Big Business rules the World

“We are not hostile to Corporations; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good.” – Theodore Roosevelt

I’m 1902, President Teddy Roosevelt and his Attorney General at the time, shocked both the Republican Party and the Country on the whole by announcing it’s intention to sue J.P.Morgan’s Northern Securities Company for breaching the Sherman Anti-Trust act. President Roosevelt did not particularly care about the actual breaching of a largely pointless act, he wanted instead to show the Country that the office of President was more powerful than the Office of a banker. He wanted to show that power of the public could not be bought or sold. It was a symbol against the power of private companies, even more so because Morgan ha contributed to campaigns Roosevelt had run in the past. It was an ingenious way of letting big business know “You can contribute all you want, but you do not own power over the public.”

Lately, whenever I turn the TV on, I see an advert, warning people that “we’re coming to get to you”. This is aimed at benefit cheats, it features a neighbour of a lady cheating benefits, calling the office. My instant reaction was “wow, much like when the Nazis asked people to inform them if they lived next door to a Jew.” I simply do not get upset and annoyed by benefit cheats. It doesn’t affect me. In fact, whenever I hear of a single mum struggling on the income she has, to feed her family, I would advise her to cheat the system a bit. Perhaps it’s a little controversial. My stance on this will also annoy people. But I refuse to let any take the moral high ground on the issue of scrounging a little extra cash to feed a poor family, when the tax payer has paid for a mass of Corporate bonuses over the past year, through Governments that metaphorically masturbate the big business men.

John Thain, the last Chairman of Merrill Lynch, who after destroying the company, begged for a $10million bonus, managed to secure $15million from the Bank of America bail out fund; taxpayers money. Within a month, he had offered employees of Merrill Lynch bonuses as much as $4million. He then spent $1.2million of tax payers money on redecorating his office. Thain is working at The Bank of America. Why aren’t the Governments of the World “coming to get” Thain? Surely using $1.2million of public money is a hell of lot worse than a single mum needing the extra £20 she’s “stolen” to feed her kids? Businessmen are exempt from the law.

Fox News, in particular Bill O’Reilly in 2005 began a campaign for America to boycott France, for no other reason than the fact that France are not America’s bitches. O’Reilly claimed that France had damaged America a considerable amount. And so all Americans should boycott French products. In comparison, O’Reilly doesn’t seem to have a problem with America’s destructive relationship with those great proponents of Democracy, the Saudi Royal Family. Could this be anything to do with business deals? If France had a decent supply of Oil reserves, O’Reilly would be inviting us all to his French themed birthday party in celebration of how wonderful France is.

The UK Government has strong ties to the aviation industry. They are, in essence, in the pockets of BAA and Virgin. Misleading figures and the decrediting of leading scientists who disagree and have the evidence to back it up, in order to advance their own agenda, aviation gets billions of pounds of taxpayers money, to keep prices low. BA has claimed to be taking steps to be pro-green in the future, and yet it keeps demanding extra terminals and runways. The BA website claims “Introducing a third runway at Heathrow won’t increase the overall level of carbon emissions in the atmosphere.” Clearly, that’s a lie, and impossible. There is no way that they are helping the environment rather than maximising profits. And the Government gave into them on Heathrow’s third runway.

Recently, the house of Lords has been the subject of much publicity. Four Labour Lords are accused of agreeing to accept £120,000 in exchange for changing to law to suit the person paying the money. Public policy influenced by the money of outside “donors”? No shit! The only difference between the four Lords at the centre of this scandal, and most other politicians, is that these four happened to get caught.

David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party claimed that Lords who misbehaved should be punished. Cameron himself refused to criticise the bosses of Bradford and Bingley after they systematically destroyed the company and can be partly held accountable for the mess our finance system is in today. Cameron told the BBC… “What you won’t hear from me this week is the sort of easy cheap lines beating up on the market system, bashing financiers.” So he’s quite happy to cycle to work, to prove he’s dedicated to climate change whilst his work suit is chauffeur driven in the Mercedes behind him for cheap publicity, but he wont criticise people who have destroyed the banking system? There must be a reason….. ah yes…. The bosses over at Bradford and Bingley are among the chief contributors to the Conservative Party since Cameron took over as leader. What a beautiful coincidence.

The BBC reported a story in 2003 regarding Coca Cola, poisoning a water supply in India. Coca Cola have not been prosecuted for human rights violations, which they should be. Nor has anything been made out of the story that Coke have been draining a water supply from a village in India to fuel their prosperity, whilst living hundreds of local villagers without water. Coke tried to make up for it by sending a truck to the village with the bare minimum amount of water. To me, that’s a disgrace. Local farming had to be abandoned, even though it was thriving up until Coca Cola decided it would impose it’s will and steal the water. Coca Cola is accused of even more…. dumping it’s waste in riverbed, containing lead and cadmium, which can cause cancer, and attacks the nervous system of children. When will someone stand up and say that the disgusting chase for profit, is not worth this? When will a Politician stand up to these disgusting people? They wont…. because big business like Coca Cola are much more powerful than the Governments of our Countries.

I have a deep problem with the Party funding system itself. No body donates a huge amount of money to a political party, out of the good will of their heart. More often than not, they want something in return. The government should not be privately run. It inevitably leads to scandals like the Cash for honours debaucle that plagued the end of the Blair administration.

Where have the Roosevelts of the World disappeared? Why have our governments been hijacked by weak men dedicated to the promotion of Big Business. Big Business runs the World.
Nobody seems to care that business is allowed to profit from war. Shouldn’t that be regulated? No one should be allowed to make money out of death and misery in the perverse way that Halliburton and KBR have. Dick Cheney received $36million in compensation when he left Halliburton in 2000. An extra $1million in deferred compensation followed. In 2004, he’d been awarded an extra $398,000 from Halliburton. KBR, affiliated with Halliburton, has made over $33million from the war on terror, and built Guantanamo Bay detention centre. It all stinks horribly corrupt. Both companies, have strong ties to Dick Cheney, the Vice President in the Bush Administration. Conflict of interest, between an Oil company, and the American public, during a war with a nation rife with Oil rich lands? It isn’t a conspiracy, it’s Modern Politics. It’s just how it is.

It will be of no shock to you, that I believe those like Dick Cheney and John Thain among others, should have a very long prison sentence ahead of them, not a lovely big pay packet to see them through the rest of their lives. They are criminals. Nothing more.

If Capitalists truly want the Government to keep out of Private affairs, then big business should take it’s own advice and stay out of public affairs. Big business, as we’ve seen with the War for Oil in Iraq, seeks only to maximise profit at the expense of animals, the environment, the future of the planet, and humanity. It should be Governments job to stop the trial of destruction big business leaves, before it gets out of hand. This cannot happen whilst those who need to destroy the planet in order to be able to afford a new yaht at the end of the quarter, pay for candidates to be elected officials on their behalf. The government is private.

“Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity.” – Theodore Roosevelt

Heathrow

As you walk down toward Parliament, from Trafalgar Square, whilst Lord Nelson looms proudly overhead, you enter Whitehall; Civil Service Paradise. On the right hand side of the street you can expect to be greeted by miserable police men standing guard over a huge cast iron fence; the entrance to Downing Street. Time ago, the public could freely walk down Downing Street, but now it’s blocked off. What do they fear? An unhappy British public backlash against broken promises and devious lies?

Perhaps blocking off Downing Street should be extended to the small town of Sipson in West London, the site of the proposed Third Runway at Heathrow. The entire village is being knocked down. The residents who live there have no say. The Government hasn’t apologised. The residents have to move. And yet, this hardly gets a mention. The focus of the Nations attention both in opposition to the plans and in support of the plans, revolve around the Environment, no one appears to want to mention the 700 people displaced by this announcement. One lady living in the village talked of how horrible she felt, telling her young daughter that their school was to be demolished and that they’d have to move away from her friends. No doubt she’s wondering why a Labour Government could be so much of a suck up to Big Business. What do I think of the situation?

The Environment?
It’s disastrously rich of the government to be asking the public to cut down on Carbon Emissions, to tell us that higher taxes on bigger cars is tough but needed, that we’re all guilty, and then decide to build the third runway at Heathrow. According to BBC News last week, emissions on the third runway at Heathrow, in a year, would be twice as high as the entire nation of Kenya. Surely a third runway is encouraging Air Travel? Thus increasing emissions? Thus encouraging Global Warming?
The Government has pledged to only allow new technology with low emission rating aircraft to be using the Third Runway come 2020. The only flaw in this ingenious plan is that we don’t have any low emission rating aircraft, nor have any been designed. The entire fate of 700 villagers in Sipson, rests on the concept that by 2020 we might have better aircraft. In 2020, we might have flying cars, so i’d quite like to build a landing pad where Number 10 Downing Street is.
The Gov said that by 2050, they want carbon emissions from Heathrow to have dropped by 80% to below 2005 levels. Which in laymans terms means that for the next 21 years at least, emissions will rise over 80% from 2005. What about the 700 homes?

The Economy:
This week the widening of the M1 between Junction 21 and Junction 31 was cancelled, putting hundreds out of work, South West Trains cut 480 jobs earlier this week. Woolworths bust, MFI bust, B&Q look close to failure, banks not lending but sucking up public funds, all this despite a huge injection of the wealth of the nation into the private sector to save the economy and jobs. A better financial infrastructure complete with an overhaul of the entirely useless FSA, better public transport including a better bus system, cheaper train pricing (It cost for £42 today to travel from London to Leicester…… it’d cost £10 petrol to drive it….. where’s the incentive to catch the train?) and investment in new, clean public transport… perhaps a ‘greener’ tram system like the one running Nottingham. Stop taxing drivers heavily! We need incentive to ditch our cars. The answer is not building a new runway. Those jobs at the new Heathrow runway do not exist, they aren’t affecting anyone’s lives like the jobs lost at Woolworths or the road building scheme. No jobs would be lost if this project was cancelled because none have been created so far. But still……What about the 700 homes?

The Expansion?
The expansion of Heathrow is supposedly going to deal with the fact that Heathrow is jam packed already. Even though, Heathrow is not jam packed. The only people i’ve heard say that Heathrow is struggling to keep up with growing demand, are the Chief Exec. of BAA, the Financial Director of Virgin and Geoff Hoon. As if that’s a surprise. Most people see Heathrow, notice that prices are falling rapidly, and we wonder, if demand was that high, surely prices would soar? Isn’t that the backbone and fundamental idea of the free market system?
What happens when Heathrow’s third runway reaches full capacity (assuming of course these new low emission aircraft save the day)? Will we need to build a fourth runway to keep up with Rome and Paris too? Or will the Government of that future date say “Woah woah woah, we have five fucking airports in London already!!! Heathrow, Luton, Kent, Gatwick and Stanstead, let’s improve facilities first!” I hope so. And still, What about the 700 homes?

Sipson?
Ah onto the 700 homes that the Government does not care for.
As well as the obscene notion that a Government has the right to decide the fate of the lives of 700 residents, by having no second thought in planning the demolition of their homes, there are also those to be taken into consideration who will live next to the new runway. The Gov appears to be of the opinion that people who live north of Sipson will be more than happy to allow a new runway to disrupt their lives with noise pollution, and carbon emissions. If we take those people into consideration, along with the 700 residents of Sipson, we have a total of over 2000 residents affected by this.
Heathrow Primary school, one of the best in the region will be gone, William Byrd Primary School would be just past the runway, meaning low flying aircraft every few minutes taking off and landing. Harmondsworth Primary school would sit in between Runway two and the new Runway three. Perfect place for a Primary School i’m sure you’d agree.

Labour?
It is not the policy of a left of centre Government to be so heavily influenced by the demands of big Business. As the Guardian pointed out yesterday, many of New Labour’s senior members have strong connections to the Aviation industry.
How does a Labour government allow big bankers to “speculate” so much so that millions of people lose their jobs and their savings to these crooks who inevitably get away with it, yet 700 innocent lives are destroyed by the introduction of runway at an airport, designed to ease the travel woes of such cretinous bankers.
Labour, are born out of Socialist ideals. A socialist ideal does not involve the destruction of 700 homes and the lies that try to justify it. Nor does it involve blatant disregard of their past, to concentrate on business ties. It appears to be another stab in the back of Humanitarian beliefs and fuel in the furnaces of the speeding money money money train.
I’d agree that the difference between a left wing government and a right winged Conservative counterpart, is the left wing’s appetite for progression, both socially and economically, but the proposed expansion of Heathrow is beyond wrong. It cannot be allowed to go ahead.
Labour MP John McDonnell was suspended by Labour this week for his strong opposition to the Heathrow proposal. Punishing those who disagree with you? We’re not Zimbabwe for Christ’s sake. We’re a leading Democratic Nation. And yet, our MPs are not allowed to disagree with the destructive nature of this current Government without fear of suspension. They appear scared to put it to a House of Commons vote too. Because, they’d lose. Much like the EU “Treaty”.

The plans need to be scrapped, but here exists the problem. For the plans to be scrapped, the Tories would have to win the next election for the plans to be abolished, and that’s a risk not worth taking.

Perhaps we could build a third runway over Downing Street.

Let’s all have sex!

To be a Libertine is to be seen as blemish on an unforgiving morally absolute society. Debauchery isn’t wise, if your aim in life is to be accepted. You forever find yourself having to explain your sinful ways to others, whilst their damning eyes, condemn every last word that leaves your devilish mouth.

The sexually promiscuous generation are aching to break the chains of bigoted religious morals.

It seems lately that sexual promiscuity is the norm. But widely condemned. Even by those who fuck everything that moves. A libertine is not engulfed by the need to please an all powerful master that may or may not exist. A Libertine knows no social boundary, and does not care when contemporaries scorn at their very existence. A Libertine, by definition is free. The only restriction on their freedom is their ever more fickle conscience.

I have a fickle conscience.

A fickle conscience is the very essence of the self confessed Libertine. Ami Perrin, argued in the middle of the 16th Century that the current state of Geneva and it’s religious policy of making everyone within the Calvinist realm, succumb to it’s terms, uniformaly and without complaint, was misleading and an attack on freedom. That people should break away and as long as they weren’t hurting anyone, should live as they wish. In this, Perrin can be described as a Libertine.

Today, Libertines have very little to fear except the wrath of the God-loving few, who insist that pre-marital sex is morally wrong, let alone sleeping with a different person each night of the week.

I differ from these God-loving few. If for example, I were to tell a Christian my sexual conquest record, they would frown disapprovingly, and possibly even try to rescue me. It seems they would have us believe that God hates those who like to have sex, but he just loves those who despise homosexuals and preach segregation. Surely that in itself, that attack on freedom, freedom that doesn’t hurt anyone else, is morally wrong? Not beautiful licentious debauchery?

You often hear “oh, all these teenagers having sex with random people, it’s just not right”…. why isn’t it? There’s no one harmed in it, so what’s the issue? What isn’t right, is all these teenagers stabbing each other to death, or stealing, or threatening innocent people, what isn’t right is their utter destruction of the English language. A few teenagers getting laid every Friday night is way down my list of “what’s wrong”.

Sex, for me, is merely a hobby. There to be enjoyed whenever and with whoever I want. My fickle conscience provides me with one extra road block. It tells me that we’re all humans, regardless of our religious belief, our sexuality, and our skin colour, and so there must be no malice in the wonderful World of promiscuity. And so my conclusion, is that as long as both people are consenting, and both people treat each other with respect, then what is the problem? It’s not hurting anyone. It’s enjoying yourself. It has absolutely nothing to do with a God, or his followers, who I chose to sleep with. I certainly don’t feel guilty about my sex life. Nor do I regret any of them, even turning Laura into a lesbian.
Sex is my opiate. I use it to relax. Some people drink, some people smoke, some people read works of fiction like the Bible, I have sex. Sex is my drug. It’s a get away from the World, a place where I can forget any problems I may have. In this, sex is like meditation for me. My salacious eyes are a part of my very essence.

Why does God hate me for who I am? Why do I have to suppress who I am, to please him? Fuck him. I’m me. I quite like me. I don’t want to change.

I often hear people say “the best contraception, is not having sex”…. oh how very witty of you. Geniuses. It’s like saying “The best way to cook a steak, is to cook a steak”. Don’t blame sexual promiscuity of a raise of teenage pregnancies. Blame ignorance. Blame parents too ashamed to talk to their kids.

I’m spoken for. I have a beautiful girlfriend. We’ve been together over two and a half years. And in that time, I can honestly say, my sexual antics have been limited to me and her. I have never cheated. This is where the fickle conscience comes back into play. If I were to cheat, it would have a negative affect, it would upset my lovely girlfriend, and so the balance is tipped in the wrong direction, someone has been hurt by my actions, and so it ceases to be the act of a Libertine, and becomes the act of a cunt. (No pun intended).

If it helps a marriage, for it to be open, then I’m all for it. If that’s what works for a particular marriage, then why should it be considered unnatural? Why should any sexual act be considered unnatural if both adults are consenting? Surely, if both want and enjoy it, then it’s at the top of the “What is natural” scale. If two men want to have sex, if they both enjoy sex with each other, then why is that unnatural? if two women want to have sex, then it’s fine (and even more so, if they film it and send it to my email address). No one has to right to tell anyone else what is and isn’t natural for them. Surely it’s disastrously unnatural if you’re gay, but have to pretend to be straight in order to appease the hate filled bigots in society?

The natural vs unnatural debate can turn back around and really knock the “no sex before marriage!” posse for ten. I’d suggest, quite controversially maybe, that human beings are not supposed to have just one sexual partner. By sewing together the emotional bond of love, with sex, it suddenly means we’re supposed to save ourselves for that one special person. When actually, the two needn’t be entwined at all. Humanity, like the animal World, is sexually promiscuous. We don’t want to just stick with one partner, if it were deemed socially acceptable, we’d all be fucking each other like sex starved inmates at an all male prison. We just fear the wrath of society.

I lost my virginity when I was 15. I don’t regret it. The sex itself was shit. But it opened up a new World for me. Like with anything, the only way you improve is with a huge amount of practice, and when I split with my ex, I got that huge amount of practice, and I certainly enjoyed every last second of it. It would be wrong to say “Oh I wish I hadn’t, my innocence….lost forever.” Sexually, I have no regrets. In fact, I loved it.

Where’s the Christian American pro-life attitude when it comes to guns? Weapons designed, to end life? Or when it comes to bombing the life out of other nations? Where’s the pro-life attitude when it comes to ending World wide poverty? Get your fucking priorities sorted.

To sum up, sexual liberation is the act of breaking free from the chains placed on us by Religion and Society. And as long as it causes no harm to yourself, the other person/people involved, or anyone indirectly affected by the intercourse, then no one has the right to claim it to be unnatural or immoral, because it isn’t. Even if you want to sleep with another person, every night of the week, and don’t even know their names. Who cares? Why is that a problem? Who’s it harming? Questions like this, can never be answered thoroughly and without social or religious bias by those who condemn promiscuity.

Now i’ve got that formality out of the way, does anyone want a shag?