Racism in America: Today

When the United States was beginning to form, there was a hierarchy of oppression that kept everyone subservient to someone above them. The King of England demanded goods from the Jamestown white elite who exploited and controlled the white frontiersman who, in order to appease the elite with money and land, slaughtered Indigenous people and brutalized African slaves. Many whites joined Indigenous and African rebellions. The white elite worked to stop this because they knew such an alliance would become too powerful and would succeed at overthrowing the control that the elite and the King had. So in order to separate the whites from everyone else, they started giving more privileges (land and better treatment) to the white servants. This worked. The working class whites effectively abandoned the movements for change and to this day these groups have problems working together.
- Howard Zinn, 1980.

46% of American Republicans in the State of Mississippi believe that interracial marriage should be illegal. I will elaborate on and explain this later.

After my blog on the racism of Abraham Lincoln, I wondered whether race is still a divisive issue today as it has always been, in America. In the UK, race is still an issue, though it is far more subtle and much less noticeable, but it exists nonetheless. There isn’t this notion of white supremacy, nor do we have the history of the “founders” being slave owners or massive racial segregation up until very recently. We don’t have a KKK equivalent and we didn’t fight a civil war to protect the rights of States to own slaves. Race is certainly a problem in the UK though. We tend to become far more Nationalist during times of economic hardship and the need to blame immigrants or anyone who doesn’t happen to fit the narrow band of what it means to be “British” becomes an almost accepted narrative. Political parties push immigration reform to the top of their agendas, giving credit to such racial tension. Race is used as a divisive mechanism to subvert attention away from a failing class system.

Here in the UK, with talk of economic austerity, it was only a matter of time before the issue of race was introduced into the equation. We know that poorer areas like inner city Liverpool, Manchester, and Hackney are going to face the toughest council cuts. Low socio-economic areas are predominantly mixed race or black and Asian. So it was only a matter of time before David Cameron would bring race into the mix. He then suddenly made a speech against multiculturalism, in which he mentions the words “islam” and “muslim” 36 times, and “Christianity” once. Race is yet again being used as a divisive wedge.

Back to the USA, and the 19th Century, before the Civil War. It has long been argued by the rather hermetic Southern America that the Civil war was a war between the States (the South) and the big bad Federal Government (the North). Yes. The States rights to own and perpetuate slavery. The charge against a big bad Federal Government invading the lives of its citizens does not hold up when you look at the evidence, and is actually rather rudimentary.

The American lawyer and journalist William Walker, in 1854, after a failed attempt to set up a Republic of Sonora in Mexico, with the intention of it becoming a State of the Union; invaded Nicaragua for control of a vital trade route between New York and San Francisco. He succeeded in his efforts, and took control of Nicaragua, renaming it “Walkeragua” (seriously, i’m not making this up). In 1856, President Franklin Pierce, officially recognised Walker’s regime in Walkeragua as legitimate. His regime began to Americanise Walkeragua, by instating slavery, using American currency, and making English the official language. He advertised his new Country to American Southern businessmen by advertising the fact that his new quasi-State was pro-slavery and would remain so. By the time Walker revoked Nicaragua’s 1824 Emancipation Act, the rest of Latin America took note, and invaded. He fled and was bought back to the U.S where he was welcomed as a hero of the South. As “States rights” go, invading another sovereign nation and revoking its anti-slavery laws, is about as big and as bad as a Federal Government can get. He died before the Civil War kicked off, but the South referred to him throughout the Civil War as “General Walker“. The South did not just fight to preserve the institution of slavery, they wanted to expand it, on a grand scale, to the point where Senator John Crittenden of Kentucky proposed that the 36°30′ parallel north be a line that separates the northern free states, and the southern slave states, all the way down to the tip of South America. American racism has always been rife.

In 2011, membership of white supremacist organisations has increased tremendously. According the the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks white supremacist organisations in the US, the number of members is up by 48% since 2000. Jeff Schoep, head of the National Socialist Movement (the Nazi Movement) in America, who the FBI classify as terrorists, said:

“The immigration issue is the biggest problem we’re facing because it’s changing the face of our country. We see stuff in England and Spain like this. … They are turning those countries into a Third World ghetto.”

Well, I live in England, and he’s right!!! Here is the River Thames in Central London a few years back:

Here is the River Thames in Central London today:

Sad times.

The largest white supremacist group in America; Stormfront have a website with a forum, which includes systematic attacks on white jewish people. They appear to use “Jew” as a term of race. White, black, Jew. On a discussion about the economic crises, a member called “Crowstorm” whose nationality he has set as “Jewnited States of America” says this:

The problem is, Jews look White so when people see a Jew do evil, they don’t say “look at the evil Jew”… no, they say “look at that evil White man.

- It is an odd statement to make for a variety of reasons. First, a Jewish person is not the colour “Jewish“. It isn’t white, black, jew. If he’s a white man and Jewish, then he’s a white Jew. Jewish is not a race. But not just that, but race itself is not biological. It doesn’t exist. It is a fantasy. An abstraction. Like Nationality and Religion. All man made abstractions, meaningless nothingness used to create tension between low socio-economic groups to ensure disunity. If poor white people are blaming poor black people for all the trouble in New Orleans after Katrina hit, then their attention is on each other, and not on the very rich folk in Washington (both white and black) who washed their hands of the plight of anyone who isn’t a very wealthy lobbyist decades ago. And lastly, no one says “look at the evil white man”, because for the vast majority of people, race isn’t an issue; if you’re evil, I don’t care what colour you are.

Another quite extraordinary post on Stormfront was from a school teacher who taught apparently in black schools. Here are some of the quotes from it:

I was away about two minutes but when I got back, the black girls had lined up at the front of the classroom and were convulsing to the delight of the boys.

Many black people, especially women, are enormously fat.

Blacks, on average, are the most directly critical people I have ever met: “Dat shirt stupid. Yo’ kid a bastard. Yo’ lips big.” Unlike whites, who tread gingerly around the subject of race, they can be brutally to the point.

When a black wants to ask, “Where is the bathroom?” he may actually say “Whar da badroom be?”

Many black girls are perfectly happy to be welfare queens.

There is something else that is striking about blacks. They seem to have no sense of romance, of falling in love.

Pregnancy was common among the blacks, though many black girls were so fat I could not tell the difference.

My white students came back with generally “conservative” ideas. “We need to cut off people who don’t work,” was the most common suggestion. Nearly every black gave a variation on the theme of “We need more government services.” One black girl was exhorting the class on the need for more social services and I kept trying to explain that people, real live people, are taxed for the money to pay for those services. “Yeah, it come from whites,” she finally said. “They stingy anyway.”

It is impossible to get them to care about such abstractions as property rights or democratic citizenship.

- The “teacher” goes on to say he doesn’t understand why his black students think he his a racist. Surely it isn’t racist to think that black students are inherently lazy, fat, illiterate, racist, anti-democratic, communist sluts who just don’t understand why being indoctrinated in Conservative ideology is a wonderful learning experience and are incapable of love?

The days of burning crosses and wearing silly costumes are over. White supremacists tend now to fight their cause with mainstream language like “We just want to protect our children and live in a safe environment“, the language is manipulative because they are simply masking the fact that they blame anyone with slightly darken skin for why their neighborhood isn’t safe.

A study by the American economic review between July 2001 and May 2002 entitled “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” , found that job applicants with a white sounding name are 50% more likely to be asked back than an applicant with a white sounding name. The researches sent out 5000 applications in sales, marketing, clerical and customer service positions. The names they used were a mix of white sounding names, and black sounding names. The report showed that white applicants with stronger resumes than other white applicants received 30% more callbacks, whereas black applicants with stronger resumes than other black applicants received just 9% more callbacks. It proved that regardless of credentials, black applicants were 50% less likely to get a callback than a white applicant.

Institutional racism is particularly subtle, and so less noticeable. If you are black, you are three times more likely to be pulled over in your car and searched for drugs than if you’re white, despite the fact that if you’re white, on the few occasions when you are pulled over you are four times more likely to have drugs on you. If you are white and you drive past the police without them pulling you over, you are experiencing the privilege of being white. The war on drugs then, is not a war on drugs, if it were, those statistics would be a hell of a lot different. The war on drugs would go where the drugs actually are, not where the people with dark skin are. It is a racist institution.

Christopher Columbus is hailed as the founder of America. He has a day named after him. It is not taught in any history class at American schools the true horror that started the day that Columbus found an island in the Lucayan Archipelago in the Bahamas that he named San Salvador, though it was actually already named, by the population who lived there, as Guanahani. Within years, Spanish adventurers had captured thousands of the native Taino population, enslaved them, and took their women captive as wives/sex slaves. The Spanish had utterly devastated the Taino population by the turn of the 16th Century. Epidemic disease brought by the Europeans was bad enough, but the Spanish settlers placed too much strain on local crop farmers, and the survival of the Spanish was considered more important than the survival of the Taino’s and so the food naturally ended up in the hands of the Spanish. Columbus when he landed, wrote of the natives:

“We can send from here, in the name of the Holy Trinity, all the slaves and Brazil wood which could be sold.”

- We know what he had planned. Nicolas Ovando, the governor of the Indies from 1501 to 1509, decided he needed to ensure the Taino’s knew their place once and for all. He did this by inviting the much loved Taino queen Anacoana and local tribal chiefs to a dinner to celebrate his governorship. When they were all in the room, the Spaniards set it on fire, killing most of those inside. The ones who got out, were tortured for days on end and then killed. Queen Anacoana was tortured and hung. By 1510, the Taino’s were virtually extinct.

To be honest, there really isn’t much you can celebrate about Columbus. Apart from bringing with him the biggest genocide in history, he was a rather simple man. He believed Cuba was in Asia, that he hadn’t discovered a new land, that the entire continent of South America was an Island, and to pay his debt to the Spanish crown he raped his way across Central America taking as many as 1200 women and children slaves for Europe; children who had, without a second thought, been stripped away from their families. But don’t take my word for, take it from the man himself:

“We shall take you and your wives, and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault .”

I cannot think of a worse man to idolise.

Back to the present day, as if Stormfront and institutional racism and selective history aren’t enough to convince a person that racism is deeply ingrained in the American psyche, certain lovely little advertisements have deep racist connotations, still.

Aunt Jemima, a trademark for breakfast food owned by Quaker Oats is still going today. Aunt Jemima represents the notion of a good little black ex-slave girl who just loves her servile role as servant to a white middle class consumer.

Equally as subtle, is Uncle Ben’s rice. It would be ridiculous for a company now, to have as its fictional spokesperson, a black man using the name “Uncle” which was a term used by the children of white slave owners to refer to their slaves. If a newly formed rice company were to say “Well, you know that we white people used to ship Africans in to farm our rice fields, as slaves? Well why don’t we make our spokesmen black?” they would be lambasted as a hugely racist company. But Uncle Ben is a tradition, and so it appears acceptable, though the stereotype behind it perpetuates the racist sentiments it subtly encourages. This kind of subtle cultural racism has not gone unnoticed. In an episode of the Sopranos (the greatest show on TV) Tony warns a black guy away from his daughter. Tony then has an anxiety attack when he sees a packet of Uncle Ben’s.

Public Policy Polling of Raleigh North Carolina, found that 46% of Republican voters in Mississippi think interracial marriage should be illegal. 14% said they weren’t sure. I cannot comprehend that number. It does indeed show that race is an issue, and especially with Republican voters. There is still the essence that the white race is superior and should be protected. This sentiment has found its outlet with the Tea Party movement of recent months. Whilst Glenn Beck spews his bullshit, insisting on top rated “news” channel that Obama has a deep seated hatred for the white race, his equally as vacant and mind numbingly moronic viewers stalk the streets with signs like this:

And this:

And this:

And this:

And this:

Now I wouldn’t immediately jump to the conclusion that the Tea Party is an inherently racist organisation, it is mainly a vehicle to promote the incoherent ramblings of an uneducated economically far right puritanical Republican group wholly run by Corporate America to advance its interest at the behest of even the idiots who indirectly fight for the rights of Corporate America, now slowly morphed to include racism as part of their base.

It is sad to see notion of race being such an issue in 21st Century America. One would have hoped that the social wedge of racism, placed to draw attention away from class and a deeply unequal wealth system would have crumbled away, or intellectually and politically dismembered for the disease that it is. Race is not real. Class is.

Racism in America: Lincoln

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 brought with it the utopic notion that racism in the United States of America was over. I certainly do not the doubt the momentous appointment of an African American man to the office of President of a country that was built on racial genocide and slavery. A country that less than a century ago, during the life time of my grandparents, did not allow a white child to attend the same school as a black child simply on the basis of race. The elevation of a black man to the highest office in American politics is symbolically another step on the road to tackling the evils of racism.

This blog isn’t meant as an analysis of Obama. He is essentially part of an establishment that favours financial institutions, oil companies and private health insurers above the lives of the less wealthy, and panders to the apparently widespread American belief that the very wealthy deserve massive tax cuts at the behest of the most vulnerable. He is no different in that respect regardless of his skin colour.

I wanted instead to focus on the beliefs of America’s 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, and his complex and often contradictory approach to slavery. Like Jefferson before him, it is almost impossible to figure out where Lincoln stood on the issue, and conflicting books are widespread. Lincoln’s party politics and his true beliefs seem to be confused much of the time, and yet history tends to stick entirely to his party politics regardless of the motives. I wanted to explore those motives more in depth.

Yesterday I went along to see an hour long lecture by Professor Richard Carwardin, the President of Corpus Christi College Oxford and winner of the Lincoln Prize for his book “Lincoln: A life of purpose and power“, a favourite of George W.Bush. Obviously there is a very limited and narrow version of Lincoln’s life one can present in just an hour, but Carwardin alluded to Lincoln as a great emancipator, as if he had been way a head of his time and the progressive champion for the freedom of black slaves, willing to fight a war for its eradication.
I would argue differently.

Lincoln wasn’t happy with the fact that slavery had become an issue by the time he took office. Lincoln told the esteemed journalist Henry Villard;

“I will be damned if I don’t feel almost sorry for being elected when the niggers is the first thing I have to attend to.”

Lincoln was not prepared to go to war for the abolition of slavery in itself. He had agreed to back an amendment to the Constitution, penned by the Representative from Ohio, Thomas Corwin, that would have made it Unconstitutional for Congress to amend rules or abolish slavery. Lincoln backed it.
The Corwin amendment read:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State

In his inaugural address, Lincoln referenced the proposed amendment, stating:

“Holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Interestingly, the amendment passed Congress by the two-thirds majority needed, but was never fully ratified in the State legislatures, and is still up for ratification, as it was never thrown out. If it had been fully ratified, one must wonder just how different the U.S would look today. The fact remains though that up until the outbreak of Civil War, Abraham Lincoln supported a Constitutional Amendment rendering it impossible to abolish the institution of slavery.

The worry from the Republican Party of the Lincoln years, was not so much the moral implications of ethical dilemma of the owning of slave labour, but the economic problems it creates. They worried that slave labour merely worked to undermine wages of the poor white working classes, and just created a new dominant class known as “Slave Power”. They worried that the Slave owning classes in the South were just violent and expansionist people with a goal of Empire. This paranoia wasn’t without merit, but it was borne out of the relatively new Nation’s deep suspicion of Empire and too much power. Lincoln charged that the Southern Democrats and slave owning classes were out to take over Cuba and the war on Mexico seemed to confirm those suspicions. The Civil War Confederate cry of “States rights!!” was simply the right for the very wealthy land owners in the South to keep and abuse people with darker skin, and the right to centralise power within very few hands. Only the free States were fighting for States rights.

Lincoln’s famous signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. It is doubtful whether the proclamation actually freed any slaves whatsoever. Depending on your source, it was either the greatest achievement of the short Presidency of Lincoln, or it was useless. No one really knows. One thing is for sure, Lincoln signed the proclamation as a further attack on the South (rightfully so). In September 1862, he demanded they return to the Union or he would free their slaves. Not “and i’ll free your slave“. It’s an ultimatum. If you rejoin the USA, you get to keep your slaves… if you don’t, we’re freeing them. He is more concerned here with preserving the Union – an abstract concept – than ending slavery. The Proclamation not only didn’t free slaves in the Confederacy, it didn’t free slaves in the slave holding States in the Union – Kentucky and Maryland.

The Proclamation looked good for Lincoln, as it put real pressure on the Confederacy. France and Britain were very anti-slavery, and he needed support and recognition of the legitimacy of the USA in a war that at the time, no one knew which way it might go. With the support of France and Britain, and so legitimacy, it helped Lincolns case. It was similar in a way, to how old European powers gained legitimacy. When Henry Tudor took the Kingship away from Richard III, he was a nobody on the European stage and England was at civil war, much like America. Tudor needed an air of legitimacy, so he married Elizabeth of York; she happened to be the niece of Richard, and daughter of King Edward IV. This was the legitimacy Henry required, and won. He rather secured himself, by marrying his son – Arthur – off to the daughter – Catherine of Aragon – of the most powerful family in Europe; the King and Queen of Spain. The marriages and alliances were all about protecting himself, and securing his throne, not about love nor about the wellbeing of his Kingdom. Lincoln signed the Emancipation declaration, to protect his Throne by winning the support of the English and the French. Up until the Proclamation was signed, it seemed Britain was on the side of the Confederacy, having been involved in the provision of the British made warships the CSS Alabama and the CSS Florida.

Lincoln knew the Proclamation, which freed black slaves in Confederate States that fell to the Union forces, would compel black slaves and freed slaves to help the Union armies. He stressed in a letter to his friend James C. Conkling:

“I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union.”

The freedom of the slaves with the passing of the 13th Amendment was a tiny ripple in the water. Saying to a group of people who have had no access to education, to family ties, to survival, to anything other than a system that treated them as less than human for so long, that they are now “free”, is worthless. It is not freedom. It would take another 100 years before the real reforms were introduced. Lincoln was not a head of his time. The abolitionists were calling for equality, not just the ending of slavery. Economically, black Americans would be held down for more than a century in place of White privilege. Lincoln may have given them freedom, but he certainly did not give them anything anywhere near equality, and he knew it.

Even the banning of slavery expanding into new territories was a rather obscure policy that was not designed for the sake of the wellbeing of black Americans, rather it was an attempt to keep black people from being shipped to America full stop. It was a white supremacist policy that today would be deplored as vicious and racist. Lincoln, when talking about the banning of slavery expanding to new territories stated that he did not want the United States:

…….to become an asylum for slavery and niggers

The expansion into the West was an opportunity to spread the white race for Lincoln, who had no desire to see black people live there, stating in 1858 in Illinois, that:

in favor of our new territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home … as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over.

Lincoln was therefore using race as an unnecessary social divide. Race had only really became an issue, during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Up until then, nobody really cared what race you were. White slaves existed in the Colonies way before black slaves. The worry was that they would join hands and rise up, so race was used to divide them. Tell a poor white slave that he is more important in God’s eyes than a poor black slave, and suddenly there is no chance they will rise up together and overthrow the economic powers that hold them both down.

In 1853, Lincoln backed the Illinois State law that banned freed black people from moving to Illinois. They weren’t so free afterall. Lincoln it seems, was obsessed with the division of black and white, and even Mexicans, whom he referred to, out of the blue, for no reason, as:

“most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white.”

He was a power obsessed, white supremacist.

The great emancipators in the Congress and the abolitionist leaders who pressured and pressured for Lincoln to keep to his line on abolition. Thaddeus Stevens, in the House of Representatives, and Chairman of the Ways and Means committee was a committed Abolitionist. This man was ahead of his time. He helped runaway slaves escape to Canada. He protected the rights of Jewish and Chinese Americans and he defended the rights of Native Americans. Stevens was a hero of the Civil War era and should be remembered as such, far above Lincoln. But one man stood out as great, even beyond that of Thaddeus Stevens, and that man was Charles Sumner, the Senator from Massachusetts.

Charles Sumner absolutely hated the institution of slavery. As did his father before him. He argued that freeing the slaves would achieve nothing, unless it was accompanied by a raft of legislation promoting equal rights both politically and economically. This was 100 years before equal rights began to take shape. He is responsible for one of my favourite quotes from history, that I tend to live by when shaping my political thoughts:

“The Utopias of one age have been the realities of the next.”

Sumner argued in a court case, that segregation was an abomination. The year was 1848. The case was Roberts VS Boston. It lead to the ban on segregation on the basis of race in all public schools in Massachusetts. It was over 100 years before the rest of the country would catch up.

Sumner’s extraordinary career taught me that it is okay to think radically, even if the rest of your contemporaries think that you are an idealist living in a dream land. The contemporary Senators did not like Sumner for his radical ideas on racial integration and equality, one Senator suggested that Sumner was unimportant and should be ignored:

“The ravings of a maniac may sometimes be dangerous, but the barking of a puppy never did any harm.”

It is a myth that Lincoln was a great emancipator and forward thinker and it is a great injustice that men like Charles Sumner go unrecognised and ignored by history.
Sumner’s face should be on Mount Rushmore. Not Lincoln’s.

Anyway, as Sumner argued, The Proclamation was meaningless, the 13th Amendment was the result of much pressure put on the administration. Lincoln himself once remarked quite tellingly:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

He stresses exactly why he felt compelled to free the slaves. It was not on grounds of compassion or freedom or respect for the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, far from it, he did it for the sake of his own power:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

Abraham Lincoln was not a great emancipator. Nor was he one of the great forward thinking abolitionists of the time. He was a racist and a white supremacist who put his own position and power above that of the rights of a group of people who had different coloured skin. It is quite extraordinary that history teaches us that President Lincoln was one of the great Presidents who ended the horrific institution of slavery. The reality is far more ambiguous. It is much like the celebrating of Columbus day as a great day in American history, when in fact it simply marked the beginnings of a mass genocide. History should be taught with equal weight to both interpretations, if the subject is as ambiguous as that of President Lincoln and the question of slavery.

The power of rhetoric

When I was a toddler, I decided normal human words were not good enough, and so I invented my own words, for reasons I am unable to provide an adequate reason for. The remote control for the TV, I referred to as an ‘Ah Ah Ah’. My dad still calls it that. A spider, was a buru. And Santa, was Ge-a. I do not understand what made me see a spider, and say “Oh, there’s a buru.” It isn’t even like I attempted to say spider, and got it wrong. Buru sounds nothing like spider. There is no species of spider called a Buru. In fact, Buru is a tiny island in the Maluku Province of Indonesia.

In my defence, I was creating my own language. I didn’t need your English bullshit language, in which the plural of house is houses but the plural of mouse isn’t mouses. I wonder, how far would I have gone, had I not been taught English as soon as I started school? Would I have came up with my own vocabulary? Would I have came up with my own words, for situations that even the English language doesn’t have words for? I would absolutely love a word for the fact that the only door in the history of the World that doesn’t have a top or a bottom, is a door to a public toilet cubicle; the one door you want a top and bottom to exist, through fear that a friend might appear over the top, with a Phone camera, and ending in you having to close your facebook account. Surely that situation is enough to warrant a word? I would have came up with a name for that situation, had I been able to develop my own language.

Instead, I would just make my dad sing ‘heartbeat’ from behind the door, whilst he held my baby sister above the door, so it looked like she was really tall and singing. I was 2. Apparently, I found it fucking hilarious.

I was awesome.

Anyway, the point of this blog is the power of the spoken word. The Greeks and the Romans knew exactly how important it was. It was a tool used by the political and religious classes, to manipulate the population into doing exactly what they wanted. Cicero perfected the art of rhetoric. The three main devices used by the Orator, are pathos, logos and ethos. They are all features of manipulation. Pathos is defined as an appeal to the emotion of the audience. Logos refers to reasoning and logic. Ethos means to appeal to an audience’s sense of National pride, or Religious beliefs, or a Political ideology…. in other words, appealing to an abstract sense of community.

We see it politically all the time. John McCain during the run up to the 2008 Presidential Election gave a speech against Universal Healthcare in which he claimed that the British NHS refuses to treat patients over 75. Gasps of shock from the audience resonated throughout the hall. Political rhetoric that is simply untrue. I know it was an horrendous lie, and a manipulation of the audiences naivety, because my 83 year old grandma was being treated by the NHS, on that very day. To get away with such a ridiculous lie, and not be booted out of politics for it, shows just how nonchalent we have become politically. We don’t bother to check our facts, we simply wait for a politician to tell us. And the politicians know how useful this tool has become.

The Conservate-Lib Dem coalition defends every pointless cut it makes, by starting the answer with “as a result of the legacy of debt left by Labour”. Seriously, when you see a Tory or Lib Dem being interviewed, see how long you can count before they mention the “legacy of debt“. Simon Hughes of the Lib Dems got to 23 seconds today. Record! It is an attempt to justify, what they clearly are not comfortable justifying using the truth; their own ideology. BBC News asked a guy in a pub, what he thought so far of the Coalition. He said that they need to desperately get the debt reduced quickly. The journalist asked him why he thought that was. He couldn’t answer. Now, to me that suggests that he had simply heard time and time again the right winged rhetoric of the Tory Party, and thinks he sounds intelligent, if he simply repeats it. It shows that the Tories really did win the political discourse war, not with reasoned debate, but with easy terms, idiots can understand. He doesn’t bother checking facts for himself. Given that the Tory Party won the most seats at the election, it suggests that a large majority of people who will be badly hit by the cuts to public services over the next few years, voted Tory because they kept hearing the apocalypse-type rhetoric that public spending needed cutting immediately, or we’d all die. The Labour Party were useless at providing a differing opinion; a progressive narrative, and they paid for it. The current Labour leadership battle is nothing of any worth. The same centrist politicians who have been on the scene for at least the past five years, using the same rhetoric they use to win votes rather than challenge the centre-right monopoly on political and economic discourse that has become prevalent in recent years. None of them seem to be real progressives. On subjects like immigration for example, they pander to the Right and the media perception. It is a supremely complex issue, that deserves more than one view that only ever says there is a huge problem. They aren’t putting forward different, progressive views, or challenging the mainstream opinion. They are pandering.

On immigration, from both sides of the political scale, all we hear is that it is a problem. Immigrants are labelled illegal and dangerous. They apparently take our jobs and the only way to deal with it, is to ‘secure the borders’. That isn’t progressive. That is simply tying a weak bandage over a very deep wound. To truly deal with immigration, you have to work internationally to find out why mass migration occurs. Firstly, you have to accept that if your borders are open to capital and goods, closing your borders to labour is always going to cause huge Global inequality. Capitalism and Nation States are vastly incompatible. You need to truly be committed to eradicating poverty. You have to work internationally to force working standards across the World based on human rights. You have to allow smaller producers a better chance at survival against huge Western Corporations. You have to spread democracy that isn’t just about creating puppet governments who will open native markets to America business interests. There has to be a joint effect across the World, to fight global inequality. Then, migration will fall. Guaranteed.

What worries me, is that there has been an obvious systematic attempt to undermine all sections of the public sector, whilst keeping the failings of the private sector as quiet at possible. The vast majority of the British Public quite obviously felt uneasy at this, and didn’t buy into it at first, because during the most unpopular Labour government in generations, the Conservatives STILL didn’t manage to secure a majority. I would argue that they have no mandate to push through tough cuts now. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party both ran their election campaign on the idea of slower and less vicious cuts that the Tories proposed. The combined votes of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party added up to just over 15,000,000. The Tories vote count, was just over 10,000,000. Therefore, 5,000,000 more people in the UK wanted slower and less vicious and less deep cuts than is now happening. We are hardly a beacon of democracy right now. So the idea that the British public felt that Labour had forced this horrendous debt that needed cutting deeply, immediately, was wrong.

The rhetoric works. The constant “We’re all in this together” from George Osbourne makes me squirm, and yet apparently people lap it up. I cannot understand why.

The reason people are so easily political manipulated, is because we simply don’t have time to understand and investigate for ourselves. We rely on what the politicians tell us around election time, and the Party with the loudest voice becomes the voice of truth, which is surely a logical fallacy. The loudest voices in the corridors of Whitehall, are those who represent money interests. Rich interests. Therefore those who tax avoid will always be less important to the political classes, than those who have no voice yet scrounge a few extra pound every month in benefits. And then the rhetoric starts. You’re an evil socialist if you think differently. You’re a communist if you suggest Big Businessmen should express some responsibility and not walk away with millions upon millions in bonuses whilst making thousands of workers redundant. It stinks of bullshit. Joined with our lack of time, and our indifference toward the continuously projected rhetoric (I believe it’s known as an appeal to ridicule), we are also……ya know……like……. totally……. like……….not bothered…….ya know………. because….. like we just…………want to……….get well drunk and stuff……..like……yeah? The poet Taylor Mali sums up what I am getting at beautifully, with:
<blockquote>
“And so actually our disarticulation . . . ness
is just a clever sort of . . . thing
to disguise the fact that we’ve become
the most aggressively inarticulate generation
to come along since . . .
you know, a long, long time ago!”
</blockquote>
An inarticulate mass, is a disinterested mesh of people whose lives consist of jobs they don’t like, long hours they wish they had more to themselves in their short lives, and one holiday for two weeks a year to look forward to and nothing else. It is no wonder we allow Politicians to presume to tell us that things will get better when they are in power. We will never be happy because our economy which is based almost entirely on consumerism (hence the easy credit bubble) ensures that we believe we will only be happy if we buy more shit we don’t need. Happiness can never depend on how much you own, only on how little you need.

I wonder if those poorer people who voted Tory know that the Tories wanted to ride the recession out with no stimulus or help for them. A large majority of them would have lost their jobs, and their homes had the Tories been in power. Not only that, but David Cameron voted against minimum wage legislation. He didn’t want minimum wage. I wonder if those poorer people knew that before they voted for him. The rhetoric worked, because it was the loudest and most coherently constructed. It didn’t matter that it was full of illogic and lies, because there was no opposite coherent message to counter it. And it has been that way for generations. Before elected politicians; we had Kings and Nobles; Cardinals and Popes who had supreme power, and they used Religious rhetoric (the Pope still does) to scare, and coerce, and manipulate at will. No one opposed it, because to do so would have meant certain death for heresy.

In 1517, Pope Leo X offered to sell pardons for sin, in exchange for a lot of money, in order to build St Peter’s. So poorer people, thought this was an easy way to heaven. It was actually just a way for the Catholic Church to build it’s power, and actually quite a novel way, given that it had spent the previous few centuries building it’s power, on violence and blood.

Skip a few centuries down the line, and the Pope has the nerve to refer to people like me as being a problem because I don’t believe in Organised Religion; whilst at the same time, telling people in AIDS ridden African Nations that hang on his every word, that condoms actually spread AIDS, and that God doesn’t accept condom use. Church rhetoric is far more dangerous than political rhetoric, because people do not do there own research, or think for themselves when it comes to politics or the Church, the difference is that the Church promotes ignorance, and unquestioning acquiescence.

World War II was the era of big, lasting, epic speeches filled with manipulative rhetoric. Hitler was arguably the king of propaganda through speech. He managed to turn an entire Nation against a minority, in much the same way as the American Right are doing with Islam right now, only better. Churchill was an excellent speaker. In a speech to the House of Commons in 1940 he said:
<blockquote>
You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.
<blockquote>

What Churchill decided to ignore, was that he was correct in referring to the Nazi regime as a monstrous tyranny, the British were at that time an Empire ourselves. The lands we owned were won by enslaving populations, murder and rape of the land. The reason I, and the rest of the UK is in a strong economic position in relation to most of the World, is due to the fact that we had a solid grounding based on exploitation that was still going on quite horrifically in Churchill’s time, and of which he was a supporter. We carved up Africa into Nations, based not on the hopes of the population, but on what best suited our imperialist vision and that of France.

We are made to believe that one ruler in government, telling us how to run our lives, is bad. It is big bad intrusive government; tyranny. But, when big business does it, and when our workplace tells us what it means to look and act in an abstract concept of “professional”, how to talk, how our faces should look, what jewellery we can wear, it is perfectly fine. It is the height of human freedom. When we work hard and government taxes us, we consider it to be a great evil. When business takes the money we have earned in a shift, and the majority goes to the man at the very top whilst we receive the bare minimum; it is great, it is ‘free’. Business is in essence, pretty totalitarian. It is a dictatorship. It is lots of little Stalinist states run by megalomaniacs. It certainly isn’t freedom.

In Australia, all I heard from Tony Abbott, was “Omg Labor’s debt is awful ARGH! Vote for me, to save you all from economic ruin“. The problem was, within three minutes of research, one comes to the inevitable conclusion, that the right winged Mr Abbocare if the way we carved up the map of Africa would provoke countless tribal wars and ethnic cleansing over the decades, we cared only for what suited us economically. If Africans suddenly rose up and wanted out of British control, we suppressed them with violence. We favoured dictatorial ethnic minorities in African nations because they had vicious hierarchical systems and so could be brought on side to help the Colonialists; the Fulani in Nigeria is a good example of this at work. The entire Empire, even during Churchill’s time, was based on the idea of social darwinism; we believed we were superior to the Africans and so had every right to exploit them. Would Churchill not consider this a ‘monstrous tyranny’ also?

Cicero would not be proud of the American Right Wing. The Tea Party brigade. The Glenn Beck obsessed idiots. They are playing the rhetoric game all wrong. It is not subtle, or intelligible, or even well crafted manipulative bullshit. It is just utter bullshit. Almost laughable. The Tea Party brigade have referred to Obama as a Nazi, a racist, a Communist, a Socialist, an immigrant, and an anti-American terrorist sympathiser. It stinks of bitterness, because this level of anger was never thrown at the most evil and horrific President America has had, well, ever: Bush. They seemed to keep quiet then. It feels simply that big business has funded a campaign to suggest that any universal benefit to the entire population that inevitably bites into their immense profits, is only turn America into some new USSR. It isn’t. But the voice of the enraged Right Wing is the loudest, and so history is rewrote to the will of the loudest.

The American Right Wing has a thing about rewriting history, in their favour. Any fact that seems to contradict them, they suggest is just Marxist propaganda. In Texas, the school board voted in favour of a curriculum that teaches the superiority of American Capitalism. No economists or historians were asked for their opinion on the curriculum. It will also try to inject creationism into science teaching. This annoys me the most. Purely because evolution is not a Right vs Left issue. It is fact. It is like trying to suggest in a school text book that actually, gravity might not exist at all. The religious fundamentalists do not seem to be able to differentiate between the word ‘theory’ in every day use, and ‘theory’ in scientific use. ‘Theory’ in scientific use is the explanation to explain the fact. So, gravity is the fact – that everything falls to earth if you drop it. Einstein’s theory, is currently what we use to explain why that happens. Similarly, evolution – being the idea that we are all descended from a common ancestor, is the fact. The theory that we currently use to explain it, is Natural Selection. In fact, the entire field of modern biology and medicine, is based on this. So when those board of education members get sick, they should perhaps pray instead of being treated by evil leftie evolutionary heretic doctors. To implant their skewed understanding of the World into a text book, for future generations to be indoctrinated with, is surely wrong at best, and pretty damn abusive at worst.

Southern America during the Civil War managed to convince very poor people, to fight for the right of their rich counterparts to own slaves. They billed it as a war over States rights. Yes, States rights to own and exploit black people. It’s odd because the North wanted slaves to be free. For some reason, southerners believed this would flood them out of the jobs market, and black people would now take all the work. The irony of the situation is that the black slaves already had their jobs. If i’m a rich man in Southern America and I can get a black slave to work my land for free, or pay a poor white man to do it, i’m obviously going to pick option one. So i’m so far unaware of why poor white people were so up for fighting on the side of the rich white folk. I’d suggest it was purely racist reasons. A form of racism that was created specifically to stop the poor white folk from joining hands with the poor black folk and fighting these rich bastards who held them both down.

President Bush spent eight years telling Americans that if they didn’t support the horrific imperialist ideals of the Republican administration, the torture, the innocent deaths and the illegal expensive wars; they were un-American. And now, we have a generation of Americans who seem to think that keeping quiet and waving a flag chanting U.S.A whilst their President wastes billions of killing innocent people in multiple countries, is the American way; but trying to correct a healthcare system that benefits no one but insurance companies, is un-American and Marxist. The power of rhetoric.

I have a new policy, of assuming that all politicians are the pocket of business and so will never say or do anything to benefit the population. That all business men are bastards from the day they are born, and have some kind of deeply totalitarian needs. And that spiders should be renamed ‘buru’.

Part II: Haiti

Haiti suffered one of the worst humanitarian disasters in living memory when the earthquake struck just outside of Port-au-Prince in mid-January. The Haitian Government estimates that over 220,000 people are believed to have been killed. Since that day, the reports from the media have turned from one of sympathy with the families of the victims and the survivors of the quake, to reports of widespread violence, looting, murder, and general National meltdown. Violence was widespread far before the Earthquake. The past two decades of Haitian history have been wiped from media memory. Is it really the Earthquake that has caused certain pockets of violence to spread? Is the violence in Haiti really as widespread and damaging as the media like to report? No, to both of those questions.

As quoted on medialens and as written originally by John Pilger:
“When I was last in Haiti, I watched very young girls stooped in front of whirring, hissing, binding machines at the Port-au-Prince Superior Baseball Plant. Many had swollen eyes and lacerated arms. I produced a camera and was thrown out. Haiti is where America makes the equipment for its hallowed national game, for next to nothing. Haiti is where Walt Disney contractors make Mickey Mouse pjamas, for next to nothing.“

That isn’t where America’s involvement in Haiti ends. In 1991 the President of Haiti, Aristide, was forced from power by a military coup. Members of the Haitian secret service, which had been set up and continuously funded by the CIA, had been involved. After the coup, military officer Raoul Cedras took control of Haiti. His human rights record, was appalling. The Haitian Constitution says that after a coup, the Supreme Court Justice is to take command of the Country until an election can be called. And so technically, Joseph Nérette was provisional president of Haiti (Although Cedras held the real power) until an election was called. The election was set for December 1991; The USA demanded it to be cancelled.

After the coup against Aristide, a man named Emmanuel Constant created a group known as “Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti“. This group, was a death squad. It rounded up all Aristide supporters, and massacred them. Thousands upon thousands were killed by the group.

In 1993, President Clinton vowed to restore democracy to Haiti, and topple the military regime in Haiti. A noble cause. In 1994, Aristide was put back in control of Haiti, to finish his term. All the time, the USA was condemning Constant’s group as “thugs”, which they were. However, Constant fled Haiti after 1994, and settled in the USA. He was arrested in America and stood to be deported to Haiti to stand trial for his involvement in a massacre. In 1995, he threatened in public to divulge secrets about the CIA’s involvement in early-90s Haiti, and the juxtaposition between US public policy of peacekeeping and their private policy of making sure the leader of the country did nothing to attempt to destabilise the US’s interests in the Haitian economy. If kids aren’t going to make baseballs in horrendous working conditions for the benefit of Americans who blindly think their version of Capitalism is superior, who will?

It later transpired that Constant was on CIA payroll, even after the CIA discovered he’d been involved in the murder of a Supreme Court Justice, and many other Aristide supporters. The man who killed the Justice (Marcel Morissaint) has known CIA links, and was freed from jail under CIA guidance before he could stand trial, after he told a reporter that he was under CIA control at the time. In fact, the CIA had been the body that had set up Constant’s “group of thugs” in the first place. Many of their operatives were on the CIA payroll, and even after Aristide was restored to power, the CIA funded quite evil acts of violence against any supporters of left wing revolution. Left wing groups within Haiti were non-violently gaining support for a program of social reform; better healthcare, a minimum wage, and better schooling….. along with the end of child labour. America clearly didn’t like those ideas.
The CIA therefore funded the creation of a group known as Service d’Intelligence National within Haiti. The group is responsible for the deaths of up to 50,000 people between 1980 and 1994. Constant worked for SIN. Constant also alleged that the night of the 1991 coup involved a briefing from CIA members, who were in the Country at the time.

In October 1995, after years of referring to Constant’s group as “thugs” and “terrorists“, and after Constant threatened to reveal secret deals with the CIA, he was given quite a lovely platform at a press conference surrounded by US Armed Guards. The equivilent of giving the same protection and respect to Osama Bin Laden. It seems a little bit unreal. When asked about why the US just changed it’s mind, and what caused the US to change it’s mind, embassy spokesman said “Life is bizarre, isn’t it? Things change all the time”. In other words “If we don’t treat him well, the World will know just how utterly shit we are.“

After the revelations came out about CIA involvement, the reporter who broke the story was denied any further access to Constant by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. No reason was given.

In 1996, a group called The Centre for Constitutional Rights obtained recently declassified documents proving that the US Government knew of how brutal Constant’s group was, knew of the rapes, knew of the torture, knew of the killings, and yet, continued to fund it. The US was both insisting on restoring democracy, and making sure democracy couldn’t be restored whilst a potential left wing “threat” loomed. America needs baseballs, afterall.

On restoring Aristide to power, the US insisted that he drop his radical program for social reform as a prerequisite for returning to power.

Haiti is not the victim of a humanitarian crises, by the power of God alone. The Earthquake was the nail in the coffin. Haiti has been the victim of Western superpowers for centuries. In the early 19th Century, when Haiti gained independence and stopped trading slaves, the French demanded that Haiti pay for the loss of slaves, with a huge debt imposed on the Country. They didn’t have an infrastructure, or an economic structure, and yet they were forced to pay a debt. Human imposed poverty. More recently, Reagan proposed the Caribbean Basin Initiative (another word for Nafta) which effectively meant that Haitian governments should not invest in schools and hospitals, just leave it to the market, which meant unbelievable exploitation. Markets had to be far more open, which meant the resources of Haitian falling into American hands. Tariffs had to be lowered on imports, to allow the US to flood the Haitian market, leaving Haitian people no choice but to become the minions of an American corporation. Hence Disney’s exploitation in the region. Slavery hadn’t ended, it had just been cloaked in a vale of this new “wondrous” ideal of neoliberalism. Human imposed poverty. But hey, America is still the “land of the free, on the back of someone elses forced labour WOOO!”

Haiti is largely agricultural. They rely heavily on farming. They invested heavily in pig farming. It was all that was keeping 80% of the population who were peasants, out of extreme poverty. The US claimed that in order to save the population from Swine Fever, the entire pig population had to be wiped out. The US promised to send replacements and compensation. They wiped out the pig population, and sent nothing.
Haiti also relied on their sugar industry. It was a great local industry, around which communities were starting to become self sufficient. Then, the sugar industry was privatised, most of the mills were closed, and now they have to rely on imports of Dominican Republic for their sugar needs, which, they can’t afford. Why can’t the government invest in the Haiti? Because America doesn’t like it. It’s Socialism apparently.

Whenever social unrests and violence pops up across Latin America, the first place the World should look, is toward the USA.

So is the violence in Haiti purely the result of an horrific natural disaster? Is violence written into the genes of the Haitians? No. It has been forced on them, over Centuries of being treated like worthless slaves. And as is always the case with Latin America, who is to blame? The USA. But their baseball retail industry is thriving. So we just have to ignore the exploitation involved. The term “terrorism” becomes harder to define everyday.

Isn’t Capitalism wonderful.

Republican Day III

Now, I could just about cope with the BIG INFLATED SOCIALIST state en acting laws preventing me from stoning my dad, for working on the Sabbath, clearly going against the Bible and Exodus 35:2. I was even able to cope with the fact that the Commie Atheist law tells me that whether my slave dies today, or in two days time, it’s still punishable, even though the rightful word of my loving God tells me in Exodus 21:20-21 that if he dies in two days time, it’s okay and that I shouldn’t be punished (did you know, that the State in it’s increasing attempts to block my religious freedom, have ACTUALLY banned slavery? It’s outrageous. What next, a ban on laughing except for black people and gays?).

However, I cannot quite believe what i’m hearing, when a friend informed me that Gayowa, ConnetiAIDS, Bummingchusettes And Homont aren’t the only States to be allowing those who want to give AIDs to my children, to get married. New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine (notice they’re all in Satan’s part of the U.S.OF Awesome) are all expected to vote in favour of the homogays very soon.

In 2006, the greatest President the USAwesome has ever known, George W Bush (Whose first name, begins with the same letter as God’s. Coincidence?) called for a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage. He said quite beautifully, and tolerantly that “A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society“. And he’s right!!! American Heterosexual families in Gayowa are now victims. They can’t go outside without men in pink shorts and leather BDSM clothing chasing them with their cocks out and the butt flap on their shorts wide open, forcing them to listen to George Michael. Is this what you want America? You want your children exposed to this?

It’s just unnatural. So horribly unnatural. Nothing about homogay marriage is natural. But my belief in a man who was born to a Virgin, who was visited by three men who followed the words of an angel, and who grew up to perform miracles, was crucified but rose from the dead, walked around for a few days and then flew up to a bearded man in the sky (Who by the way, supported the election of John McCain in 2008….. which means Democrat voters are going to hell)… will allow me to beat those unnatural bastards.

By allowing Homofags to get married, the U.S Senate is undermining the marriage between man and woman. Before the queers were allowed to marry, no men or women ever got divorced. FACT. Britney Spears would not have felt forced into marrying a man for twenty four hours. FACT. Anti-gay Republicans like Richard Curtis would not have accidentally fallen on top of a man in a hotel room whilst they both just happened to be naked (there clothes were stolen by gay democrats!!) and then dressed up like a woman. FACT! And Fox News’s (the only fair and impartial news channel in the World) Sean Hannity would not have been FORCED by the Gays to pose with hookers even though he’s married. FACT!

This is all part of the Gay agenda, designed to destroy heterosexual marriage eventually. Did you know for example, that every time a gay couple marry, a heterosexual couple have to divorce. Heterosexual people are being forced to give up their Religious principles based on Jesus spending a lot of intimate time with twelve male disciples, in order to accept that gayism as anything but a disgusting child abusing aids spreading society killer.

Well I for one wont let it happen any more. And i’m not the only one! Over at the insightful and fully FACT based freedom loving website Americans for Truth have opened my eyes to the truth. They are the “leading resource for exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda. ” And that’s exactly what it is! An agenda! A Satanist agenda at that. Heterosexuals have no agenda. We just want to be able to get married, whilst oppressing preventing those who engage in sexual acts that we deem inappropriate. (and for those of you who say that truth is subjective…. erm… WAKE UP! ….. The Bible says otherwise…. take that Liberals!!).
They highlight an email they received from a liberal Christian (which is just another way of saying “working undercover for Satan)…

“Grow the [f–k] up. My god your an [a–shole]. I can see that look on your balding head. Probably in the closet all these years trying to deny your mysioginistic [sic] way. God can\’t save you from the [f–cking] miserable choices you make in interpretating his rules as literal, not figurative mesaages [sic] on ways to live your life. I went to sunday school for half of my life – I should know. The name of this site should not be Americans for Truth, but Americans for Lies. People do not force themselves to like other people, amd [sic] only a thickheaded person like you deserves to rot in the depths of hell if there is such a place. Another good name for this site would be mainly [yourana–hole.com]. Perfectly suits you afterall.”

First of all, Satan worshipper, bald men can use their heads to absorb more of God’s light. So what do you have to say now? He then appears to suggest that the word of God is up for interpretation. Which it isn’t. It clearly states that Gays are an abomination. Notice he refers to the “A-hole” a couple of times? Do you know why that is? That’s right, it’s because he loves men. He seems to be suggesting that “Americans for Truth” are picking and choosing what they wish to take literally from the Bible. Which is false again!!! Because I happen to know for certain, that their new website, entitled “Americans for giving AIDs to Atheists” is going to be a massive hit! It’s based purely on Exodus 15:26, which clearly states that if you disobey God, you should be punished with horrible disease. To be fair though, it’s only a matter of time before they get AIDs anyway, given that they’re all gay anyway.

The gay days are numbered! Republicans are going to kick ass!

The hypocrisy of Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gopfather

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Paradox of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

So is the stimulus Socialist? No…

Job-creating investments in health: $153bn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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