Wallabies Squad for the Lions, And A Political Dicussion.

Hellow everyone, here are two topics which I can't discuss with friends anymore, so are getting some air time here: Muslims, and the state of the Wallabies squad, together at last?

An Army drummer, Lee Rigby was brutally murdered in London by two assholes claiming to be Muslim Terrorists. There was confusion at the scene, and one of the killers was interviewed, with blood on his hands and a knife in his hands by the press. This is bizarre enough, but the lack of factual reporting following it, and the padding of the utterly uneccesary 'rolling news' has been incredible. Rigby's weeping widow was interviewed only hours after the death. It has been a perfect example of exploitative reporting, bereft of facts and full of emotional impact for what is a horrible crime.

Worst of all though, is the follow up of this attack. These two assholes will be responsible for increased attacks on Muslims by tattooed, shaven headed idiots from the EDL, who should be as ignored as possible. Increased media attention by the two killers will likely influence Muslims, and possibly increase extremism. Also great to see is Theresa May, who used this occasion to try to push forward a new snoopers charter to monitor EVERYONE's emails to prevent this happening again. Any politician trying to rush through an ill-thought out increase in their own powers after a gut-wrenching occasion deserves nothing but scorn. She is a hateful old hag who fits in well in the Cabinet. These two murderous assholes trying to make martyrs of themselves will help no one. It's also getting far too much attention, and the interviews with them will recruit more people to the cause than their actions. Its was terrible work on the part of the press. Fuck everyone involved, except, of course, the guy who got murdered and his grieving family. 

In lighter, but still infuriating news, the initial squad of 25 for the Wallabies to play the Lions has been announced. There have been some injuries already ruling out, for example, Totafu Polota-Nau, while others with minor injuries will be given the chance to prove themselves, most notably George Smith and Hugh McMeniman. What is more terrifying though, is Deans' use of his favourties to pad his squad: I'm looking at the limited-and-can't-pass Rob Horne; the out-of-game-time Berrick Barnes; the useless-lump Sekope Kepu, the not-good-or-big-enough Dave Dennis, and the massive-but-constantly-injured Wyclif Palu. He's also strongly hinted that it'll be Luke Burgess who plays as back up scrum half. Luke Burgess who plays in France and is proven, even when in form, to be inadequate at international level. That's a real shit in the face of Nic White, who's playing in the country and is actually pretty damn good.

The rest of the squad is also worrying. There's no room for the mercurial Quade Cooper (although he'll almost definitely be in the extended squad). Quade Cooper could be a good sub player, to bring some impact from the bench. Meanwhile the excellent form of Matt Toomua, Jesse Mogg, Fotu Aulua and Hugh Pyle, among others, have been ignored for now. Some will say that you don't want to make debuts in a Lions tour, but surely having them around to practice with the others would be a good reward for their form this year and before. What's more frightening is that even squad members who do deserve to be there will be used in bizarre ways. Rod Simmons probably deserves to be a squad lock, but he'll end up starting. James O'Connor is a good player with an x-factor, but he'll be played in a crucial position which isn't his best. Berrick Barnes is a good player, but as someone to close off a game. If he starts, he'll kick the ball out of hand and squander good possession. Israel Folau is an incredible talent, but he'll probably be chucked on the wing like a turd, despite never having played their in his entire life.

Also, Sekope Kepu shouldn't be anywhere near the squad. Dan Palmer is a better scrummager, Paddy Ryan and Scott Sio have better form and more drive.What's annoying is that there is a squad worth of players in Australia who would rip the Lions to shreds, but those players will be played out of position, or not at all. It's a terrible shame. If Luke burgess makes the extended squad I am officially hoping for a Lions win. I'm also looking forward to the State of Origin too.

Hope you're all just dandy.
Pascal.

George Osbourne: A Turd Of A Man.

Just a brief rant today, after reading that George Osbourne has questioned the benefits 'lifestyle' of the guy Mick Philpott, which can be read here. It's a bizarre story, and a tragic one: Philpotts, by all accounts a complete asshole, had 17 kids by two abused and terrified women. He has just been sentence after he killed 6 of his children in a fire in protest to the mother of the other 11 leaving. Of course, they were all on benefits to the tune of, I think £60,000 a year. It's an unusual case, and almost definitely not the norm. He is an exception to the rule of the benefits system helping people who need it, the normal family on benefits doesn't go on trashy TV shows like Jeremy Kyle, as the Philpotts brood did.

 Either way, Philpotts has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for killing his kids, which works out at 2.5 years a child, itself a disgrace, but that's not the point here. Gideon, 'George' Osbourne has weighed into the piece, despite his insistence that he wouldn't name individuals, and says that the benefits lifestyle should be questioned. He is using the deaths of six innocent children as an excuse to reiterate his continued attack on the defenceless. He is doing this on the same day that the source of Trillions of untaxed pounds in British companies are exposed (read about this here). Call it a hunch, but he will do nothing to gain this taxable income back and continue create to dismantle the welfare state, creating a new untermesch in Britain. He is a despicable, clueless little man, whose life of unbridled privilege will never let him see the effects his decisions have made: the lives he has ruined, or the thousands of children he has needlessly put into poverty. He is, in other words, the perfect example of what a politician should not be. Instead he is the chancellor of the Exchequeur. He is, and I don't use this term lightly, an evil cunt.

Zionism from an Atheist Jews perspective.

I'm aware that this is boring, but my readership has been down recently, so I may as well just write about politics. In the UK, LibDem MP David Ward has come under scrutiny following comments he made on his website. To quote directly, he said "having visited Auschwitz twice - once with my family and once with local schools - I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza." [source]

There are two caveats, the use of these words on Holocaust Memorial Day are undoubtedly controversial, as is his misguided, but potentially innocent, use of the phrase 'the Jews' instead of 'the Israelis.' Of course, all kinds of self-aggrandising idiots have crawled out of the woodwork to express their disgust and call it racist, including the band-wagon jumping Labour MP Ian Austin who called David Ward "a disgrace" and "racist."

What I am most afraid of here is that any reasonable argument put forward against Israel is labelled anti-Semitic. Any mention of the Holocaust in relation to Israel is automatically labelled as racist, and allows the offended parties to deflect from their often inhumane behaviour. Israel is shaming its own nation through the acts it takes, but at the same time seems to be beyond criticism because of the lingering threat of being branded an anti-Semite. This makes people shirk back in fear legitimate criticisms of the country, and that in itself is wrong.

David Ward has refused to apologise, the first time in living memory that a Lib Dem has stood up for their views and stuck to their principles. We mustn't forget the holocaust, nor the lessons from it, conversely we mustn't use it as a shield to prevent us from seeing what continues to go on in Israel itself. Just because Jews suffered so heavily both historically and during the Holocaust, it shouldn't mean that Israel is allowed to do as it pleases.

More recently, the arch prick Rupert Murdoch has apologised for a cartoon published in his Sundays times magazine which was held as anti -semetic. This is the same Rupert Murdoch who refused to apologise for hacking into celebrities voicemails to get a good story. This is of course not the first time there has been controversy over a cartoon, let's not forget the ridiculous and pointless deaths after the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad, so old Scrotum head was probably wise in nullifying the offence through an apology. Anyway, here's a bit of the picture.

[source]

  Although this also had the misfortune to be published on holocaust memorial day (luckily that isn't celebrated in Iran), and the illustrator himself has apologised here over the timing of the publication. I believe it's not anti-Semitic, and it does hint at the terrible things Israel is doing. The cartoon shows the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, building a wall using what appears to be the blood of Palestinians. It carries the strap line: "Will cementing peace continue?" To quote again, the source of this snippet of the cartoon (the full thing is now impossible to find online) says:

"How to draw an Anti-Israel cartoon for a UK paper. It’s very simple really.
1. Draw an Israeli Prime Minister with exaggerated Semitic facial features, especially the nose and lips, covered in Muslim blood.
2. Stick a wall in there somewhere."
There is also a third point which is irrelevant to this discussion so has been ignored, so let's look at these two points.  

First of all those aren't "exaggerated Semitic facial features", that's how the cartoonist draws. In fact, if taken purely at the face, it could easily be Vladimir Putin. In fact, let's have a look at another of his pictures

Add caption [source]

The bizarre, elf-like creature on the left is Putin, while the creature drawn on the right is Syria's genocider-in-chief Assad. It isn't an anti-Semitic picture of Netanyahu.

The second point, that of "stick a wall in there somewhere" is also held as evidence of it being racist. I don't see how. The wall is pretty much unarguable there.Follow this link for the following pictures
and only the most insecure apologist for the Israeli regime would say that acknowledging this wall is racist.

Not a picture, but graphs are the pictures of words.

For Israel, the Holocaust is, obviously, monumentally important, but playing the victim card will only get you so far, and can't be used to distract from things which happen today. When you prop up the Apartheid regime in South Africa, when you do your best to dehumanise and starve the country of Palestine, by brutal military attacks, the arrest and imprisonment of hundreds of Palestinian children every year, when you force innocent people to strip for no reason in the name of safety, and ignore recommendations by the U.N., You can't take offence to even the slightest mention of a wall which obviously exists. The holocaust might have  been the worst thing to have ever happened to humanity as a whole, but we should take lessons from it and try to learn from it, not use it as a mask for our own reprehensible behaviour.

Please note, I am well aware of the thousands of Israelis who flee the country to avoid military service, and the many thousands who work there as human rights watchers. Nor am I so naive as to say that Palestine and the rest of the Arab world are blameless here, but that is beside my point. Don't try to deflect your own awful behaviour through something which has happened to you, and don't spring to say that everything is racist just because you can't argue a point coherently.

Published today, but needs an extensive spell and logic check.

Scottish Independence: The Definitive Debate

There will be a referendum for Scottish independence in 2014. I am recently returned to Edinburgh, and there are already ads around the city. Independence is a common thing for people to talk about. I, as a British citizen with a Scottish address, get to vote in this referendum. Some would point to my Australian accent that this shouldn’t happen. I would point out to those people one word: Braveheart. Seriously though, I am informed on many of the issues surrounding Scottish independence*, and will vote against it. Here’s why:

Scotland already has a lot of devolved powers given to it by Westminster, which remains the sole arbiter for various other powers. For example, the Scottish Parliament has control over various issues such as health and education, which is why Scottish Students have free university education in Scottish universities. These powers are growing in stature and power, and Scotland's devolution is much more strongly developed than that of Wales or Northern Ireland. This allows Scottish people to be overrepresented politically in the UK (a phenomenon known as the 'West Lothian question'). To illustrate, there is a Scottish Parliament, which can legislate on pre-designed (and ever increasing) areas thanks to Devolution. On top of that, as part of Britain, Scottish people are represented by MPs in Westminster in London. Furthermore, Scotland is represented in the European Council by MEPs. This means that Scottish people have three different types of representation for them: MPs in London, MEPs in Europe and MSPs in Edinburgh. If Scotland gains independence the MSP will take the power of the MPs.

This reduction in representation would make sense if the MSPs had full control over everything. That would make sense for an independent country - but they wouldn’t  – the terms of the treaty mean that even if Scotland gets independence, Scotland will keep the pound, meaning that its economy will still be tied to the Bank of England. Furthermore, it will remain part of the Commonwealth, retaining the British Royal Family. Already this prevents Scotland from setting, for example, its own interest rates, and ties them into the monarchy – who are considerable landowners in Scotland (Balmoral is one of the more famous of the highlands properties, as well as other places the crown owns throughout the country, notably Holyrood castle, which overlooks the new Scottish parliament building). In effect this would mean that its independence is limited already – should a country borrow anothers royal family? Shouldn’t a country be able to do with its money as it wants? Go all or nothing with independence- if that doesn’t work, go for more developed devolution without the petty act of declaring independence like an ungrateful pet.

This is my next point – There are tangible benefits to being in the UK for Scotland. ~Being part of the United Kingdom has allowed Scotland to thrive in a way that it wouldn't have had it not been a member. For example, its part in the industrial revolution and in the Empire (later Commonwealth) were important and lucrative for Scotland and the Scottish diaspora. While this may be morally reprehensible to today's eyes, it has been a huge financial boon to Scotland, and is one of the reasons why Edinburgh and Glasgow are as wealthy and beautiful as they are. This wouldn’t have happened had Scotland and England not been tied together. Also, today Scotland is able to put great influence into Westminster, for example recent Prime ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are both Scottish – you could argue that for its population, Scotland has a disproportionate influence in London.

A little known fact is that (until 2010 at least) Edinburgh was the second largest economic centre in Europe, although it was dwarfed by the leader in this race: London. But why is that? Is it because the Edinburgh and London markets are intrinsically linked? Yes. There are benefits to being in a union with England and Wales which any idiot could see. Independence for Scotland would also mean greater fiscal responsibility, something which it has shown an ineptitude for even within a devolved government.

Would an independent Scotland have been able to fund a bail-out of RBS during the credit crunch? Not without great difficulty. Would a country responsible for its own finances have £431m to spend on a parliament building? Would a country which is financially responsible for its own actions continue pumping money into the ever-more-expensive, but ever-less-expansive Edinburgh tram, which is now 5 years overdue and 3 times its budget? No, it wouldn’t have. I think that in these cases a more prudent Scotland would be good, but Scottish nationalists are looking a gift horse in the mouth when refusing the safety net of a joint British economy.

 

A regular argument made by pro-Scots is that the money from the North Sea oil wasn’t given back directly to the Scots, but rather given to the British coffers and returned proportionally by population. They argue that this wasn’t fair, and certainly there are grounds to argue that (although it has increased profits and made particularly Aberdeen a much nicer place than it would have been had no oil been found) – ironically, now that the reserves are (potentially) drying up, and revenue from them is going down, the income would decrease just as Scotland gets the whole control of them.Graphs for the income from North Sea Oil are found here.

Without the oil money coming in, an independent Scotland would fend for itself with ever rising unemployment and drug problems, and a decreasing income from oil. This is particularly true when you consider that growth in other Scottish products, most notably whiskey is on the increase too. The increased demand worldwide for Scottish whiskey should also be a boon to the Scottish economy; however, the largest whiskey producers in Scotland are run out of London, with an obvious knock on effect if that continued.  

A common argument put forward by many (no source, but people I've talked to) is that per capita, Scotland doesn’t pay its way. This is untrue and had been particularly untrue since the discovery of the North sea oil, graphs suggesting this are here. This argument, that Scotland should be ejected from the UK because it isn’t worthwhile having them there, are ridiculous in the extreme and to be ignored. It is easier to find reasons that

Other than oil, banking and whiskey, tourism is a huge part of the Scottish economy. This can be seen during the Edinburgh festival, at new year, or throughout the summer, when nary a Scottish voice can be heard. Similarly, the Highlands is notable for its lack of cars from the UK driving around, and many of the most famous golf courses teem with foreign tourists. Loch Ness is nothing but Taiwanese tourists.  

This is good, but an important piece of information is that many of the tourists are from elsewhere in the UK, particularly England. This coincides with a strong anti-English feeling and sentiment which is being played on already in ads and in public discourse. I see this referendum not as a chance to assert a national authority (while maintaining another countries monarchy and central bank) but as a chance to ‘stick it to the English.’ This is at best, narrow-minded, and at worst, not moving on from things which happened centuries ago: look to the shouts of ‘wanker’ during Flower of Scotland, the national anthem; how will the many English and others feel in Edinburgh, now a multicultural bastion, if this underlying sense of 'other' continues through to independence?Almost definitely, this will lead to hostility and bitterness on both sides of the fence.

I’m not saying that these concerns and memories of past mistreatment aren’t without merit, but it is important for a country to become a nation on its own terms, and not merely to spite the master country. This is exacerbated by the fact that the majority of the English seem utterly indifferent to the Scottish, leading to a little brother big brother mentality which is laughable for Scotland, a country of great culture, history and beauty. For the sake of partiality I’d also like to put on record that I think that Jersualem is one of my least favourite songs of all time. It would be a shame for the Country of Robert Burns, Walter Scott, to start as a nation out of spite, and potentially burn any bridges through a shower of wannabe Braveheart nonsense. I’m not saying that the treatment of Scotland historically isn’t important, but this should be done objectively, especially as the two have been in a treaty binding the country since 1707.

At present there is a political disenfranchisement in Scotland – There is a Conservative and Lib Dem government throughout the UK, but only 1 Conservative MP In Scotland- meaning that the will of a nation isn’t reflected well. This is a point, but powers remain for MSPs to take over, and the breaking of a bond would also be detrimental for England and Wales, who would likely be subject to a bone-crushing Conservative government for the rest of time. There is political disenfranchisement in Scotland, but this will change next election. The fact that an election didn’t go their way isn’t enough to rescind the significant powers that Scottish parliament has, with the comfort net of being part of a country that will help to pay for its failed tram lines and parliaments. The UK as a whole benefits from this, as Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are both evidence of Scottish importance (no matter what your view of them) to a British parliamentary system. (Brown, Blair both Scottish, which would probably lead to England and Wales having a Conservative government for the foreseeable future (for those not familiar with politics, Labour and conservative are both awful choices, but Conservative is far worse)

My final point is this: this whole issue will be decided by referendum next year. In an unusual move, people aged 16 and over are allowed to cast their vote. Some would argue that this is because Alex Salmond realises that people aged 16 and 18 are the most likely to vote for independence. This seems a little like manipulating the boundaries of voting to increase your power, something which a good democrat shouldn't have to do. I am not a fan of referendums anyway, the Referendum on changes to voting system a couple of years ago, or the numerous ones I participated in in Australia, and without getting into it, are at best a snapshot of those who turn up to vote in elections. and I argue that this form of direct democracy is inherently flawed, even before you get 16-year-olds along to vote. There’s a reason that 16 year olds don’t vote in elections: They’re largely idiots. The same is true of people aged over l8 - a referendum is a way for politicians to pass the buck onto its largely ill-informed, often wilfully ignorant populace. I despise the fact that I can research statistics and figures, make an informed choice, and still be outvoted by a bunch of people who have watched Braveheart twice. This is, I believe, a decision for the people to make during elections, and not on a glorified Newspaper dial-up poll.

Furthermore, Holyrood is currently has a majority party by the Scottish Nationalist Party, The SNP, run by the very clever and capable Alex Salmond. A shrewd manoeverer, he will do whatever he can to ensure Scotlands indepdence, despite the SNP having no real policies of its own outside of independence. It has promised an independent utopia that will be at once low-regulation and low-tax to the right, and a strong welfare state to the left. These are incompatible with the declining income of Scottish oil. More importantly, SNP has a troubled history: in 2004 it proposed an independent Scotland should use the Euro, and before the banking crisis,  - they have no real notions of what Scotland and Scottish people are like, or of any of the real exigencies that will arise when and if Scotland was to becoem independent - questions like, what would happen to the Scottish people serving on the armed forces for Britain? What would happen to the Nuclear submarines stationed in scotland? How could you disentangle 300 years of shared law and economics to form a distinctly seperate legal entity? How would the country really be independent if it keeps the British queen and the British pound?

On top of that,  everything Britain has achieved since the union, good and bad, has been together: the trappings and benefits of colonialism, of the industrial revolution, of global conflicts, particularly the Second World Wars. Importantly, the SNP protested against the conscription of Scottish soldiers during the Second World War, something they don't tell you in those terrible propaganda ads  which will air until the referendum is done. How anyone who thinks they are progressive and encouraging self-determination while intending to break the worlds strongest and longest lasting political alliances is beyond me, and how anyone can follow a party without policies which is heavily bankrolled by the Souter family and Rupert Murdoch and call themselves a liberal is as well. Its use of the terms 'National Movement' to describe its aimscertainly brings a chill to my spine, and should send a similar tremor down the spines of all those who though not Scottish, choose to stay there for its tolerance and liberal attitude, and who remembers or has learned what those words mean when combined throughout Europe. 

In conclusion: There are objective and subjective reasons for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom - but it boils down to the fact that there shouldn’t be a reason to break up a union which both sides benefit from. This is particularly true as Scotland has so many powers given to it already without the need to declare independence. I’m going to vote against it. However, I think it will pass after a long and potentially bitter battle, only to have the woad-wearing idiots have their dreams crushed when they realise that life on your own is more difficult, and that without the English to blame, there is no one but yourself. 

* This will refer to 'Scottish' and 'English,' rather than 'England, Wales, and Northern Ireland' -  why? because the UK is primarily England's work, and Northern Ireland and Wales don't count because they are nothing. There I said it.

P.S. this needs proof reading and extra references added to it, but I'll get there.

Racism: some thoughts.

Hello all, a potentially controversial topic today, but I think that at heart I am a genuinely tolerant person - keep that in mind. I'm also smug.
 
I play 3-on-3 basketball for a team. There are four, sometimes five, of us tied into the team, and I am the only 'white' guy. A friend from the team is a very big, very black man who I won't name. For the record, he calls me whitey, and jokes about my cracker ass, inability to jump, and the fact that on a sunny day you can see my internal organs. Meanwhile I joke that he can't be seen in dark rooms and can't eat brownies because it would be cannibalism. It's classy stuff, but we're friends, and it's well-meaning. It's also not the only thing about each other that we mock, he mocks my pretention and laziness, I make fun of his addiction to videogames and sugar, as well as his height (6 foot 8!). To me, he's a friend first, a giant second, a black guy third.

We were out drinking and had a series of serious discussions. Eventually we breached the topic of race, and surprisingly, it led to quite an intelligent debate. We started off by mentioning that greek ahtlete who made a joke about the number of Africans on the Greek Olympic team. From what I understand, she said that with so many Africans there, the 'west nile' mosquitos would be having home-cooked food. West nile Virus is now common in Greece (apparently). She was sent home as a result of this joke. It's a terrible joke, not funny, but she didn't deserve to be sent home for that.  there are African people on the West Nile, why should an admittance of this be so controversial? Should we be sending athletes home for a bad-taste joke?

 I argue that it's controversial because any mention of black people is instantly regarded as 'racist.' This attitude, so commonly seen in twitter outrages, is racist in itself. Had she tweeted a joke about white people, or 'regular' Greeks, would it have caused a similar amount of fuss? No. This attitude is not only racist, but exteremly worrying, it is at very least, a sign of inequality. Surely 'regular' Greeks and 'African' Greeks have to be treated equally, and that should include being able to say a stupid joke about them without it necessarily being made into 'racism'. Surely for a multicultural society to thrive, there has to be some give or take? (I understand that West Nile Virus is dangerous, and deadly, and that may be part of the decision, but the race aspect was what we were discussing, so move on.)

This is a point that my friend made. Every once in a while, he says, someone (usually white) will jump into 'protect' him from harmless ribbing from a friend (see above for examples). He claims that this intervention is racism. I think he has a point. Although they are well-meaning, my friend argues, at the heart of the matter is the fact that these people think that black people are different and require protection from harmless abuse in a way that a 'whitey' wouldn't. Being mocked and joking with friends is something which everyone does. At heart is the thought that black people are so different that they can't handle gentle ribbing, and that they can't think of their own comebacks to get even. The end result is that people think that black people, in this case, my friend, needs special protection because he is different. That's racism, or at least unenlightened.

   He also notes that in cases where he was genuinely racially abused, these same people are to blame. He argues that British people tend to be inherently racist, I don't know about that, but the situation seems to be a lot more perillous than it should be. Britain has had generations to integrate, and it still seems fraught with tension. Certainly the situation is genereally perillous enough to prevent people from joking about the race of another, and that is a genuine obstacle to multiculturalism and tolerance.

  Please note that there is a huge difference between joking with your friends and genuine racist abuse. Either way, it's trouble, if you want equality, you have to treat everyone as equal, you must accept that every race is as flawed, as ugly, as pathetic as every other. You can't put some races on a pedestal in terms of protection, and you can't treate every comment as racist, as that is a racist attitude itself. As soon as we start segmenting certain people as 'off limits' for comedy, comments and even criticisims, then we are driving a barrier between us and a socially inclusive, cohesive country.

Other topics we discussed: why is it that lesbians are the only sexuality to constantly remind you of it? My friend thinks it's because a lot of them are fickle - His sister was an 'experimental' lesbian for a while, but is now engaged and pregnant - what we both agreed on is that we know lesbians who constantly mention their sexuality to everyone, and we both know different lesbians who have changed their names since coming out. Gays are proud, and remain proud, but I have never met one who has changed his name after coming out, and I used to live in Newtown, Australia. We both agreed that you get the feeling that lesbians need to keep doing this because they are either unsure of themselves, or thnk that everyone wants to hear. [N.B. I kind of agree with myself in the sober light of day, but I do need to write this a little better].

Hope everyone is well, thanks for reading.
 P

Addendum: as if to emphasise my point, a Swiss soccer player has been kicked out of his Olympics team for using twitter to calling the Korean opposition 'Mongoloids'. I think we can all agree that this is racial abuse. Why, oh why, do these idiots use twitter anyway? it's nothing but trouble.

E-Petitions. Not a Good Idea.

People are idiots. Largely, they shouldn't be listened to. E-petitions were installed by the latest government as a sign of direct access between 'us' and 'them.' The saying was, if 100,000 people signed an online petition, it would be debated in the Houses of Parliament. In theory this is a fine idea, it might allow for dissent to be shown and lively debates to take place. Instead of ones which say, 'discuss ending the Coalition, nobody wants it' or 'how about spending a bit of money on infrastructure?' the ones that pass are insane: "lower fuel prices," 'stop immigration,' and most worryingly of all 'bring back the death penalty.' I understand that some people want to see murderers executed as a punishment for their crimes, however, we as a sociey, have fought long and bitter wars, have engaged in legal debates and pressure groups to take the power to kill someone away from Agents of the state. At the first possible chance, people are demanding to increase the power of the state as far as possible. People are idiots.

What cheek do you want me to turn?

"First the army, now marriage? Why do gays want in on all our worst institutions?" source

The following articles refers to attitudes to same-sex marriage, as opposed to the current situation where same-sex couples can enter into civil partnerships. In the U.K. Civil partnerships have a similar legal effect to marriage itself, although it is not officially approved of by the Church as a marriage before God. Great debate has gone on towards allowing same-sex marriages, and this debate has become more prominent after comments by Cardinal O'Brein, the most senior Roman Catholic cleric in the United Kingdom. O'Brein said that the idea of redefining marriage to include homosexuals would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world." I don't think it would. Here's why:

I think that legalising gay marriage would show the world that the United Kingdom, even under a mean-spirited, over-privileged Prime Minister like Cameron, is still determined to allow everyone the right to marry. Britain is still a reasonably large player on the global scale and this acknowledgement of rights would be important for global development towards genuine equality. 

In the same speech O'Brein said that same-sex unions are a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right." I don't think he understands what a universal human right is, because it means a right which applies to all people, including- you guessed it- the gays. This either suggests that he thinks that homosexuals aren't humans, or that "universal human rights" only apply to heterosexuals. Either way, it's perhaps not the best way to show the empathy and compassion which are basic tenants of the Catholic faith. At very least, why someone who has taken a vow of chastity is commenting on sexual habits of others is beyond me. Perhaps he could explain to us how his god made homosexuals in order for you to deprive them of rights and to discriminate against?

Speaking of violation of human rights, I believe that it is a universally accepted right of people to grow up without being sexually assaulted by clergymen. There's a reason why Catholic and altar boy jokes have become cliche, because it has happened all over the world, again, and again and it has been like that for years. Child abuse is only practised by a tiny minority, it's not a tenant of the religion, and it disgusts most Catholic practisers as it does everyone else, but it does seem like the authorities of the Catholic Church should be the last people to take a moral high ground on homosexual activity.

Anyway, the whole thing came to a head last Sunday, when Roman Catholic churchgoers were read a letter telling them that "they have a duty" to ensure that same sex-marriage does not happen. It wasn't read out in every church service throughout the land, though it seems to have been read by a majority. The writers of this epistle, which is at very least intolerant, and at worst homophobic, were Archbishops Vincent Nichols and Peter Smith, two men who have now dedicated their working lives to sharing their opposition to homosexual marriage.

You might think that there are bigger things for the church to worry about, not least the ongoing sex scandals which still crop up from time to time. This sentiment was also hinted at by Ben Summerskill of Stonewall, who stated "it's a shame Catholic church leaders are so deeply opposed to a 21st-century balance of rights that they're not reading out letters about serious issues such as the AIDS crisis in Africa or the 2.5 million people who live in poverty in this country" - While there are undoubtedly progressive parishes where these issues, and others like them, have been made manifest, it is notable that the central powers of the Church seem to be most interested stimying homosexual marriage. Instead of encouraging priests to preach about charity, compassion and empathy, they are encouraged to preach bigotry and discrimination. 

Nichols and Smith are the last people anyone should be listening to. When even more religious nations than the United Kingdom, notably Argentina, have legalised Gay Marriage, and when even a Conservative Government is making strides towards homosexual marriage, it would appear that the battle is lost. Ill-thought out attacks on homosexuals by O'Brein will only help swing public opinion further away from the Church. This disrespects the five million practisers of Catholicism in the U.K. The vast majority of Catholics in this country are doing good, charitable, responsible work and deeds, who tolerate and empathise with the small majority of the population who are gay and want to get married. 

Rupert Murdoch: Prick of the Day.

 This is a companion piece to some of my other, impotently worried about current events stuff. Today we'll be talking about Rupert Murdoch, an evil tycoon who is increasingly looking like Mr Magoo and a Scrotum after a collision. This wretched, evil old prick, has for years using his immense wealth to control the media, peddle scandals and lies, decrease the intelligence of the populace, and push his own agenda on an increasingly stupid world. He's probably the most important man in both the US and the UK, which are still big players (for the time being).
 
The News of the World, a newspaper written by morons, for morons, was closed down last year 
after the extent of phone hacking became evident. This enquiry is ongoing, and shows that this paper would do anything (hack the victims of crimes phones, hack into emails of celebrities) to continue their seedy quest for more celebrity gossip.  Rebeka Brooks has resigned as a result, which is a great tragedy for journalism, and for humanity.

Meanwhile,Five Senior Journalists from the Sun have been arrested in the ongoing corruption trials, which have already shown up a culture of illegal activities and payments between the press, the police and politicians. The result was Murdoch turns up, not to apologise, not to announce his retirement, but to introduce a
scandals, hacking,  - arrests at the Sun have led to his arrival, not to announce his retirement, but to introduce a new paper, the Sunday Sun, which will peddle the same shit, but this time make it "Fearless, Fun... And Ethical." I don't think it will, I think it will be the same crap as before, and more evidence of illegal, sleazy and corrupt practises come to light. I really don't have a lot of hope for a newspaper with Katie Price as a columnist to really do any groundbreaking journalism. 

This is a man who forsook his nationality to gather ever more wealth, and has an unprecedented control over the political will of nearly two countries. However, have you ever heard of him using his enormous wealth to do anything good for society? Making page-three girls popular doesn't count.

I'd also like to make a special mention of his dipshit son James Murdoch, who suggests that even after Rupert is in his cold, cold grave, we will have another generation of idiots to peddle their shit and slander to the masses.

Furthermore, we must also recognise Rupert's third his wife, Wendi Deng, a woman who is 43, to her husband's 80 years old. A Quick Browse on her details also suggests that she was married to a man 30 years her senior before. As well as single-handedly reinforcing the notion of Oriental woman crazed by power, willing to sleep with anyone rich, she is equally responsible for the continued success of her evil, shrivelled up fucker of a husband.

Hopefully the Sun on Sunday will be less popular than the 'Two Weeks to live Monthly' - but no one ever lost money underestimating Britain's desire to see boobs, celebrity gossip, and half the newspaper dedicated to soccer players. Come on people, we should be aiming higher.

U.N., try again?

There are five Permanent U.N. Security Council members, and any one of them (USA, UK, France, Russia, China) can veto a bill or resolution, no matter how ineffectual or watered-down it would have been. The effect is, nothing ever gets done. The murderous Assad in Syria is allowed to use his armed forces to knowingly kill his own citizens, but  Russia and China will veto any resolution (even if it is only a political condemnation, rather than military action) because they trade arms with Syria, arms which are then used to kill Syrian citizens. As a planet, we should all be ashamed of ourselves for this. When they finally get Assad, let's hope he gets ass-rammed worse than Gadaffi did.

Time and time again, the U.N. has failed to prevent genocide and other war crimes, in Rwanda, it was ineffectual because of lack of funding and lack of international care, in Cambodia, political reasons prevented intervention to a system which killed a third of the countries population in a matter of years. Even in Europe, there was no UN action in the the Former Yugoslavia, instead bombing had to be taken through NATO, which for once proved itself a viable source (although Far From Perfect).

My point is this, with those five permanent secretary members, there will always be one with a different view from the others, and a veto will only lead to gridlock. This is especially true with the emergence of China as a genuine superpower. As it is, the UN stands as a reminder of the failure of global international law,  it is definitely time to establish a more efficient global police system. How would this work? countries donate their own soldiers and money to a global police force? No, that won't happen, and if it did, it would be at the mercy of those who gave it the most money, rather than any moral or legal mandate. So in conclusion... we're all boned!

Anyway, I wish you all a happy weekend.

P.S. The U.N. General Assembly, which, can't make legally binding resolutions, but is still seen as a strong international opinion maker, voted in favour of condemning the Syrian government, and to think about ways in which to remove Assad. It was passed by a vote of 137 - 12 (with others abstaiming). Let's see who voted against it, in alphabetical order: [taken from this source]

Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe. Pretty much a roll call of shitbox countries with oppressive regimes. If Belarus and North Korea are on your side, you're pretty much in the wrong.

So You Want To Become A Politician?

I've cracked it. If I didn't swear, liked people, and didn't have a history of sleeping with people with boyfriends, I would be an MP by the time of the next election. For any of you without moral baggage (or at least moral baggage which you can hide from the public) here is the step-by-step walkthrough to enable you to best a political rival every time:

How To Survive Any Situation:
  Them: Seemingly easy question about policy (which may or may not be a trap)
  You: Talk around the subject for several minutes, without giving any definitive facts or statements. At all times, thank your party for the work which they are doing in this important area, no matter how unimportant the area is. Blather on until...
  Them: Interrupts, asking you to answer the question, or telling you to get to the point (particularly clever ones will use 'facts' and 'figures' to try to get you to spill the beans. Ignore them, instead saying...
  You: Say "Well, I was getting to that, if I could get a word in edgeways" - you have no intention of doing so, but this will make them look unreasonable, and an obstacle to progress. People will associate you with wisdom and benevolence.
(N.B. If they try to protest that they merely want an answer, you say, "wuh, wuh, wuh, wuh, well I will get to that, if you'll let me...")

If That Doesn't Work: 
If a fact is brought up and the formula above doesn't work, then the solution is also simple. You merely blame the opposition for their work in hindering or enabling the current situation. This again has no reflection on who actually made policies and decisions. It is important to never admit fault. Instead, say, with a straight face, "unlike my opposition, I don't resort to bi-partisan bickering."

What To Do Next:
After that, go home, masturbate while wearing your mistresses clothes, but don't get caught (this also applies to auto-asphyxiating masturbating, we have had too many good MPs die wearing a gimp-mask, hanging themselves up from a buttress). After this, finalise work on cutting benefits to ordinary people, then talk to friends in big business and banking about tax breaks. Wage illegal war, and wonder why people don't trust politicians. Repeat formula for 20 years, gain important Cabinet position. Retire to either House of Lords, or to lucrative after-dinner speaking circuit, speaking alongside such charismatic luminaries as John Major.

The end.

(On a side note, politicians calling the electorate 'ordinary people' is one of my absolute hates. If we are 'ordinary people' it means that they view themselves as anything but 'ordinary people,' - it's incredibly patronising.)

Jealousy F. Kennedy

After my well-received, surprisingly well-researched article on British Police, I'd like now to mention something which I forgot initially, something a little more positive: the wonderful case of Mark Kennedy. He is a man I am jealous of. For those not in the know, he was a policeman put undercover to infiltrate leftist protest groups, he went undercover under the name of Mark 'Flash' Stone. He gained notoriety and jealousy when he, like Kurtz in 'Heart of Darkness', went local, and took his undercover life a little too seriously. He lived a life of gay abandon: taking drugs, playing in a band (called the 69'ers - how original!), and even attacking fellow policemen at an EU summit protest. Most famously, he even managed to have sex with a few fellow protesters, although they are now taking a class action against him class action against him. While undercover, he had sex with at least three different women, by betraying their trust and lying to them as to his intentions. More impressively, he managed this while looking like this...

That ripping sound is the rule book being torn up [source]

For those actions alone, I'm immensely jealous of him. He received undercover pay from the police, while protesting and hanging out with leftie chicks. This article states that he was never specifically told not to sleep with people. So as well as travelling to 11 different countries, protesting, and fighting policepeople, he was humping with the endorsement of the British police. The best thing of all though, was his alias, of all the names on earth he could be, he chose Mark 'Flash' Stone, which is really dorky, especially when you could choose Stirling Go-Getter, as I would. Here he is undercover...

"Please, call me Flash" [source]   

This is the coolest he'll ever look, and he still looks like Kid rock.

Chinese Logic, German Logic. Two examples.

A conversation I had quoted as it occurred:
The first took place with a German guy, who was a dick, and I was trying to wind him up.
Me: "German, thankfully, isn't a world language"
Him: "What? It is a world language"
Me: "What, do they speak it in Samoa, that used to be a German colony didn't it?"
Him: "I don't know, but they speak it in Austria"
Me: "OK."
Him: "and in Switzerland... parts of it"
Me: "But, surely, that makes it a European language"
Him: "and Europe is part of the world, so it is a world language"
Me: "I'm off for a beer, want one?"

This is what I have come to learn as German Logic. However, it reminded me of a formal debate I once watched while at uni (the things we do to impress people huh?) - which was between the Chinese ambassador on one hand, and a Taiwanese and British Consulate on the other. The argument went as follows:

Taiwan guy: China has been pressuring us for our Chinese artifacts.
Britain guy: Same here.
China guy: You have over 90% of all chinese artifacts in the world, they are culturally important to us.
Taiwan guy: We only have that much because you destroyed them in the Cultural revolution.
Britain: Only because people fled with art and artifacts, and because of previous museum collections, do any survive at all now. We only have such a high proportion of them because you actively destroyed them. And why shoudl we give things back to you which we value and you have tried to destroy in the past.
China guy: That's irrelevant, you have 90% of our stuff.

I guess this can be called Chinese logic. This repeated for nearly an hour. It wasn't fun, especially as it took place in a heated room, filled with angry people in suits. Was there a point to that tale?
What was my point here? I'm not sure, but I suppose cultural understanding is important, no matter where you are, or how important you think you are.

British Police

I fear that I must be serious now, a move away from homosexuality, rugby and Japanese movies for the time being to something more political. The police in Australia are awful; one of my earliest memories is watching NSW policemen crying as they were sent to jail for perjury and obstruction of justice, fearful of the powerful raping they were about to receive. Years on, they remain biased and unfair, but that is for another article. The following is a discussion of the British police, who are, in their own way, much worse. Before moving to the United Kingdom, I had an idealised view of an honest, obsequious police force which never fired on its own people, and always gave criminals the chance to run by yelling 'Stop! Police!' Bizarrely, this is not true. 

Instead it is a country where innocent people can be killed by the police, and no action is taken. For example, newspaper salesman Ian Tomlinson was innocently walking home, through a protest, and was pushed over from behind by some aggressive prick riot-policeman. He died from his injuries. Despite this happening in 2009, the trial is still ongoing; almost definitely it will lead to nothing but disciplinary action for the policeman. A policeman who is, by definition, a murderer. Even if the officer in question was to be punished as he should, a policeman with a police record would hardly be unique, recent reports show nearly a thousand officers still in employment despite having criminal records ranging from traffic violations to burglary, dishonesty and fraud.

  Ian Tomlinson is not the only person to have been killed by agents of the state. The most famous is probably Blair Peach, for whom no one was ever charged with the murder. More recently, the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes was the result of mistaken identity following administrative errors on a surveillance. Police agents mistook him for someone they were supposed to be spying on for potential terrorist reasons (itself a worrying notion). Jean Charles de Menezes headed to work and on his way was killed by police who believed him to be someone else. His family, after appeals and complaints, were awarded £100,000. This article tells that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said "he was a totally innocent victim and in no way to blame for his untimely death." Great work guys, I really feel safe with you protecting us.

However, the police can do great work. Unfortunately for us, this seems to occur only when there is a risk of injury to the police themselves. During a largely peaceful protest in 2010 against a raise in university fees, and cuts to education, some enraged idiots took to the top of a building and launched stuff off it, nearly injuring two police people below. While they have struggled to recover CCTV footage of Ian Tomlinson being killed (the trial relied mainly on phone footage), they were quick as a greyhound finding the guy who lobbed a fire extinguisher [source]. I'm not saying that this extinguisher thrower doesn't deserve arrest, I just wish that it didn't require injury or peril to police themselves before they broke into action.

  Increasingly, protests are met with kettling, a controversial tactic where people are kept in one place for large amounts of time where they can be monitored. While people with legitimate concerns are treated like cattle, while the police themselves are happy to stand idly by while London, and then other cities, rioted in 2011. I thought that the point of the police was to protect and serve the people, not to intimidate those with opposing views? While on the subject, although there are numerous underlying political reasons for the riots themselves, the thing which sparked it all off was the death of Mark Duggan at the hands of the police. While he was a known drug offender, forensic tests showed that he was unarmed when he was killed. The subsequent treatment of his family and community helped to encourage the rioting and opportunisitc looting which took place after this, and which has allowed the press to sidestep the issue of police brutality into a more vehement argument against the undermesh of society.

Either way, the death of Mark Duggan was largely responsible for the initial disorder in London, while the lack of policing to this disturbance allowed rioters and looters to thrive, which soon spread to other cities, this has been recognised officially. 

Further evidence, such as an admittance of institutional racism in the police throughout the Stephen Lawrence trial, and an example of police  deliberately withholding evidence which may or may not have exonerated a man who had been in prison for 17 years, merely adds to the idea that the institution itself is corrupt and rotten. Furthermore, 333 people have died in police custody since 1998, while no police have ever been convicted. While drunken or medical attrition can be assumed for some of these, footage like this suggests that it is not all down to bad luck. In case you can't see, a drunken, violent man is tasered and then beaten. Tasering should be a last resort, when you are spasming you should be handcuffed and not be beaten. Four policemen is enough to arrest anyone. The lack of any police prosecution despite evidence against them is worrying also. It is little wonder that the murderous psychopath cop-killer Raoul Moat has become something of a cult hero.

Most worrying however, is that their power and influence is increasing as budget cuts mean that more and more of their work will be done by volunteer police people; the amount of stress on genuine police will increase. State-sanctioned use of weapons against protesters and rioters is exactly what the Western World has been condemning when done in the Middle East. It is the sign of a state which has its priorities wrong. Therefore, a concession that future riots will give the police blank canvas to use deadly force, namely water cannons and guns, is extremely worrying. The discretion being left to the police is, as been shown, not a recipe for success; and the government's tacit acceptance that more riots will be forthcoming suggests a disdain for the populace. We, the people,  have spent generations, fighting wars both political and military, in an effort to make the our rights heard and make the state accountable to us, now it appears that we have to be accountable to it.

In conclusion, I'm well aware that it is the minority making things look bad, and that it is a tough job which the majority do well, but I'm also well aware that you should know your rights, and don't blindly trust the police.

p.s. I have used the term 'policeman' instead of police person.Why? not only because most violence was committed by male officers, but I think that the battle for gender equality will not be won on gendered pronouns. If you disagree, I don't care.