Tea Party: Pro-death.

The Republican debates have been quite an eye opener. I knew that those who subscribe to the Tea Party way of life, are pretty vicious in the ideological leanings, but I didn’t really know to what extent their bile was able to rise. It turns out, they are an utter disgrace. A cancer on the fabric of society. The worst type of person. The reason I take such a strict approach to the Tea Party, is that they are extremists. My staunch and outspoken Atheism takes the shape of a bullet aimed at the incompatibilities between dogmatic ideology and the humanity as a collective entity looking to survive.

The Tea Party simply represent a vicious dogmatic obsession with their ideology, which happens to be unabridged Capitalism. An ideology that insists massive Corporations are “job creators” (a phrase I hate. Demand creates jobs. Not Corporations). The Tea Party is a representation of everything that is wrong with the right wing.

During a debate, Ron Paul was asked a question about a man who has a good job, but has no medical insurance, and ends up in a coma, what should happen? Predictably, Ron Paul doesn’t particularly answer the question, he just insists the guy SHOULD have medical insurance. I am fully aware that right winged Americans believe healthcare is a luxury rather than what I believe it is; a necessity. But what struck me, to the point of speechlessness, which slowly became a distinct sense of disbelief and disgust, was when the guy asking the questions said “Should we let the man die then?” to which the Tea Party audience, yelled “Yes!!“
- This mentality, is extremist. It is taking an ideology to the extreme. Capitalism, like Socialism, when taken to its limits, is extreme ideology; in this case it becomes extreme when it decides who lives and who dies. Ron Paul started his question, by suggesting that any form of tax payer funded healthcare is Socialist, and that’s bad. This is a rather extreme position, because it fails to take into account results. The system is judged on how strictly it adheres to its ideological dogma, rather than the success or failure.

Money, in a Capitalist society is based on nothing. Actually it is based on debt. So its power comes from a collective concept of what it means. Life on the other hand, is not a concept. It transcends ideology. It is far more important than ideology. The ideology requires a constant insistence that what we own, is what makes us who we are.

So, let’s look at the results of two rather polarised healthcare systems. The UK has a Nationalised Health Service. In 2009, the US had a largely Private Health Service, in which your ability to pay (a concept) is far more important than your life itself (reality).
Infant mortality rate (probability of dying between birth and age 1 per 1000 live births)
UK: 5
USA: 7

Under-five mortality rate (probability of dying by age 5 per 1000 live births)
UK: 5
USA 8

Adult mortality rate (probability of dying between 15 and 60 years per 1000
UK: 77
USA: 106

Case detection rate for all forms of tuberculosis (%):
UK: 94
USA: 89

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)
UK: 3285
USA: 7410

Life expectancy at birth (years)
UK: 80
USA: 79

General government expenditure on health as a percentage of total government expenditure.
UK: 15.1%
USA: 18.7%

A quick analysis suggests that the UK pays less per capita, our government spends less on our health system than the US, and yet we have “Socialised” healthcare, we’re living longer, and our children are less likely to die at a young age. And yet, all of this is grossly overlooked in favour of ideological dogma regardless of how backward, and ultimately deadly it is.

It isn’t just when compared to the Nationalised health system of the UK. The Nationalised health system of Norway provides equally as disastrous results for Tea Party enthusiasts. When a man is ran down by a car, and the first thought in the collective mind of a Capitalist society is “oh my god!! I hope….he has insurance”, who then walk away when it turns out he doesn’t, one has to ask ourselves how far they are willing to go? Is collective policing wrong? Should we have fire insurance? If our house is burning down, and we’re too poor because our insurance bills include health, road, and police, should we just accept that the fire department shouldn’t be burdened with our current predicament? Should we expect to get arrested for leaving our house if we haven’t paid our road insurance? How is that freedom? That seems to be to be substituting the ‘tyranny’ of Government for the tyranny of big business – a real tyranny because it has unaccountable, unelected powers. A two tier society, in which you’re absolutely second class if you are not propertied, is my idea of hell.

According to a World Health Organisation ranking list of 2000, the US Health System ranks 11. The UK 18th, and the USA…… a pathetic 37th. Even though, the US spends most per capita than any other Nation in that ranking list. Above the US, ranks Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, UAE, Andorra and Malta. The most powerful Nation on Earth, has a worse healthcare record, than Saudi Arabia; a desert. Japan is number one for Life Expectancy and 70% of healthcare costs in Japan are paid by the Government. The cost of an MRI scan in Japan is $US 98. In America, it is $US 1500. There is no excuse for it. A healthcare system based on the ideological position that a doctor should check your insurance before he saves your life, is doomed to fail every time. A system should be judged not on its allocated “ism” but on its success. Private health insurance is not benefiting mankind. It benefits one or two wealthy people, and a host of United Health shareholders, with private health insurance money then ending up in Rick Perry’s campaign pot.

It is interesting to note that the same group of people cheered in delight last week, as it was announced during a debate that candidate Rick Perry has overseen 234 executions in Texas since becoming Governor. It would seem that State sponsored healthcare that ultimately (as shown above) saves lives is Socialist and evil, whilst State sponsored murder is a perfectly acceptable way to spend tax dollars. This includes the execution of Cameron Todd Willigham, a man who was accused of setting fire to his family home, killing his three young children. Before he was executed, a scientist wrote to the parole board to point out the flaws in the original case against Willingham. Perry ignored the concerns, and Willingham was executed in 2004. In 2005, an investigation was set up by a new 9 member Texas Forensic Science Commission. Just before they started their hearings into the case, Perry fired all 9 members. Another nine of the USA’s top fire scientists say the science was faulty in convicting Willingham. It is quite possible that Willigham was innocent. People in that crowd last week, cheered the death of at least one innocent man. Pro-life apparently. What a disgrace to humanity.

If anyone tells you that the US healthcare system is the best in the World; be sure to point out that it isn’t. That it isn’t even in the top ten. Or top twenty. Or top thirty. That it barely reaches the top 40. That your children are more likely to die young in the US, than in the United Arab Emirites or Macau (I’m not even sure where Macau is). But be sure to let them know that if they want to execute someone based on flimsy science, Texas is the place to be!

The great Gore Vidal once said:

Religions are manipulated in order to serve those who govern society and not the other way around.

- This is true of the religion of American Capitalism.

I truly feel for America if a Republican ends up in the White House.

The Mid Terms and Healthcare

The man in the photo above, is a real life American idiot. They aren’t uncommon. They are like a plague. And that plague came out to vote yesterday.

So America has decided that the eight years in which the Republicans absolutely raped the World, didn’t happen. The mid-terms have seen a major shift to the Right in American politics since 2008. Which amazes me. The Democrats got pretty destroyed. It is likely that the Republicans are going to assume that their new found control of the House means they have the mandate to push through legislation surrounding budget cuts, tax breaks for the wealthy, and an attempt to roll back Healthcare reform (they don’t seem to care that 35,000,000 people are now insured; only that it might hurt the profits of major insurance companies). Of course, mandate doesn’t bother them considering they have spent the past two years making life as difficult as possible for a Party who were elected to attempt to clean up the mess the previous White House left.

Obama has been weak. Very weak. The rhetoric of change didn’t exactly pan out that way. He isn’t all that different from the last lot. His failure to close Guantanamo, is refusal to back same sex marriage, his continued wars in the Middle East, and his utter failure to do anything significant with the banking sector has been his undoing. He isn’t Socialist, he isn’t really all that Left. He’s firmly in the centre. He just has an opposition who seem to think anything Right of Reagan = Stalin.

One attack point throughout the past two years has been the Healthcare bill. Now, according to a Harvard study in 2009, there were found to be more than 44,000 deaths associated with those who have no health insurance. By 2019, it is reckoned that a further 30,000,000 people will now be insured thanks to the Healthcare Bill. 62% of all 2007 bankruptcies were due to the inability to pay medical costs. The wonders of Capitalism. All this talk of death panels and the evils of the UK’s National Health Service sparked Tea Party arseholes to go out in the street and demand NO SOCIALISM! The problem is, that the UK’s National Health Service, according to the World Health Organisation, is 20 places in the World Rankings, higher than the U.S. The UK also has a far better child mortality rate, we pay less, and our life expectancy is better. So whilst those in the Tea Party continue to be nothing more than an uneducated mouthpiece of the insurance industry, we in the UK will continue to enjoy our evil Socialist healthcare, whilst living longer. The Government did not take over healthcare in the US. The US remains the only apparently civilised country that does not provide universal healthcare. Those of us who live in Countries that do have a universal healthcare system, would never elect a party to government if they ever spoke of privatising it. The NHS is a National treasure.

Healthcare is essential. It should be a right. Not a luxury. To be told by an insurer that you are not eligible because you have a pre-existing condition is grotesque. I cannot imagine the American public would be too keen on the idea of having to pay for fire insurance. When their house is burning down and the fire engine turns up, having to check your papers are in order and your payments have been kept up to date before they rescue your screaming child.

It makes me wonder, how do very wealthy businessmen in the insurance industry, who really couldn’t give a damn about the health of their customers, manage to coerce a mass of ordinary people who might benefit from the Healthcare reforms, to fight their corner?

It isn’t a new phenomena. The rich have always managed to make the poorer folks fight for them. This is how wars work. Invoke a sense of Nationalism. Refer to them as ‘fighting for our freedom’. Emotive language always does the trick. Make them believe there is a common enemy. Communists, Muslims, Gay people, Atheists etc. You can trace it back to the days of the Founding Fathers. Hamilton described the public (those who were less wealthy and of less importance than he) as a “great beast”. The idea of an electoral college was installed because people like Madison did not believe the public could be trusted. But somehow, they managed to get widespread support; based entirely on being anti-British.

The Civil War days were not much different. The wealthy managed to make the poor white folk believe that if slavery were abandoned, the jobs market would be flooded and the black folk would take all their jobs. The irony was, that the black folk already had the jobs, because they were slaves, and so weren’t paid anything. The real issue was that the rich white folk would rather keep paying the black slaves nothing, and the white folk as little as possible. Both the black and white poor folk, were being massively abused, and yet the poor white folk fought for the benefit of the rich white folk. It made no sense. But they were heavily manipulated into doing so.

A similar thing happened with healthcare. This notion of “big socialist government” was thrown around constantly. The Bush Administration spent eight years focusing on making the spread of false fear an art, and it seems to have continued. Glenn Beck on Fox News within the space of about a week managed to refer to Obama as a Socialist, a Muslim, a Terrorist, a Fascist, a Marxist, and Foreign. Probably Gay as well at some point.

This, coupled with the fact that major Health insurers (the modern day slave owners) ensured fear was rampant meant that an easily manipulated population believed they were on the verge of becoming the USSA. The second largest Health insurance provider in America is UnitedHealth Group. In 2009 they issued a letter subtly urging its staff to attend rallies against the healthcare bill and lobby local representatives.

Reps. Michele Bachmann and John Kline, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty, all Republicans, referred in 2009, to a group called Lewin, as ‘independent and non-Partisan’ when they used Lewin (who specialise in economic analysis of Healthcare in the US) research to support their opposition to the Healthcare Bill. Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip referred to Lewin Group as “the nonpartisan Lewin Group” when backing up his arguments against the Healthcare Bill. Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee referred to Lewin Group as an “independent research firm” and Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah said that Lewin Group is “well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country”. The problem is, Lewin is owned by UnitedHealth Group. The research spouted by Republicans, actually comes from a Company who spent time and money circling an email to its employees encouraging them to attend rallies and events against Health Reform. In what universe would you have to be living on to suggest that they are “non-partisan”.

Chuck Grassley, the most senior idiot Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, stated of Ted Kennedy:

“I don’t know for sure, But I’ve heard several senators say that Ted Kennedy with a brain tumour, being 77 years old as opposed to being 37 years old, if he were in England, would not be treated for his disease, because end of life – when you get to be 77, your life is considered less valuable under those systems.”

The phrase “I don’t know for sure” saves him from utter embarrassment when he is shown to be completely lying. I say this, because my grandma is 84 and currently in hospital, very ill. My dad came home today and said the nurses and the doctor, are amazing. The nurses are around her all the time, and keep mentioning her kids and her grandkids to try to keep her mind as active and alert as possible. The most senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is propagating a rumour that the NHS does not treat the elderly. It is bullshit and he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. It is just another tactic to fight the reforms. Obama must be banging his head on his desk wondering why he ever applied to be the President of a country full of lunatics.

We need to be clear; Republicans do not care about making sure people are healthy and fit. Republicans are just trying to protect the obscene profits of the insurance industry.

It isn’t just Republicans though, that are ultimately the bitches of the insurance industry. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Senator Ben Nelson, raised more than $2 million from insurance and health care interests in his three campaigns for federal office. He has received $1,195,299 from insurance interests, $399,345 from health professionals, $258,483 from the pharmaceutical industry, and $195,138 from hospital and nursing home interests. UnitedHealth, spoke of earlier, donated $25,000 to Nelson. It is no surprise then, that Nelson voted against the Health Care legislation.

The race to be the next California Insurance Commissioner is also interesting. The Republican nominee, Michael Villines says he does not take contributions from insurance companies. According to filings with the Secretary of State, a PAC spent $280,000 running ads and a campaign entirely against the Democrat, Dave Jones. The contributions may not have gone to Villines personally, but they are being used to get him elected, mainly because he his massively against healthcare reform. Villines also managed to transfer $50,000 worth of contributions from the insurance industry, from his 2014 Senate campaign fund, to his Insurance Commissioner fund.

Data according to the OECD shows that in comparison to Australia, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Norway and Sweden, the USA ranks bottom when it comes to life expectancy, infant mortality, Per capita expenditure on health, Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP, % of government revenue spent on health, and also quite amusingly; % of health costs paid by government. Perhaps there is a bit of a link there. Perhaps government run healthcare isn’t as evil as the American Right like to suggest.

The Republicans have said they will argue that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional and try to repeal it. Apparently going to war on the base of a lie is perfectly acceptable and constitutional. Apparently having a worse child mortality rate than Singapore is perfectly acceptable and constitutional. Apparently idolising Reagan; a man who illegally sold arms to both Iran and Iraq, whilst using drugs cartels to transport weapons to right winged terrorists in Latin America, is perfectly acceptable and constitutional, but trying to help the millions of Americans who are denied healthcare by the cancer of society; health insurers, is evil and socialist and unconstitutional.

America has just elected a House of Representatives whose majority are a party almost entirely in the pocket of insurance companies, and who light the fuse that started the entire financial crises in the first place. America never fails to amaze me.

Historical healthcare

“Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.“
- Winston Churchill

OH MY GOD Churchill was a communist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or not. Actually, definitely not. Unless you’re a conservative American. If Obama had said what Churchill said, Glenn Beck’s head would have exploded live on TV.

Historic day for America. Obama’s healthcare plan passed. Which means more than 30,000,000 more Americans will be insured; insurance companies will no longer be able to oppressively discriminate on any basis, and best of all; Republican and conservative Americans hate it. They seem unable to differentiate between slightly left of centre beneficial policies, and Stalinist Communism.
Obama was absolutely correct when he subtly digged at the Republicans for their appalling use of fear tactics to attempt to win this argument. They should be ashamed of themselves. They, in my eyes, are comparable to those who opposed the Civil Rights Act in ’64.
Obama said:

“We didn’t give in to mistrust or to cynicism or to fear. Instead, we proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things.”

Whilst the Republicans continue to complain about the evils of Socialist medical care, I thought i’d sing it’s praises.
We in the UK have a National Health Service. It is a single payer system. It is government run. It would, in short, make Glenn Beck’s face explode in rage.
According to the World Health Organisation:

The UK’s EVIL SOCIALIST life expectancy (m/f):77/81

The US’s free market haven life expectancy(m/f): 75/80

The UK’s EVIL SOCIALIST Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 6

The US’s free market haven Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8

The UK’s EVIL SOCIALIST Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 98/61

The US’s free market haven Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/80

The UK’s EVIL SOCIALIST overall World Health standing:18th

The US’s free market haven overall standing:36th

In short, whilst Republicans keep complaining about how awful Socialist medicine is……… we in the UK will continue to enjoy it, whilst living longer.

For a World superpower that basis itself on freedom, I’m not sure how they can justify being so terrible in the healthcare rankings. The US even ranks below Singapore for infant mortality. That’s appalling. But, apparently allowing more children to die than 35 other countries, is far more Constitutional (as is sending the living children to war on the basis of a lie, when they’re older), than giving them a better healthcare program safety net. In fact, half of all personal bankruptcies in the USA are believed to be partly the result of ridiculously extortionate healthcare costs.

Republicans and the Tea Party movement is simply a movement to protect the profits of American insurance companies. To fight against a bill that prevents insurance companies from turning down insurance for patients with pre-existing conditions, and cancelling insurance when people get ill, on the ideological basis that the new bill is “big evil socialist government” is pathetic. I cannot believe insurance companies have been allowed to get away with their utterly immoral practices for so long.

In fact, I watched Republican John McCain tell a room full of people live on Fox News that the British NHS refuses to treat patients over 75. The extent of this ridiculous lie was rendered even more ingenious given that on that very same day, my 83 year old grand mother was being treated on the NHS after having a heart attack. They saved her life. The irony of John McCain’s position is, most of my family, if we lived under the current US healthcare system, would not be able to afford healthcare, and the rich conservative and Republican anti-socialised medicine brigade would have no problem denying us care.

To deny people the right to healthcare whilst you yourself can afford it, in my opinion, is no different to me blocking the road when an ambulance needs to get past. I’m fine and healthy. I paid taxes that went to fix that road. So fuck them!!! That’s the attitude. The “individualist” attitude plaguing the West. The Republican attitude. Today, it was defeated. My face is one of complete smugness today.

McCain today argued that the bill promoted big government. I’d argue that is irrelevant. Our British NHS has survived for sixty years, and whilst it has it’s issues, it is better than the American system. Big government or small government is not the issue. It is the equivalent of approaching an uninsured suffering child and saying “We wont help you, because, erm, well, BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!” Perhaps an injection of big business to curb the excesses of big insurance and big business, is not such a bad thing. I fully support it.

My only issue, is that the bill doesn’t go far enough. After eight years of Republican misery, the fact that anyone actually pays any attention to those lunatics amazes me. President Obama didn’t seem strong enough. He allowed Republicans to populate their lies and fear tactics; the same tactics they used for the war on terror. It has to stop. The Republicans are an international laughing stock. And yet, their usual cry of “SOCIALISM!!! HIGH TAXES!!! BIG GOVERNMENT!!! COMMMUUUUNIIISSSM!!!! NO STIMULUS!!!!!” against anything slightly left of Reagan, seems to generate sympathy in America. The rest of us look on in amazement. Today, that horrendous and selfish tactic lost.

I look forward to watching the psychotic Glenn Beck tell everyone America is now Soviet Russia.

Big Brother Society

The era of reality TV has many critics claiming the word “reality” is far too loosely attributed to those shows. Big Brother is undoubtedly the King of reality TV. Blogs like Weekly Gripe claim without contest, that shows like Big Brother do not reflect any sense of reality at all, and ends the piece with “I think Television should rethink what is reality and what’s not.” I’d disagree wholeheartedly with that statement.

Ultimately, Big Brother is pointless and has no social benefit whatsoever. And so Big Brother is a perfect example of reality. The notion that a group of people are thrown together, forced to backstab each other in the hope that they will get ahead. Only one person can win the money, the rest are forgotten, greater social needs are ignored. The enemy of those people, is “Big Brother“, the government of the house. The contestants change themselves to what they think the public expect them to be. Similarly, we as good little workers speak like our employers expect us to speak, we question nothing, we dress as we are expected to dress in order to appeal to this abstract concept of “looking professional”. We are never ourselves when it comes to the incessant chase for money and reward. That, if the Neoliberal conception of human nature is to be believed, is reality at it’s finest. That fear of government, that selfish grab at money, is reality. Big Brother, is the perfect example of 21st Century reality. The World, financial markets, workplaces, are hundreds of thousands upon millions of little Big Brother type shows acting themselves out under the guise of “reality“. The selfishness and the greed institutionalised in shows like Big Brother, is a solid reflection of the institutionalised culture of greed and individualism that the Western World has been forced to adhere to under the manipulated language of “freedom” and “human nature“.

Contestants on Big Brother are not free. And it isn’t just the Government of the reality show that restricts their freedom. The carrot dangling at the end of the show; the money. The promise of “more”. The promise of “more” is a far bigger restriction on human freedom, than Government could ever be. Business is by it’s very nature; totalitarian. This promise of “more” is what drives people in a Neoliberalist system of economics. It assumes that human nature is inherently self interested, totally individual and greedy. I WANT AN IPHONE!!! Why? for what reason? You’ll only want a newer model in a year or two. Pointless, manipulative greed. It dismisses any notion that human nature, whilst having the potential to be self interested and greedy, also has the capacity to be loving, and giving, and needing support, and sensitive, and helpful, and every other trait that appears completely at odds with individualist selfishness. Collective responsibility is deemed “communist” at worst, and so ignored. An individual is a commodity in a Neoliberalist World. Unless you have a mind for business, or are the son of a rich couple, you’re deemed a commodity, to be bought and sold, and if you cannot produce the skills that the Market at this time demands, you’re useless, and worthless, and should not be given any support whatsoever. Collective responsibility for an individuals misgivings are being slowly eroded. The idea being that if everyone is responsible for themselves and themselves only, we will be forced to work hard enough to survive without any help or assistance whatsoever.

Neoliberalism places Government as the antagonist, at odds with human freedom because they take your money from you and redistribute it to the poor. It amazes me that it is only government that is seen as the antagonist. The place that I work at, gave us a worker’s manual. It stated that we must be “clean shaven or have a full beard, ‘designer stubble’ is not acceptable“, so businessmen think they have the right to tell me how my face should look. They then told us we should “have at least one bath or shower a day“. Why is that any of their business? And why aren’t those advocates of “freedom” up in arms about business tyranny and totalitarian principles that they are built on?

Their argument seems to be “if you don’t like it, go elsewhere“. Forgetting the fact that I, like most people, can’t afford to be out of work looking for a new job, If I were to go elsewhere, that new place would have the very same kind of limitations; it’s universal. Business, by it’s very nature, is totalitarian. And yet, Neoliberalism tells me that this is the ultimate in human freedom; being able to tell those people below you who make YOU the money that funds YOUR luxurious lifestyle, how to dress and how many times to wash. It then demands that I respect a person like my boss, despite the fact that I utterly despise him. What is the incentive for me to respect a man who pays me the very minimum allowed by law, whilst he himself drives home in a nice big luxurious car, financed by the staff who work for him, the very same staff whose names he hasn’t got the time to learn? He is a child of the Thatcher generation, and so assumes employee respect and subservience is his God given right. It isn’t.

The paradox of Neoliberalism, is that the ideology exists like a set of scales. For those at the top to keep rising, those at the bottom must keep falling. There is no way out of it. Neoliberalism then suggests that those who have rised, deserve even further praise, admiration and reward, whilst the inevitable pile of those who have failed, deserve nothing but a life of misery. It’s the reason stores like Primark insist on using cheap, exploitable labour. Profits become far more important that people, and no one stands up to complain, millions shop in Primark every year. Purely because the notion that human nature is greedy, offers people a justification for giving money to pretty Fascist organisations. And so whilst some may call it “freedom“, I simply call it “insecurity“. Suddenly values, morals, and humanity are fleeting, abstract thoughts that matter very little because everyone has been forced to be self interested and greedy, looking out for number one first. We’ve been given no choice. The freedom they gave us (Thatcher and Reagan) was “either be greedy, or be insecure, hungry, cold, and useless“. Human nature is not simply greedy, it is merely the case that greed is obviously amplified, when the system we live in offers endless rewards to such greed. When love, and compassion are not rewarded, and in some cases, punished, why would humanity exhibit such qualities above greed? Why is incentive offered to place the exchange of goods and capital, ahead of social injustice?
That isn’t freedom.

Within the Big Brother house, the choice is “be entertaining, controversial, and backstab everyone, or fail miserably“.

Neoliberalism also brings with it a terrible amount of institutionalised racism. Schools in poor black areas cannot readily afford new equipment, or top class teachers, or new text books because they simply lack funding, and so class division and lack of social mobility is perpetuated for another generation. Neoliberalist supporters fail to admit this flaw in their miserable ideology, and instead choose to blame the lack of ability, or work ethic, or discipline within poor black communities themselves as opposed to horrendous social injustice caused by their awful system. The USA healthcare system, that rich white folks do not want to see changed, is a supreme case of Neoliberal institutionalised racism at it’s worst. According to a study by University of Dayton, areas of predominantly uninsured minorities are subject to higher rates of “environmental toxins, including lead and asbestos“, the workers of the minority areas also “disproportionately work in jobs with higher physical and psycho-social health risks (i.e., migrant farm workers, fast food workers, garment industry workers). Minority communities are frequently the targets of institutions promoting unhealthy products, such as alcohol and tobacco. ” If it wasn’t for some form of social conscience exhibited by Government over the years, those minorities would doubtless become a Neoliberal dream, full of sweatshops and exploitation of the worst variety. Government needs to go further, and intervene in social misfortunes, where the Market simply perpetuates the problem.

Democratic values are seemingly undermined by the ideology of privatised-everything, cloaked by the narrow focus of “the market“.
Socialism, to me, is not simply an economic challenge to Capitalism. It is not simply a solution to inequality through the common ownership of production; it is a set of values, that start at the premise that people are far more important than private profit. The idea that you cater to the needs of civilisation first, and once that aim has been realised, you cater to the wants of civilisation. I do not believe in forcing people into jobs they hate purely so economists can say “look, isn’t the unemployment rate amazing”. For every well paid mining job the Thatcher government destroyed, another three McDonalds and Starbucks jobs were created, and was used as a sign of improving times. The Confederation of British Industry, the beacon of Neoliberalism, once suggested cutting University degrees down to what the economy needs. If it needs more Maths graduates, then they suggested emphasis should be put on Maths, and degrees such as Philosophy should be scraped. Where is the freedom in that? What if I want to study Philosophy? Freedom only appears to work, when haggered old grey haired right wingers decide it’s possible. Which speaks to another area of society’s Big Brother complex. Neoliberalism tends to want to press home the notion that markets should be left to their own devices, free from government interference. Yet, when markets fail, government interference is demanded by the markets. The banking crises was a magnificent example of the failure of Neoliberalism, and Socialism having to bail it out, to keep it going. The Capitalist structure, was crumbling, and Socialism had to bail it out. In the Big Brother house, contestants appear to hate their in-house Government, yet appeal to it rather hypocritically for help and advice, whenever they seem to be crumbling themselves. The American high tech industry has only survived as it is today, because of Pentagon subsidies over the years. Without those subsidies, America would not be the immense power it is today.

Big Brother is simply a reflection of the Neoliberalist society that has been forced onto the World over the past twenty five years. Thatcher’s generation forced Neoliberal principles onto my generation, and we don’t want it. You can keep it. And take Big Brother with you.

Tea Bagging

Somewhere between 1500 and 1600, an unknown Author penned The Voynich Manuscript. It has over 250 pages, is incredibly detailed, and has many illustrations to accompany the writing. The one problem is, no one knows what it says. Its language, its place of origin, as well as its author, are completely unknown. Top cryptographers spanning the last century have been unable to decipher the manuscript. It remains one of Humanities great secrets. It is not a coded manuscript, because the writing flows beautifully, like elegant prose, which suggests the author knew what he/she was writing, as it was written. A mysteriously unknown language, that perhaps, we’ll never know.

That being said, the Voynich Manuscript is not even half as baffling as the current American “Tea Party” movement. Essentially, what the tea party movement is, for those of you who are unaware, is a group of redneck protesters who think they know how to run a Country far more impressively than the current administration. What is striking though, is that most of the tea party brigade themselves, don’t know what they’re angry about….

According to cbs, 44% of the Tea Party movement, believes that their taxes have gone up under Obama. Which, they haven’t. Somewhere along the line, these mad tea party people have decided that tax cuts, equals Socialism. Which, is doesn’t. So what do they want?

They want liberty for all!!!! – unless you happen to disagree with them. Or you’re gay. Or a left winger. Or you can’t afford healthcare. Or you’ve had an abortion. Or you’re from Mexico.

They are, for all intents and purposes, Neo-Cons. Which means, they are Reaganite Republicans. They seem to have an issue with the idea of universal Healthcare (We in the UK have universal healthcare – mainly because we still care for our sick and injured – and our standard of health is ranked 18th in the World by the World Health Organisation, whilst America is ranked 36th. The USA also spends more than the UK on healthcare, and has a higher infant mortality rate, and a lower life expectancy than the UK…. but still, they insist Socialised healthcare is bad…….. although socialised policing, fire protection, and road building, they don’t seem to have a problem with) They are also, very undemocratic by nature.

The Tea Party Website, has the following to say…
“ Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.“
All Right Winged proposals. Why do these people assume that the entire Country wants to live in a Right Winged Nation? They may as well just say “We want a Constitutional amendment banning any political party unless they’re Republicans and very Right Winged…. oh and the gays aren’t allowed to marry either, they’re all icky and stuff… oh and God is real“. Not everyone puts all their faith in a free market system.
Constitutionally limited Government is also an interesting point. Why is this being raised now? Why not under Reagan? Reagan increased the number of Federal Executive Employees by 0.10% during his two terms in Office. In fact, he was the only President to increase the number of Federal Executive Employees, from the era of Kennedy, to Obama. The guy who shrunk Government the most, since the 1960s…was Bill Clinton. A Democrat. The number of Federal Employees is at its lowest, in over 70 years. So where is this huge scary socialist government?

Fiscal Responsibility? Were these Republican homophobic racist redneck idiots Tea Party attendees asleep over the past eight years? Record deficits under Bush. Where was the complaining then? Why aren’t they complaining about the amount of money being spent on defence? I’d guess it’s because the Right Wing says it’s acceptable to spend tax payers money bombing Nations and torturing on the basis of a lie…….. but if that money was being offered to help sick people get treatment, they take to the streets to complain.
And how ironic it is that fiscal responsibility, includes paying Sarah Palin, the laughing stock of America, £100,000 to read notes off the palm of her hand live on TV. Very responsible. Palin went on TV, to announce that Republicans had defeated Democrats “3-0″ in elections in New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia recently. “3-0″ she proudly exclaimed. Clearly the lady who can see Putin from her house in Alaska chose to ignore Bill Owens win in New York, the first time a Democrat had won that district in over 140 years recently. Or John Garamendi’s California 10th Congressional District win. Or Terry Mills’ winning Kentucky’s 24th State House district. 3-3 so far. Scott Murphy wins in New York. 4-3 Democrats. But then, do we really expect more from a woman who made numerous complaints about Obama using a teleprompter, whilst she herself had notes written on her hand to prompt her throughout the night? Perhaps if George Bush had used a teleprompter once or twice, he wouldn’t have single handedly turned the GOP into a party of the mentally disabled.

“A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty.“
Why are they posing subjective opinion, as objective reality? There are millions upon millions of us who would disagree with the statement they make there. Millions of Americans would disagree. How democratic is it, to suggest these people should be shut out of Political America?

“The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible.”
No they didn’t. American Capitalism put huge limitations on Corporations. Limitations that no longer exist today. If Obama were to suggest reintroducing these limitations, Well, Glenn Becks head might explode in a fountain of “OMGZ COMMUNIZM IS HERE!!!!!!!!!” rage. Corporate charters had fixed periods of time to operate. If Corporations were thought to cause harm to the public good, they’d have their licence revoked. Corporations had to obey certain operational duties that fulfilled their charter pledges. If they failed to, they’d have their licence revoked. Owners of Corporations could not own stock in other Corporations, because they were only allowed to be in business in order to fulfill the role they had been set up to fulfill, and nothing more. They were not allowed to interfere with elections, or influence public policy in any way. In fact, incorporation was only available to those who wished to set up a company that would benefit the public, rather than for mere profit. Corporations could not make any long term decisions, without the agreement of legislators.
These rules were employed across State governments, and because the founders feared another East India Company emerging, they were always very suspicious of unchecked free markets. So no, the founders did not believe that personal and economic freedom are indivisible.
In fact, early America, the colonies, was a very egalitarian, community based, supportive economy.

The Tea Party movement takes the Founders sentiments out of context. It would be easy for me to start a Socialist movement and claim the Founders were Socialist, given their apparent adversity toward the power and wealth of Corporations. But it’d also be naive of me. The truth is, opinion among the founders was deeply divided. Capitalism was still a very young idea. Socialism, was a very young idea. They had no evidence as to which system is better….. neither do we, now. They could only work with what they knew at the time. And what they knew at the time, can not, in any such way, apply to what we know today.

James Madison, arguing in Federalist Papers Number 10, stated that a strong central government was needed to protect citizens against controlling, partisan, extreme factions. Madison says:
“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
No one is suggesting that the Tea Party brigade are not entitled to their opinion. They are. Regardless of how abhorrent I find their views, they are entitled to them. But, to suggest that the USA was built on their views, is strictly not true. It’s a manipulation of the American sense of Patriotism. Madison warned against these people.

I don’t want to be the one who suggests racism has a part to play in this, but right from the word go, the far Right had decided Obama was the worst President in history. They wanted his birth certificate, they called him a muslim, they said he was a terrorist sympathiser, They said he was indoctrinating kids when he spoke at their school. They said he hated the white race. And now, they’re attacking him, because he bailed out a failed Capitalist system.
The Tea Party brigade is not fighting for American values. The Tea Party brigade is fighting for insurance companies, who are without a doubt directly responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people who simply couldn’t afford to pay their health insurance needs.

The irony of the situation is that whilst these idiots have such distrust in Government and such trust in the free markets; the free markets have allowed a situation to arise in which Government is effectively fun by big business. The Republicans attempting to tell people what it is to be a “Patriot” in terms of political and economical opinions, is so horrendously manipulative, but vaguely familiar. One recalls the Republicans during the early months of the Iraq War making everyone aware that if you didn’t support the War, you weren’t a Patriot. Fox News referred to Anti-war demonstrations in 2003, as those of the “loony left“, yet referred to the tea party demonstrations of 2009, as “true Patriots”. It’s despicable. But then, that’s the nature of the right wing.

I have no idea why anyone takes the far right seriously; they shouldn’t be trusted with a pair of scissors. And whilst they are certainly less understandable than the Voynich Manuscript, the Republican supporting rednecks who are still ridiculously bitter than they aren’t in a position of power any more, should DEFINITELY be allowed to keep their signs…………..

The Tyranny of Business

Often, (especially from America) you will hear that the larger the size of Government, the smaller the freedoms of the Nation’s public. I’d argue that the bigger the size of power of big Business, the smaller the size of freedom for the Nation’s public. The argument presents itself beautifully today.

So according to a report from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI)… the Union of Corporate criminals has decided that Students should be the ones to pay thousands of pounds straight off, for their University education, to help fill the gap created by cuts in public spending. We should have less grants, higher interest on loans, and hugely inflated tuition fees of up to £5000, they have suggested.

Where is their report aimed at cutting Corporate Tax loopholes?
Where is their recommendation to close down tax havens?
Where is their recommendation to cut the pensions of top bosses who earn up to 30 times that of their workers? Or their annual salary being cut from 100 times that of it’s workers?
Where is the idea that the CBI helps to fund certain courses, given that the future of it’s businesses and profitability depend on state funded education of it’s future workers?
Where were their complaints when businesses were receiving emergency injections of cash?
Why are they encouraging further debt? Have we learnt nothing over the past few years?
Students are the future of this Country, we shouldn’t be suggesting the creation of a new generation of elites, with a generation of those who couldn’t afford to go to University and so spend their lives as slaves to the children of CBI members.
Do these people get worse every day, or are they just born without a soul? Just when I thought I didn’t need any more reason to despise big business, they produce this report.

Of course, the CBI haven’t commented on todays report that shows a huge funding deficit in the pensions of top bosses. Whilst millions of workers have seen their pensions slashed over the last few years, the FTSE 100 top employers have hidden the true cost of their own pensions, by sometimes up to £5m. I think the CBI needs to get it’s priorities in order.

It’s the way of thinking, which really annoys me. It’s the rich way of thinking. The Tory way of thinking. The USA Anti-National Healthcare way of thinking. The way of thinking that says “I’m rich, I shouldn’t have to fund the education of others!!!“, and yet their family, somewhere down the line, had a family member who came from nothing, and was funded by other peoples tax money, to be educated, which lead on directly to the success he/she passed down to this generation of selfish idiots.

The Tories, as usual, did not dismiss this matter. Of course not. It isn’t their children who will be affected. In fact, it benefits their children quite handsomely. The Conservatives’ university spokesman, David Willetts, commented on the report, saying it was “a good opportunity to bring this whole issue back to life”. No it isn’t. It’s a good opportunity to smack the arrogance of the CBI, back down to reality.

Another of the CBI’s suggestions, is to cut the number of degrees that they consider to be unneeded economically, and concentrate more on Science, Maths and English degrees. If we’re talking about useless degrees that tax payers have funded over the years, i’d say the biggest waste of public money, has gone on economic and banking degrees. Did my family, help fund the education of Sir Freddy Goodwin, who then went on to destroy the economy? I’m guessing the CBI would say differently. I’m not entirely sure where these people get the nerve to decide what degrees are right for this Country? Is there any other aspect of my life, these arrogant shits want to control? My life does not revolve around getting a job that will serve only to make members of the CBI richer whilst I hate my job. Again, is this the freedom the Free Market proponents talk about? Is freedom only so, if I do whatever big business wants me to do? I’m about to embark on a Journalism Degree, should I email the CBI to ask if that’s okay with them? Or should I change my course to include something I have absolutely no interest in, just to suit a bunch of criminals in suits? As if we don’t pay enough. I’m likely to leave university in three years time, in immense debt…… the interest on which, will far exceed what I borrowed in the first place. We pay our way, to enjoy fair education and opportunity for all, not just the elites. I’m still not entirely sure why a bunch of corrupt middle aged men, think they have the right to make any kind of money saving suggestions. The National Union of Students should retaliate, with a list of money saving techniques business leaders should embrace, including cutting their salaries and pensions, and selling their multitude of cars.

Thankfully, this generation of University Students will not listen to middle aged upper class toffs dedicated to turning us all into good little workers for their benefit. We have much more intelligence and creativity than to fall for that. Unfortunately, if the battle of ideology between this ridiculous “free market” bullshit, and those of us on the Left is not won by us, our children will suffer the most.

In a Tory Toff World, you have the freedom to be whatever you want……. as long as you can afford it, and big businessmen decide it’s okay. I’m surprised the CBI didn’t include a report on the idea of sending children to work long hours, for a piece of bread every day. It’s only a matter of time.

Edward Kennedy 1932 – 2009

Edward Kennedy, the last of the four Kennedy Brothers, Senator for Massachusetts, the “Democratic Icon“, the “Lion of the Senate“, the “Champion of Social justice” has died aged 77. It’s somewhat comforting to know that the Liberal ex Senator and the key player in many liberal reforms throughout his illustrious 47 year career in the Senate, lived to see the election of Barack Obama, the man many see as a Kennedy in terms of his political stance, the first hugely liberal President, since Edward’s brother John F Kennedy was elected in 1960.

The Kennedy’s have achieved almost iconic status around the World, due to their strong convictions, their photogenic quality, and unfortunately, the death that has so tragically defined their family name. Joseph Kennedy Jr died during World War II; John Kennedy became President in 1960 but was controversially assassinated in 1963 in Dallas; and Robert Kennedy was assassinated whilst running for President in 1968; leaving Edward as the only surviving Kennedy brother.

In 1960, Edward’s Brother John gave a speech in New York, that would sum up his, Robert’s and Edward’s attitudes and values, that would influence a young Barack Obama, and the World we live in today:

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

Such a strong proponent of Universal Healthcare (whilst those undeserving compulsive liars like John McCain… whom I and a few friends watched last night, live on Fox, telling America how shit the British NHS is….despite the fact that the World Health Organisation, puts us way above the USA in terms of quality healthcare…. I think McCain is just prone to blatant lying, whilst a mass of dispicably selfish right wingers clapped his every word, starting questions quite pathetically with “Thank you Mr McCain, you’re one of the most Patriotic men i’ve ever had the pleasure to meet“….pass the vomit bucket please), it is a shame Kennedy couldn’t have been more involved in this debate than he was. Unfortunately, he was diagnosed with a Brain Tumour back in May 2008, and didn’t recover. He will be greatly missed. I truly hope that the liberal thinking behind his many achievements, has been passed on to this new Generation now occupying the White House, and that much can be achieved that would make the Kennedy’s proud. It is a huge shame however, that Kennedy will not live to see any great Healthcare Reform plan, since healthcare reform has been his political calling for decades.

Edward Kennedy was a key player in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 – of which he gave a great speech against the Conservative critics of the Bill. The National Cancer Act of 1971 which was a bit of a dip in the water of Universal healthcare; the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 which set limits on campaign contributions and forced more public disclosure of where those funds were coming from; the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 (which was vetoed by profit-is-more-important-than-people President Ronald Reagan) put economic sanctions on the South African pro-Apartheid government until they agreed to end Apartheid and release Nelson Mandela; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 – a law preventing discrimination on the grounds of disability; the Ryan White AIDS Care Act in 1990 – designed to help those suffering from AIDS on low incomes get access to better quality drugs and care; the Mental Health Parity Act in 1996 and 2008 which states that limits on mental health benefits cannot be lower than limits for medical benefits offered by a group health plan – another step toward better healthcare that the Free Market cannot solve itself; the State Children’s Health Insurance Program in 1997 – designed to make sure that millions of uninsured and under-insured children were covered for health benefits; and the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 – proposed, I concede by George W Bush just after taking office, designed to test students annually with a state wide standardised test. Schools that receive certain funding must improve year on year or risk tougher sanctions
until they improve.

To sum up, Kennedy was a giant on the political scene, for five decades. Thus ends half a century of the Kennedy Dynasty and it’s influence on American, and in many cases, World affairs. Ted, remains an irreplaceable icon on the side of those seeking Social justice and human compassion.

Edward Kennedy; February 22, 1932 – August 25, 2009

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 Minority Republicans

It was the first time i’d heard of Bobby Jindal, and my instant reaction after his speech was “And this man is actually allowed to talk?” He should be banned from talking, he’s an insult to those of us who can talk without sounding patronising. He’s an insult to oratory. Cicero died all over again last night, this time with shame.

So President Obama made a great speech again, oozing with the same confidence that helped win him the White House, to a joint session of Congress. Fantastically eloquent, and full of exactly what needed to be said. He was absolutely right in blaming the problems America faces, on the greed of short term gains. He was right when he suggested that the distorted world of International Capitalism has lead to making the rich richer instead of investing in the future.

And the Republicans response? Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. A man who once said “Transparency inspires confidence, and confidence promotes cohesion” and then his own office ranked last in the Country’s transparency ratings. A man who was referred to by The Wall Street Journal as…. “a boy wonder of the party. At 25, he was appointed to fix Louisiana’s failing Medicaid program, and succeeded.“… despite the fact that since taking over Healthcare in Louisiana, they dropped from 48th in the league, to 50th largely due to the fact that all he did, was cut spending, and made it harder for poorer patients to see a doctor. A man who voted against Gay marriage. There’s nothing like the Civil rights of one minority gaining the right to oppress another. He’s totally against abortion, and voted against all forms of stem cell research. So, to sum up, he’s against gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, helping the poor, and because he refused to take some of the bail out money to help workers in his state claiming it will lead to tax rises on the wealthy, he’s also a big business suck up. So wait, isn’t that pretty much what the Republicans have stood for all the time? This guy isn’t new or exciting or different. He’s the same shit. He’s begging for the same failed policies. He’s asking to restore confidence with the American people, by offering nothing new. He’s basically saying “We set the country on fire, so I propose we put the fire out, with this new and exciting ….. fire.”

Jindal would only be “new” if he recognised the hypocrisy of stating just how wonderfully pro-life you are, but then cutting all costs that help sustain life for those who are less fortunate than the horribly rich.
He basically said “Hey, The Republicans understand ordinary Americans…….. and that’s why we wont support any plan that is made to help you!!! But we WILL help the rich become even richer!!…..oh, and i’m black by the way, in case you didn’t notice.”

So I wonder, of all the people who could have spoken for the GOP, and knowing their track record on disastrous eloquence, surely Jindal isn’t the best they have? I mean, watching his response to Obama was cringe worthy. He spoke as if addressing a class room of five year olds. Even Fox News didn’t like it. When Fox News don’t like something a Republican has to say, then you know you’re in trouble.

So given that he’s no different to every Republican who came before him, given that he’s offering nothing new, given that he claims his health reforms were some how magnificent because it saved money rather than measuring the level of healthcare on the fact that people, actual humans, not money, but people – suffered more under him than they did previously, and given that he’s a horribly patronising speaker, why did the GOP choose him? I suspect for the same reason they chose Palin when Hilary Clinton was commanding the vote of the Female population. I suspect for the same reason that they chose Michael Steele when Obama had commanded a landslide of the vote of the Black population. Because they represent minorities. There is no other reason why Jindal would be chosen ahead of all the Republicans out there, other than he’s young (to counter the idea that the GOP is full of old men) and of a minority (to counter the idea that the GOP is full of old… white men). It really doesn’t matter how utterly detestable the man is, he’s a minority and that’s the GOPs way of yelling “LOOK WE’RE NOT RACIST!!!.. Despite the fact that we’ve spent decades ignoring anyone who isn’t rich and white“. Jindal started his speech, stating all his minority status credentials. To me, this proved just how important it is to Republicans that they have a spokesman who happens to have a different skin colour, to counter the love for Obama. They failed massively to chose someone of a minority who is actually talented in the field of Politics. The Democrats chose wisely with Obama. The Republicans failed to chose wisely with both Palin and now with Jindal. It’s like they’re saying “Well he’s black, what more do you want?” The alternative of course, is that they picked Jindal for his intelligence, which makes me think that if he’s the best they have, if Palin is one of the best they have, if Michael Steele is one of the best they have, if George Bush was the very best choice the Republicans had eight years ago, the rest of the Republicans must share the combined intelligence of a goat, a retarded goat…. as unfair to retarded goats as that is.

The Democrats should counter with a gay Atheist guy at the top. The GOP could never match that. A gay GOP member (i’m not talking about those many, many undercover Gay GOP members like Glenn Murphy who found his mouth accidentally around a penis. Or Bob Allen who mysteriously offered to give a cop $20 to suck him off) would have to start every speech with “I realise i’m unnatural, disgusting, and God hates me, but…..“

Obama clearly has a talent for eloquence, and I think we’d all agree, also has a great mind. Similarly, although he doesn’t have the talent for oratory that Obama has, John McCain has a great mind. By comparison, Bobby Jindal is a disaster, much like Sarah Palin was a disaster. The GOP need to stop trying to show just how inclusive and diverse they are, and start showing that they understand why America didn’t want them anywhere near Government for at least the next four years.

Good luck to them.

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.

The right side of history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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