this one, will also preach division and hate, because their religion tells them to. “Religion poisons everything“. One child in the school said that:

America are doing suicide attacks and blaming Osama Bin Laden……. we can never be friends”

- Absolute indoctrination of the worst kind.

The two systems (religion and secular nation states) were always going to come into conflict and I dislike them both. It is easy to say that the Reagan administration created the Taliban and militant Islam to deal with the Soviet threat during the 1980s, but it stands to reason by that very logic that fundamental protestantism created America, and so Christianity, by proxy, created militant Islam. That is the sum total of the logic taken to its limit, by the delusional anti-war Left. The truth is, militant Islam has always existed. It is based on religion and nothing else. The militant branch of Islam had no problem when America was in Latin America supporting right winged terrorists; in fact the militant branch of Islam was working with America at that point. Militant Islam is expansionist by its very nature and has been responsible for both empire, and human rights abuses, much like the nation of America, over the centuries. The two are similar. Patriotism creates two breeds of lunatic; firstly the type who refuse to accept their nation could do anything wrong, and cheer on the streets of Washington when the leader of the supposed “enemy” is killed, like they’ve just beat the top bad guy on Call of Duty but refusing to acknowledge that hundreds of thousands have been killed or displaced using their tax dollars. The second type, is the antithesis mentioned above, who are content with defending militant Islam as a by-product of aggressive American foreign policy choosing to ignore the history of organised religion as one of sheer violence and coercion long before Nation States came onto the scene. Patriotism, like adherence to religion is simply a perpetuation of the inherent problems the two mutually exclusive yet very similar abstractions inevitably create.

I don’t know if it is a natural reaction, when we are constantly exposed to patriotic sentiment, that we adhere to this us VS them principle. I know I certainly do, and it takes me a minute or two to logically think through the implications of unquestioning Patriotism. That, leaves me feeling slightly uneasy.

We are blinded by the perception of what we expect to see.

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.

A place where the masses elevate fools into rich heroes

Born like this
Into this
Into these carefully mad wars
Into the sight of broken factory windows of emptiness
Into bars where people no longer speak to each other
Into fist fights that end as shootings and knifings
Born into this
Into hospitals which are so expensive that it’s cheaper to die
Into lawyers who charge so much it’s cheaper to plead guilty
Into a country where the jails are full and the madhouses closed
Into a place where the masses elevate fools into rich heroes
- Charles Bukowski

Whilst David Cameron continues to sell arms to violent nations, ignoring the fact that hundreds of fellow Brits are stranded in Tripoli, I thought I’d give you a bit of context on how Tories tend to view those who don’t own a great deal of wealth. Tory Peer Lord Lang, The Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Business appointments has announced that the committee that looks into business employing former ministers, said that he would only accept people to his panel:

“who had experience and proven success in a relatively important profession or trade – somebody who had achieved distinction – rather than a waitress or bus driver.”

- A beautifully elitist attitude if ever I saw one.

One should also bring into view, the alleged fraudulent behavior of Lord Lang in the past. He is a part-time director of Marsh & McLennan, a US company, and the World’s biggest insurance brokers. In 2004 they settled out of court, for massive fraud. They had moved clients toward insurers who Marsh and McLennan had payoff agreements with. They also solicited rigged bets for insurance contracts from those insurers. The CEO resigned and they settled out of court.

Another bad news week for the economic situation. Osborne must be wondering how long he can keep saying “obviously these figures are concerning” before he starts to realise he’s absolutely to blame.
Firstly, over here in the U.K, the government and it’s slightly more mental-than-usual support base spent Monday singing the praises of the horrifically dogmatic Libertarian George Osborne because public sector net borrowing showed a £3.7bn surplus. Rising VAT and raping public services of all funds brought in more money? Who’d have thought it!!! Of course there would be a surplus rise. I am not sure why that’s even news. I don’t think that most Tory supporters understood the point of public sector net borrowing and how it is funded.

This is evident with today’s announcement, that the UK economy shrunk worse than expected in the final sector of 2010. Initial reports said the economy shrunk by 0.5%. Comically, Osborne (remember, this man is our Chancellor) blamed the snow. Now it turns out the economy shrunk by 0.6%. If you look at the ONS figures from 2008 recession, to now, it tells quite an impressive story. Recession struck, and GDP fell massively. From 2009 to the end of 2010, the economy was growing and actually recovering substantially. And then Tory policies took hold, and the economy is shrinking again. The ONS figures show that if we don’t experience some sort of miracle bounce, we are about to hit a double dip recession very soon.

To give you a bit of context, since mid-2010, construction output has fell 2.5%, household expenditure fell 0.1%, utilities output fell by 4.6%, mining output fell by 4.5%. Here is the graph:

Anyone who looks at this graph and believes the Government know what they’re doing, is seriously deluded.
If you look at employment figures, they were recovering up until the last quarter of 2010. Now, they are worsening. It isn’t surprising given that the Government has decided to kick another 40,000 people out of work at the NHS. The cutting of simply back office staff (as if that’s a good thing anyway) is ridiculous, it will hit front line services.

Predictably Danny Alexander at the treasury couldn’t answer why the situation was worse than previously expected, without starting his sentence with “Well, we inherited…blah blah utter bollocks“.

This of course wont affect Gideon Osborne, who is a trust fund baby. He will never be insecure. He will never struggle. This is because Osborne is set to inherit a 15% stake in a wallpaper and fabrics company called Osborne & Little. He is worth £4,000,000. Despite this, he flipped his second home in order to pay less capital gains tax. The Lib Dems found that Osborne owed £55,000 in Parliamentary expenses abuses on his second home. Quite comically, he spent £47 of taxpayers money on a copy of a DVD of his own speech on “value for taxpayers money“.

As the misery is spreading, due to the less fortunate being expected to pick up the bill for the extravagances of the very fortunate, there is wonderful news for the banks. RBS, despite recording a loss of £1.1bn, gave out bonuses close to £1bn for 2010. Apparently nothing has changed since 2007. But then it isn’t surprising, we apparently as a nation collectively decided that to beat right winged economics and its massive failings, we need more right winged economics.

This is even more evident in the U.S. After the Republicans in Congress decided they will be forcing through some incredibly steep spending cuts, and a very weak Obama tacitly accepting, the Wisconsin assembly have voted to strip public workers of their collective bargaining rights.

What a horrible World we live in, when we decide it is more important for the owners of capital to treat humanity as a commodity, than it is for those people to live securely.

Essentially, what the Governments of the UK and US are telling us, is we do not understand what is best for us. What is best for us, apparently, is letting the private sector exploit as much as it wants, without us being able to stop it. They have cleverly managed to take a crises caused by Neoliberalism, and use it to push through some of the most Victorian style Neoliberal reforms we’ve ever had the misfortune to have forced upon us. The market doesn’t set wages. The base rate is set by very greedy employers. For this, unions are essential. I would urge all public sector workers in Wisconsin to collectively walk out. Let’s see just how unimportant Republicans think you are then.

Don’t let them tell you it is democratic. Being controlled by one CEO whom you cannot overthrow no matter how much you value your 2nd Amendment right to bare arms against tyrants, a CEO who is not accountable to you and whose main function is profit; being controlled by him, is not democracy and it is not freedom. It is Corporate tyranny.

Meanwhile David Cameron gave us his multiculturalism is dead speech, in which he mentioned the words “muslim” and “Islam” 36 times, in a 20 minute speech. Racism has always been a tool used by the fortunate to stifle collective action.

Thomas More once commented that

In fact, when I consider any social system that prevails in the World, I can’t, so help me God, see it as anything but a conspiracy of the rich to advance their own interests under the pretext of organising society. They think up all sorts of tricks and dodges, first for keeping safe their ill gotten gains, and then for exploiting the poor by buying their labour as cheaply as possible.”

When you analyse the rhetoric, it would appear that Thomas More was correct. The pretext of organising society after the financial crash has run thusly:

The Financial institutions should be bailed out.

The Public Sector should pay for the failings.

People will lose their jobs as a result of cuts.

Benefits for the unemployed must be cut, even as six people chase one job.

Help the one person who gets the job, fuck the other five.

Massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

Play on racial tensions.
One wonders how it has managed to get to this point. But it isn’t new. Racism has always been played upon, during time of crises.
During the American Civil War, very wealthy white Southerners managed to convinced poor white Southerners to go and fight for their right to keep black slaves. Why? How were they convinced that slavery would be beneficial to everyone? Well, they weren’t convinced. Racism was played up and the economic consequences were played down. If you convince a bunch of poor white people that those who are “racially inferior” want to be treated equally, and how they will infiltrate your kids school with their “barbaric culture”, you are very carefully constructing a social narrative that ignores the fact that the rich white folk, simply want slavery to save money on labour costs. If you can employ a black slave to do your work for free, you’re not going to employ the poor white person, regardless of how low you’re allowed to pay him. Slavery screwed over poor white people and poor black slaves. The only people who benefited, were the rich white people. And yet, poor white people were willing to die to perpetuate a system that held them back.

This critique can be applied today. Somehow workers have been convinced, through constant negative media attention, that Unions are a great evil that need to be purged. It’s madness. During the British Airways strike, the media and so the mindless public at large took the line that the Union was to blame for the problems. The management who were screwing over both the workers and the customer were largely treated like the victims. The CEO of BA Willie Walsh had recently been forced to make BA pay the largest fine in Aviation history, after he was found guilty of price fixing. Somehow, the wealthy have managed to convince the workers that it is in their best interests, not to fight for better pay, and better conditions, and health benefits. We have been convinced, that exploitation and overbearing tyrannical management, is great for everyone. It is very U.S orientated approach to society. Which is kind of funny. America has weak unions, and strong anti-union laws. You’d think, under the rhetoric and the narrative that unions are a great evil, that America would be a pretty happy society…

The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development conducted vast research into which countries people feel the happiest living in. It is all subjective, the people were asked if they thought their lives were predominantly affected by positive or negative experiences. Sample questions included:
Did you enjoy something you did yesterday? Were you proud of something you did yesterday? Did you learn something yesterday? Were you treated with respect yesterday?
They quizzed 1000 15-100 year olds, from 140 Countries.
Surely, with all that Capitalism and so little union involvement, America should be steaming ahead? Far ahead of those EVIL SOCIALIST OPPRESSIVE EUROPEAN States weeping uncontrollably in their Government-run lives, right?

As of 2009, here is the top ten happiest Countries out of the 140 polled:

1. Denmark
2. Finland
3. Netherlands
4. Sweden
5. Ireland
6. Canada
7. Switzerland
8. New Zealand
9. Norway
10. Belgium

Their governments probably forced them to be happy, whilst talking through the Telescreen in the wall. Note that Canada is sixth.

Perhaps it is all because whilst the happiest people in Denmark enjoy their EVIL SOCIALIST Government forced happiness, the US citizen, in his plethora of freedom, is working hard!!!
Well, no.
Firstly, Denmark’s unemployment rate is at 2%. Far far below the UK and US levels.
Secondly, 9th place in the list, Norway has GDP per capita nominal of $84,543. Denmark has GDP per capital nominal of $55,113.The US has GDP per capita of $47,132. The US lags behind Sweden and Switzerland on this as well. The UK meanwhile lags behind Belguim, Singapore, Belguim, Japan. All figures from the IMF.

As far as public debt goes (Osborne always mentions, as do most Tories, just how badly in debt we are, verging on Greece) as of 2009 figures, according to the CIA’s World Factbook, the UKs public debt as a percentage of GDP is 68.10%. Greece’s is 144.0%. Here is the list of Countries in between the UK and Greece, for public debt, along with their debt as a percentage of GDP:

Iceland 123.80, Jamaica 123.20, Italy 118.10, Belgium 102.50, Singapore 102.40, Ireland 98.50, Sudan 94.20, Sri Lanka 86.70, France 83.50, Portugal 83.20, Egypt 80.50, Dominica 78.00, Nicaragua 78.00, Israel 77.30, Germany 74.80, Malta 72.60, Hungary 72.10, Austria 68.60, United Kingdom 68.10.

Perhaps the UKs GDP itself is awful? What with Labour OVER SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!1111
Oh wait, no, we have the sixth largest economy in the entire World. Our little island, is the sixth largest economy in the World. Greece, is 31st.

Perhaps our debt is the worst we’ve EVER known? It must be pretty bad if we’re privatising absolutely everything and kicking thousands out of work?

Okay that’s only 100 years.
What about in the larger context?

So it turns out the Nation’s debt, is still at one of it’s all time lows. Which begs the question, why do we believe the bullshit that has spread? The bullshit of a dire economic situation, is used purely to further the cause of an ideological attack, and nothing else.

It is amazing. We are further empowering the financial institutions that are responsible for the problems. None of them have faced criminal charges. In the 1970s the power of the labour movements was clearly defined as the problem. Today, the problem is clearly the power of finance capital. And instead of putting a foot down and regulating the power of finance capital, we are loosening the chains even greater. Crises in this case, is inevitable. We will have another crash. But whilst we have a politics (not a democracy) funded and run by the very very wealthy, there can never be change.

Private funding of political parties and inherited wealth from Stock Market speculation, are the great evils and the most anti-democratic and dangerous ideals of our generation.

Politically, the left is week. They are in a daze because they have spent the past ten years being the Right. Ed Balls, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor cannot complain, he spent his years in office given up economic power to the financial sector. It is as if the political left (I make a distinction between the left, and the political left, because the political left is really the centre-right) doesn’t understand why its unwavering support for Thatcherite policies, has failed so miserably. It is odd, because our Political Left is still scared of certain lexis. Socialism is considered a dirty word and Capitalism is considered a golden word. Why? Capitalism failed everyone other than the very wealthy. Labour politicians do not like to be seen to align themselves with unions? Why Tories have no problem aligning themselves with greedy tax avoiding billionaires who endulge in questionable and often unethical business practices. Those businessmen represent a very narrow group of people. Unions represent thousands upon thousands of people who would be far worse off without the many industrial gains that have been made over the past century, thanks to collective bargaining.

We need a strong united academically gifted Left for the theory, and a strong united working people’s party for practice. Note, this does not mean a local Socialist party….. they are all, as far as I can see, still living in 1917.

So it turns out, all is not as dire as it seems. The multiculturalism card, I maintain, is being used to ensure a division between the lower classes who will be losing out whilst the rich class will benefit greatly. If we are inspired to concentrate on Nationality and Culture rather than the fact that the Polish worker, the Pakistani worker, and the British worker are all being massively screwed over, we wont rise up and fight back. Attacks by Unions as being attacks on the British public will be further propagated. As if it is their fault. It is a smoke screen designed to make us forget about the fact that the very people and the very economic ideology that got us into this mess, are going to be the ones who benefit the most.

The Big Society will rescue us though, so it’s okay.
(ignore the fact that according to Voluntary Sector Cuts, £53,000,000 has been cut from their budgets).

Student strikes.
General strike.
Union united.
Mass protests and rioting.

Libertarianism must be fought against as if it is a foreign invader. Our children do not need to be born into “a place where the masses elevate fools into rich heroes“.

Capitalist restrictions on freedom part I

The tenuous link between Capitalism and “freedom” grows ever more thin recently. The rather beleaguered past two decades of Haitian history; Haitian Capitalism; Haitian Freedom and American sponsored terrorism in Haiti will be commented upon in the next few days on this blog. But first, more locally, I feel the need to comment on the reasons why Capitalism and Freedom are seemingly more juxtapositioned than ever before.

Whatever you felt about the proposed strike action of BA staff over the Christmas break, your opinion is irrelevant. The right to strike lies at the very heart of human freedom. If I feel my labour, that I rent out, is being abused, I have the right to withdraw that labour. Collectively, labour is the reason the guys at the top are able to drive home in their rather expensive penis extensions. Clearly, I subscribe to Marx and Keynes theories of Surplus value). And so if the guys who create that surplus value are being mistreated, and when 12,500 Union members working for BA are balloted, 92% of them vote to strike, then they should strike. When 92% of those balloted believe something is fundamentally wrong with the way the company is ran, then they have a collective right to strike. Surely the vote is the very basis of democracy? Why shouldn’t democracy be extended to work places? I’d suggest it’s purely because democracy, in it’s true sense, would threaten a certain class of person.

Whatever you may think of the chaos the strike could cause (although the suggestion that a potential strike could cause chaos only works to strengthen the workers claim, that they’re very very valuable to the greedy bastards running the firm), it is not your decision, it is not my decision, it is a basic human freedom to withdraw labour. The High Court decided otherwise, it found in favour of British Airways. The High Court basically told BA Staff that they either carry on working, or they quit. The High Court indirectly decided that life is about acquiescing to the demands made by “management class” regardless of how outlandish they may be; an unquestioning, keep-quiet mentality, if we do not like it, we don’t have the right to complain. Who decided that this disastrously neoliberalist, anti-democratic, rather Fascist mentality was how I should view life? The High Court, since it’s conception, has been the “official” law machine for big business; or as one of my favourite bands The Enemy put it “Hello we’re the generation, we do what we’re told by the Corporations, hello”. Does Capitalism precede freedom and democracy?

Today, the managers at Millford Haven Port managed to get the High Court to agree to an injunction, banning strike action by it’s workers, after workers unanimously voted for strike action in order to raise awareness of their campaign to reform the companies pension policy. The High Court is becoming a dangerous entity, it would seem. The balance is tipping further and further in favour of business. Surely, workers ARE the business. At what stage of social evolution did an abstract concept of “business” gain more rights than its workforce?

Why doesn’t the High Court employ the same logic when big business vows to cause chaos in local communities? Why do Corporations get away with acting against the interests of the public as a whole? Lloyds Group, which is 43% taxpayer owned is set to reach the 16000 job losses mark recently. Why? Because Lloyds was greedy, and thought it’d get a cheap deal by buying HBOS. What it got in fact, were a mountain of debts. Whilst cutting jobs, Lloyds then employed Andy Hornby on….. £720,000 a year as a consultant. If you don’t know Andy Hornby, he is the man who plunged HBOS into a mountain of debt and is partly responsible for the banking crises. And yet, Lloyds re-employed him (this is around the time Hornby refused to give back £2.2mn pension package he took, when he left HBOS having destroyed it) after taking over HBOS.

The sad thing is, whilst 16000 job losses has a huge impact on local communities, and whilst the heads of Lloyds Group live in obnoxious luxury; we the taxpayers own 43%. Why isn’t the Government stepping in on our behalf and saying “yeah, you’re not going to be pulling this kind of shit any longer, neoliberalism is dead“. More to the point of the blog, why isn’t the High Court having a say on this? They seem to spend most of their time attacking Unions.

The High Court late last year favoured the Banks in their quest to be legally allowed to charge extortionate penalty fees for unplanned overdrafts. Whilst banking has always confused me anyway (If I deposit £2,000,000….. i’ll get a substantial amount of interest…. despite the fact that I don’t need it. If I go 1p overdrawn, because i’m poor, and need to live, they charge me £15 a day, until I pay it back… confusing!), it confuses me even more that whilst the average consumer who goes a few pence overdrawn can be charged huge amounts of penalty fees, a bank itself can go £10.8bn overdrawn, bring the entire economy to a grinding halt, force mass job losses, home repossessions, see the suicide rate double in less than two years, and yet still be allowed to leave with a lovely big pension pot, a bonus package, and a free ride out the Country.

Perhaps Capitalism isn’t as great as it’s been made out to be. Perhaps it’s fundamentally geared toward honouring fucking awful people.

Big business is the cancer of the planet. It’s advocates now seem to propagate both sides of Parliament, and the Courts. How wonderful. It began with the Thatcherite revolution giving away key institutions that govern our lives (water, electricty etc) to private hands; unelected hands, answerable only to their shareholders. How is that, in any way democratic?

It seems that if you wear a suit, and own a lovely big car, your freedom is far more important than anyone elses.

July 4th – Hypocritical Day

It would be easy for me to suggest that America has completely turned from a Country that prided itself on liberty and freedom of the 18th Century, to a Global tyrant of epic proportions. It would be easy. But it isn’t true. The tyrant of America has always been present, it simply grew and grew and is now at that stage where it surprises no one, and so we let it happen. As terrorists go, the greatest of them all, over the past Century at least, has been America.

It is a tradition in the USA to suffer a strange case of denial. Early Americans pillaged their way across the continent; committing nothing short of a total genocide of the Natives. Between 1850 and 1890, author David E. Stannard concludes that at least 22,000 Natives had been killed. The Indian Removal Act of 1830, which demanded that 17,000 Cherokee Indian’s leave their homes immediately (known as “The Trail of Tears“) purely so Americans could benefit from their lands financially. Elizur Butler, an American missionary estimated that 4000 Cherokees died during the removals. And yet, they managed to pride themselves on being the “land of the free and brave“. It’s a mask of denial, that still exists today.

The destruction of indigenous populations, for resource purposes, for financial gain, is ingrained into the blood of America. When it suits America, they hide behind the concept of spreading Capitalism and Democracy. It is not unreasonable to suggest that millions have died unnecessarily for what the US likes to call “freedom”. It is then, overly ironic that the US has been quite staunch supporters of evil non-democratically elected regimes, who just so happen to fill the pockets, of America, whilst slaying their population.

In 1953, the democratically elected government of Iran, lead by Mohammad Mosaddeq was overthrown by a US and UK backed Coup designed primarily to free up the oil reserves that Mosaddeq had Nationalised earlier in his premiership. Mosaddeq (remember, he was democratically elected, and incredibly popular with the Iranian people) was subsequently put in prison and died under house arrest. America had become what the 1776 revolutionaries fought to destroy; oppressors. Iran became a US colony in all but name. A new leader, a puppet for American interests, the Shah was installed. Thousands of people took to the streets in 1971 after the Shah announced plans to spend upwards of $100,000,000 on an extravagant, pompous tent city for the Iranian rich, and business leaders across the World who had recently enjoyed a more open Iranian market place. Whilst huge sums of money were spent, the nearby villagers continued to starve. And so they protested. The Shah (supported by the US) couldn’t let this happen, which resulted in thousands of people killed in horrendous circumstances, tortured, and political opposition repressed and “disappeared“. Fully supported of course, by America.

Whilst also supporting the dictatorship of Batista in Cuba in the 1950s, America was planning a coup elsewhere. Up until 1951, Guatemala had been opened up to American investment, and thousands upon thousands of miles of the Countryside had been eaten up by American businesses, whilst Guatemalan peasants lived in dire poverty. The new democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz, proposed the agrarian reform laws of 1952, which proposed to move uncultivated lands from upper middle class land owners (whom consisted primarily of Americans), to the peasantry. Arbenz also opened up voting rights to the peasantry thereby spreading democracy, and gave labour rights to those being dreadfully exploited (again, mainly by American business interests). Apparently America had no problem with the fact that 2.2% of the Guatemalan population owned 70% of arable land. Arbenz then joined the “Caribbean League”, a group of Latin American Democracies who plotted to overthrow evil dictatorship regimes, not for resource gains, but purely for the sake of democracy. The problem was, that these dictatorships, were supported by the USA, and so were not “evil”. And so it leads on to 1953; America sends CIA Director of Central Intelligence Walter B. Smith to investigate opposition to Arbenz, in order to figure out which group of rebels the USA could best fund in order to overthrow Arbenz and install an American backed dictator. Smith came back with no names, because opposition to Arbenz was pretty slim, except with the rich classes. The US cut a deal with Dominican unelected dictator Rafael Trujillo (whose regime is known as one of the most violent and bloody of the 20th Century), in which both the U.S and Dominican Republic provided funds and support to the far right rebel army of Carlos Castillo Armas. The coup succeeded and Armas became the new dictator of Guatemala from 1953 until his assassination in 1957. During his reign, he rolled back voting rights from those who couldn’t read or write, he stripped land away from the peasants, forcing millions out to live on the streets, and he created (with CIA backing) the National Committee of Defense Against Communism, which systematically killed and tortured anyone suspected of having left wing views. He cancelled the elections, but allowed Congressional elections, as long as only his party was allowed to field candidates. President Nixon referred to Armas dictatorship as “…the first instance in history where a Communist government has been replaced by a free one.“

On November 4th, 1970, Chile swore into power, democratically elected Marxist President Salvador Allende. Real democracy in action. President Nixon of America decided that Allende should not be President of Chile because it might affect American business interests in a negative way. Apparently, democracy is only democracy, if it doesn’t include the Left Wing. According to the U.S Department of State, the U.S Government, just before the 1970 election, “directed CIA to carry out “spoiling operations” to prevent an Allende victory“. That sounds like quite the opposite of democracy to me. This follows on, from the same report that “CIA also provided assistance to militant right-wing groups to undermine the President and create a tense environment“. Needless to say, on September 11th 1973 (the first 9/11), Allende, under intense pressure from US business interests (Pepsi-Cola and ITT were the main culprits) was the victim of a coup, that placed perhaps one of the World’s most evil dictators, General Pinochet, in control of Chile. But, Pinochet opened up the Country to foreign (and by “foreign” mean Western and by “opened up” I mean – let America plunder it’s resources) investment. These pro-free market measures didn’t do much good, given that inflation reached 375% by 1978. Wages decreased by 8%. Budgets for education, health and housing had dropped by 20%. Good times!
According to the Rettig report, 2,279 people (mainly left wingers, not necessarily politically active) were killed immediately following the coup, and close to 32,000 were tortured beyond description by the Pinochet regime. Thousands more were tortured and killed between 1973, and the end of Pinochet’s reign of utter terror, nothing short of Hitler-esque in 1990. Quite despicably, the U.S and U.K (especially Reagan and Thatcher) grew close friendships with Pinochet. Thatcher, in defending Pinochet’s human rights record, quite ridiculously and shamefully blamed the left wing, or more specifically, in her own words, an “organised international Left who are bent on revenge“. This then leading to Thatcher, in 1999, claiming that Pinochet should be released from his house arrest. It’d be like President Roosevelt telling Churchill to “go easy on Hitler, he isn’t THAT bad“.
One of my most favourite authors into U.S Foreign Policy, Noam Chomsky had the following to say, about the Chilean 9/11….
“Suppose that on September 11, Al-Qaeda had bombed the White House and killed the President, instituted a murderous, brutal regime which killed maybe 50,000 to 100,000 people and tortured about 700,000, set up a major international terrorist center in Washington, which was overthrowing governments all over the world, and installing brutal vicious neo-Nazi dictatorships, assassinating people. Suppose he called in a bunch of economists, let’s call them the ‘Kandahar Boys’ to run the American economy, who within a couple of years had driven the economy into one of the worst collapses of its history. Suppose this had happened. That would have been worse than 9/11, right? But it did happen. And it happened on 9/11. That happened on September 11, 1973 in Chile. The only thing you have to change is this per capita equivalence, which is the right way to look at it. Well, did that change the world? Yeah, it did but not from our point of view, in fact, who even knows about it? Incidentally, just to finish, because we the U.S. were responsible for that one.”

And then we wonder why half the World hates the West? Is it not plainly obvious?

I could easily talk about Iraq, Iran, the US arming of the Taliban, the assassination of President Diem in South Vietnam leading to the unnecessary deaths of 4 million South East Asians in perhaps the most needless war of the 20th Century, and many more instances when the USA, the light, the beakon of Freedom and Democracy has supported the World’s most evil regimes in order to further its own business interests. Capitalism and what the US calls “Democracy” haven’t been a true success, they’ve been a forced package that the victim Nation’s citizens have had to embrace, or die. The USA therefore, has no right to celebrate “Independence Day” on July 4th. The most hypocritical day in World history. Having said that, Jefferson would be proud that the abolition of slavery in America, didn’t stop the U.S from finding slaves elsewhere.

The Right to Love

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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.

The Sinking Republican Ship

You have to feel slightly sorry for Republicans recently. They’re like a collective version of Elliot Roosevelt. Useless. Unable to admit just how useless they have been, and still are. A terrible role model for their youthful counterparts. Unable to accept responsibility for anything. And seemingly attempting to commit suicide. Looking on at their much more loveable brother with jealousy and rage. Whilst that much more loveable brother, the Democrats act as the pragmatic force behind the reinvention of America. Or, Theodore Roosevelt, if you will.

Surely someone in the Republican Party must be thinking to themselves “Please Cheney, just let it go. The damage is done!“. If they aren’t crossing their fingers that Bush doesn’t turn up with an equally insignificant opinion aired across the media, then they should be.

Whilst the GOP attempts to deal with the fact that Republican of 29 years Senator Arlen Specter has lost complete faith in a Party slipping further to the Right every day, choosing instead to move to the Democrat benches, Democrats look set to start work on complete (Oh MY GOD SOCIALISM ARGH!) healthcare reform after their $3.4tn Budget passed through the House beautifully by 233 to 193, marking Obama’s 100th day in spectacular fashion.
Specter’s move means the Democrat Senate Majority is taken to 59. When Minnesota’s Supreme Court finally votes in favour of Democratic Senator Al Franken, that takes the Democrats in the Senate up to a lovely round 60. And if that lovely round 60 is reached (which it will be), that means the Democratic controlled Senate becomes filibuster-free. Which is fantastic.

Specter leaving the GOP is two fold in the damage it’s likely to cause. Firstly, it makes the GOP look weak, disunited, out of touch and relatively pointless. Secondly, it seems to have sparked off a fight between Republicans themselves. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch blamed Chris Chocola (who ran a campaign based on the slogan “Fuck the environment” – or words to that affect, when he voted to allow oil companies to drill in the protected Arctic National Wildlife Reserve)and the rest of the rather comically named “Club for Growth” for imposing strict right wing rules over the party. Chocola himself, a big fan of President Bush, which suggests that “Club for Growth” must be an ironic term. The equivilant to calling a tall man “shorty”. “The Club For Growth” themselves blamed Specter for ruining the GOP and then leaving. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham blamed Michael Steele and the RNC for pushing moderates out the way. And Michael Steele himself, decided to take on the role of a new WWE superstar named “The Black Republican” (again, another ironic name) and said …
“If Sen. Specter survives in the fall — get ready to go to the mat, baby, because we’re coming after you and taking you out“
I’m not joking, he actually did say that, to CNN. Look.
So obviously, this was also a chance for that perfectly round headed orange ignorant idiot Rush Limbaugh to have his say. Limbaugh on his radio show, is quoted as saying:
“Well, Specter, take McCain with you. And his daughter. Take McCain and his daughter with you if you’re gonna…”
Good idea! Take all the moderates to the Democrats. Meghan McCain is far too intelligent to be a Republican anyway. Take the few popular Republicans, and hand them to the Democrats. For once I agree with the fat prick. If that were to happen, the Republicans wouldn’t see Government for a very long time. You’d essentially have a popularly elected Democrat Dictatorship for decades. It’s perfect. Perhaps Rush could go live in the soon to be New Republic of Texabillies. Republicans in this new Republican are free to be as “Conservative” as they please. They can be as racist, homophobic, small government, guns to every man, woman, child and pet as they could possibly imagine.
It amuses me greatly, that the GOP has now taken to discrediting Specter by releasing a video, that shows how Specter was close to George Bush. It’s almost poetic that the only way the Republicans can discredit an ex-Republican, is by aligning him with a failed Republican President. You really couldn’t make this shit up.

Not only that but Republicans are finding themselves in a tough position when it comes to Democrat plans for new regulations placed on Wall Street. On the one hand, they could follow their out of date principles, keep yelling Socialism, and decide to ignore the problems that 25 years of Reaganomics has created deciding instead to obstruct any form of recovery. Or, they could put aside their wasted ideology, tell Glenn Beck that if he’s trying to be the Right Wing’s version of John Stewart… it’s never going to happen, and accept the need for regulatory rules as soon as humanly possible. That would of course risk hurting the feelings of apparent Republican Leader Rush Limbaugh, and be forced to apologise from the heart at a later date. So it’s a tough situation for Republicans.

We all knew torture is wrong, but we needed something to confirm our belief. Enter Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. It’s like meeting someone who thinks they might be gay, and then pushing them over the edge. Did Cheney and Rove really think anyone would take their side in this? The moment he showed his murderous little face, we all squirmed. Obviously there are those like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh “Conservatives” who think the way to defeat terrorism, is by being a terrorist, but in the real World there is no way a human being with any moral compass would ever consider using the phrase “You know, I think Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are right.”

The only way to cope, is to have an insignificant “Tea Party” (nothing strikes fear into the enemy more than words “Tea Party“) to complain how Obama is both, paradoxically, a Socialist (3% tax increase on the rich, bringing it still beneath that of the first six years of Reagan……… Barack Stalin, obviously!) and a Fascist by announcing the biggest middle class tax cut in history. Or, just continue to fight amongst themselves until they push everyone other than the actual Right Wing Extremists (Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck) out of the GOP for good. Either way, it’s so incredibly entertaining, i’m just as happy as ever. Whilst the majority of Americans significantly approve of President Obama’s running of domestic policy, foreign policy, economic policy and now with the outbreak of Swine flu, 66% approve of how the Administration is dealing with the outbreak – you have to come to the conclusion that in a Nation finally embracing Liberal principles, the GOP moving further to the Right and edging out moderates is going to be the ultimate death of the Party. (I literally had a smile on my face as I typed that, weird).

The GOP Ship is sinking more and more every day. It’s crew are now fighting each other and appear to have decided that only the most extreme Republicans, the most racist, anti-environment, homophobic, fox news worshipping crew members are good enough. Fine by me. It means those ignorant shits go down with the ship.

At the start of this entry, I mentioned feeling sorry for Republicans. I take it back. Bask in the entertainment of a dying breed of ignorance, is what I meant to say.

I don’t want American freedom.

As a rule, the Roman Empire did not respond too kindly to criticism. They believed they were the most civilised and forward thinking Nation on the planet. Everyone else, they considered to be far inferior to themselves. Any sort of criticism hurled their way resulted in swift attack. The Christians for example bore the brunt of the might of Rome (according to Tacitus) when Emperor Nero managed to gain enough popular support to blame the anti-Roman Christians for the 64AD fire of Rome…. and so the Christians were quite brutally punished. Rome could not handle criticism. Truth had become a threat.

Whilst I was sat, drinking a finely made cup of England’s finest tea, I turned to channel 509 – Fox News.
A man with a mind-numbingly boring voice on Fox News, attacked Obama for not “standing up for America” and that “Obama didn’t stand up for freedom” when he met with Hugo Chavez recently. I listened tentatively, hoping that Fox would enlighten me as to when America ever stood up for freedom?

America is not on the side of World freedom. It’s a very odd claim to make. It appears only the American right wing still hold that assumption close to their rose tinted hearts. America is on the side of whatever works for America. America decides what is best for your Nation, based entirely on how you benefit America economically. If you don’t, you’ll be labelled evil.
The ridiculously narrow minded and diseased statements from Fox, attacking President Obama increased in spectacular fashion for the next few minutes:

“The American position is to help Cuba and the Americas rid their people of communist dictatorships that forced themselves on the country fifty years ago…… Obama didn’t say that, does this man’s narcassicism know no bounds?”

Let’s not forget that America supported the pre-Castro regime of Fulgencio Batista after he and his military associates took control of Cuba in ’52. Batista called off all elections and suspended the Cuban constitution, creating a dictatorship. Now, usually the USA would have something to say about that, but no, it was a Right Winged dictatorship and it benefitted American trade, so Eisenhower and Truman both recognised Batista’s authority. Freedom is only freedom when it suits America.
The reason America didn’t appear to have a problem with Batista’s dictatorship, is the regime in 1952 gave out contracts to several U.S Corporations for train lines, a power network, highways and an airport. The Cuban people did not concern America, their freedom, did not concern America. The only thing that concerned America, was and still is…. money. Outside of Havana, the poor were under the worst conditions ever known in Cuba, the literacy rate was appalling and health care extended to the rich only. But that’s okay, because America was benefiting economically. America owned a quarter of bank deposits in Cuba by 1958. 90% of Electric Services and the Telephone Services were American. So of course it didn’t matter that Batista was killing off political rivals, calling off all elections, torturing, being pictured with mafia associates and acting like a Right Winged version of Stalin…. because it benefited America economically.

Not only that, but America supplied the Batista regime with arms and napalm to kill off the Castro faction a few years later. After the USA forced Cuba to go to the polls, in 1954, Batista won. Vice President Nixon went over to congratulate Batista on his victory….. choosing to ignore that Batista was the only candidate.

So I fear Fox are once again being a little bit hypocritical when they seem to profess just how wonderful the U.S has been with Cuba. Castro didn’t “force himself” on the Country. If Obama were to abandon the US Constitution and call off all future elections, I figure Fox would go out of their way to provide support to a rebel army.

It suited America to support the Taliban once. Freedom and human rights, didn’t appear to matter. It suited America to support General Pinochet in Chile once (for all the complaining John McCain does about sitting down without preconditions with dictators, he has no problem visiting General Pinochet in 1985, for what he later described as “warm and friendly”) Freedom and human rights didn’t apppear to matter. It suited America to support Saddam once. Freedom and human rights didn’t appear to matter. In fact, at the height of Saddam’s tyranny and murderous rampage, it was America who were supplying the weapons and the funding to make such tyranny possible. Saddam wasn’t given a fair trial, because if he had been given that freedom, he would have had a field day describing the help and the encouragement given by the Reagan and Bush administrations. Both of which, should have gone on trial too. In fact, half the Presidents ever to occupy the White House, by their own logic, should go on trial for crimes against humanity. But of course America got their own back by destroying half of that Country…. because it suited American interests. When it suits America economically in the 1980s, they’ll help you. When it suits America economically in the 00s, they’ll utterly destroy you. That’ll teach you to stop trading oil in US Dollars. But hey, that’s the price we all pay for this odd brand of “Freedom” America seems to be trying to sell us all.

Fox do not appear to accept any criticism hurled at America, unless it’s hurled at the Left wing. For example, today they spent at least twenty wasteful minutes on the fact that Chavez presented Obama with a book by Eduardo Galeano, entitled “Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent” which has “anti-American sentiment” written deep into it’s core. It’s like a dad who beats his child complaining when his child writes a book about the abuse he suffered. I realise Fox want to rewrite history in which America is the freedom loving, peaceful angels of the World, but that simply wouldn’t be true. However, the moment French President Nicolas Sarkozy decided to verbally attack President Obama, Fox suddenly fell in love with the French.

President Obama seems humble. He appears to recognise that America has been a bit of a shit over the past century, and that when Fox and Republicans refuse to acknowledge just how disgraceful America has acted, it strikes me as ignorant and cowardly. The World, for a very long time has recognised that the USA is not the beacon for hope and freedom that it’s right wing claims to be. It’s a selfish Nation whose economic interests far outweigh the interests of freedom and human rights. Death tolls have never bothered America if it means advancement in business ties. The sanctions placed on Cuba have nothing to do with trying to help the people of Cuba resist Communism. The sanctions on Cuba have nothing to do with anything other than the economic growth of American business. Obama is doing the right thing. America is still horribly blinded by it’s obsession with it’s own unique, perverted form of “Freedom”. The freedom that is equivilant to me punching a man in his face, taking his money, and then spending it on my family.

It’s wonderful to see such deep hypocrisy and ignorance alive and well in the American Right Wing. Right now Fox came back from it’s commercial break, to the sentence “Is this the end of freedom of speech?” (this, two hours after telling us all what Obama SHOULD be saying, how ironic), discussing why Obama is trying to control the internet, wants to kill off the first amendment and might want to run for three terms. It’s the single most ridiculous channel ever made. And i’m including “GODtv” in that.

Hugo Chavez described America in 2005, as the “most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world.”
Hard to argue with that.

What’s next?

“The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government. Both are needed. They can complement each other. This balance will differ from time to time and place to place.” – Joseph Stiglitz

If the 1970s marked the death of social democracy; the flawed ideals of Socialism and it’s proponents, then 2005-2010 marks the death of the neoliberalist experiment. Thatcher, Reagan, New Labour, Alan Greenspan and other prominent neoliberalist proponents were wrong. The Banking crises with it’s roots lodged deeply into the cancer of the sub prime market spread and infested the very concept of neoliberalism itself; exposing the financial system for what it is – a corrupt entity, focusing on monetary value only rather than a mix of monetary, environmental, and human value; a germ that feeds on deregulation and a sub standard FSA.

This neoliberalist concept has forced itself on other nations. They have to allow Coca Cola and Starbucks to destroy their land and exploit their resources and workers, because if they don’t, they fail – falling further and further into poverty. Just because America loves it, doesn’t mean we all should.

There is of course one big problem. There isn’t another coherent philosophically sound economic theory that could replace the system we currently have. When the Callaghan government fell in 1979, it’s social democratic form was replaced by a Thatcherite Conservative movement which sparked the beginning of the neoliberalism experiment; thirty years later causing the biggest financial crises in modern history. The left wing didn’t cause this mess, we merely sat by and let it happen. We were theatre goers. We watched on as the boys in suits on stage attacked each other and set fires, whilst exclaiming to the audience that everything is great, that this system of setting fires and destroying each other, is the height of human nature. We watched helplessly as tax was set on fire, investment in public goods was set on fire, poor nation’s resources were set on fire, the environment was set on fire, financial regulation was set on fire, human kindness was set on fire, and we stood back and merely said “we told you so” when the money itself was set on fire.

The problem the Left has, is we do not know how to put those fires out. We have nothing new. We have no great intellect. We have no one like Milton Friedman who has a clear economic way forward. We lack a coherent set of economic strategies to combat the global recession and create a new World based on fairness and equality.

Conservatives and Republicans alike appear to be under the naive impression that if you’re not a supporter of deregulated markets and financial institutions, then you’re a communist. Well i’m neither. Socialism cries that the State is the answer to everything. Neoliberalism cries that deregulated free markets are the answer to everything. Neither ideas are right. Neither proved themselves worthy. The right mixture of market values and State supervision along with a safety net and assurances, is the right way forward.

We need to fight the attacks made by the American Right Wing, that any thing other than reimplementing Neoliberalist ideas is Socialist. We need to look back to Keynes for answers. We look to people like the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who insists on striking the middle ground when he mentioned a new order known as “Social Capitalism” . We need left wing intellects and prominent politicians willing to think the unthinkable and publicise it. For twenty five years not only have the Conservatives and Republicans dedicated themselves to neoliberal concepts, even our centre-left Parties have embraced neoliberalism. Tony Blair and New Labour embraced deregulation in all it’s disastrous glory. Thatcher herself, a a dinner in Hampshire was asked what her greatest achievement had been, she replied “Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds“. The failure of New Labour and it’s ties to Thatcherism is evident today. They deregulated financial markets further, which in turn allowed 3.5million house holds to brave the winter months in fuel poverty; they sold industries further reducing Britain’s exports and social responsibilities whilst simultaneously killing the unions off further. The Tories are offering the same nonsense that got us into this mess in the first place. There is nothing new. They simply suggest that the super rich should be able to accumulate even greater wealth in the short term, whilst the rest of us get ever so slightly richer as the years pass by.

Economic growth along with the ability to accumulate great wealth at the expense of whoever they saw fit, has been considered a moral “right” and true “freedom” for thirty years, rather than a by product of social inequality and spectacularly wrong ethical standards. That, has to change. Let’s stop claiming London is such a powerhouse purely because the super rich in Mayfair have a number of yachts to their name; and let’s stop measuring the success of a city by how those less fortunate people in places like Peckham could benefit from huge investment in public education, policing, job creation, community support and healthcare. Let’s measure the success of a city by the way they pull together to help each other. Let’s stop considering houses to be “investments” and start seeing a house as a home primarily. Let’s stop considering the water supply in Indian slums as perfect places for Coca Cola to drain the water for profit to the detriment of local communities. Let’s stop claiming that poor nations are “lazy” when in fact most bi-lateral trade agreements favour the West in general and have very little benefit for poor nations. Let’s stop teaching our kids that it’s perfectly acceptable and necessary for the future of the concept of “freedom” to allow your child to get superbly over weight, whilst another starves to death. It isn’t right. It never was right. And the ethical system based on this flawed concept of “freedom” has been nothing but a disaster. Conservatives and Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to support it.

The State, which has been the centre of attack from Neoliberalist proponents across the globe, now has the task of saving us and those Neoliberalists from themselves through bail out schemes. The State has been resurrected and has a duty to regulate the financial markets, invest in public healthcare, housing and education, lead the way on climate change and make sure the hungry are fed.

Whilst this is a small window of opportunity for the Left to present it’s ideas on climate change initiatives, social welfare, bank regulation and new rules on global trade to include help for the poorest Nations, and ways out of this crises, there is nothing to be heard from them. As a leftie, liberal, green, hippy – this stands only to disappointment whilst we wait for Cameron and the New Thatcherites to start fighting the fire, by pouring petrol onto it.

So if Social Democracy failed; Communism failed; and now Neoliberalism has failed. What’s next?

The hypocrisy of Freedom

It’s become wildly hypocritical; It’s largely based on out dated tradition; It’s horribly fickle; and it has no coherence or general moral standing. I’m speaking of course, about the Republican idea of “Freedom“. Freedom appears to only apply when it suits Republican America. Republican Freedom is a skewed, manipulated form of the ideals of American Freedom in general. For example, and i’ve spoke about this one before; The Freedom to own a gun whether you’re merely a law abiding huntsman, or whether you’re a 21 year old with an enraged grudge against class mates and teachers; you’re protected by a 2nd Amendment that clearly didn’t expect to be the subject of debate. Although i’m certain Jefferson and Franklin didn’t propose that anyone should be allowed to keep an arsenal of sub machine guns; that the words “well regulated” in the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be ignored. If I were President, i’d make bullets ten times more expensive than they are now, tax them massively. But what do I know.

Freedom is etched into the American way of thinking. Since the very beginning, the fight that America has undertook has been one dedicated to freeing it’s people from tyranny. “We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal” cries the Declaration of Independence. There is no mistaking that Thomas Jefferson composed a beautifully written document when he drafted the Declaration. Of course, it hasn’t troubled America that the term “all men are created equal” written at a time when even Jefferson had over 150 slaves of which many received regular beatings may have been slightly ironic. And so the hypocrisy of American Freedom was born. Frederick Douglas speaking in 1852 managed to reconcile America Freedom and the abolition of Slavery quite beautifully. “That which is inhuman cannot be divine.“

In 2009, Republicans appear to take that general level of “Freedom Hypocrisy” to a new level. Freedom today, appears to apply only to economic freedom, for those who already have a significant amount of money. Bloggers like Free America appear to be under the impression that Obama and Pelosi are systematically working to purposely destroy America with their pesky much needed Liberal policies, despite the fact that over the past eight years America has been involved in an unjust illegal war leading to the deaths of over 1,000,000 innocent people; displacement of a further 4.5 million and 5 million orphaned children. Hurricane Katrina striking New Orleans saw the end of the lives of over 1,800 people whilst 80% of the City was flooded, which lead to further deaths of many people who merely couldn’t get to food or shelter because the Republican Government’s response was pathetic at best and ignorantly genocidal at worst. Then of course, you have the worst economic crises in ….well…. ever. When Clinton left the White House, he left a budget surplus of over $230bn. Eight years later, eight years of Republican Government, and America is in the mist of an economic crises. Of course, Republicans like to suggest that Clinton’s surplus was inherited from the Reagan tax cuts. Fine. But then, surely they must admit that Obama therefore inherited a miserable legacy that it will take more than two months to correct. I swear, Obama was in the White House less than a day before Republicans started blaming him.

Anyway, back to “freedom”. Whilst the word itself connotes the ultimate in human existence, it isn’t quite as black and white in Republican America. It suits Republican America to ascribe Freedom to economics. To pay as little in the way of taxation as possible. Whilst a child may inherit a few million dollars, another may be unlucky enough to be one of the 35 million Americans who inherit nothing but the dilapidated and forgotten poverty stricken lifestyles encouraged by poor educational standards and lack of health care, that the Republican Americans are quick to suggest is some sort of perfect system choosing to ignore that “all men are created equally” when it suits them. To this day, at 23 years old, i’m struggling to understand how a system that allows the poverty line for children under 18 to increase from 12.1 million, to 12.9 million between 2001 and 2003; yet at the same time allows those earning over $1,000,000 see their taxes drop with the Bush Tax Cuts, as the mark of a great economic system…. it quite clearly isn’t. I repeat Douglas’ sentiment “That which is inhuman cannot be divine.” Ignoring the plight of those in poverty or dismissing them as “lazy“, whilst simultaneously choosing to ignore the problem of Climate Change despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary – purely because it might affect their “freedom” to exploit resources for business opportunity, is not real “freedom“.

Freedom to claim that universal healthcare, is some evil socialist manifestation that never works, whilst ignoring that you have universal policing and universal fire protection – just adds to the hypocrisy of “freedom” that Republican America only clings to when it threatens them, regardless of the fact that it may actually help other people. A legacy of “self before others” left by Thatcher and Reagan. Forgive me for not buying into it.

I’m not too sure why Republicans chose to draw the line on personal freedom, at the right for Homosexuals to get married. All of a sudden Republicans have decided that Gay people are sexually immoral devils, promiscuous by nature, AIDs ridden, unable to keep a relationship going, and a danger to children. As if that only exists in the homosexual community. They chose often to quote Leviticus 18:22; “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” As proof that God hates gays and so gays shouldn’t marry. They fail however to acknowledge that if we’re to take the Old Testament into consideration when debating such issues, we must conclude that Leviticus 11:8 with regard to pig skin, stating: “Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you” should mean that anyone who plays American Football, is doomed to hell, a long with gay people. But of course not, because in true Republican fashion, Leviticus 11:8 doesn’t appeal to them because it threatens their life style, and so they pick and chose which areas of the Bible appeal to their prejudices already.

Of course, whilst talking Christianity, it isn’t difficult to come to the conclusion that if God truly did support the Republicans, as ex Senator Norm Coleman suggested, when he told Mike Gallagher; “God wants me to serve“, then you can bet that Jesus would have charged a fortune for all those free EVIL SOCIALIST miracles he supposedly performed.

When you come to the conclusion that Republicans only appear to support ideas like “Freedom” and Religious belief when it suits their prejudices, you have to take a look at the “Pro-life” lobby. “Pro Life” only seems to appeal to Republicans when someone is set to have an abortion. When the Country is destroying a Nation and killing over 1,000,000 of it’s citizens, Republicans don’t seem all that concerned. When stem cell research could lead to the scientists providing mankind with a better understanding of complex cell division, which in turn could lead to life saving treatments and cures…. real pro-life investments….. Republicans tend to oppose it. Minority Leader John Boehner even went so far as to suggest that embryonic stem cells are American lives too, rather than cells. He suggested that Obama lifting the ban on federal funding for Stem Cell research, he had “rolled back important protections for innocent life”. It’s nice to see that Boehner has such deep concern over cells, yet doesn’t seem too fussed about the loss of American military lives, when he stated in 2007 that dead U.S Troops was a “small price” to pay to win the war in Iraq.

The concept of freedom is interestingly two toned, when you contrast the U.S obsession with the word, and how the U.S works across the World, especially with Nations that it disagrees with philosophically.
According to a speech made by Dan Griswold, to Rice University in Houston, in 2005…. “If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects.“
The underlying fact is that whilst America seeks “freedom” (in this case, freedom means the right of American businesses to take over the resources and land of as much of the foreign World as possible) across the World based on it’s own flawed values, it will attempt to achieve it by any means necessary, which explains the disastrous war in Iraq and the inhumane embargo against Cuba. As shown in my last blog, America’s economic dominance may not continue for that much longer, given that Iran have already ceased trading oil in U.S dollars with Russia looking likely to follow.

Economic “freedom” in the guise of pure Capitalism, is not to be considered in the same area as Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom to assemble peacefully. Those are the inalienable rights built into the Declaration of Independence, not the idea that over 12 million children below the poverty line who will never benefit from the resources available to the 5% of top earners who own more than 50% of the entire Wealth of the Nation, as being true “freedom”.

American Freedom, whilst a lovely idea, is horribly flawed, ignorant, racist, inhumane, discriminatory, religiously bias, hypocritical, manipulative, and has been twisted into the skewed mess that Republican America holds so dear today. The idea that “all men are created equal” is a sentiment long lost. If you’re gay, want an abortion, demand action on climate change, or support stem cell research……. freedom doesn’t seem to extend as far as you. Sorry.

The great housing problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The joy of sexual liberation

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

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

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

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

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

They still aren’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- I cannot thank you enough.

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

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

Now, let’s shag!

The Right to hysteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socialist Healthcare works

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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