Bobby Kennedy

Forty-three years ago today, Robert Kennedy was shot and killed as he campaigned at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.

Languishing in hindsight and speculation, I will say that I believe Bobby Kennedy would have been one of the greatest President’s the United States has ever had, had he not been cut short on the campaign trail in 1968. If he’d have lived, there may have been no President Nixon, No President Ford, and maybe even no President Reagan. If his ideas and sentiments not been crushed in the following years by a vicious right winged neoliberal elite, and less eloquent and less popular and far less charismatic liberal politicians made to sound like the ramblings of archaic socialists, the World might not have had to endure thirty years plus, of the rise of the Hayekian New Right. The spirit of the ’60s was firmly shot down in 1968.

I wanted a short blog today on RFK, and a quote that I felt summed up his political philosophy, and why he remains one of my political heroes.

“Our gross national product … if we should judge America by that – counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”

Perfect quote.

Privatise profit, socialise risk

I am not an economist.
Never studied economics.
The graphs, the analyses, the spreadsheets, the intricate data fine tooth-combing is not something I do on a regular basis. Even if I had studied economics, I might have a better understanding of the language we use to describe capital flow and its merits and contradictions; but I can’t honestly say i’d understand economics as a science, any better. When the Queen asked top economists at the London School of Economics, why they didn’t see the credit crunch coming, they couldn’t answer. They knew nothing. All those years at a top economist school taught them nothing when it came down to it. So therefore, I, like everyone else, can only comment on the relationship between society and economics as I see it, from my perspective.

This is how I interpret the financial crash.

The first thing to note, is that this isn’t Capitalism. This is a system of perpetual yet flimsy consumerism. It is not a free market system. It is a Financial Sector system.
The obvious link between this crises, and society as a whole is also the catalyst for the problems. The subprime mortgage market began plunging around 2005. It was largely ignored because those who were losing their homes and livelihoods in cities like Detroit in the US, were predominantly Hispanic or African American. The media did not question it. The economists did not question it. The Bush administration did not question it. But it was a small basement fire that before long would engulf the World.

When white middle class towns and cities around California for example started to experience a wave of foreclosures, and people started owing more than their properties were actually worth, the World took note. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae all but died. Lehmann was allowed to collapse. AIG, who snook onto the gravy train, expecting the housing market to be on an upward turn forever and ever, were bailed out and then faced a liquidity crises. It’s a funny thing, because this started to happen in 2007. Two years after the poorer black communities felt the pinch hard. Suddenly millions were losing their homes in the US. This didn’t appear to upset those who actually caused the mess in the first place.

Wall Street gave out bonuses of well over $30bn in 2007, despite crushing the entire system. Often you will hear Right Wingers defend these obscene bonuses with “you have to pay the best to get the best”. These people aren’t the best. If Wayne Rooney single handedly drives Manchester United down into the First Division, from the Premiership and then the Championship, he isn’t likely to get a massive bonus at the end of it.

The point of neoliberalism today, as it was in the 1980s, is to protect financial institutions at all costs. An it has worked. It concentrates wealth within the Nations with big powerful financial institutions. A report by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University found that 1% owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults own 85% overall. In the US, it was found that 38% of the Nation’s wealth is owned by 1% of the population.

A similar study from the Federal Reserve shows that between 1989 and 2004:

“there are indications that wealth became more concentrated”

and

“from 1992 to 2004 the wealth share of the least wealthy half of the population fell significantly to 2.5 percent of total wealth”

During the 1980s, real wage growth stagnated both here in the UK and in the US. Money did not trickle down. This great neoliberal Thatcherite/Reaganomic experiment actually did nothing but make the wealthy, very very wealthy. The poverty rate under Thatcher was higher than it has been since. The wages and assets of the guys at the top increased massively at the same time as the average workers’ wage stagnated. You see for example, the fact that you have to earn far over the National average to be able to afford a home now. We cannot afford homes, and we are working in the UK the longest hours in Europe. We have nothing to show for it, except stagnating wages, and massively inflated wages for the guys at the very top. But, the propaganda of Neoliberalism, tells us that they deserve their wealth, and we deserve nothing. So we get nothing. This creates a problem, because the workers are in the majority and they are where the demand comes from for the economy to flourish. How do you fill the gap between keeping the wealthy very wealthy, and making sure the masses can afford to consume? Well, if you’re a financial institution you employ an idiot to come up with the idea of easy credit. Give everyone a credit card. Give everyone store cards. Give everyone subprime mortgages. You are essentially giving people money that doesn’t yet exist, in the optimistic view that everything will be okay, and the money will exist sometime in the future. I was offered a Student Credit Card with £1500 on it. I’m 24, but presumably my bank had also offered this non-existent money to 18 year olds. They are only just allowed to legally buy alcohol, and banks are already luring them into this hellhole of consumer capitalism.

David Cameron, when accused of socially cleansing London of poorer people, with his plans to cut housing benefit, said:

“The point everyone in this House has got to consider: are we happy to go on paying housing benefit of £30,000, £40,000, £50,000?

“Our constituents working hard to give benefits so people can live in homes they couldn’t even dream of? I don’t think that’s fair.”

This is interesting for a few of reasons. Firstly, housing benefit has only gone up recently, because many people have been kicked out of their jobs as a result of the failings of the Neoliberal system David Cameron holds so dear. The benefit is a safety net for those who were unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. It is fine, if you managed to escape the chop, and can still afford your house. But no one knows what the future brings. What if double dip recession hits as a result of these cuts the Coalition are introducing? A lot more people will lose their jobs, and wont be able to find one for quite some time, when 10 or 12 people are chasing the same job. So, do they get kicked out of London too? They aren’t scrounging. They are victims of a crises of Neoliberalism.

Secondly, the comment suggests that David Cameron sees no inherent problem with the way the housing market actually works. He hasn’t said he’ll make it easier for people to be able to actually afford a house. He simply offers ways to prop up a grossly overvalued housing market. The reason that “constituents working hard” can’t afford home they “even dream of” is because the Tories of the 1980s sold all social housing, and the Financial Institutions have been ripping people off ever since. Apparently, Cameron has no issue with this.

And thirdly, kicking the poor out of London isn’t going to free up housing for Cameron’s “hard working constituents“. These hard working people wont suddenly flock to the City of London for homes that are now magically cheaper; purely because these hard working people are having to deal with stagnated wages, inflated prices, and a mass of debt encouraged by the Tories, Labour and the Banks for thirty years. The homes will be bought up by property developers, and people who want nice little London bachelor pads, becoming a city of croissant-at-Canary-Wharf-eating businessmen.

British households, on average, tripled their debt over the past thirty years, mostly housing market debt. They had to, in order to keep up. Now, what happens what you can no longer pay that debt back? The subprime crash happens. And then suddenly banks stop lending, because they have no money themselves. They gave out this fake money, that not only didn’t exist before, but doesn’t exist when they suddenly need it. So now business can’t borrow. So unemployment shoots up. But then demand across the marketplace falls, because people have less and less disposable income. So businesses go bust. Good times!

Millions became unemployed, millions lost their homes, the suicide rate shot up, the homeless rate was at a forty year high, and yet bonuses on Wall Street in 2008 were close to $32bn. Quite a nice rewarded for ruining lives.

Consumerism obviously can only exist and perpetuate if there is some sort of emotional attachment to it. The need to “fit in”. I HAD to have Nike trainers at school because kids have their own social heirarchy going on, and we all have to try to fit in with it. We are what we own, that is how consumerism, supported by governments and the media have presented life. Volvo embodied this idea beautifully, with the slogan “Life is better lived together”. We need to buy an XBox 360 because all our friends play online together, we don’t want to be left out. How can we afford it? Ah yes, student credit card. Or, buy on finance, on which you pay about one and a half times as much as you would have done if you’d have brought it from a shop. Easy credit rears its ugly head once more, to ease our need to “fit in”.

The Financial institutions keep getting fatter that way. Wealth becomes very concentrated. Capital becomes just as powerful and destructive, as the Unions were in the 1970s. This isn’t helped by the fact that businesses everywhere, and in fact, our consumer haven itself, relies on the Financial sector. The sector truly is too big to fail. They weren’t lying. Which means those working within the Financial sector are very very powerful people. And so people start to pump money into the Financial sector.

A few economists have pointed out, that although capital accumulation appears limitless, when you start to make a lot of money, you start to look for other avenues to invest in, in order to get one over on your competition. You need to expand. But there are limits to expansion (scarcity of labour supply, consumption, production etc). But those limits are barriers that need to be broken, according to Capitalist thought. Marx stated that “Every limit appears, as a barrier to be overcome” as being a massively destructive force at the heart of the Capitalist ideal. The consequence of being unable to use this mass amount of surplus profit in expansion, was that more money was pumped into speculating on the stock market, in unproductive ventures with absolutely no social good. When the stock market tanked, the money tanked with it.

When an entire financial system is built essentially on fake money, it is no wonder it didn’t last. For Nobel prize winning economists and top level financial experts at the Bank of England or the Federal Reserve, not to notice this, is a massive failure and quite frankly, disastrously unnerving. This isn’t Capitalism. It is a financial sector consumer economy. And out of nowhere, its failings are socialised. Suddenly we blame the public sector. Suddenly government spending on help for single mums has to be cut. Why? What have they done? They didn’t gamble away the Nation’s money on dodgy packages and risky easy credit. In fact, they took on the easy credit, because without it, they can’t afford to eat, what with wages stagnating across the board, and unemployment at a decade long high. Irresponsibility in the Financial sector has been ignored, and blamed entirely on the public sector.

That is how I viewed the crises.

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.

America’s tortured brow

- Reagan meets the Taliban and refers to them as Afghanistan’s founding fathers, despite their remarkable ability to deny even the most fundamental of human rights.

Prior to 1986 the UN’s judicial wing, the International Court of Justice was supported by the United States. However, all that changed in 1986. In that year, that fantastic year (my birth), Nicaragua became indescribably pissed off with the US’s involvement in supporting Right Winged terrorists in their country, that they bought a case against the US, to the Court of Justice. The charge was, that:

(a) That the United States, in recruiting, training, arming, equipping, financing, supplying and otherwise encouraging, supporting, aiding, and directing military and paramilitary actions in and against Nicaragua, had violated its treaty obligations to Nicaragua under:
Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter;
Articles 18 and 20 of the Charter of the Organization of American States;
Article 8 of the Convention on Rights and Duties of States;
Article I, Third, of the Convention concerning the Duties and Rights of States in the Event of Civil Strife.
(b) That the United States had breached international law by
1. violating the sovereignty of Nicaragua by:
armed attacks against Nicaragua by air, land and sea;
incursions into Nicaraguan territorial waters;
aerial trespass into Nicaraguan airspace;
efforts by direct and indirect means to coerce and intimidate the Government of Nicaragua.
2. using force and the threat of force against Nicaragua.
3. intervening in the internal affairs of Nicaragua.
4. infringing upon the freedom of the high seas and interrupting peaceful maritime commerce.
5. killing, wounding and kidnapping citizens of Nicaragua.

The US defended itself, not by denying any of the above, but by suggesting that everything it had done in the region, all the terrorist activity and the dead civilians and the economic warfare, and the torturing, was justified because it was preemptively “exercising a right of collective self-defense” for the benefit of other Latin American countries.

As proceedings were clearly going against the US, the lawyers for this new Roman Empire, who answer to no one but themselves, decided to throw their toys out of the pram, by suggesting (and being the only Country to ever suggest) that the International Court of Justice is “semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don’t.” This obviously setting themselves up to say that when the court inevitably finds in favour of Nicaragua, the US wont listen. And so that is exactly what happened.

The Court found that the US was guilty of attacking key infrastructure in Nicaragua, and arming, training and financing Right Winged terrorists in the Country, although admits that the US probably wasn’t directing the operations of the terrorists. They simply picked them, funded them, armed them, and then said “okay….GO!“. The court also found that the Nicaraguan government had absolutely no part in any arms flow between Nicaragua and insurgents in other Latin American Countries. It found that no Latin American Country had asked for US support in these matters.

The judgement reads:

“Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;”

Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;

Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled “Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas”, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America;

Decides that the United States of America, by the attacks on Nicaraguan territory referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua on 1 May 1985, has committed acts calculated to deprive of its object and purpose the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

The list goes on.

America of course disagreed and ignored the verdict. Nicaragua took it to the UN Security Council, asking for all members to respect international law. The US Vetoed it. Because the US don’t like being told what to do. It is the equivalent of a murderer being found guilty, but then walking out of the court because he doesn’t like the verdict and saying “Yeah, I don’t really take it seriously now, i’m going home” and being allowed to.

Nicaragua then took it to the General Assembly, who passed the Resolution by 94 votes to 3. The 3 anti votes, being obviously the US…….. of course you can guess the second….. Israel, and the third being El Salvador, who at the time were the recipient of huge US aid, to fight the Left Wing uprisings in the Country. The US then tried its hardest since the decision, to discredit the ICJ for being a “hostile forum”, simply because the decision went against the US. I wonder if they’d have followed the same path of trying to discredit the ICJ, if the decision went their way. Something tells me they wouldn’t. And so Nicaraguans had to deal with even further American involvement in their Country. Reagan imposed tougher economic sanctions, and denounced the elections in Nicaragua as suspicious, despite the fact that Canada, Ireland, the European Economic Community and religious groups sent to oversee the elections all said that they were perfectly fair and free.

The US Congress then banned all funding to the Right Winged terrorists in Nicaragua, the Reagan administration carried on covertly. They did this by selling arms to Iran and sending the money gained, to the terrorists in Nicaragua. In 1996 it was revealed that the Reagan administration used money raised through drug trafficking to support the terrorists in Nicaragua. And today, those very same conservative Americans who masturbate furiously over the mere mention of Reagan, are claiming Obama is the one pissing on the Constitution, by trying to improve the Healthcare system. Fickle, despicable, moronic; the American Right Wing.

This is why it amazes me, that it was the Middle East that lost it’s mind first, and began fighting America. Muslim Extremists are the equivalent of the barbarians that sacked Rome. Pissed off at their treatment by this wretched superpower, but just as pathetic, barbaric, and evil as the bastards they are fighting.

Two days ago, marked 9 years since the September 11th 2001 terrorist atrocity in New York City. It was unquestionably one of the most vile and senseless attacks the World has witnessed. The inhumanity was beyond comprehension and it strikes me as utterly counter to human compassion and decency, to assume such an attack is justifiable. That being said, I cant help but wonder why we in the Western World are only ever exposed to this one side of the story.

Almost 3000 people died that day in 2001. Since then, and because of that act, 2071 soldiers have died in Afghanistan, 4736 soldiers have died in Iraq, 14,240 civilians have died in Afghanistan, and as many as 104,595 civilians have died in Iraq, with thousands upon thousands more displaced, starving, and living in poverty that they were not in prior to US led military action. One wonders what this has achieved? One also wonders why we never hear about those deaths? Why is a declaration of war considered a legitimate and almost entirely ethical justification for the deaths of almost 200,000 innocent people? Why are America not considered far far worse than the terrorists who attacked on 9/11? 3000 people is one building. 200,000 people, is an entire city. Imagine waking up, in your city, and finding everyone dead. Children included. How is that in any sense justifiable?

Does anyone in the West know the significance of the date April 28th 2003? I doubt it. It was the date that the Americans imposed a curfew on the people of Fallujah (if Iraqis invaded America and demanded people stay in their homes after a certain time, would Americans agree? No, of course not). The people defied the curfew, and the 82nd Airborne shot and killed 17, and injured over 70. Two days later, a protest in Fallujah against the shootings took place. The US shot two people dead. American terrorism and imperialism at its finest. The documentary ‘Fallujah: The hidden massacre’ gives compelling evidence of an even greater evil, committed by the US against ordinary civilians in Fallujah, including children. It shows footage of White phosphorus being used in residential areas, which breaches human rights conventions. It then shows us footage of children and other victims of the attacks, in the areas in which the White phosphorus was used. Ex soldier Jeff Englehart backs up the claims and the evidence by admitting the use of the banned substance. A Labour MP Alice Mahon pressured the British MOD to respond to the claims. The MOD then confirmed that US forces used MK77 during the invasion. The US defended its actions by saying they gave civilians enough time to evacuate. Overall, 39,000 homes were badly damaged and 10,000 destroyed, along with 60 schools, hospitals, and 65 mosques in Fallujah, by the US, in 2004. They have not been reconstructed. 32,000 compensation claims altogether. It is now 2010, and only 2,500 have received any form of compensation. Is America still convinced these people simply ‘hate our freedoms’?

We as a species seem to have instilled in us, a sense of revenge, as well as an impulse to assume we are the ones hard done by. American governments, including the Obama administration, play the innocent far too often. The usual story across the World, from Latin America, to Afghanistan, is America attempts to control a Country for resource purposes, the people fight back, America refers to them as evil, they refer to America as evil, America attacks and refer to themselves as freedom givers, the locals attack back and America refer to them as insurgents and terrorists, America attacks again, the locals attack again, and so on. All the time, Americans are shocked that anyone could dislike them for any reason, after all they assume quite amusingly that they are the beacon of hope and freedom. And so the cycle goes on. What does it achieve? Nothing.

Right now, the Muslim World assumes it is entirely innocent, and America assumes it is entirely innocent. Both are not innocent. Do I consider America to be terrorists? Damn right I do, quite horrific terrorists too. What is unnerving, and deeply regressive in terms of the history of humanity, is that both sides assume they are fighting a morally just war, for their own abstract concept; One side is fighting for their religion – a man made concept, something that doesn’t exist, a fairy tale. The other side is fighting for a Nation State – again, a man made concept that has no scientific or empirical worth, is not biological, is an archaic throw back to Colonialism, and is simply a social construct that certainly is not worth killing or dying for. It is unbelievably short sighted, because it will never end. America as a Nation are never likely to admit they have been utter bastards across the World for the past 50 years. Islam as a religion is never going to accept it has anger issues and takes its fairy man in the sky a little too seriously.

One problem, from a Western perspective, is that since 9/11 at least, we have had this us VS them mentality. We believe the West is right, and the Muslim World are evil bastards who we tried to help, but were beaten down for it. It emanates from America. We never hear stories of American terrorism; of which there are countless examples. We are made to believe the Office of President of the United States of America is an honourable office. It REALLY isn’t. It’s like the office of Roman Emperor. It means you have the power to impose your will on much of the World, through force if necessary and build a public reason for it, but keep the real reason private. It is an office of criminals. Very little more. The castle of the Presidency is built on pillars of sand, not rock. They will not talk about the fact that when Reagan was President, he helped to create the Mujahideen as an anti-communist force, despite the fact that they were also a very violent human rights abusers. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an ex Prime Minister of Afghanistan is currently on the run from America, who have him labelled as a ‘Specially Designated Global Terrorist’. This man is responsible for countless deaths. Yet, conversely. according to the book ‘Afghanistan, the bear trap: defeat of a superpower‘, Hekmatyar was the recipient of the most US covert funding (thought to be around half a billion dollars…….. apparently Tea Party activists didn’t really care about this) ever, and total immunity from the CIA for his role in the Drug trade.

During the Afghan-Soviet war, America funding the creation of over 35,000 religious schools throughout Afghanistan, in order to help train people against Soviets by teaching an extreme form of Islam in the hope that what the crazed Muslim extremists are doing now to America, would be aimed entirely at the Soviet Union. When their anger was aimed at the Soviets, America referred to them as Freedom Fighters. The moment that anger spilled over in the direction of America, they suddenly became known as terrorists. But, the Americans created the problems. They didn’t care if terrorism that they funded was being aimed at Americas enemies. They didn’t care how many people would die, from funding the creation of the monster of Islamic Extremism. It suited their needs, so it was fine. Now it is going against them, and they suddenly find it to be an evil that needs to be defeated.

President Eisenhower famously used his farewell speech to warn the US that the ‘Military-industrial complex’, in other words, private military and arms manufacturers, as a concept, runs entirely at odds with the objection of peace. That when a situation arises in which certain people and groups have material interests in being continuously at war, there can never be peace. Eisenhower said:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Today, this is more crucial a point, than at any time during the past fifty years. A fifty years in which the US has never had a moment where it has not been involved in the affairs of other Nations. The vast economy of the military machine, is the very source of international terrorism, and it is based entirely in the US. Eisenhower recognised it. I think we are all beginning to recognise it. Especially after Iraq.

There will never be an end to terrorism. Because terrorism is not limited to extreme Muslims. Terrorism takes on many forms, and one of them includes direct funding from the very superpower that in public appears to be so anti-terrorism, it goes beyond the realm of hypocrisy and becomes laughable. Whilst money exists, whilst Nation States exist, whilst America exists, and whilst Religion exists – terrorism will also exist.

A game played by “adults”

According to several sources, our wondrous new coalition government of nasty bastards, are to spend £4m on new “reintegration” centres in Afghanistan, to send unaccompanied Afghanistan child asylum seekers back to Afghanistan. This was announced, on the very same day that BBC News reported the deaths of 10 Nato troops, as fighting in Afghanistan escalated.

In an horrendous move to the right, it isn’t just immigration that the Tories intend to clamp down on, but now quite horrifically, it is children they have taken aim at. Overall, I find the idea of limiting immigration whilst further opening our borders to trade and capital, a silly idea based solely on the Colonial model of Nation States. But then, I find Nation States to be an outdated, and damaging principle. A silly social construct of National pride, that really has its origins around 1534 here in the UK, and is wholly inconsistent with a postmodern World built on Capitalist principles. But children, who really do not have a notion of this largely fatuous and arbitrary system of National borders, or trade, or capital flows, are now becoming the innocent victims of a game played by “grown ups“. I read the article, and just sat thinking how evil the whole idea of Nation States really is.

The Western World has spent decades destroying Afghanistan. We have armed the Taliban against the Soviets, because it suited us. In fact, in 1985, American President Ronald Reagan referred to the Taliban as;

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.”

Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted recently, that the creation of the Taliban, was pretty much entirely down to the US. Which in turn, means the problems that Afghanistan, and in a sense, Pakistan now face, are largely due to the policies of the USA, in its vain attempts to defeat whomever they have designated an “enemy” in that particular decade:

“It seemed like a great idea, back in the ’80s to– embolden– and train and equip– Taliban, mujahidin, jihadists against the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. And with our help, and with the Pakistani support– this group– including, at that time, Bin Laden, defeated the Soviet Union.”

A decade later, an American oil company called Unocal attempted talks with the Taliban in an effort to secure the rights to a major oil pipeline that would shoot through Afghanistan. Unocal were forced to back out, after they were criticised for dealing with the Taliban.

Add another decade, and George Bush bombed the entire Country back into the stone age, for no real reason whatsoever, whilst referring to the Taliban, as part of an axis of evil (it’s ironic that a fucking evil President, has the balls to refer to another regime as evil). The very same well equiped, and fundamentalist Taliban, that the US created and armed in the first place. The US didn’t seem to give much of a shit about the Taliban’s human rights record when Reagan was funding them. But then, the same can be said for the rather evil right winged groups throughout Latin America that Reagan’s administration funded. Reagan, should have been thrown in prison, and left to rot miserably in a cell for the rest of his life. Bill Clinton, is just as to blame.

According to the Times of India, 2001;

“In the 1980s, the CIA provided some $5 billion in military aid for Islamic fundamentalist rebels fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, but scaled down operations after Moscow pulled out in 1989. However, Selig Harrison of the DC-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars recently told a conference in London that the CIA created the Taliban “monster” by providing some $3 billion for the ultra-fundamentalist militia in their 1994-6 drive to power.”

Apparently Americans are not too keen on their money being spent on keeping their population healthy, but are perfectly fine with $5bn being spent on arming crazed Religious fundamentalists, who are now responsible for mass oppression and child sex trafficking.

Given the not-too-surprising violence that is rife throughout Afghanistan, why would any genuinely decent person, suggest sending children anywhere near a country like that? If I were Prime Minister, not only would I not give two shits about the moronic English Nationalists who must now be at home wanking furiously over this; i’d happily tell them they are scum; i’d also publicly state that there is absolutely no way I am sending any child into a Country whose child sex trafficking market is one of the biggest in the World, regardless of our pathetic sense of National Pride. Regardless of our immigration and asylum policies, regardless of the “burden” to tax payers. Regardless of their skin colour or what language they can or cant speak. They are children. And I could not live with myself, if I had openly agreed to hand a child back to a Country in the midst of war, and losing a battle against child sex trafficking. Especially given that the UK, has had a helping hand in destroying that Country in the first place. It strikes me as being a fundamental problem with the way the World works, that we have billions to give to dirty banks and bad business practice, which in turn contributed to the huge pension packages of people like Sir Freddy Goodwin, who fucked the entire system and now lives in luxury; but we complain incessantly about any money from the tax payer, going to help children who happen to have a different skin colour.

A US State Department Report on Human Trafficking, from 2009, reported:

Afghan boys and girls are trafficked within the country for commercial sexual exploitation, forced marriage to settle debts or disputes, forced begging, as well as forced labor or debt bondage in brick kilns, carpet-making factories, and domestic service. Afghan children are also trafficked to Iran and Pakistan for forced labor, particularly in Pakistan’s carpet factories, and forced marriage. Boys are promised enrollment in Islamic schools in Pakistan, but instead are trafficked to camps for paramilitary training by extremist groups. Afghan women and girls are trafficked within the country and to Pakistan and Iran for commercial sexual exploitation and temporary marriages. Some Afghan men force their wives or daughters into prostitution. Afghan men are trafficked to Iran and Pakistan for forced labor and debt bondage, as well as to Greece for forced labor in the agriculture or construction sectors. Afghanistan is also a destination for women and girls from Iran, Tajikistan, and possibly China trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation. Tajik women are also believed to be trafficked through Afghanistan to Pakistan and Iran for commercial sexual exploitation. Trafficked Iranian women transit Afghanistan en route to Pakistan.

Not only that, but according to the World Fact Book:

Much of the population continues to suffer from shortages of housing, clean water, electricity, medical care, and jobs. Criminality, insecurity, and the Afghan Government’s inability to extend rule of law to all parts of the country pose challenges to future economic growth. It will probably take the remainder of the decade and continuing donor aid and attention to significantly raise Afghanistan’s living standards from its current level, among the lowest in the world.

It does not matter how the children found their way to the UK. Whether they were trafficked here, whether they were sent by their parents, or whether they found their own way here out of desperation, it is irrelevant. Motives, are irrelevant. They are children. They are not a pawn in an adult game of economic warfare and its obsession with labeling people “illegal” if they weren’t born here. If a couple of pence in every pound of tax money goes to helping these children, rather than sending them to hell, then good! We are a decent country, with a sense of compassion built into us. We are not a country of the social Right. The Liberal Democrats, should be utterly ashamed of this.

This represents a major shift to the social Right, for the Tories. It shows that they have indeed wore a moderate mask for the past few years; hidden behind moderate centre-right rhetoric, but scratch gently below the surface, and we are confronted with the same old vicious, nasty party of old. A party without a sense of human decency, who focus solely on economically driven policies rather than human policies.

Left Wing Progressives, should work together to force real economic and social policy change. We need to understand how much the West is to blame for the hellhole of Afghanistan. We cannot simply exploit countries for the benefit of our business interests, rip the country to shreds, and then throw their children onto the scrap heap. Afghanistan has spent decades as a pawn in a game played by “adults“.

The Reagan Legacy

Ronald Reagan, in my estimation, was a nightmare. He is adored as a grandfather like figure who transformed America, whilst his equally as evil minion, Thatcher “transformed” Britain. A Corporate bitch at best, a war criminal for what he did with Guatemala at worst. Reagan once commented on Guatemala:
“President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. … I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice.”
President Rios Montt, staunch anticommunist, and funded almost entirely by the Reagan administration, was according to a Roman Catholic investigation, guilty of commanding widespread torture, rape, political murders and genocide against the indigenous population if they happened to show left wing sympathies.
Greg Grandin, a reputable historian found that:
“In Nicaragua, the U.S.-backed Contras decapitated, castrated, and otherwise mutilated civilians and foreign aid workers. Some earned a reputation for using spoons to gorge their victims eye’s out. In one raid, Contras cut the breasts of a civilian defender to pieces and ripped the flesh off the bones of another.”
Quite ironically, one of America’s most wanted terrorists, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was funded almost exclusively by the Reagan administration, whilst also given full immunity for cocaine trafficking, people trafficking and other horrific offences, purely because he didn’t really like the Soviets either.

Whilst Reagan was quite happily knowingly funding rape, death, and genocide over in Latin America; back in America he was launching an all out assault on organised labour. His Chief of Staff (ex-chairman of Merrill Lynch, and vice chairman of the New York Stock Exchange) Donald Regan helped build policy around this new Neoliberalist ideal. In 1981, air traffic controllers went on strike to demand better working conditions. 12,000 in all. When 12,000 people go on strike, ones instant reaction is that perhaps management isn’t all that great. 12,000 people are not holding the industry to ransom; the management is holding the people to ransom. Reagan didn’t see it that way. He had them all fired. As a result, management could now just replace striking workers, meaning workers didn’t dare speak out against poor working conditions. Which meant that management could do whatever the fuck they wanted. The median real wage did not grow, during the entire 1980s. But, the gap between rich and poor more than doubled, and the homeless rate was at the highest in decades. As a result of his tax cuts for the rich, the deficit reached record highs. After forcing a recession on the American public, he then managed to cut Federal low income household funds, by 84%.

What about the middle class? According to research undertaken by Wallace Peterson, author of “The Macroeconomic legacy of Reaganomics“, The middle class share of the economy in 1980 was 61.7%. In 1985, that had shrunk to 58.2%. Similarly, the poverty rate under President Carter reached a peak of 12.1% before falling to 11.9% by the end of his term in Office. Under Reagan, between 1981-1986, the poverty rate shot up to 14.7%. Unemployment under Carter started falling and finished at 7.5% by the end of his term. Between 1981-1986, under Reagan, unemployment shot up to 8.1%.
Under Obama, the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% to 9.7%, whilst U.S. Department of Commerce states that 4th quarter GDP growth went from 5.7% to 5.9%, the best rate of growth in seven years. Obama doesn’t have Fox News on his side, Reagan still does. That’s the difference.

What Reagan essentially did, with his ideal of cutting the size of government and slashing aid to those who needed it most, was to bankroll the rich, spit on the poor, create a new class of homeless people, and use this new smaller government (which in fact, had more federal employees than any government before it) to undertake the task of destroying any left wing opposition in Latin America. That was the American Government’s new mission. Constitutional? Apparently so, if you ask Republican America.

Economist Mark Weisbrot is quoted as stating that Reagan’s economic policies were “mostly a failure”. Free-market-failure-denial-sufferers, will never accept that Reagan was an utter failure. Weisbrot goes on to point out that: “The median wage was flat, and there was a massive redistribution of income, with wealth going to the top one or two percent of the population“

Was he the most popular President of the past century as some conservatives would have us believe? No. He never reached the 90% approval rating that even George W Bush and his father achieved, and Bill Clinton managed roughly the same rating during his two terms, surpassing Reagan in the second half of each of their terms.

The hysteria about the debt and stimulus across the U.S, is crippling the recovery. America needs more stimulus. As does Britain. It didn’t go far enough. What the World doesn’t need, is another Reagan or Thatcher propagating the rumour that neoliberalism is the only way out of recession, because for millions upon millions of people, it certainly isn’t. During a recession of such huge proportions, a lack of easily affordable healthcare (a universal system), lack of a safety net, and lack of foreclosure federal help, means the majority is far more at risk from financial ruin and psychological depression. One of the many reasons i’ll never vote Conservative.

Reagan’s legacy was one of homelessness, selfishness, arrogance, lack of compassion or empathy, hate, Corporate greed, death, and misery. All in the name of an economic policy disastrously known as “trickle down”. History will remember both him and Thatcher as little beacons of horror and misery. That’s all.

Obama now needs to man up, recognise that he’s President, recognise that the Democrats control Congress, and make sure the Republicans – as well as being a laughing stock for the entire World – know that they are largely irrelevant now.

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.

From Columbus to Reagan

When Christopher Columbus landed on the other side of the Atlantic, in 1492, he encountered a culture of the native population which the West would soon utterly destroy. We came to believe those populations were beneath us, and so we were doing them a favour by Westernising their lands and wiping them out. The Tainos (The natives) were not at all barbaric, or backward, or primitive, as the Europeans first thought. They invented the Canoe, the hammock, their homes were far more spacious and luxurious than the tiny European homes back home. In fact, it could be argued, that given the horrendous religious turmoil that embodied Europe over the next century; the Tainos were far more advanced socially. Columbus commented “They are very gentle and without knowledge of what is evil; nor do they murder or steal”. And yet, we still felt the need to impose our will on those people. It then follows quite neatly, that the lands Columbus is famed for discovering (Latin America) would, in less than five hundred years, be the victim of quite horrific oppression from the Nation that celebrates Columbus day; The USA.

The word “Democracy” is quite a contentious one, when used in the Western sense. It is a by-word for Capitalism.
America was a blank slate in 1776. Direct, deliberative democracy could have been imposed, in a true people’s revolution. But, the “Revolutionaries” weren’t as revolutionary as one might first believe. Much like the Monarchy they wished to free themselves from, the revolutionaries still believed that only a specific class of person was capable of governing. They didn’t believe the general public should have much say in this new “democracy“. It explains the electoral college system. Alexander Hamilton declared the people were a “great beast” desperate to be tamed. One gets the sense that they believed those who were not of the propertied class did not have a right to have a complete say over the way their lives were ruled. James Madison goes one step further and says of Democracy, if elections were “open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure” echoing the beliefs of Cicero, and Cassius, in the old Roman Republic. It is arguably, why Julius Caesar was murdered…… for giving the people more of a democratic say. Therefore, the object of democracy over the past two thousand years, has been to give added protection to the wealthy few. The protect the minority, from the majority, and therefore has created a system where the minority, control the World.

It then becomes obvious, that when George Bush managed to steal the 2000 election, winning less votes than Al Gore, but winning more of the “elite” vote, the public just didn’t care. They didn’t rebel. They didn’t question the legitimacy of their “democracy“. Of course not. And the reason they didn’t care, was because the public are fully aware that an election in the U.S.A, or England, is simply voting in a different business man.

Over here in England, the 2010 election will be run on “spending cuts“. Cuts to public spending. Cuts, quite drastically, that do not need to happen so sharply. The question of curbing business excesses, or fairer trade agreements, or closing tax loopholes for the rich will not come up, purely because those important issues negatively affect the politicians, who happen to be of that particular elite class. And so spending cuts that negatively affect the poor, is going to be the main topic of discussion, because the poor do not have any say whatsoever in the way the Country is run, they have no power, so they can be manipulated.

The Ancient Greeks noted that true democracy was a Welfare State, using public funds to ensure the basic necessities to life for every citizen, not just the elite few. Modern Democracy is far different because it assumes that if the poor start gaining wealth through a better education system, or a stronger Welfare state that allows them the chance to advance, that the poor will start to influence democracy to suit their own needs, which in turn threatens the elites, which is exactly what Madison feared when he said “the property of landed proprietors would be insecure” if the poorer classes had more of a say.

It is in this line of thought, that allows modern politicians (particularly Conservatives and Republicans) to argue for “less government“. This is me, is quite the paradox. By handing power over, from the State, from elected officials accountable to the public, into the hands of the Private market, they are by definition eroding democracy. These private powers then suddenly have the wealth and the power to influence public policy, which in itself, is not democratic, because….. and this wont shock you……. that public policy has become more and more geared toward the interests of big business.

And then when they seem to have control over our Governments, they spread, across the World, whilst the government call it “spreading freedom and democracy“. Yet, in places like Brazil, in 1964, America didn’t seem to have a problem supplying funds and training, in helping to actually overthrow the democratically elected President Goulart (who was supremely popular with the public), helping to install a new right winged regime that quickly put an end to Democracy, wiped out thousands of people, including singers, painters and anyone who showed any form of left wing mindset. The same pattern of overthrowing democratic regimes and placing harsh, violent, corrupt,yet pro-American dictators in place can be seen across the history of the 20th Century. Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala and Chile to name a few. Reagan, within eight years, didn’t seem to bothered about the Right Winged bloodbath taking place in Central America. In fact, he was shipping millions of dollars in military aid to the offending governments. 20,000 dead (according to Amnesty Int.) in Nicaragua alone.

UN-sponsored Commission for Historical Clarification, “the American training of the officer corps in counter-insurgency techniques was a key factor in the genocide…Entire Mayan villages were attacked and burned and their inhabitants were slaughtered in an effort to deny the guerillas protection.” Similarly, Reagan provided funds and training to Right winged terrorists in Colombia, which in turn gave Colombia the worst human rights record in the region. And yet, far from being labelled a war criminal, Reagan is hailed as a Conservative hero. By funding the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, he apparently created “freedom“. That “freedom” is a little wishful, given that whilst the U.S supported the right winged government of Somoza in Nicaragua, the Country had a two thirds malnutrition rate for children under five, whilst nine out of ten homes had unsafe drinking water, with the UN estimating that 60% of the population, under right winged rule, lived in dire poverty. If anything, it proves to me, that Reagan, and in fact, every President in the history of America has never been concerned with human rights, or horrendous suffering, and been more concerned with it’s own economic superiority. When you have to kill, and create an environment where genocide is taking place, one cannot seriously claim to have created “freedom” or “democracy“.

At the same time as evil dictators were being placed in charge of Latin American Countries by America; Britain’s equally as shameful Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher said “We support the United States’ aim to promote peaceful change, democracy and economic development”. One wonders what that “economic development” actually entailed given that after Reagan interfered with Guatemala, (according to the Inter-American development bank) by 1990 the per-capita income had fallen to below it’s 1971 levels. Is that economic development? No. Reagan should have spent his final years in prison.

Whilst James Madison quite openly admitted he didn’t want the poorer population to have much of a say in the democratic process; Ronald Reagan simply helped to destroy any poor people who might want a say in the democratic process. By freeing up the Country to the elites, he then labeled it “freedom” and “democracy“. It’s a strange old, American-owned World. From Columbus, to Obama, nothing much has changed. Democracy has not, and will never exist, without the public turning it’s attention away from it’s ridiculous obsession with consumerism, and onto what actually matters; the unjustifiable nature, of who controls the World.

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 Conservative smoke screen

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, was correct when he referred to David Cameron as the biggest conman in British Politics. Cameron, along with Osbourne are a complete disaster. They have said nothing of substance….ever. They are merely riding the tidal wave of anti-Gordon Brown sentiment. They don’t need to say a word, they are destined to become the next PM and Chancellor of Britain. They are Friedmanites in ideology, but why don’t they say so? I’d suggest it’s because people weren’t that keen on Milton Friedman’s experiment here in Britain in the 1980s, and they aren’t likely to have forgotten the misery it caused.

Watching shadow Chancellor George Osbourne on Sky News (which is apparently trying to take over the World at the minute….. unsurprising, given that it’s run by Murdoch) talk about the Country being in financial ruin, whilst stood on the steps of his Notting Hill home, was a little bit cheeky to say the very least. The Conservatives, are certainly up to their old, regular tricks.

What they have rather cleverly managed to achieve, bewilders me, and destroys what little faith I have left in the British public. They have managed to turn the debate toward public spending cuts. The public are now engrossed in talk of public spending cuts, as if it’s going to be the saviour of Britain. One thing is for certain, without investment over the past year in public services, by the Government and opposed by the Tories, we’d be in much deeper mess than we are now.

Now, they don’t ever mention that public spending cuts should only come when the economy improves and we can afford to cut the deficit a little, so as to keep as many in work as possible; the way the Tories speak of spending cuts is in the context of the tough times we’re in today, as if spending needs to be cut immediately! Which, it doesn’t. They are no different. Fight for the Country, put your life on the line when war rears it’s ugly head…..and then work for next to nothing (they opposed the minimum wage) when you return.

It is interesting that they’ve taken this route, but it’s an illusion. It is simply a smoke screen to take our minds off the real problem. The system of economics that the Tories themselves brought into the Country in 1979, failed miserably. Yet they cling to it. They’re anti-Brown, when the Country is anti-Brown, they’re climate change progressives when the Country is climate change progressive, they then hide behind manipulative terms like “progressive Conservatives“, suggesting they are capable of changing their colours. They aren’t capable of changing their colours. How did we get to spending cuts? The real issue is the economic structure. Deregulated, free for all, Capitalism does not work. It failed. It is no surprise that the financial crises we now find ourselves in, came directly from the two epicentres of the neo-liberalist agenda of the 80s; America and Britain. They instilled into the minds of a generation the idea that we must all strive to own our own home by any means necessary. Fast forward thirty years, and the sub-prime market melts down horrifically. It allowed banks to inflate beyond destruction, steal, bribe, corrupt their way through life, and then it brought the entire World down with it. You can be thrown in jail for robbing money, on any street in the World…..apart from Wall Street. The Thatcherite revolution destroyed the power of the unions, yet masturbated the egos and gave power to arguably a bigger threat than the unions….big business and the financial sector. The Thatcher era, lead into the Blair era, which will lead into the Cameron era. There is no real change. It’s the the same tired message. Cameron will not address this. He will carry on, and we’ll hit another financial crises when the next deregulated financial bubble of unsustainable growth bursts. Neo-liberalism, whilst cloaked in manipulative language such as “freedom” is merely the horrendous suggestion that a stable economy is built on immense debt and excessive risk taking.

The Tories have made the wrong call on pretty much everything, since this crises began. They opposed the stimulus. They opposed the bank bailouts. They opposed further regulation of the utterly immoral financial sector. In fact, in early 2007, the produced a report that called for the TOTAL deregulation of the financial sector, which means sub prime would be the least of our problems. They are just a nightmare of a party. They are the problem, not the solution. The idea that regulations that exist to protect consumers against con tricks like sub prime, should be rolled back to allow the free market to flourish, is a Conservative/Republican ideology, an epic failure of an ideology. The idea that markets will deliver respectable services, when unhindered, is simply ridiculous. With the regulations pulled back, the corrupt banks were able to look to short term gain, without assessing the risk of long term Global meltdown. Sub Prime was a scam, the epitome of the heartless unhindered greed of a Conservative ideology, that failed miserably.

It follows then, that those who support the Conservative ideology of less government intervention (I have little faith in government, but I have far more faith in government, than in the private sector) would support Matt Ridley’s ideal, that less government intervention in the financial sector is preferable to sustain a healthy financial industry. That Socialism is a great evil. Of course, Matt Ridley was on the board of Northern Rock when it collapsed, due to it’s ridiculously over risky business model, unethical with it’s saver’s money, leading to Socialism bailing it out (which Ridley didn’t seem to complain about).

Why are we complaining about Government? The market placed failed. And why isn’t Gordon Brown (who is hugely responsible for this mess) saying “okay, I made a mistake, I followed on where Conservatism left off, and it failed, miserably. Time to do it the right way!“?
The Conservatives aren’t offering anything different, the Conservatives are being Conservatives. This is what they do. Tax cuts for the rich, public service cuts, and lack of support for those struggling the most. It’s an ideal time to be a Tory.

I guarantee nothing will change. Banks will go back to excessive risk taking (worse than before, given the roll backs in regulations likely to come from the next Tory government), another bubble will appear, there will be widespread misery, job loss, suicide rates will shoot up, homes repossessed, but those at the top will enjoy greater wealth than ever before, and the bubble and will eventually burst, in 20+ years time, and we will be faced with another round of Socialism having to bail out the miserable failure of Capitalism. They have simply been incredibly clever in turning the debate away from the failures of free market capitalism (I haven’t heard Cameron mention anything like closing Corporate tax loopholes), and onto the role and financing of the public sector.

To sum up, I wont be voting Conservative, ever!

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

Ignore reality, buy this car instead!!!

I have walked 7422 steps today. I don’t know if that’s good or not. Is it enough to qualify as a new age Lewis and Clark, rolled into one; if so, will a statue be made of me any time soon? Or, is it that 7422 steps is actually disastrously lazy? Either way, today I know that have walked exactly 7422 steps. Do you know how I know that? Because my mobile phone told me. Quite why I’d need a phone to tell me how lazy I am, is beyond me. I’m expecting the next generation of kettle to tell me how bald i’m looking these days. Just to really rub salt into the gaping wound. My next pillow case to say “get your dirty little face off of me” next time I lay down. My can of deodorant to whisper majestically “my my, someone has put on a bit of weight this week“, whilst the McDonalds advert on the TV encourages me to enrich my life with it’s own personal brand of heart disease.

It isn’t the most pointless gadget that our generation of out of control turbo consumers have, well, consumed. Half the planet (mainly the West) is overrun with useless shit, all designed to take our minds off of what actually matters. Why care that the death toll in the War in Darfur is up to 200,000 with millions more displaced, when you can have THIS BRAND NEW BENTLEY!! OOOOOO. That’s right! Stop caring! Be a consumer instead! Define yourself by what you own! The thieves in suits wondrous Corporations that run your lives depend on your total acquiescence to their utter, utter bullshit.

Speaking of Bentley’s, and pretentious arseholes, a man entered my place of work today, and proceeded to tell me a story about a wedding he’d attended recently. He placed his copy of Esquire (a magazine that may as well say “hey, you’re a business man right? Well here’s the thing, you’re amazing, go look at yourself in the mirror, you’re beautiful, look at those shoes!! You’re better than everyone else, go spit on a tramp, you beautiful beautiful powerful man you!“) to one side and started with his useless story. Try to spot the moment where I had to restrain myself from saying “can I stop you there……. I’m contemplating the notion, that you may have got me mixed up with someone who actually cares about your sheltered, miserable, pointless existence, you fucking oxygen thief“…..
“So, I was wondering what to wear, and I put on a cheap sui……no wait, that’s a lie, I don’t own any cheap suits, my suits are all designer, the cheapest I have cost just under £2000“.
Did you spot it? Did you? I’ll give you a hint, it was the entire macabre sentence. I couldn’t care less about his expensive suits. Even if I got out of bed an hour early, with the express intention of spending that hour… caring less, I still couldn’t care any less than I do right now.
If he’d have told me he is an struggling artist, or a confessional poet, or a popular Italian Tenor, or a composer, or a Photographer trying to make his name, I may have been impressed. But telling me your suits are expensive, when to me, all suits look the same, and everyone who wears suits, look like little unimpressive, masterfully useless braindead robots, is just asking to be ignored.

We’re the generation that relentlessly and rather pathetically relies on Corporations to get us through life. We have a deflated and vanishing sense of our own spirituality by the time we leave school, because our lives become a nightmare of consumerism and vanity. The two, and linked beautifully. We don’t have time to understand ourselves on a deeper level, because we’re convinced to keep to the superficial level, the surface. We constantly want more. More of everything. There isn’t a goal, there isn’t an end in sight, it’s just more, of more. And we inevitably, end up (despite how important we may feel in our new Bentley and expensive suits) indescribably weak minded, cut off from reality (I mean REAL reality, not the kind that Neo-Liberalism has carved up for us), and trying to impress the World with how much we have.

The bubble of course, burst in late 2007. Northern Rock plummeted, after offering over 100% mortgages. The Sub Prime nightmare, the very essence of turbo consumption, the pinnacle of greed and short term profit, the child of Reagan and Thatcher’s legacy of utter bullshit and deregulation of the financial sector, proved to be the last gasp of hot air to be pumped into the bubble before it inevitably exploded. Of course, those with free-market-failure-denial will always refuse to accept that their ideals, are wrong. They’ll blame government interference some how. But the rest of us, who don’t live on a different Planet, are left struggling worse than ever. But, quite amusingly, we’re still encouraged to consume. We define ourselves by what coffee house we drink at, or where we buy our clothes, or what our phone can do. We ignored gravity. The higher the bubble rose, the more we consumed. The bubble kept rising, our houses were worth more and more and it excited us. We no longer view a house as somewhere to live. Instead, it’s a commodity. We see it as a £ sign. Suddenly, we’re judging each other on what we own. We’re all addicted to consuming. Which is why we THINK we’re in some huge crises now. Because we had to stop spending, when credit dried up. We went from having far too much, to very little, in an incredibly short space of time. The bubble, with us assuming we were securely inside it, burst, and we fell to Earth with a smash. We REALLY need to sort out our priorities.

Whilst I blame the Wolves in suits, who seem to think they’re above the rest of Humanity, with the swagger of arrogance where ever they walk, with the sound of vanity in their miserable voices the moment they open their mouths to talk about, let’s face it, materialism; I also blame us. We consumed because it was easy. We consumed because we’re easily manipulated. We consumed because we’re horribly vain, and we’ve been taught that we’re competitive by nature (we’ve been taught it! We didn’t inherit competitiveness), so we try to out-do one another by what we can afford to consume. We don’t like that everyone else seems to own more. We don’t care if they KNOW more, we care what they own. We don’t care how beautifully creative someone else is, how they can use their mind to create stunning works of art or literature or music, we’re more interested in their wallet. And that desire to consume MORE than others, has lead to an industry meticulously destroying the planet (Carbon emissions hit an all time high in 2008), exploit as many people as possible without it actually being called what it is; slavery. But it’s okay, because it’s “freedom”….. fuck right off! I can’t afford to be free. Nor can 99% of the planet.

According to his book “All Consuming”, Neal Lawson states that in 1979, 32 million people used British airports for travel. In 2004, the figure was 216 million. That of those 216 million, 96% were from richer backgrounds, socio-economic groups A, B and C1. Whether it’s flying on business, or to New York for a shopping trip, it cannot be justified. But it wont stop. It does not matter how many economic bubbles burst, we’re now stuck, in this frenzy of turbo consumerism. It is now who we are. It is the 21st Century, and probably beyond. Does this sort of manic life of over consumption make us happy? Are we now happier than ever before? No. That’s the simple, and yet deepest answer possible. We hate it. We hate our jobs. We hate that we don’t have what our neighbour has. We hate that we can’t afford more. We’re much more miserable. So, that’s miserable, poor, and ignorant. So far so good!

We have somehow, come to the conclusion that it’s okay for Primark to exploit children (but we go absolutely crazy, when we hear Baby P style stories) and that it’s perfectly acceptable for Coca Cola to poison the water supply of local villages in India. As long as we don’t hear about it. It doesn’t surprise me. Consumerism has taught us to ignore. Ignore ourselves. Ignore the real World. Ignore injustice. Ignore ruthless cunts stripping away the individuality of a generation of telephone answering Admins and Tesco till girls. Ignore the shit that other ACTUAL HUMANS have to go through, so you and I can spend as little of our borrowed money as possible. Whilst it now costs more to consume ethical products (recession is a lovely way to act less ethically when we shop, and a big incentive for amoral corporate cunts bosses to exploit at will), perhaps instead of turning to less ethical but cheaper named brands to satisfy our next hit of the consumer drug, we should just buy less! According to Labourbehindthelabel.org….
“Workers at factories supplying these retailers told researchers of working weeks as high as 90 hours, overtime unpaid, wages so low that families are malnourished, and strong resistance to any attempts at worker organising. At the same time suppliers revealed how the supermarkets are cranking up the pressure to deliver faster and produce cheaper – a model that makes a mockery of the social commitments made by these companies. “
I’m not entirely sure how any human being, with a heart, can possibly justify this. The West demands that this kind of horrific treatment of actual human beings continues, because we demand cheaper goods, an abundance of cheap shit that ultimately we don’t need. Those people are being meticulously mistreated, for ultimately no reason whatsoever. It makes honestly no sense to my DIRTY SOCIALIST head.

These idiots exploit humanity, destroy the planet, rape resources, and profit from war…. and then THEY have the balls to complain that they’re being taxed too much to fund a safety net for those less fortunate? I’m not the fucking immoral disgrace of a human being out of us two!

And to top it off nicely, America apparently now does not want to let poor people have access to health care. It’s a funny ole selfish World we live in. And it’s getting worse. We’re all mindless drones, committed to the chase for more; a chase with no fulfilled finish line, just endless anguish that we don’t have enough.

Still, 7422 steps!!! Go team Jamie!

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?