| (no subject) |
[Nov. 5th, 2008|10:44 am] |
Oh, was there an election? About 5000 posts on my f-list seem to think so…
I have an embarrassing confession regarding politics. I used to not care, and not know the first thing about the UK or US. And my early intro to actually giving a damn was one of those books that you don’t really want to admit to.
Paganism has them too – books which have led people onto a more serious path, but are themselves an utter ball of over-enthusiastic fluff and naivety. I know pagans who have gone on to lead groups and provide support and insights for dozens of others, but only started looking at an alternative religion because of “Mists of Avalon”. Or started on Starhawk’s “Spiral Dance” and ended up in a completely opposite system.
One of my early books was (wince) Stupid White Men in 2001 or so. I actually read it LOOOONG before it became popular and known, long before Bush’s actions made people scramble for something to confirm that they weren’t hallucinating the idiocy.
Much like Michael Moore the book is loud, angry and often totally inaccurate. However, on some issues it just states the facts. Like how every one of Bush’s initial staff had a conflict of interest. His environment guy used to be on the board of an oil company. (In fact, most of his staff were at some point). Moore talked about the Neoconservatives and PNAC (wiki them if you have the courage), and how even Bush Snr’s staff thought these guys were right-wing loonies. How Dubya was a born-again dry alcoholic, and this exactly explained almost all his behaviour (although not the apparent brain damage he displayed on a regular basis – that may have been the drugs.) The outrage of SWMen was infectious, mainly because the stuff they were pulling was SO far over the line. They weren’t even pretending not to be evil.
In short, most of Dubya’s failings were known about a week after he took office.
And in 2004, enough people voted for him AGAIN to make it possible to pretend he’d won. The first four years hadn’t been enough for people to run screaming, they hadn’t learnt that the guy “they could have a beer with” wasn’t the person you wanted negotiating with China or Russia for your interests (double irony points for having a beer with an ex-alcoholic). The utter unaccountability he’d shown, the disastrous and hateful policies, and they’d rather have him than “let the socialists in”.
And now, in the last week, the polls said things like “Obama 53, McCain 40%”. Forty percent?! It shouldn’t have been 8%! Dear God, even having that many million people voting for him is a damning example of everything that is wrong with Democracy. (This is another example of everything that is wrong with Democracy).
And then there’s the widescale fraud/errors with voting machines, Republicans striking people off voter rolls… all documented, all proven, people involved strangely not in jail. So I wasn’t willing to relax in the week coming up to this election.
Hey, maybe the Supreme Court can decide who won again, depending on their party allegiances!
But Obama won. Phew. Aaaaand… breathe out, after eight years.
I don’t think he’ll be a mega-liberal, but he’ll be sane and intelligent, and that’s all the UK (and most of the world) wants right now. America, you redeemed yourself. A McCain win really would have been the end for any kind of credibility for US democracy, and somehow, after eight years of lies and hatred towards the commie-liberal-mutants, it didn’t happen.
Still kinda blinking and disbelieving, but happy. Today is a good day, and America deserves the praise – not just for voting for clearly the right guy, but for beating the dirty tricks that have come out in the last few weeks trying to skew the numbers.
I am happy about it, I am. But I still can’t quite relax.
Because Dubya has his finger on the button for another few weeks yet, and nothing to lose.
---------
Edit: I've now counted six separate posts from friends which contain some form of "Please don't assassinate him". |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Oct. 15th, 2008|12:10 pm] |
More evidence for Jacqui Smith to get a special award for crapness today:
The UK government wants to build a giant database storing the content of every phone call, email and internet visit made by the British public.
Yes, you read that right. Every single email, text, phone call, and internet site. Stored by default. By the Government.
Problems with this:
(thanks to ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) clytemenstra for details)
1) The UK sends roughly 1 trillion emails, 60 billion texts, and the visits from 20 million broadband connections EVERY DAY.
2) This government is shit at data security.
3) Really shit.
4) They also can't build databases.
5) And they don't have the staff to review them, or the capacity to store them. A growing, stored daily copy of the entire UK internet?
6) And if they did review these emails and phone calls, 90% of the texts would be from teenage girls saying hi to each other, in txtspeak.
7) Good luck with that.
8) It works by having a black box on each provider, which reads and copies everything going through the provider. This just needs one hack.
9) It includes all emailed business information. Ahahaha. When this was pointed out, they clarified that 'of course business traffic would have to be given special treatment in order to maintain confidentiality'.
10) Oh, and there's the whole civil liberties thing about privacy, and such.
In short it's physically impossible, we don't have the manpower or the money, and it still won't stop terrorism. Again.
Jacqui Smith, we salute you. Keep pushing for it, and hopefully when the idea is shot down you will be too.*
*Not literally. Wishing that on Ms Smith would be... er... bad. And she'll probably be able to read this soon anyway. Oh well, at least I get a new tag. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 10th, 2007|05:33 pm] |
George Bush is in South America. "Why?" I hear you ask. Well, ethanol and biofuels. South America makes a lot of ethanol, and he... wants them to stop, because it might cost the US money. Oh, sorry, that's not how it's meant to read, let me try again:
Ethanol could be used to power cars. Ethanol (as in Bio-diesel) can be produced from crops. If we use this instead of oil, we cut down on pollution and reliance on the Middle East for fuel. Everyone's a winner! ...Wait, that's not it. Once more:
Ethanol produced from sugar cane in South America is cheap and plentiful. It's fairly catastrophic to the land that gets stripped bare to grow it, but that can be managed.
Ethanol produced from corn in the U.S. is expensive and requires processing that uses fossil fuels. Bush also has an over-50% tax on imports, so that US Corn famers can keep selling their crops at current prices.
Now he's in Brazil to sign a deal that will promote biofuels control Brazil's ethanol imports, because we wouldn't want them getting too cheap and available for use as fuel. But honest - he's doing it to be green. Oh yes.
"This is not about combating climate change, it's about protecting the corn belt," said Dr Plinio Nastari, one of Brazil's leading economists and an expert in biofuels, before the deal.
Suzanne Pereira dos Santos, of Brazil's Landless Workers Movement, told The Associated Press: "Bush and his pals are trying to control the production of ethanol in Brazil, and that has to be stopped."
I don't know about you, but I'm completely convinced that Bush is suddenly interested in promoting Biofuels and getting away from Oil. He's gone green, clearly. Oh yes.
Surprisingly, President Bush is not entirely welcome in South America. There have been just a few small protests involving thousands of people.
"Good morning President Bush, how's it going?" the crowd screamed, before the unmistakable chorus of "Filho da puta" - son of a whore.
""Persona non grata" read one placard. "Get out you Nazi" said another. In case the message still hadn't hit home, there was one other taunt - this time in English: "Bush, kill yourself."
"Some arrived clutching banners telling "Mr Butcher" to go home. Others brought effigies of "The Warlord" dangling miserably from a hangman's noose. A handful dressed up as the grim reaper, while some women paraded through the streets with stickers of George Bush and Adolf Hitler placed tastefully over their nipples."
So it could be going better for him, really. But I'm sure that's not the reaction from the whole of South America. After all, he's going to Iximche on Monday, a holy site in Guatemala. How will they react?
"That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture."
Oops. Still, they won't cause a scene, right?
"Mayan priests will purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after President Bush visits next week". "It will be necessary to cleanse the sacred site of bad spirits."
No, this isn't normal practice in Iximche. Yes, he is a very special boy.
In other news, Iraq is still going really well. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 12th, 2007|08:17 am] |
Quite unbelievably, someone actually asked where I stood on Dubya's latest 'plan' to send 20,000 more troops into Iraq in an effort to 'win'.
Well, I'm never one to form an opinion before studying the situation, so let's take a look.
Generals Casey and Abizaid said that more manpower won't work. The Backer commission (ie: his Dad) said he should reduce troop numbers. So did the Democrats. So did the voters. So did the countries Allied with America. So did the Pentagon and State Department (although they've been opposing the Neocons for a while now). 3 years ago, Generals said that the solution would not be a military one, and that "for every insurgent I kill, I create three".
Ignoring this, George instead went with advice from the "American Enterprise Institute" who are, surprise, Neo-cons. It's not a shock that their recommendation was more troops: Bush suffers from the classic Neo-con problem. He desperately needs to believe (and needs the rest of the world to believe) that America can win wars with its army, and should use the military to bring 'stability' and American values to the whole world. This sounds a little crazy, but it's in their mission statement on the website.
[Edit: This was not entirely fair of me. The American Enterprise Institute, and the specific people behind the recommendation (who based it on a results from a tiny city of non-muslims elsewhere) are not all Neocons. One of them is the ex-CEO of ExxonMobil.]
Unfortunately, the exact comment from the think-tank regarding a "Surge" strategy was "It is difficult to imagine a responsible plan for getting the violence in and around Baghdad under control that could succeed with fewer than 30,000 combat troops beyond the forces already in Iraq." And George is only putting up 21,500.
He's pulling a battalion out of Afghanistan to make up the numbers, at a time when Army Brigadier General Anthony J. Tata (and other US commanders) say the Taliban is expected to launch a campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar.
So why can he only respond with more violence, and see attack as always the best solution? Well, possibly because he's a dry alcoholic ex-cokehead black-and-white thinking born-again, who's never run a successful business in his life. But more likely it's just absolute ignorance of the facts. He actually said the words ""Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace." George, that wasn't true BEFORE you came along and made the world a more dangerous place, it certainly isn't now.
The problem with handing over control to the Iraqi security forces / police is that both those agencies are filled with Sunni or Shia who want revenge, and access to weapons. Reports on the ground suggest the level of personnel in these groups that are actively seeking out their enemies could be described as anything from "heavily infiltrated" to "primarily made up of".
Iran is funding the Shia militias (who, as soon as they become the majority government will go on a Sunni-purge) and Saudi Arabia is funding the Sunni 'insurgents' (and has no intention of letting Iran control the new Iraq government). +21,000 troops will not change any of this.
So how do I feel about it? Let me put it this way:
The Home Secretary of the UK may lose his job because he can't immediately prove that 250 people out of 27,500 who committed crimes abroad haven't since got jobs with vulnerable groups in society, such as children. He wasn't in charge when the mistake was made, and has only just found out about it, and said the department wasn't fit for use at the time, but he may still be fired over it.
JUST WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK does George Bush have to do to get fired for incompetence? Isn't showing complete ignorance and hurting America politically, monetarily and internationally enough?
A wit on the political LJs framed it like this:
"Alternate names for President Bush's revolutionary "new" strategy in Iraq"
Operation Ignore America
Stay The Course, Plus 21,500
Operation Provide Targets
War Against Reality Part II: Electric Boogaloo
Operation Postpone Failure Until The Next Administration |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Dec. 18th, 2006|03:21 pm] |
So, Time magazine's person of the year is YOU!
Well, all of us. Anyone who uses/makes stuff for YouTube, Wikipedia, Blogs, the whole thing. Aren't we special?
As a quick politics side-comment, the online poll closed with these scores:
Hugo Chavez 35%
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 21%
Nancy Pelosi 12%
The YouTube Guys 11%
George W. Bush & Al Gore tied w/ 8%
Condoleezza Rice 5%
Kim Jong Il 2%
So it looks like "YOU!" are a convenient excuse not to give it to Chavez. Rant, rant, politics, rant. |
|
|
| "Lamont is the Al Qaeda candidate" |
[Aug. 14th, 2006|06:30 pm] |
Remember a few posts ago when I was happy that the anti-war candidate had beaten the conservative (who was pretending to be a liberal)?
Well, the fair and balanced American media have been completely neutral in respecting the voters' wishes. For example, mostlyarmed sent me the link for this little beauty from CNN:
Chuck Roberts, anchor on CNN Headline News, talking about the recently foiled attempts to blow up UK aircraft:
"How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?"
Oh yes. Vote for liberals and they'll be soft on "Terror", and the Osama will come and get you in your beds. (This isn't even FOX news, it's CNN!)
Let's just stop and think about this, as though we have actual brains. What are they saying, that by criticising the way Iraq has been fought he must hate America and want 'the terrorists' to 'win'? Well, I'd like to run this idea through the Uncle Steve Bullshit Detector (tm):
They're saying that an anti-War candidate is serving Al Qaeda's interests. Because hey, the war in Iraq has been so very effective in combatting the insurgents there, and reducing terrorist activity worldwide. It's made it so difficult for them to get any attention, and there's just no new recruits now after the (uncounted but huge) civilian casualties. Since the handling of the war has left a permanent US presence on Iraqi soil, there's not even anyone obvious to target.
Yes, all in all I'd have to say that Al Qaeda must want this war to stop really quickly. And the other wars too - the Taliban are so much weaker than they were when we first went into Afghanistan, and we obviously have the troops available to deal with them. Israel's popularity around the world is at an all time high right now thanks to military action... yep, Lamont clearly has the terrorists' interests at heart.
I would so love him to sue. Oh man, that's just a wet dream right there. Bring a civil suit for saying you're helping/in league with Al Qaeda, then use for evidence all the factors which prove that the Iraq war has been a catastrophe, that armies can't do anything about terrorists and in fact breed more of them ("for every one I kill, I create three") and that Iraq has been against America's interests.
THEN, when you accuse the other team of actually being the ones helping increase terrorism, they argue that the government needed to be "tough on terror" and you can go into the questionable morality/legality of half the decisions Bush has taken (in the interests of proving whether his position or yours has been better for America). Pulling out of the Geneva convention, the International Criminal Court, Guatanamo, the Patriot Act... the number of people held without trial who have actually been successfully prosecuted for anything...
You could get someone to argue that changing your society in these damaging ways has achieved more for the terrorists than they could have hoped if you'd just ignored them and plowed all the money into Intelligence and Delta Force hit squads for confirmed cells. While it'll never get Bush or Cheney impeached, it'd at least get the arguments out there. I'd pay for a front row seat.
Anyway, yes. The anti-war hippies (oh wait, he's not actually a hippy. He just thinks Bush messed up on Iraq but is in favour of most of the other policies.) He's the Al Qaeda candidate, for sure. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Aug. 7th, 2006|10:37 am] |
I know most of the people on my LJ are bored by politics, so I'll keep this interesting. (No, I won't put pictures of Angelina Jolie randomly through the text. Although that would be cool.) For example, the words "UN resolution" are automatically boring and complicated. So let’s look at the real story behind the waffle.
News headlines over the past few days: "UN agrees ceasefire!" right next to "Violence dramatically increases, Israel say they will definitely not stop!"
The UN have come up with a plan to stop the violence. What was the reaction from a Lebanese man immediately after skimming through the lengthy document?
"Don’t these bastards learn anything from history?"
Is he seriously asking that? Of course we don't learn! We STILL think that terrorism can be effectively fought with troops and bombs (it can't) and that doing so doesn’t automatically breed more terrorism (US officer in Iraq: "for every one I kill, I create three".)
But no, the history they’re talking about now is that of Israel/Lebanon, and the UN are showing a large amount of amnesia. They basically proposed exactly the same plan they wanted in 1982 – everyone stops fighting, buffer zones get set up and Israel gets its troops out of Lebanon back to how things were a few weeks ago.
Oh wait – no, there’s no mention of that last bit. Everyone will put down guns and Israel’s troops will... stay all over Southern Lebanon.
So that'll work, then. Hizbollah are bound to go for that. It won't, for example, be "a dead resolution unless there's a total Israeli retreat" (Syria's foreign minister, there.) Of course, Syrian ministers don't usually get a lot of attention - they’re predictably biased at all times and a bit crazy - but several different sources have agreed with the line from them that the resolution is "a recipe for continuing the war".
The document doesn’t talk about the hostages taken by both sides (Hizbollah haven't changed their story that the two Israelis held by them won't be released until hundreds of prisoners taken by the Israelis are). That’s apparently the cause of this violence, but it doesn’t get a mention. Or the disputed land that is the whole reason for Hizbollah's existence.
No, once again the plan is to answer terrorism with military might and then leave troops and bases all over the region. Because we saw how well that worked in Iraq.*
*Special Anniversary edition! Four years since I said
"Wow, the US had better have a really good plan if they’re going to invade Iraq, because otherwise they’re looking at inevitable civil war and dividing the country up into three, at which point everyone’s got a clear border for their enemy to be the other side of and the violence will get so much easier".
Which is exactly the current state of things, and the current plan. Clearly the UN should have employed 26 year-old Me. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jul. 26th, 2006|11:04 am] |
Two good articles out today. The first is from Steve-favourite Greg Palast, and basically says this:
-- Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's ratings were terrible until he acted tough. However, there’s no way he could have kept it up this long against world opinion without George Bush's approval. Bush can stop Olmert tomorrow. He hasn't.
-- Hezbollah was on the verge of collapse and facing calls to disarm. Even now they’d be nothing without backing from Iran. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can stop Hezbollah's rockets tomorrow. He hasn't.
-- Hamas was on its way out as peace talks were proposed. They’re still broke, and the only thing keeping them going has been the money and backing of Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah can stop these guys tomorrow. He hasn't.
And why haven’t they stopped it? Erm... oil. Oil prices go up when there’s violence, and all the guys running this show make money. And right now they’re making lots of money.
Palast isn’t saying they started the violence deliberately, but he does wonder
"if Bush would let Olmert have an extra week of bombings, or if the potentates of the Persian Gulf would allow Hamas and Hezbollah to continue their deadly fireworks if it caused the price of crude to crash. You know and I know that if this war took a bite out of Exxon or the House of Saud, a ceasefire would be imposed quicker than you can say, 'Let's drill in the Arctic.' "
Tony Blair was particularly useless recently. Everyone else said "this is bad and should stop". He said
"There have been as you might expect over the last few days enormous diplomatic efforts to get us to the point where I hope at some point within the next few days we can say very clearly that our plan is to bring about an immediate cessation of hostilities".
So there’s been lots of talking, and he hopes this means in a few days he’ll have a plan. And you can guarantee that plan will, despite rogue ministers criticising Israel, be the same as America’s plan.
As Mark Steel writes today,
Blair manages to be the only person in the world who can make you think "That made no sense at all – for the coherent version I’d better listen to George W Bush".
Then Steel proposes that Bush and Rupert Murdoch should tell Tony to take different approaches just to see him tear himself apart because he’s incapable of going against either of them.
Kim Howells said on radio "Israel should have a better relationship with the places it occupies", which was surely a mistake, since it essentially says "violent men should try to get on better with the wives they’ve beaten". Perhaps "occupies" wasn't the best word to use there. Or maybe it was.
In other news: Middle East still messed up. Oil still the reason. Everyone buy this. |
|
|
| Steve's update: the most important one. Please read. |
[Jul. 11th, 2006|08:01 pm] |
At last, someone tells us the reason for the war in Iraq. In his latest book, Greg Palast spells it out using quotes hotly denied by many industry insiders (but fortunately he caught them on tape). The reason the US had to remove Saddam was:
He was a bad man
He had WMD
He was defying the UN
"Freedom"
Oil.
But not in the way you think.
The US didn’t want Iraq’s oil because the world is running out of it and we need to secure more supplies. (It’s not, we don’t). They didn’t even want it so they could make money from selling it in the future, or provide cheap oil for a grateful American public.
They wanted it so they could stop oil production and keep prices UP.
This war wasn’t between the US and Saddam, it was between the US and... the US. Specifically, the Neo-conservatives/Pentagon and Big Oil/State Department. And the Government got its ass righteously kicked by the Oil Companies.
( It's long, but if you want to know why Iraq is such an almighty mess, it's all here. )
I'm halfway through the book so far. |
|
|
| Bush protecting us from teh gays once again. |
[Jun. 4th, 2006|10:45 am] |
Uncle Steve's Politics update!
George Bush gives a radio address on banning gay marriage.
This is even stupider and more evil than it first appears. For starters, it's only being raised because he daren't talk about the economy, petrol prices, Iraq, Education, or anything that matters. His ratings are down and he needs a wedge issue to get people scared to vote for the other guys.
"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."
Bullshit. As historian Ronald Hutton showed recently, the nuclear family and widespread marriage is a very recent invention and has never been the norm before the 1800's. Only the richest people ever got married, and that was just to sort out property rights. The whole model of monogamous marriage was not set up for people who were likely to live more than 20 years more, is outdated and has failed completely in recent times.
Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.
Wow. We have to keep marriage's religious roots in there (Christianity) and two people who love each other weaken the good influence on society if they're not a man and a woman. I notice how he's ignored the divorce rate, spouse and child abuse rate and inferred that we're moving away from 'natural roots' to 'unnatural' same-sex marriage. Nice.
And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box.
No, no, absolutely not. Someone else compared this to the early days of the racial-equality fight: the majority are by definition prejudiced against the minority (in this case gays) and we need to make the equality laws to shape a better society than the one people instinctively have. Because that's how you protect a minority and promote equality. It was the judges that made it possible last time, not the Government.
What's funny is that Bush is probably convinced that "legislating morality" is exactly what he's doing.
Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years.
Woo! Ten points for 'activist judges', the current favourite conservative phrase for 'judges doing their job and following the constitution'. (Activist judges are always liberal somehow.) The Constitution is there to promote equal rights. Bush is proposing changing it to include one part that excludes equal rights.
He calls it the "Defense of Marriage Act" because marriage needs "Protecting". It's under attack! You must save it! Be a Patriot and sign this bill submitted last thing on a Friday - no wait, that was the last one.
The entire address is slimy emotional-blackmail propoganda filled with outright lies, christian beliefs held as superior, the Victorian model of the family held as sacred from all times and cultures and the right of the White House to fundamentally change the constitution when it shouldn't be involved.
Stupid prejudiced slimy evangelical fuckhead. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 28th, 2006|02:08 pm] |
The big UK election post.
Next Thursday, 4th May, I will be going into London to completely waste my time and that of many others. I will achieve nothing whatsoever with my afternoon, and the politics of my area will continue in the manner already decided for it. (Labour will win). I'm going to vote.
In 2002 in Camden (which my side of the street falls under, the opposite pavement being Westminster) Labour got 33% of the votes... and 65% of the seats. The Greens got enough votes to get 7 seats... but got 0 seats.
Because that's the way our fantastic politics system works in the UK, folks! I'm in what's known as a "safe" Labour borough, so I needn't bother getting out of bed that morning! My vote, the only way to make my voice heard as a taxpayer within the system, is worth less than a David Hasselhoff cd outside Germany*.
Is this good enough? No. Especially not when more people than ever are feeling that the Government won't react to ANY sort of public protest or feeling. Patricia Hewitt had to leave the stage when Nurses gave her a combination of insults and slow-clapping, but you can guarantee no policy is going to change just because the people who are in a position to know disagree with her statement that "The NHS has had it's best year evar!!"
I don't want the current labour government to stay in. I will take up weapons to prevent the Conservatives getting in, although at this point there's little between them. I'd like the Lib Dems or Greens to get more votes... but my single vote makes no difference to the numbers, and even if it did the current system does not translate it into seats in Government.
There are movements to make voting fairer and more effective. They're probably already too late to affect 2008 elections (I bet you a house that Labour will win - they'll be unpopular, but only they or Conservatives CAN win and I'm not even going to type the words of the alternative).
One movement is these guys:
http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/
Arguments against the various types of Proportional Representation include "it'll mean we have to have coalitions, and no-one will have enough outright power to get anything done". Well, if 33% of people want each of three parties, are you going to hand all power to 33, give the opposition the chance to argue for 33, and ignore 33? How is this better?
If I was one of the 13% of voters in Camden who wanted the Greens to have a voice and represent me, how is their getting 0 seats when they should have had 7 remotely fair?
And more to the point, how can a system which requires me to get out of bed KNOWING that my vote will not change the outcome of the elections be right? "That's a safe Labour seat, mate. That means they've already won. You're outvoted by chavs, and since only the 1st place counts for anything you'll end up with no power to change anything at all."
Let's see if we can build on the recommendations of February's 'Power Report' (which found everyone feeling helpless and increasingly pissed-off, and recommended scrapping the first-past-the-post system) and actually change something before 2008.
In the meantime, I shall be voting on Thursday, and ignoring the fact I'm an impotent minion of an unlistening Government I didn't choose but can do nothing about.
*If your immediate reaction was "or Austria!" then you are a sad, sad individual and I shun you. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 21st, 2006|10:57 am] |
Uncle Steve's Politics Update!
The Chinese Government does a lot of things that people don’t like, and are absolutely unrepentant. They never admit weakness, never agree to change, and hold the magic key to power – they’ll soon be making more money than anyone else. When you already owe them money, and are desperate to secure contracts for more, you’re not going to push very hard.
What the situation needs is a tough, super-fast negotiator who’ll take on China’s aura of invincibility and demand improvement on the issues that affect the rest of the World.
So it probably shouldn’t be surprising that when President Hu visited the White House,
George Bush failed to make any progress on any controversial issues whatsoever. Naturally, Tibet wasn’t even mentioned. Or the human rights record (previous conversation: “You’re really quite naughty you know…” “Yes, we hear your concerns and we’ll look into that. Really. No, really. Bye now.”) I bet they had a really grilling talk on the Environment.
Quote from “America: The Book” by John Stewart:
Presidential Nicknames: ‘Tricky Dick’ (Richard Nixon)
Richard Nixon was regarded as an agile and ‘tricky’ political opponent.
Also, he was a dick. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 20th, 2006|12:47 pm] |
I often find myself using the same catchphrase for people in politics. We have Ruth "Rubbish and should resign" Kelly, and also The Independent Newspaper's "Resident Fuckwit" Johann Hari. I think I saw this description online, and it kinda stuck.
Well, one of the reasons I didn't rate his opinions was that (as well as being as blatantly biased as me) he was in favour of the Iraq war. Today he published his "I was wrong" story, and it's quite enlightening.
A car bomb in Baghdad killed 50 at the weekend. It didn't make any front pages, or page 2's, or tv News slots. It's not news: in the three days after the 22nd Feb this year, 1,300 people were murdered in Iraq for sectarian reasons, in response to the bombing of a mosque. But it's not civil war.
Hari initially said "I agreed with the principle of the Invasion, it's just that Bush screwed up carrying it out". His friend responded "Yeah, who would ever have thought that supporting George Bush in the illegal invasion of an Arab country would go wrong?"
I had Iraqi friends in the UK who hated Saddam like nothing else on Earth, but even they could see the US removing him was going to be tricky. Could we have predicted things would get THIS bad? Hari points out that anyone who looked at torture under Rumsfeld in Central America in the 80's, or Bush's stance on the US use of chemical weapons in civilian centres, or the current Iraq money/water/electricity problems after the US's identical "privatise everything" policies in Russia, Argentina, East Asia... none of the disasters we're seeing now weren't predictable (or indeed predicted.)
Most of the 'insurgent' militias are supported because they oppose the US troops, not because they kill Sunni or Shia. Withdrawing the troops WILL help the Government get Iraq back under control.
80% of Iraqis want the troops out "Immediately".
72% of US troops want out before the end of the year.
It gets a bit bizarre when people who don't want to be there are guarding people who don't want them there.
Hari says very little I disagree with in this piece, and ends with a chilling question:
"Will the Bush Administration really surrender Iraq's oil after spending $200bn to grab it, just because the Iraqis, the troops and the public want them to?"
The post-war plan didn't exist until 3 days before troops went in. The plan to divide up all Iraq's oil to Western buyers had been drawn up by PNAC over a year before that. As far as I'm concerned, getting to say "I told you so" for three years has lost it's allure. I want someone to be accountable for this almighty shitfest, and I'm not sure what punishment is going to be enough. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 16th, 2006|10:19 am] |
Steve's Politics Update: The UK Education Bill.
Or: Is Ruth Kelly Rubbish, and should she resign?
Here is the transcript of the debate from yesterday's House of Commons*, with thanks to Simon Carr's 'the sketch' in today's Independent.
*While it's changed just slightly, this really is roughly how it went.
Labour Rebel:"This education law is exactly the same as the one Thatcher wanted, ie: independent non-fee-paying State Schools, basically privatised by whatever religion or corporation wants to tell them how to run."
Ruth Kelly: "Er... yes."
Angry Rebel: "And that means poor people get screwed, almost by definition, unless you have BIG safeguards. Because money becomes the reason for any decision, including survival of the school, and poor kids get bad schools."
Ruth Kelly: "No! Because we have THE ADMISSIONS CODE."
(Ruth Kelly may belong to the ultra-conservative Catholic sect mentioned in The Da Vinci Code, but it turns out this Code is entirely different.)
"It's big! It's going to solve everything and make everything FAIR!"
Increasingly Dubious Rebel: "That's good, because the funding gap between the best and worst schools is 135%. So what does this Code say?"
Ruth Kelly: "Nothing yet, it's has been withdrawn and is up for consultation. It won't be ready until after the Bill is passed."
Delirious Rebel, gasping for air: "Ha ha! Hahaha! I'm sorry, but you're rubbish and should resign. Didn't the National Union of Teachers give you an "F"? Aren't you basically an economist who used to work for banks?"
------
And there you have it. Vote for this bill! It may look disastrous, but you have their promise that they really WILL put in safeguards to make admissions fair and not make money the top priority, even though they've failed to do that every other time it's come up.
PS: She's rubbish. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 9th, 2006|04:40 pm] |
Uncle Steve's Politics Update
Special: "No Shit Sherlock" section! This week, dedicated to our good friends in the US.
'The Independent' comes up with the goods once again. Looks like many of the voices who were publicly and loudly pro-war are now saying it's a mess. Here's some of the latest quotes:
Francis Fukuyama (Influential author and Intellectual member of PNAC)
"By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at."
Altogether now: 'No shit, Sherlock.'
Richard Perle (Very influential neo-Con and warmonger, and a man for whom I guarantee your unending contempt could not be deep enough)
'The military campaign and its political aftermath were both passionately debated within the Bush administration. It got the war right and the aftermath wrong. We should have understood that we needed Iraqi partners.'
You mean like the massive report from experts that Rumsfeld chose to ignore SAID you would? No shit! No-one could have seen that coming!
William Buckley Jnr (Right-wing tv and newspaper asshat)
"One can't doubt the objective in Iraq has failed ... Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an army of 130,000 Americans. Different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgement of defeat."
Haven't you heard? The insurgency is 'in it's last throes'. That's why deaths are UP month-on-month, and we still can't guarantee security even in Baghdad. Good luck convincing Bush to pull out, he's on a mission from God and thinks that this can be solved by the Military in any way.
George Will (Right-winger with Newspaper column and tv)
'Almost three years after the invasion, it is still not certain whether, or in what sense, Iraq is a Nation. And after two elections and a referendum on the constitution, Iraq barely has a government.'
I'd be flippant here, but this is the most important point anyone could make. Civil War IS getting closer all the time, and the 'Government' doesn't have enough influence with those that matter (or the general population) to stop that.
Andrew Sullivan (Well-known blogger)
'The world has learnt a tough lesson, and it has been a lot tougher for those tens of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis ... than for a few humiliated pundits. The correct response is not more spin but a sense of shame and sorrow.'
Well, it's refreshing to hear someone say that this is more important than spin. This should be "no shit Sherlock" obvious to everyone at this point, but there's no way Bush and Cheney are going to admit anything. By being so unpatriotic this guy must hate America and want the Terrorists to 'win'. |
|
|
| Right, that's it. |
[Feb. 9th, 2006|03:44 pm] |
Steve's politics update!
The issue:
I wasn't going to do this one. "Those Danish cartoons and Freedom of Speech". Don't run away yet, I'm as pissed off as you probably are by the whole boring mess.
My stance:
To the idiots on the internet who won't leave me alone: Shut the fuck up already. This was never for one second about "Freedom of Speech". The Muslims in various countries were reacting because:
a) There's a rule against visual representations of Mohammed, to prevent Idolatry. Nearly every quote from people protesting abroad was about this rule, not the specific things in the cartoon.
b) The governments were inciting violence through mobile phone texts and a tiny number of people on the ground. It was organised, saying things like "The Danish Government is going to burn the Koran in the town square". Most of the demonstrations were initially peaceful, and some protestors tried to stop those who were turning it into a fight.
Abu Hamza getting arrested (UK story) was also NOT about his freedom of speech, it was because he incited violence. Different law, stop saying we're curtailing his religious freedoms. You incite murder loudly and repeatedly in a public place while stockpiling weapons, you go to jail.
And there's the problem, because the Bible and the Koran specifically condone violence, but you're not allowed to criticise religion the same way as other beliefs people have. (If the UK law had passed, you'd literally not be allowed to criticise it).
Having anti-murder laws in your country DOES curtail people's right to religion. In Islam, there's the bit (as has been noted in recent newspapers) in the Hadith where Mohammed instructs Muslims to kill homosexuals, both the one "doing it and the one it is being done to". The bit in the Sura where Allah hated the Jews so much 'he turned them into Apes and Pigs, despised and rejected'. Lewd women should be "confined to their houses until death". Etc.
Everyone has a right to be part of a religion which preaches violence. Most religions do this at some point. The right to be a Fundamentalist - or a Nazi, or even the scumbag leader of the BNP who should be in jail - is part of Free Speech. The point is, *other* laws of the land say that you're not allowed to use those teachings as justification for real violence, or to encourage others to violence.
The Bible can tell you anything you want it to. On the points where it doesn't actively take both sides at different times, it's vague enough to be interpreted many ways. Most people read "Love thy neighbour" and keep that part, but leave "anyone eating shellfish should be stoned to death by the whole village" well alone. They do this, or they go to jail. Christianity is accepted because the official ruling is to ignore the violent bits that everyone knows are there, and concentrate on the 'be nice'. The vast majority of Muslims in the UK do this too. I work with some, I'm friends with some, they're reasonable, calm, good people who think their religion tells them to act peacefully. Now we get the pictures of placard waving Muslims calling for another 7/7. An official spokesman said "I condemn (the placard wavers) without reservation, these people are less representative of Muslims than the BNP are of the British people." Which is exactly right. In Britain.
Leaving aside the countries where killing people for crimes defined in the Koran has made it into national law, we still have the "idolatry" issue. Did the Danish newspaper have a right to free speech if it broke this sensitive religious rule?
Doesn't matter either way. And why? Because there is absolutely no chance that seeing that cartoon would lead a single person in Denmark into Idolatry. You could complain that the content should have been less rude about Mohammed, but Muslim Fundamentalists calling for respect towards other people's religious figures is a bit comedy. The rule is there to prevent the worship of pictures or statues as though they were the real Gods. That was not gonna happen, but that's what the riots are apparently about and it was the initial excuse used by the Goverments - before they started on the "They're burning the Koran!" untrue text messages. Where did the cartoon get reprinted (a long time after it initially came out)? France - yeah, no tensions with Muslims there. Clearly no ulterior motive from the editors.
This wasn't about "Whoops, did we break a rule? But we want the nice pictures and free speech!" It was a calculated re-hash of an issue that was meant to offend, and was publicised to do so.
Conclusion:
It's just another stupid manufactured scare-story like Bird Flu, which sounds as though it's the coming of the next Apocalypse but is actually completely irrelevant to 99.9999% of us. "It may mutate to humans". Newsflash, there's plenty of fatal airborne diseases in the world already. This time though, the stupid story has enough stupid people behind it to actually raise tensions. So don't help it - stop talking about the latest FEAR and start working out how your vote is actually going to count for anyting in the next elections, because if you're reading this the chances are you live in a country with a crappy electoral system.
If it's the UK, and you live where I do, it's known as a "Safe" seat for one of the parties. This translates as "THEY WILL WIN. YOU MAY AS WELL STAY AT HOME." That's an issue to get angry about. The DieBold voting machines in the US are an issue to get very angry about - not fucking manufactured religious tensions.
(This was more incomprehensible than usual. See comments for explanation of where I actually stand on some of the points). |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 8th, 2006|11:00 am] |
Steve's Politics update!
Boring sounding UK politics issue of the day:
Recently, the UK has brought in laws to allow pubs and bars to serve alcohol after 11pm. Before that, we were still using the rules brought in because of WW1. At the time, idiots more conservative members of society screamed that 24-hour drinking would lead to drunken chaos, rising crime and drink related deaths for everybody!!
The facts:
As reported in the Independent today, Serious Violent Crime has fallen 21% (some towns 42%) and there are 14% fewer injuries. Pub owners report that people aren't buying 20 pints at 10.58pm, and huge crowds don't hit the streets at 11.30 anymore. So in fact, the predicted apocalypse that the "liberalisation" of these laws would bring, didn't happen. And the benefits everyone else expected, did.
Conclusion:
Well, duh. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 1st, 2006|08:37 am] |
Steve's Politics update!
Boring sounding UK politics issue of the day:
"The Religious Hatred Bill". Made so that the Government could be seen to be Muslim-friendly again, this just got defeated so that the final version is much weaker. That's good, because it would have banned "insulting or abusive" talk about religion. Which just about covers my entire blog and any good comedians in the last 20 years.
The Facts:
- Get ready: "It was bollocks".
- Now it's only irrelevant, because 'threatening' behaviour was already covered by other stuff and that's all it has made illegal now.
- Mark Steel says Tony Blair will be arresting himself immediately, since he's been locking up Muslims without trial because Bush wants him to, supporting torture and rendition, and pummelling a Muslim country into the ground for false reasons.
- He also notes that the bill itself is insulting to God, since it suggests that eternal hell isn't punishment enough or that God can't smite who he wants to.
- Simon Carr points out that we don't make jokes about Islam anyway, because we're too frigging gutless. Jesus and English Vicars are fair game, but people being too full-on at Islam tend to get Rushdie'd.
- The House of Lords proposed the changes which got through and stopped this being VERY silly. Once again, I find myself thankful for this bunch of unelected old boys. In shooting down some of the recent rubbish from Blair, they seem to rock. Hmm.
But why is it more bollocks than anything usually associated with Charles Clarke?
Well, how about "Evidence that hatred has been stirred up is not necessary for a conviction". Sorry, what? That's not the kind of language I want to be in the laws of the land, thanks.
Also, the bill is still worded so badly that Mark Steel can't work out if he IS allowed to call Jehovah a cock-sucking whore, or not. Which could be problematic.
Debate:
"Freedom of religion should not apply to false religions." Discuss. (Yes, I'm joking.)
"I should be allowed to say that Scientology is malicious, calculated extortion." Discuss.
UPDATE: ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) metaquotes already broke the version of the law that didn't get through:
"Gloria Gaynor sang "I will survive", but did she PROVE it? Jesus was totally the best zombie ever."
"I thought Jesus was the first vampire, not a zombie? Drink my blood and you will have eternal life.. etc. etc. blah blah stuff and all."
"But what of him eating the brains of his followers? Oh, wait, that might have just been the church..." |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 17th, 2006|09:44 am] |
Steve's Politics update in 2 minutes!
Summarising the political issues of the day, so you don't have to do actual research.
Boring sounding politics issue of the day:
Not content with having people take a "Britishness test" to become a citizen, Gordon Brown wants us to celebrate a "British Day" as a national holiday similar to 4th July in the US. There are several problems with this:
The facts:
- Yes, it's bollocks.
- No, there's no hidden detail, it's just as bollocks as it sounds.
- We don't need a day, and we'd be no good at celebrating it anyway.
- It's actually impossible to celebrate, because Britain's national identity is not stuck in the 60's. What would you include as "British"? As the Guardian said, "'Girls Aloud' and 'Ant and Dec'?"
The Guardian: "After a traditional British breakfast of Danish bacon, French croissants, Florida orange juice, Australian-owned newspapers and Indian tea..."
Drinking Indian tea is a famously British thing to do (well, English anyway, and there's another problem). As more global influences have a bigger impact on the daily lives of Brits, other things will become British too.
The likely reasons that someone in Government is a Weasel:
- This is either about selling the UK as a brand (to it's own citizens or abroad, both of which are ridiculous) or
- It's about attempting to preserve "Britishness" from all the smelly foreigners. If so, I have to break it to the scumbags concerned that black people are here to stay. If Britain is made up of 50% immigrants who can't speak English and refuse to stop wearing bright colours and eating different food, then THAT IS WHAT BRITAIN IS. It's not something you can manage by making people pretend to live in Hertfordshire in the last century - Britain IS diverse, it IS more tolerant of diversity than nearly anywhere else in the World, and that's great. If you're going to celebrate what's really there, you'll end up including everything from all over the world.
Summary:
Gordon Brown is talking absolute stinking Bollocks, and clearly has no idea how British people work. This should be worrying.
The Times put it nicely:
We’ll [celebrate being British] by not visiting the churches of England (unless in a white dress or pine box), by not planting flags on the front lawn and by going about our business without showing any great desire to force our way of life upon the rest of the world (well not anymore, anyway) or even upon our own citizens. Now that indicates a strong national character.
Some religious leaders spew hatred. Ours organise jumble sales and coffee mornings. When my uncle died recently, the vicar began: “Sid didn’t believe in God. So I’m hoping that wherever he is now, he’ll be very surprised.”
This Government, and Brown is a significant voice within it, may wish to promote Western democracy globally, but the majority of its people just want to be left alone to get on with the ironing, which has been stacking up all week. And that is what makes us uniquely, spectacularly, superlatively British. |
|
|