A short and sweet article about economic hitmen

If the objective of foreign aid is imperialism, then is that wrong?

Some people have a belief system that allows themselves to live an opulent life of luxury while the rest of the world wallows in poverty. There are many who believe strongly in this system and have forced it upon the rest of the world.

The limited resources we have on this planet are enough for all of us to live on, but in reality, this is not the case.

Look at the statistics about violence, depression, drug abuse, suicide, divorce and crime, it indicates that although we live in one of the most wealthiest societies in history, we also live in one of the unhappiest.

In his book “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” John Perkins showed the battle between us, the DC’s (Developed Countries) and the LDC’s (Lesser Developed Countries) as a battle for natural resources rages and…

View original post 340 more words

USA’s First Amendment

The USA has not exactly been keeping on the whole “free speech” premise as per the First Amendment. First, there was the incident of the Irvine 11 , who were eleven students who interrupted a speech of Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the US. They heckled Oren by citing some of the atrocities of Operation Cast Lead upon the Palestinians in Gaza. While it is questionable as to the productivity of such practices, I think it is fair to say that charging these students with criminal offence is a star way too far. If they were inciting threats and demonstrated other threatening behaviour, then criminal allegations could be a possibility.

Sadly, a similar incident has occurred where UK’s ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair came to Colby College in Maine, USA. First of all, like in the above example, the protesters have not been reported to demonstrate any violent or threatening incitements. However, one of them has been charged and released on bail of $250, namely Lawrence Reichard.

The USA have funny ideas about free speech. They constantly create bogeymen, some of whom were best friends with the USA in order to pull civil liberties away from people. Such as the case with the Patriot Act, where in the name of national security, people’s freedoms are being taken away. The other problem of having free speech is that today, one could be considered a true American patriot. Tomorrow, they could wake up and be terrorists threatening the national security. Such is the case of many groups such as the African National Congress, the Taliban and the PKK.

Furthermore, despite the First Amendment, the USA has curbed freedoms of people in the past such as the communists (included suspected), Japanese during World War II,  negroes during the Civil Rights Movement and so on and so forth.

 

In summary, the freedom of expression by the First Amendment is relative to who the latest bogeymen are in the eyes of the American media it seems.

Benefit-battered Britain

 

This is in light of the Philpott’s arson incident where a father of 17 children lost six children in an arson attack. Some sick individual poured petrol through the letterbox of the Philpott household and started the blaze.

One would think that there would be sympathy for one who has lost six children especially in such horrific circumstances. However, Carole Malone could not help but unnecessarily politicise this issue by stating that, “This was an accident waiting to happen. There’s a lot of resentment out there for families exactly like this, especially now, especially with the country in the state that it’s in, there’s not much money and people have seen families maybe like this one taking advantage.”

 

If somebody is illegally claiming benefits from the state, then there is a whole legal system to deal with such incidences. Murdering six children is certainly not the way in any rational minded person’s thoughts. However, acknowledging the root cause of such problems is the rational and logical way to solve the problem of benefit thieves.

 

Let’s look at the government’s way of dealing with issues since they are the policy makers and they are involved in social, political and economic engineering that affects our everyday lives. I believe that unfortunately, the UK has a policy of either being too-soft or too-harsh. The result is a policy of laziness and overreaction. For example, immigrants and foreign nationals are either deported on unreasonable grounds or allow them in on rather flimsy grounds. The soft-touch policies can lead to policies of positive discrimination such as allowing immigrants to get by in the UK without learning English and hence, not engaging with society. Eventually, anti-immigration groups form under various guises to push an agenda without acknowledging the benefits of immigration. However, more of an effort needs to be made to make British people get into the workforce and immigrants that refuse to engage with society and refuse to speak the local language should be dealt with more seriously. I believe offering driving tests in languages other than English in the UK is wrong.

 

Another problem is the UK’s brain drain: the number of British graduates working abroad is around 1.1 million and no other nation suffers from this brain drain as much as the UK according to MigrationWatch. The reason for this may be the limited opportunities graduates have in the UK due to it being a more services based economy. Consequently, other industries such as engineering and manufacturing may have been left behind and so as opposed to using profits to modernise and advance these industries, they were simply stopped.

 

To summarise, the British government and other powers that be must try and engineer a culture whereby British people find pride in work and not living off benefits. Secondly, they need to cut red tape and nonsensical positions in the public sector that do not need to be there. Thirdly, they need to ensure the immigrants coming into the UK will be committed to helping the British society in a positive way and not just for themselves.

Rochdale Ring: Racial or Religious problems?

 

The reporting and commentary around the Rochdale sex ring has been appalling, to say the least. Diatribes from the likes of Melanie Phillips, combined with the fact that many people are in total agreement with such nonsense is rather worrying.

Let us clear one thing: the issue of the Rochdale sex ring is neither racial nor is it religious. There are plenty of stories in the UK as well as in other parts of the world where racial and religious minorities have been in the spotlight for similar crimes; Ultra-Orthodox Jews covering child sex abuse, Catholic Church scandal, Hindu priests in Mandirs and the list can go on. With regards to it being racially linked, 95% of sex offenders in Greater Manchester are white which seeing as UK being a predominantly Anglo-Saxon “white” population, isn’t exactly disproportionate. I wonder why these BNP/EDL type racists and Islamophobes fail to mention other religious minorities or  bother commenting on other ethnic minorities such as the sex rings from eastern Europe.

Among the sensationalist reporting was the headline from the Telegraph that states that the members of the paedophile gang treated their victims as “worthless.” I am not trying to be funny here but I have never known a case where the sexual abuser did not see his/her victims as worthless. The reason why rapists rape is because they see their victims as worthless. Again, this is not dependent on race or religion whatsoever.

Fact is that the issue of sexual abuse is not limited to race or religion in any way, shape or form. Unfortunately, it exist everywhere in the world except maybe the north and south poles. If the government is serious about curing such social ills, they need to see the horrendous socio-economic conditions that have lead to such criminals and may be this can help related crises such as the prison population pushing 86 000. Somewhere the system has failed and partly, the fault may be in the justice system and partly, with the way the government has engineered society to become what it has.

Security or Stupidity?

The security preparation for the Olympics in London 2012 by the RAF practicing security exercises. The possibility of surface-to-air missiles on east London tower blocks is being seriously discussed and without consultation.

Of course, there is nothing more welcoming to tourists than fighter jets on airships glistening in on the Thames and missiles on residents’ buildings (in case you haven’t noticed, that was a sarcastic remark). I understand that terrorism is a serious issue in major events such as the Olympics but I also understand that overreacting to a particular threat will make the opposite side feel empowered. Furthermore, I highly doubt that having fighter jets and missile technology is really the way to go about things: how on earth are these going to prevent a “9/11” style tragedy without shooting down hijacked aeroplanes (which have civilians in them) or blowing up whole areas? These missiles can do some serious damage!

Often it seems the government seem to invent bogeymen to divert the public attention from real issues that matter (employment, economy etc). If the government are serious about terrorism, they need to stop making ridiculous policies that make things such as thought a crime and actually address the issues that cause terrorism in the first place, including admitting that they are sometimes wrong.

If these terrorists are serious about what they do, I highly doubt they’ll be put off by a few missiles and fighter jets but rather, they’d rejoice at the chance of, what in their warped view, is martyrdom.

If the government want to stop terrorism, it must look at its’ own policies which are often a harvesting ground for terrorist ideologies.

The Titanic has sunk

This is in response to a strange media phenomenon that seems to have gripped British television and other British media. It is the 100th anniversary of the Titanic accident, an unfortunate incident where thousands of people died due to a collision with an iceberg.

Tragic indeed but there is nothing we can do about it now. For this reason, I am amazed at how many TV shows and documentaries are coming out now about the accident. I would have thought one trip to Hollywood for a big budget, tragic love story would be sufficient in terms of fictionalising the event. However, there is television series depicting what went on in the Titanic.

I understand the loss of life is indeed sad. Why then do we feel the need to make out that every single Tom, Dick and Harry on board was a hero? Why the persistent need to create myths and legends about an accident that happened a century ago?

If we really give a damn about human lives and the loss of life, why don’t we try and coordinate our efforts to lives that are being lost now? A vast majority of the African continent is rife with poverty and strife because of opportunistic warlords and “ex-colonialist” involvement, in order to secure the continents’ resources for themselves.  Mind you, the plight of the Congolese and the Rwandans are not the only plights of the continent.

 

 

 

 

The Question of Forced Morality

Let’s face it: you just simply cannot force your definition of morality on someone else. Since the dawn of humankind (whenever that was) there have been different religions and philosophies that have come about that have different moral compasses. This is a reality that we as human beings must face up to and must understand.

The latest cringe-worthy advertisements on buses in Central London were going to be “Anti-gay” slogans. The campaign was launched by the Core Issues Trust (CIT) whose leaders claims that “homoerotic behaviour is sinful.” The campaign was a response to gay rights group Stonewall and their campaign on London buses. Mayor of London Boris Johnson has since halted the CIT campaign as it is offensive to homosexuals.

The problem is that these bus campaigns do not allow positive dialogue and discourse between Christians and homosexuals but create more tensions. There is nothing fruitful and productive from these campaigns and all that happens is a tennis match of slurs between the homosexuals and the homophobic people. I can understand homosexuals want the right to practice their sexuality. However  to force people to accept that what they do is morally correct or not is just as bad as any other religious extremists forcing their views on people.

We need to live in a society where we can agree to disagree and have open dialogue and debate. It is a shame to see that someone who does not believe in the “gay gene” or believes that homosexuality is not a choice is instantly dismissed as someone backwards and someone who hates homosexual people. Then there is the other extreme who have a fervent hatred towards homosexual people and believe that they have to cure them. Unfortunately, it seems we live in a society without dialogue but instead, founded on demagogues.

In order for us to progress as a society, we have to acknowledge that there always will be homosexuals whether we like it or not; we cannot force people to believe homosexuality is moral or immoral. To outlaw homosexuals is a strange thing indeed because you can’t police what one is doing behind their closed doors. Gay rights activists need to understand that not everyone will agree that homosexuality is not sinful and as opposed to forcing their views upon people, dialogue in an academic and scientific manner should occur if they want to convince people whether or not homosexuality is moral, or a choice or not.

 

The view that forced morality, even with regards to homosexuality is bad idea is agreed by openly gay historian David Starkey.

 

Justice is a Joke

I am quite literally saddened at the verdict UK’s extradition policy from the European Court of “Human Rights.” To add insult to injury are remarks from Lord Carlile, Home Secretary Theresa May and Dominic Raab MP. The verdict to allow extradition to the US without trial in this country is offensive to the word justice and it essentially degrades the European and British systems of justice.

Talha Ahsan, Babar Ahmad, Adil Abdul Bari and others are among a list of citizens who have been locked up in maximum security without any trial. Take Babar Ahmad for example: eight years in maximum security without reason. Surely the logical thing was to put him on trial in the UK first and if that failed to prove the allegations true, then let him go. Unfortunately, him and others are victims of this new style of justice which teaches “guilty till proven innocent.”

Theresa May should hang her head in shame right now. How dare she demand a swift transfer to the US for these prisoners and yet they have not even found the allegations against them to be true?

As I write this article, I am literally lost for words. I honestly thought at least the UK judicial system was better than this. It seems our government have sold their souls to the American government who don’t exactly have a clean justice system.

I think Theresa needs to review her position; she made a complete fool of herself earlier in the week due to her unnecessary action in the case of Raed Salah who was deported based on conjecture as opposed to actual proof and evidence.

Welcome to Absolute Jimothy

Welcome to my humble abode online!

 

Feel free to comment, jest and no naughtiness allowed!

 

Toodaloo