Why I Am Worried About The Lifting Of The Cuban Embargo

I have not moaned on this blog for what seems like an eternity now. It is not that I have not wanted to many, many times. It has just been my complete lack of interest in the world lately, something which happens every year as Christmas approaches, with all its 'festivities' being rammed down our throats in enormous quantities. The television gets switched off, newspapers and their online versions ignored, even interactions with my more consumerist friends is limited in the social media world. It frankly fucks me off more than usual.

Today that changed. Whilst at my workplace it was business as usual for a while, I was happily ignoring the noise produced by the radio DJ's, they were for the most part (I presume) spouting their usual shite. Then, suddenly, there was one story I couldn't help but become interested in. America is lifting its illegal, petty, and thankfully unsuccessful trade embargo with Cuba. 

For a moment I was happy. As you really should be with this kind of news. It surely is a good day for the people of Cuba, no longer shall they be the subjects of unfair, punitive, economic sanctions for daring to seek a path different from the American ideal.

Maybe this is a new America which does not wish to impose its own ideology on every nation in the world, one which doesn't shape its foreign policy exclusively in the terms of its big businesses interests, one that will not attempt to interfere in the running of a populace beyond its own borders.

Then I paused and sighed as I remembered that it was the most powerful of the western capitalist nations and the least likely to live and let live. Much like Britain, France, and pretty much every other imperialist nation from Holland to the new kids on the block in China, America does have a long and continuing track record of manipulating or coercing foreign populations and their 'elites' into situations that further their own agenda.

The extent to which this will happen in Cuba is anyone's guess, but as we know from both current events and history the last remaining superpower does not like having leaders on its doorstep which don't have big businesses, or more specifically American big businesses, best interests at heart.

My main worry is that the free elections which will happen sooner or later, and will be demanded by more than Owen Jones and the other pro-plutocrats, will not be won by a man or woman the people. Rather I see that too being manipulated and warped in favour of a pro-western, free market loving, sycophant. Should it not be the case, could you realistically see any scenario where another election is not forced upon the nation through international political will? I cannot.

I foresee only one outcome for the country, and it is a bleak one. It too will become a budget America. A nation of McDonalds on every corner, of dawn til dusk iPod advertisements, a twenty-four hour Disney channel, huge influxes of aspirational propanganda telling the Cuban people that they too can live the American dream... and within a few generations, a nation of rampant exploitation among the swelling lower classes and a small, burgeoning bourgeois elite, increasingly being marketed both nationally and internationally, as proof that rampant capitalism has the ability to improve everyone's life.

Congratulations Cuba on your impending cultural homogenization. Say hello to the Western Hegemony that will soon be dictating your every action.

Shocking News: Scientist Revealed To Have Poor Fashion Sense And Social Skills

Many people on twitter have fallen into their default 'outrage' setting this week as a genius who worked on the comet landing has revealed himself to be far from that in the wardrobe department. In fact his distasteful dress sense was so appalling that he genuinely thought a shirt as in your face as the one he chose to wear, featuring scantily clad and heavily armed women, was the right choice to make during the highlight of his career thus far. My annoyance with the ridiculousness of this outrage is three-fold.

Firstly, and most importantly, he is a scientist. If you expect anything other than social awkwardness and a twinge of sexual desperation from one, or indeed are experiencing the opposite when you interact with one, then you are not speaking, listening, or reading something from a very good scientist. Okay I appreciate that is a gross over simplification of the facts (with a huge dose of stereotyping to boot) but you cannot argue that there is not a 'geek' culture within the science community, and that culture does unfortunately come with its many misogynistic characteristics. Do not mistake what I am arguing for here, I am not apologizing or making excuses for the shirt. What I am saying is that being outraged over the awful attire choices from a scientist, who quickly changed his shirt once it became apparent to him that it was sexist and inappropriate, is perhaps not the most constructive of things to rally against. He is not the cause of the culture of misogyny, merely a symptom of it, a geek fooled by the culture that surrounds 'geekdom' and the wider society. The comet landing took place on 12th November, the same week that everyone started going bonkers over these photos with the strap-line 'break the internet'. BREAK THE INTERNET! The point of that strap-line really needs no explaining and just highlights my argument. Symptom or cause, individual or bigger picture, I know which one I consider more worthwhile and constructive in confronting. Only made all the more significant by the worrying racial connotations of the champagne butt balancing picture.

My second point is that the guy just helped land a man made object designed to gather data on comets onto a comet! Give the guy a break and just enjoy the scientific achievement for a little while before discussing the appropriateness of his shirt. This was the stuff of movies until the team at ESA achieved it. Beyond that it is a vitally important step towards further understanding comets. What we learn may even save the planet from a devastating impact on day, or help us further understand the origins of life on this planet. In fact there is a lot we do not know about comets, and at a crucial time in the proceedings, surely it would have been better to just let the man get on with his job and kicked up a storm over his inappropriate shirt choice after all of the butt-clenching had died down?

My final grievance with this outrage is the presumption that women will not what to engage with science because of his shirt choice, that it shows how unwelcome women are in the scientific community. Again I would argue that the clothing choice of one man does not hinder the impact women can have upon science any more than it helps it. I would argue that the society in which we live, through the means of socialisation, was the bigger reason for the disparity in the number of female scientists in relation to men. Everyone is familiar with the term 'women's work', that women have specific roles differing greatly from men that are determined by their biology. What many people fail to realise is that gender is socially constructed, because of this so to are the roles that men and women play in society. From schooling to pop-psychology we are told that these fictional gender differences matter, that men are better at certain things physical or intellectual pursuits (like science) because of their biological make-up, women are much more adept at caring, creative, or communicative roles. This is largely nonsense beyond the very real differences, those being that men are on average 30% stronger than women (although there are obviously exceptions), so many men are slightly better equipped than women for very heavy manual labour (although that does not mean they would be any more competent than large numbers of women or that there aren't just as many women who would excel in these roles) and women have the required gear for childbirthing. Everything else to do with gender specific roles, or what society tells us are such, is blatant misinformation. To suggest that this man and his shirt are going to put women off entering the scientific professions is just as equally misleading. It is not his shirt that would do that but the years of socialisation the young female will receive. The socialisation you see all around you from toys, to television or film, to subtle nudges towards an easily identifiable and socially acceptable gender identity from her parents, all conspiring to tell her that she is only suitable for 'gender appropriate' work and to leave the science to the boys. To lambast a man who wore a sexist shirt on a internet stream, however important that stream may be in shaping a child's future, I believe is missing the point and trivialising the actual problem facing those who want to get more women entering into high-status, scientific careers. Foremost among these is a culture that encourages women to turn their backs on science to engage in 'feminine' activities long before a person's (lack of) fashion sense has any bearing on their futures.

#bearface #heroic

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

No.

It is not.

I could probably end it there, but I feel like I really should explain. Children in Need have launched an advert providing helpful 'tips' on how ordinary people can raise money for charity, which every time I've seen I have felt an unstoppable urge rising inside of me, forcing whole body into a frenzy of uncontrollable bouts of violence, my jaw clenching until the grinding turns my entire jaw into bone meal, the anger only quenched and fading once it is expelled in its final moments as a scream, either loudly or internally, leaving behind a hollow shell where once belonged a man, forlorn and frustrated with what was witnessed, yet calm once again.

I am well aware of how this looks. Usually when I choose to moan about something I feel fairly confident that anyone with a fully functioning brain, with at the very least a modest mental capacity, would understand, relate, and most of all share in my frustration. But here, on this occasion, I look like a right miserable sod. I am but that is beside the point. 

What I find so frustrating about this advertisement is not the cause, or its good intentions, or its god awful cheesiness. It is the #bearface bit! Why is that something that should be considered heroic? Good on you ordinary woman for not wearing a product you are expect to wear under intense, and ridiculous, societal pressures. Good on you for showing the world the 'real you', without actually making much of a meaningful attempt to change the appalling and damaging way those products, that you so heroically discarded, are marketed at females. Good on you for listening to Abbey Clancy, a lingerie model who happens to be married to footballer (I was not at all surprised when I searched who the hell was doing the voice-over), for not subscribing to the nonsensical beauty ideal for a brief moment. Somewhat ironic given that she is a large part of its continued existence. Just good for you. You are simply the most heroic person to have walked this planet.

It is at this point when I come to realise I have made myself sound like a complete arse, I am sure that for many 'ditching the make-up' is truly terrifying. I appreciate that. What I do not appreciate is why it should be considered such a feat of bravery and the damaging effects the beauty myth can have upon women. Perpetuating this myth, that beauty is achieved through cosmetics and as such it is brave to 'ditch the make-up', will not help anyone beyond the obvious short-termist goal of raising a few bob for a 'celebrity' charity event. One I suspect is staffed almost entirely by people seeking only publicity and whom have, in all likelihood, contributed very little of their own 'hard-earned' cash.

What the people at Children in Need should be doing, if they had any sense, would be showing the useful ways in which people can contribute to charities and their fundraising. Bake a bloody cake, or do a challenge, as are suggested in the advertisement. Hell even do the tired dressing up to show how 'zany' you are, despite always coming off as a tosser with no imagination and looking like a twat all day. Dare I say it... shock horror... you could even collect money in a truly unique way (at least for these public, celebrity, charity event things)... with dignity and information!!! Crazy! 

Just don't think you are helping anyone in the long-term by listening to Abbey and "ditching the make-up and donning the paw" because ultimately, the idea that not wearing make-up is something abnormal gets enough children to be in need of help as it is. Poor form from Children in Need who raise for, as one of their many supported charities, the anorexia charity beat.

If you want to donate to them do so, just please don't humour the #bearface suggestion. 

Under A Month To Go In The Rochester And Strood By-Election: So Who Are The Candidates?

I was trawling through my favourite corners of the internet earlier, looking at the usual, when I stumbled across the Britain First post on Facebook about their candidate in my local elections, at which point it suddenly dawned upon me, I have no idea who the candidates really are and what they stand for. I looked for a while and couldn't find a page that outlined all of their manifesto's and pledges to the constituency, something for which I do not know whether it is my fault, for looking in the wrong places, or if it simply is not there. I thought to myself, for once do not just moan about this woman and her politics, make one page devoted to the candidates in the Rochester and Strood by-election, to the best of your limited abilities, which might help (at least some of) the people make an informed choice among the THIRTEEN options. So here we go, into the unprecedented territory of a relatively unbiased post (only because it is already clear I am not a fan of BF).

Mike Barker MBE: Independent
Bomb disposal expert.
Twitter: @MikeBarkerMBE
Received MBE for Gallantry in 1972.
Convicted in 2008 of making 'Threats to Kill'.
Imprisoned in 2010 for non payment of Council Tax as a protest.

Is concerned by the unexploded ordinance on the SS Richard Montgomery in the Thames Estuary near Grain, which has 10,353 bombs onboard and has not been made safe for the nearby public. Other concerns include the continued existence of nuclear weapons.
That is pretty much all I could find out about him, other than that he originally wanted to run as a Respect Candidate but was not replied to by George Galloway and his party. So I would assume that his politics would be in line (at least in part) with those of the Respect party.

Christopher Challis: Independent
Cambridge educated Accountant
Twitter: @Chris_Challis

Couldn't find too much on him so this is taken from his tweeting; Appears to be a keen supporter of free-market capitalism. States that he is pro-free NHS. Believes lower tax rates will inevitably produce higher tax intake. Is against the Inheritance Tax and would like to see it eventually scrapped when no longer needed. Mentions the EU referendum, and it being blocked by the House of Lords previously, Although not explicit that implies a pro referendum stance. Tweeted support for an article arguing against the legality and ethics of Multi-National Tax Avoidance.

Hairy Norm Davidson: Monster Raving Loony Party
Woodsman and Log Supplier

Couldn't find much on this chap other than he ran in Faversham and Mid Kent at the 2010 elections gaining 398 votes coming last (I would argue still more sensible than what some of those other voters in that region chose).
Here is the Monster Raving Loony Party manifesto.

Jayda Fransen: Britain First
Director of Britain First Merchandise

Main concern appears to be the construction of a Mega-Mosque in nearby Gillingham. They are an Anti-Islam group whose issues appear to be that of Islam in the UK, immigration in general, 'declaring war' on the Westminster establishment, and our EU membership. Here is the Rochester section from their website. As a bonus here is a video of her charming confrontation with rather bemused groups of Tories and Muslims.

Stephen William Goldsbrough: Independent
Lay Preacher
Twitter: @StephenGoldsbro

Tweeted this petition to stop Nestle patenting a cure-all flower. Also retweeted a tweet from 38degrees in support of a change to the gagging law. That's all I could find on him. Only two tweets.

Clive Gregory: Green Party
Bass Player
Twitter: @clivebassman

Clive's main policies include the following: Opposing the proposed development of Lodge Hill, the re-nationalisation of the railways, calling for a people's constitutional development, full monetary reform, £10 per hour minimum wage, protection for the NHS, and of course environmental sustainability (including opposing fracking in Kent). Read about them in a bit more detail in his local manifesto. His blog is a useful tool to use if you want to learn about his politics too, particularly this post. Here is the full 2010 Green Party manifesto, unfortunately it is an old one but it will be a good indicator of their core values. For slightly a more up-to-date, but more focused on Europe, manifesto there is one from the European Elections available.

Geoff Juby: Liberal Democrats
Medway Councillor for Gillingham South. Contested Rochester and Strood in 2010.

Surprisingly hard to find information on considering he is a candidate for one of the 'traditional big three'. Here is a rather wishy washy interview from 2010 for Rochester People and his profile on the Medway LibDems website. Because of his lack of online presence (like many of the other candidates) I am going to have to assume his politics are completely in line with the parties. As such I will base it on the Lib Dems pre-manifesto. These policies include: Balancing the nations books (the austerity program), raise tax free allowance to £12,500, protect education spending from early years to college (and education promise, forgive me for this one slip up in bias.... but... haha as if that will happen... it sounds familiar and is still a sore point for me and my bank balance), more free childcare, stronger border checks, greater devolution, and more... for more information check out their full pre-manifesto.

Naushabah Khan: Labour
PR Consultant and Kickboxer
Twitter: @naushabahkhan

Unsurprisingly, her twitter is useless as a guage of her policies... as it is pretty much just PR friendly photographs. Thankfully, she has a personal website devoted to this campaign. It makes me searching a little bit quicker as I do not have to trawl twitter, news sources or dubiously constructed websites, and hopefully I will be able to get on with my evening much sooner than I feared. Her concerns do make her seem committed local issue, real grass-roots politics in the community she wishes to represent. Her website lists as her campaigns a commitment to save Strood Library from closure (or relocation), fighting against 'Boris Island' in the Thames Estuary, fighting for the betterment of train services for commuters and improving their rights, and she wants to know about local people's experiences with GP waiting times to boot. You can read about it all on her website which handily includes a blog too. In the interest of fairness I will also include the Labour party manifesto? Or issues?... Heck I don't know what this is meant to be, but it does include some key promises so it will do. It's all on that website.

Nick Long: People Before Profit
Housing Officer

@nichopbp (found him after this post was completed... Check it out if you want to know more)

A party based out of Lewisham, this will be (as far as I can tell) their first foray into politics outside of the capital. Very left-wing. I could not find anything on Nick Long or his personal policies and concerns, the best I have is the website for the party. Have a look around and you'll be able to understand what they are about. Admittedly the focus of the website is upon Lewisham but I'd imagine they would take a similar stance with Medway's local services.

Dave Osborn: Patriotic Socialist Party
Also stood in Clacton?

Taken from their Facebook page "The Patriotic Socialist Party is pleased to announce that Dave Osborn has been selected to stand for the Rochester and Strood Parliamentary by-election. A former member of both the Labour Party and, more recently, UK Independence Party, Dave has shown himself to be committed to fighting for the Patriotic Socialist cause."

As confusing as that statement is (socialism and UKIP in my mind are completely antithetical) I feel I should provide some information on who they are and what Dave Osborn stands for. His manifesto on their Facebook page states that the Patriotic Socialists will: Prtoect public services, oppose austerity and fight for the poorest and most vulnerable in society, introduce a living wage, nationalise the railways, Royal Mail and energy companies, take control of the monetary system in the UK (creating debt free money), withdraw from the EU and get tougher on immigration, advocate environmentalism and animal rights. For more information on the parties policies take a look at their 10 point plan manifesto.

Mark Reckless: UKIP
Former Banker and Barrister
Twitter: @MarkReckless

The man who triggered all of this by switching from the Tories to the New Tories UKIP. It is Mark Reckless, so what does he stand for now that he has taken that small step to the right? His own website should shed light on it, thankfully there is a post there entitled "Why I am leaving the Conservative party and joining UKIP". Unsurprisingly, he talks of UKIP's 'outsider' status and taking on the old Westminster elite who have caused the public to feel disenfranchised with politics. Further into it, and after his dig at the tories, he gets to the nuts and bolts of his policies, in it he states that he wants to: Cut immigration, deal with the deficit (continue the austerity program), bring down taxes, make MP's more accountable to their constituents, localise local issues (an example he gives is housing at the Lodge Hill site), and of course get Britain out of the EU. You can read about UKIP's wider interests on their website.

Charlotte Rose: Independent
Sex Worker and Sexual Trainer (also ran in the Clacton by-election)
Twitter: @_Charlie_rose

Previously appearing on the Channel 4 TV series 'Love For Sale'. She won the award Sex Worker of the Year in 2013. She is primarily concerned with the need for greater 'sexual freedom'. She has hit out at the governments failure to deal with problems including porn addiction and the Rotherham child exploitation scandal, she has also called for a comprehensive sex education overhaul.

Kelly Tolhurst: Conservative
Businesswoman and Marine Surveyor
Twitter: @KellyTolhurst

Selected via an open primary, contested between her and Anna Firth. She has a six point plan to "secure a better future for Rochester and Strood" which includes: Action - Not just talk - on immigration, getting Medway Hospital out of Special Measures, a housing development plan that works for us (Lodge Hill again), more police officers on the streets, more jobs and better infrastructure (keeping businesses taxes low and sorting out traffic in Medway City Estate), and finally improving the local schools, something she will definitely know about having attended Chapter School (I jest of course). And finally, here is the Conservative Party plan? I guess it's too early for a proper manifesto anyway, but its pretty much all there. As it stands it might all be pointless for her whatever the result, as an article on the Channel 4 website claims that judges could over turn any conservative victory in Rochester and Strood due to a breach of the legal spending limits. I guess time will tell if she does win.

Her page on the Conservative party website is also asking you to voice your opinion on capping welfare payments further, which I strongly urge you to disagree with, it is extremely harmful to those who are in the unfortunate position of needing it to survive, whatever your politics are more extreme levels of poverty is not a good idea.

Right that's your lot, I'm tired, I've been doing this post for untold hours, I have work early in the morning, and quite frankly I am now bored of it all.

Hope this helps anyone who is confused by all the 'options'.

If you want my two pennies... I'm still sticking with the Greens.

Obsessed With Islam: Facebook and Widespread, Unchallenged Racism

Racism on Facebook is something I have touched on before, a constant thorn in my side, that itch which never ceases despite how often you attempt to scratch it away. Whilst every form of racist posts on Facebook send me up the wall, it is the obsession with sharing 'stories' which focus upon the supposed irrational, barbaric, or otherwise antithetical aspects of Islamic beliefs with the 'enlightened' western world, which brings forth my wrath more than annoy other.

Why should I choose to reserve more anger about one form of racism on Facebook than any other? The answer is simple, I do not get more worked up about anti-Islamic posts than other forms. I do despair at how easily nearly every one of these posts go unchallenged by the majority of my 'friends' or even their friends. When these posts go ignored it is implicitly condoning the belief that Islam and the Islamic people being targeted are incompatible with civilised society. It further marginalises a large stratum of society already quite marginal in terms of relative power.

Ironically, many of these posts criticise Islamic people for not wanting to accommodate another religion or set of societal values whilst simultaneously neither wishing to accommodate their beliefs or values. Of course the people who make and share these posts often do not realise this inherent hypocrisy. When they are on occasions forced to acknowledge this, usually (although far too rarely) by someone challenging their choice to spread marginalising or racist propaganda, many go through a process of reconciliation in an attempt to bring their beliefs in line with the acceptable. Tellingly, this process usually involves warping the non-racist position more than the racist one in order to concede as little ground as possible, thus in (their minds at least) validating their beliefs.

Most of these techniques are easily recognisable. It might involve projecting their own privileged position onto Islam, thus switching the blame for the perceived incompatibility of coexistence within one society from the majority group onto the minority one. They might ridicule an aspect of Islamic belief to show its irrational nature therefore relegating it below their 'superior' culture, whilst ignoring how perfectly reasonable the request or concession would be if it was coming from a group not currently the subject of such unconditional hatred. More often than not they simply will not have to bother.

The only reason I mention the way these posts are made compatible with acceptable views is because within these techniques the truth of why they are so frustrating to see go unchallenged everyday surfaces. They are in all forms only used as a way to reaffirm the poster's racist beliefs. Even when hiding under the guise of something 'humorous' or 'banter', such as the inspiration for this post.

Whilst boredom scrolling through Facebook I came across this innocent looking photo of a London cabbie grabbing his door handle, which I must have passed on half a dozen occasions, before noticing two words that jumped out at me on screen, they were "Arab Muslim". Knowing Facebook posts are usually fall into one of four categories; reactionary, inflammatory, incorrect, or just plain boring, I knew I was onto something. 

Accompanying the generic looking photo were these words:

London cab driver's answer to a request from a Muslim to turn of the radio. (You just got to love the Brits.) A devout Arab Muslim entered a black cab in London. He curtly asked the cabbie to turn off the radio because as decreed by his religious teaching, he must not listen to music because in the time of the prophet there was no music, especially Western music which is the music of the infidel.

The cab driver politely switched off the radio, stopped the cab and opened the door. 

The Arab Muslim asked him, "What are you doing?"

The cabbie answered, "In the time of the prophet there were no taxis, so piss off and wait for a camel.."

Many people would wrongly argue that this is just a humorous anecdote, that it is a reasonable response to someone trying to force another person to adhere to their religious beliefs, and that those beliefs are clearly irrational and incompatible with a developed, modern, and (without even a subtle hint of irony) tolerant society. 

But would this be interpreted the same way if it were a story about a Christian taking offence to a piece of music? I would argue no. Instead of laughing it off and agreeing with what it, the likely reaction from the very same would be to meet it with huge amounts of hostility. There is plenty of evidence of this if you look at stories in the many racist, right-wing mouthpieces about 'good ol' Christians' being subject to discrimination where Muslims would ALWAYS be accommodated. Such as in the wording of this article and the comments scribbled with crayons by the readers.

Additionally, the "Arab Muslim" in this (I suspect fake) story was not just anybody asking something unreasonable. He or she is a paying customer and most of the people who are sharing or posting this rubbish most likely adhere to the old adage that "the customer is always right". If that saying holds any truth and the "Arab Muslim" was paying for this service, why should he or she not be allowed to ask for something they find offensive to be switched off? 

The only reason that is is differentiated so much from what someone who posts this would expect for themselves can be because the subjects are an "Arab Muslim" and a Londoner (who is white if you look at the picture). Its is all about location and race, Western European versus Middle Eastern, Christianity versus Islam, Normal versus Abnormal, Right versus Wrong and nothing else.

As with all of these posts, it marks Islam out as the antithesis to Western Culture. To ignore and leave it be, is to condone and to agree. Opposing racism online is becoming increasingly pertinent as more and more of our social interactions and knowledge dissemination are being conducted on social media platforms such as Facebook. So next time you see one of these posts ask yourself... who will challenge their racism if not you? 

A Reckless Vote In Strood And Rochester

In the 2010 elections I felt disgusted by the people I rubbed shoulders with, not only in Strood and Rochester but also in the wider Medway Towns, as we voted in the Tories to represent us. Anyone who has read this blog before will know I am no fan of the other two established parties either, they are essentially the same as the Tories but with a minor tinge of guilt, however, to vote in that lot shows an utter disregard by the people to the consequences to their voting. Foremost amongst these consequences, was the rise in unemployment and the comparison to the National, South Eastern, and Kent averages. To which it is higher than all three, significantly so when you compare to the local regions.

Most non-Kentish readers right now might be thinking Kent is rich, you are all toffs living in country manors, and sipping champagne to celebrate that large bonus, which for much of Kent I would be tempted to agree with, but not with my own little corner of Kent. Medway is different. Very different from that stereotypical image.

That is what annoys me so much about our collective decision to vote in Conservatives to run the entirety of Medway's constituencies. We need not drive for miles to see the economic disparity between the poorer regions of Kent and the one percenters making up most of this idyllic county. They are everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. Economic equality is localised and very visible to anyone who wants to open their eyes. That vote for the Conservative candidate was reckless, literally if you live within Strood and Rochester.

We have Tracey Crouch (Conservative) for Chatham and Aylesford, who does not think those on long term benefits due to illness or disability should be helped out more, or to even keep out work benefits in line with inflation. Congratulations Chatham, it is not like you have the worst unemployment in Medway.

Then there is Rehman Chishti (Conservative) for Gillingham and Rainham, who like Tracey hates those who need benefits to survive, and also felt need to increase the difference between payments and what you could buy with an increase in VAT. Congratulations Gillingham and Rainham, anyone who has strolled though those towns will know just how prosperous you are as a population, it is everywhere to be seen.

Finally, and the man who gave his name to my cheap pun, enter Mark Reckless (Conservative: at the time of the election) who voted much the same way as the previous two. What marks him out is that he has defected to the most Tory of the Tory imitators, UKIP.

Thanks to him (and your reckless voting) we have had a representative of the loony party representing us in Strood and Rochester, although we are the most well off part of the Medway Towns, we are not rolling in it. So to have an uber Tory deciding what is right for us should be considered a travesty. Have we lost our minds to allow that man to represent us. I think so.

Luckily he is standing down and we get a chance to vote for someone with a consciousness. I implore my fellow residents of Medway, sort out your voting habits, think about what you are doing, and open your eyes. Most importantly, vote for representation by a party that might actually do what what is best for our population.

Maybe give the Green party a chance. Have read of their website and you will know it makes sense.

Here's the Medway Greens website too if you're interested.

Applaud The Good Muslims

A headline caught my attention during my daily anger rummage throughout the internet, it reads "North West Muslims deliver message to IS: "release our hero"". Do not misconstrue the point of this blog post, I will not at any point defend the action of IS, their tactics, or the beheading of the innocent hostages, moreover, I agree with the 'North West Muslims' and they should release him, he was no 'crusader'. He was in the country selflessly helping these people's families, friends, neighbours during wartime.

The only issue I have with this headline is the reference to the 'North West Muslims' religious beliefs. It is not a new phenomena that has crept into discussions about Islamic groups actions. The singling out of 'outspoken' has been knocking around for a while, tainting everything it touches with its foul pungency.

Singling out Muslims who speak out about another individuals or groups actions abroad, completely disconnected with them as people beyond a roughly shared set of religious beliefs, is not something you witness with most other religions. You see no mention of Christians calling for an extremist group to show compassion when they commit an atrocity, nor do you see Sikhs being hounded for not speaking out against terrorist actions from people within their faith. The only other religion you could expect people to praise followers of for speaking out against something is Judaism. 

So the two most persecuted religions in Europe are expected to become apologists for the actions of some within their faith. There is something about that which should, if you are a fair minded and rational person, rub you up the wrong way.

Why are ITV choosing to highlight these people's faith then? For me its is equally a symptom, reaction to, and cause of the exact same thing. Racism. More specifically, the racism inherent in the right wing British media and vast swathes of the unthinking followers that subscribe to the simplistic formulae, one which is easily recognisable in their narratives. 

Islamic State = Barbaric 

Islamic State = Muslims

Therefore

Muslims = Barbaric

By placing the 'North West Muslims' within this headline firmly in the boundaries of Britain and highlighting their faith, whilst framing the Brit as 'heroic' they are saying:

Muslims = Barbaric

Britishness = Heroic

Therefore

Muslims embracing Britishness = Less Barbaric

British Muslims > Other Muslims

In this context, as defined by the countless times you would have heard "why don't they speak out about the extremists in their faiths, community and mosques?" from some brain dead moron as some validation of their racism, speaking out is seen as the Muslims coming over to the side of Britain. They are defending the green and pleasant land we call home, and all her people, from the evils of Islam.

By 'speaking out' they have now become no longer one of 'them', they are one of 'us'. Allan Henning is their hero in addition to being our hero.

So lets not disappoint the racists; join together and applaud the good Muslims.

Labour Showing True Colours With Minimum Wage

They've actually done, the impossible, or at least I thought it was the impossible until today. The moron on the south eastern segment of Sunday Politics made me agree with a Conservative politician (about 55 minutes in). Even if that was only for the briefest of moments it still left me feeling sick, and not just regularly sick but the kind of sickness that made want to vomit continuously for the next 45,000,000,000,000 hours or until I was dead and unable to remember that awful moment, whichever came sooner.

Simon Thomson is the name of the moron I was referring to, who set about defending the minimum wage increases being proposed by the former left wing party Labour and their leader (not so) Red Ed. This defence of the underwhelming and untimely increase in payment to those unable to live, despite working, was labelled 'derisory' by the Conservative politician Sam Giymah, to which I mentally verbalised 'hell yeah it is', whilst the aforementioned gag reflex kicked into overdrive.

That comment alone, about the suitability of this nominal increase in minimum wage to make a real difference now to the lives of working people, would have validated my views that Labour are just Tories in all but name, but once he pointed out something which previously was unknown to me, that it would not come into force until 2020. I was shocked at the brashness of their confidence that old voting habits could continue to be relied upon, the old working class support for those who are supposed to me representatives of them. Veiling their love of unrestrained free market capitalism, and their rich friends in big business, behind their ineffective inequality reduction policies.

Now do not get me wrong Sam Giymah, as a Conservative politician, will not be getting any support from me, pretty much every other comment that came out of his mouth was the usual nonsense that characterises that end of the political spectrum. He is after all a member of the nasty party, the party that is systematically destroying all of the social security nets and required services in this country. However, the enjoyable way in which he corrected a Labour politician on his parties pointless, ineffective, and most of all ridiculous 'socialist' policy is something that will always place him marginally above the rest of the idiots.

So why is a much needed increase in minimum wage so objectionable to myself? Should I not be supporting any measure that increases the living conditions of those who are struggling financially, and barely surviving, under this oh so broken system? Well no, not if the measures that are being touted as solutions to the problem are useless.

If you examine the article titled 'Ed Miliband pledges Labour will raise minimum wage to at least £8 an hour' on the Mirror website clearly supporting this increase in minimum wage, you will see just how ineffective it will be.

Firstly, the article points out that on average minimum wage workers will be earning around £60 per week more than at present. An increase on the 39 hour week wage from £253.50 to £312 per week. So that sounds fine, whatever way you cut it that is a sizeable percentage increase in their wage. But will it make that much difference to the average person?

Luckily the article has provided some examples of people who support this increase and the difference it will make to their lives.

Case number one, Burger King Woman: "It's incredibly hard for me. I live three miles away (from work presumably). I can't afford a car and there aren't many buses. I often have to take a taxi. That's where my wages go"
Lets assume that the taxi and cost of road tax, fuel, and MOT's, are roughly the same across a year. Maybe even throw in some of the insurance, or all of it depending on her age. That is still excluding the fact that she has to purchase this car, this life enhancing vehicle on £60 per week extra. If she was able to do that, conceivably she would have to go second hand, maybe even very old and in a poor state, and then run the risk of constant repair issues. These issues often totalling in the hundreds of pounds, on a tight budget it seems highly unlikely that £60 per week is going to be this miraculous liberator some are believing it will be. Let us not forget that breakdown cover does not come free either, and if you get an older car it WILL be needed.
Surely the issue here in her case, which was mentioned in the article with no real reaction to it, would be the fact that she is on just above minimum wage despite being a manager at this very rich fast food chain? Not how much better her life would be if she got some rather paltry increase in her wage, out of line with the amount of profit generated in store daily for the bosses.

Case number two, Airport Worker Naomi and partner Ellis: "The problem is that due to rising living costs we just can't afford to live. Our rent is £475-a-month and then on top of that we have to pay £100 a month in council tax, £100 for water and around £80 for electricity" "We're both now having to move out and back in with our mums"
On the surface this one seems as though the minimum wage increase would indeed help this couple remain independent. That is until you look at the inconsistency in their working hours, varying by as much as 40 hours per week between them. At which point you realise the actual benefits for the individuals on such wildly varying contracts would be negated somewhat by their bosses reluctance to spend on wages, and the drive from the companies they work for to increase 'profitability'. They would probably find their hours slipping ever closer to the lower portion of the stated working weeks.
Additionally, these rising living costs will continue to be rising living costs. Thus in the mean time making it ever less viable for them to live independent of the family support structures they are going to have to fall back into. This is especially true as this 'above inflation' wage increase date is set only as coming before October 2019, so sometime in 2020 (if at all) it is then. So they will have to suffer five more years of below inflation wage increases before they can begin to claw back (a small proportion of) the real world wage cuts they have suffered at the hands of the neo-liberal economy, loved so wholeheartedly by all of the main parties.

The article also provides more flawed examples of people in similar situations to that of Naomi and Ellis who are labelled as beneficiaries of this much needed wage 'increase'. Crucially, for my point, they are all couples who are able to split the cost between them, and as such negate some of the problems that minimum wage work work throws up. Which gets to the root of my problem with the increase being labelled by many as a living wage.

A single person would have to face these increases in living costs alone, to them £60 per week would be like urinating on a house fire, such is the scorched earth 'austerity' tactics of this current government, and the capitalist love-in many preceding governments have had, they have nothing to fall back upon and no real acceptable wage to start with.

If you cannot afford to live comfortably on the wage as a single person, living alone, and still afford the 'luxuries', such as being able to entertain yourself with a night out here and there, going to a comedy gig, or a sporting event... THEN IT IS NOT A LIVING WAGE! It is, at best, a way to continue breathing on a day to day basis.

That is not nearly enough.

She's More Of An Object Than A Steel Chair

A few days ago I was blurry eyed, bored, and channel hopping throughout the endlessly frustrating sleepless night I was enduring. By chance I happened to pause for a moment on a channel I would otherwise have skipped nine times out of ten. On it appeared a face from my childhood. Someone whom reminded me of my many moments of childhood ecstasy as I observed the faux violent dance of oiled up, muscular, grown men in Lycra, I am of course am referring to wrestling. As a side note, the wrestler in particular was Rhino who happens to be as far from the stereotyped image of a wrestler as it is possible to find, but as I will get to that later.

What caught my attention, in an otherwise unremarkable piece of uninterested gazing, was the marked difference in the portrayal of gender. 

You might be forgiven for believing that a piece of entertainment that has attempts to pass itself of as a legitimate sport (even having its own dedicated bleacher report section), at least to make the audience suspend their belief, so that it appears the pain and coordinated attacks have an impact upon the outcome of this tightly scripted play-fighting. For any kind of casual viewer you will know how badly this is achieved but never the less it is attempted. Additionally, with the presence of female wrestlers comes the assumption that scripted entertainment attempting to portray real sport, you would hope that they would legitimately wish to portray female sporting prowess and power realistically. This was not the case.

Perhaps the most illuminating moment was presented in a mixed gender tag team match between two teams, so three versus three with one female and two males to a team (and an extra person ring-side on both teams, I do not know why they are needed), when Crazy Steve kissed the opposing teams female wrestler Velvet, thus rendering her somehow disorientated. 

If you take this further and look at the match (The BroMans and Velvet Sky vs The Menagerie) from a deeper perspective, including names, persona's and even the camera angle, attire, and coverage of the proceedings, it paints an even richer picture of the gendered performances. 

Here is the television footage from the event.

The first thing you will notice from the match is the ring entrances, choreographed to encourage the audiences gaze to fall upon the female members of the tag teams. They are treated by their own team, and by extension the viewers, as objects of desire as the parade around beside them as 'trophies' and provocatively crouch and wiggle their bottoms for the male team members and home audiences respectively. The attire they adorn deliberately designed to only heighten the sexual fantasies being teased out of a predominately adolescent male fan based. Both female members considerably less 'toned' than their male counterparts, whilst adhering to the values associated with beauty in western society, they are slim, light haired, large breasted, and white.

The menagerie's entrance in slight contrast does not focus primarily upon the female member of the team, it at least initially is far more concerned with (not so) Crazy Steve's exploits. that is until Rebel takes centre stage (or to the ropes). At this point the camera pans to her bottom once more, revealing it to be once more upholding western beauty standards, although arguably equally athletic in nature. One adorning the ropes she begins to to play a subservient role to the teams 'leader', Knux, a role often associated with femininity. However, it does not end there, once Knux is halfway through the ropes being held open by Rebel's legs, which once again the viewers eyes are drawn towards, he sniffs her foot in a fetishistic manner in keeping with the teams persona's as outsiders. Then comes the most revealing contrast between the dignified, powerful and sexually controlled entrance of the male members and the overtly sexual entrances of the female members. As the team have all made their respective ways into the ring Rebel takes to the bottom rope slowly lowering herself into the splits, revealing her 'flexibility' as the camera begins to centre itself to allow the viewer to look directly up at the face of Rebel via her now focused upon vagina.

Whilst all of this is going on the commentators are encouraging the audience further to view these wrestlers as sex objects (and little more). They achieve this through the use of language and buzzwords such as talking about the previous segments subject (a man named Sandie Shaw) having "game", and of the menagerie's Rebel "what do you like better then balloons or the horn""err Rebel", "oh what a lady" and "oh there we go that's rebel showing her..." "amazing dexterity".

Once the match starts, Crazy Steve proceeds to blow a kiss at Velvet which infuriates her also generically good looking partner (might be both team and romantically as the commentary suggests, I do not watch enough to know for sure) Robbie E. This once again says something about the role of the female 'wrestlers' in this match, they are there to double as objects, both to move the 'plot' forward and to be looked at.

After a few moments of fighting what better time for the commentators to announce the new 2015 'knockouts calendar' now being on sale? Especially as there is currently three of these 'knockouts' in the ring for this matchup. As this is going on Velvet is tagged in to face off against Crazy Steve. Is it finally possible that some equality in physicality will be attempted here? Two 'athletes' will be shown competeting on an equal playing field despite being differently gendered. Nope, she will just slap him and tag back out, that is the limit of female sporting excellence displayed thus far in this piece of entertainment. They have been limited to the realms of stereotypically feminine 'physical violence'. Ending with the announcement about an announcement later in the show, which will be announcing who is deemed to be the most beautiful amongst their roster of eye-candy.

Finally, there is some brief fighting between the two female participants in this match, before Velvet is rescued by her teams mates from a pin (this happens all the time so I wont call sexism on that). However, this is done putting Rebel at risk of being hit by one (or both) of the opposing teams male members, she assumes a pose reminiscent of a damsel in distress and not at all like a fighter. At this point Rebel then is assisted by her knight in not so shining armour to coming to her rescue by removing the threat. 

Then comes the forced kiss between Velvet as the victim and Crazy Steve as the perpetrator of the assault. This too as 'light-hearted' entertainment is very concerning for anyone who looks at the bigger picture. It says a lot about women's bodies that invasiveness like this can be considered entertainment, as Crazy Steve is depicted using his physicality to subdue an unwilling participate for his own satisfaction, whilst the commentators laugh it off and the crowd cheer. What was that about rape culture?

Finally, Velvet runs around a bit in an overly feminised way, Rebel body slams her, kicks the other female wrestler (who otherwise did nothing) in the head, gets pinned and fight over. 

As the Beautiful People and The BroMans make their way from the arena, Velvet appears to be trying to remove the horrible taste of Crazy Steve from her mouth. 

Likewise I am off to do the same and remove the taste of this horrible piece of sexism from mine.

September 11th: The Anniversary

Today is the 11th September, or 11/9 if you prefer, a day to remember those who suffered and died at the hands of a murderous, vile, and completely undemocratic man. It is of course the anniversary of the Chilean coup d'état, in which a democratically elected and supported government was overthrown by an American backed dictator, who wanted to seize power and control of a country primed for exploitation by American interests and remove those darned socialist policies getting in the way of US economic gains.

Over the course of his reign as supreme lord of Chile (chief underling to the president of the United States) he was responsible for the torture of an estimated 40,000 people, with a further 3,000 killed or 'disappeared'. Go USA, Go Democracy!

I know for a fact a lot of people have not heard of this military coup in Britain, particularly true if you are quite young. Why would you know about it? After all is was a while ago and the people involved do not speak English. So they sort of are not real people right? At least not like you and I. Because of this bias towards only remembering white European tragedy, I will briefly run over the facts about the situation for you.

Early morning, September 11th 1973, the US backed Chilean military flew jets over the presidential palace and bombed it. Hours later the socialist president Salvador Allende was dead. He was replaced by General Pinochet who set about opening the country up to foreign 'free-market' interests, whilst torturing and executing anyone who dared express and opinion in opposition to his illegitimate, but powerfully backed, dictatorship.

Some people hold the belief that his dictatorship was a necessary evil, that it was required to alleviate the poverty of socialist Chile. In doing so they ignore the fact that this poverty was falsely created by the American capitalist system, who sanctioned the last drops of life out of the country in an attempt to "make the economy scream".

Britain does not get out of this smelling of roses either. As was the case with the US government (and its business interests) we too had something to gain from this coup. The UK government and that bastion of left-wing solidarity the BBC both went out of their way to support this murderous thug, solely because his control was good for our economic interests abroad both in Chile and the rest of Latin America. You know the man is a wrong'un when Maggie actually liked the person.

I guess it says all there is to say about the west, and our governments attitudes towards murderous and dictators in pursuit of quick buck, when you see a quote like this attributed to 'that woman' about another murderous dictator by the name of Suharto, stating that he is "one of our very best and most valuable friends". Why was he such? Well because all those guns he was using to murder his own people, they were of course British made.

That brings me onto the final point (yes I am finally going to mention it), why remember this coup and the lives lost on 9/11 in the world trade centre building attacks?  It is because of this aforementioned widespread, and popularly supported, brand of western imperialism that those attacks took place. We have been dominating and systematically installing brutal, puppet governments throughout the developing world. Controlling their economies and taking down anyone who stood in the way of western economic interests.

It is because of this that Thatcher, Reagan and countless others like them across all sectors of the political landscape are "staunch supporter(s) of many of the world's most brutal regimes, propping up and arming war criminals and dictators in service to Western imperialism, anti-communism and (the) neoliberal hegemony". By association they are as responsible for the countless numbers of deaths and tortures throughout the developing world as those carrying it out, and by supporting the politicians we too are legitimising the action of the dictators they support and prop-up. (brackets added myself)

So yes, mourn the tragic loss of life that day. But do not forget to remember the lives lost and ruined in pursuit of the "American dream" that got rocked that day. Like those in Chile's 9/11.

Don't Shoot For The Stars You Mug

A couple of days ago I was at a friends house when the subject of work came up. More specifically my working situation. My friends mother and her friend, who were present at the time, asked me what I was doing with my life now that I had moved back to the Medway towns. To which I replied, "I am currently unemployed and am looking for work". This should have been a straightforward conversation, perhaps acting as a pre-requisite to the only remaining question... What sort of work are you looking for? Alas, it was not.

It seems that it has now become impossible for people (even those who have known each other for years) to take the act of seeking employment at face value. The unemployed friend, family friend, whoever, must at all times be questioned, scrutinised, and treated with contempt. The questioning that followed included poorly-veiled accusations of laziness, an undercurrent of derision, and not so subtle hints at having ideas above my station.

Having remarked that I had recently quit a job that was incredibly low-paid and long-houred (£1 per hour in my last week of work), I was met with the contemptuousness, from the friend's mother's friend, usually reserved exclusively for those who appear on the Jeremy Kyle show. 

The why don't you get a job you lazy bum? You are exactly what is wrong with this country. Oh you had a job but quit because 'it doesn't pay enough to survive on'? Work harder then you moron. Stop smoking drugs!!!!*

All of that nonsense I can happily deal with. I shrug it off as the tabloid inspired, unthinking, nonsense that it is. What did hurt was the hinting that I was aiming for something above what I was capable off. That the career I would like to pursue is not one that is accessible to someone from a working class background. More importantly, that I should not be aiming to harness any of the (limited) social mobility that my degree has potentially opened up to me. The classic "you're aiming too high" and "you're being too picking" featuring as favourites from this conversation.

Now I know that what I want to do is a competitive field of work, I also know that I am unlikely to ever find work in the field, and it is even less likely that I will ever be able to meet my career goals. However, I will continue to try. It is not like I am someone who wants to find work in a truly closed shop for the countries elites (like trying to be a judge). Aspiring to become a newspaper columnist only requires that I be 47% toff. 

Which gets me to the crux of this post. The only reason I began to write it. The reason that the conversation stuck with me. Through questioning my my career aspirations in a way that suggested I should give in, or not hold such high hopes altogether, they made me feel like a class traitor. It was almost as if now that I had gone to university, and returned with ambitions beyond 'proper' manual labour (or worse retail work), I had kicked the collective working class straight in the knackers. 

It is a feeling that is not entirely new to me. I have grappled with it since I became captivated with the idea that I could break this cycle of deprivation that has characterised my family. I do not want to spend my life meandering from low-paid, insecure jobs to lower-paid, more insecure, and worse jobs, all interspersed by months (or years) spent in the dole queue. I want to be more secure whilst waiting in anticipation for the forthcoming revolution, perhaps even doing a job that could help agitate the masses. 

It is probably a feeling that is familiar to many who have come from a working class background, dragged themselves off to university despite pressures to work, and emerged somewhat triumphant at the other side. All too often only to find the immense pressures for them to gain 'proper' employment very quickly resuming. Sadly, much of it coming from within the working classes, through both an adherence to the outmoded idea that this is our place, our lot in life, and the simple fact that work means survival in relative comfort (at least compared to life on the dole).

However, it is that which makes it so uncomfortable for us who, upon completion of our studies, find ourselves feeling as though we fully belong to (or indeed are wanting by) neither the working nor middle classes.

*that wasn't said, but it works for the JK analogy

Economic Success Behind The Extinction Of Languages?

It is being reported today that a study 'discovered' a trend between the economic growth of a country and the loss of minority languages. Who would have thought it? I had always believed that capitalism was so accommodating towards minorities, their way of life, and their culture. It is not like its history has been one of aggressive colonialism and slavery.

I would go further than the journalists reports* of the study suggest. It is clear that it goes far beyond just being economic conditions causing a decline of minority tongues, that global and national hegemonic systems, and their structures of control, are imposing a dominant language upon people. Something that was highlighted (only implicitly) by the researchers, but largely ignored by the majority of journalists reporting on it. In an interview one of the researchers stated that "as economies develop, one language often comes to dominate a nation's political and educational spheres. People are forced to adopt the dominant language or risk being left out in the cold - economically and politically". This is exactly how the hegemony operates, culturally and economically, it forces people to adopt its conditions by offering or allowing no viable alternatives.

The researcher then goes on to remark that, "of course everyone has the right to choose the language they speak, but preserving dying language is important to maintaining human cultural diversity in an increasingly globalised world". The researcher is ignoring (or at least not noticing) the obvious contradiction between the two halves of his statement, that the choice of language diversity has been effectively removed by the hegemonic class. It comes down to a simple choice between adopt or resist; between relative wealth or impoverishment. 

It is no surprise then that the rapid demise of minority cultures, expressed here through their language, are predominantly located within countries and areas which have already experienced significant economic development, or ones undergoing rapid development. It is the exertion of the hegemonic classes power over the subordinate groups, with aims to homogenise the populations, to create a single (but still divided) labour force capable of producing capital as efficiently as possible. This means that no divergence in language is encouraged. Schooling, propaganda, everything is produced in the language of the hegemonic class. It has one aim to encourage complicity with the classes objectives, and in order to seemingly benefit from the hegemony, the minorities must accept the dominance of their culture, their world-view, and their language. The loss of their native language and the adoption of a dominant one is important for the transmission of the hegemony's ideology. It is ensuring their codes, their meanings, are disseminated wholly amongst the population. 

So despite the researchers highlighting factors beyond economics that 'contribute' to declining language diversity, such as low populations, temperate climates (like the ones found in most advanced capitalist societies), and (although only briefly mentioning) educational structures of a country encouraging complicity with dominant languages, they fail to explicitly state the obvious cause for this loss of minority cultural markers (bloody Zoologists).

It is 'progress' towards a fully realised global hegemonic capitalist class that is systematically destroying language diversity and native culture. It is not simply because of 'economic success', low populations, or being in a nice, moderate climate.

The actual report of the study can be found here.

*They do briefly mention some other factors in the actual study.

So I Went To The JobCentre Today. That Was Fun!

The JobCentre, a place famous for its life enriching qualities, a monument to Britain. A statement made to the rest of the world that this is a land of wealth, of bowler hats, of cream tea, of quaint British traditions, and of lords and ladies. It is a place where those who have been made temporarily redundant go, to be helped compassionately, and with their best interest at heart, into a post suitable for them. Every time you enter this cathedral to the success of Capitalism you are greeted with a wide smile by a well paid, content, and helpful employee. The positivity of the temporarily leisured only heightened by the skill of the craftspeople carefully weaving career paths for their benefit. The alacrity of the workers in perfect harmony with the light, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing surroundings. All are treated with respect. All are treated as individuals. If someone were to enter devoid of self belief it would not last, upon existing this temple for the soul they shall be displaying the poise befitting a resident of Britain. What was once eluding them has now been subsumed. Optimism now very much resident in their psyche.

This is a world where workfare does not exist. Where people are considered by circumstance not meaningless numbers. There is no conformity to bureaucratic procedures designed to optimise the processing of people. Where claims are not handled by uncaring hirelings. There is no resemblance to livestock amongst those unfortunate enough to be present. Those indubitably marked by the false stigma attached to unemployment. They are not scapegoats for the retrenchment of businesses and services. They are not recipients of vitriolic attacks from the media and community. The systems design and falsities does not benefit an uncaring Capitalist class and their political puppets in the class warfare division. The working class and underclass are united, they are one.

Unfortunately, this world does not exist. It does not look likely. The working class targeted media would never allow compassion to seep into this discussion. Truth will always be suppressed by the rich owners, by those who have an interest in harbouring an animosity between the exploited. The cost conscious schemes will continue to be implemented. People will continue to be made to feel insignificant, desperation will continue to saturate every aspect of life on the dole. However, when all of this is considered, I still refuse to go back to my former employment. I'd rather starve than be a cog in that machine, to contribute to their 'business plan' made me feel sick. Self-immolation would be preferable.

It is time to find a job where I can do some good in the world.

Making Female Deaths More Tragic Is Sexist

I have long been annoyed with the never ending news reports of tragedies and massacres that give prominence to the deaths of females and children, whilst seemingly discarding the tragic loss of male lives. It serves as a constant reminder that the balance of power between the genders is a hugely uneven one, with one gender receiving much greater value as individuals than the other. The death of a male is as important as the death of a female, it is a tragedy either way. To continually allude to it being otherwise is yet another example of the media's sexism. The MRA's would claim it is because women are afforded more rights and are valued higher than men, the opposite is true, they are actually reporting their deaths more prominently because of the patriarchal structure of society.

When a reporter chooses to highlight their deaths in a headline, such as "'Dozens' of refugees, including women and children, killed by rocket fire in Ukraine", they are placing the female in a subordinate position to their male protectors. The inclusion of female life alongside children of all genders, although this can be different at times too, alludes to the perceived gender roles in conflicts and dangerous situations. The male has always been the protector of the female and of the children, it is timeless and unchanging, it is the natural order of things. Women and children alike are seen as weak, easily harmed, and much more vulnerable than men to the rigours and adversity associated with disasters and wars. This just is not true, the average woman in times of crisis will perform as competently in defending herself as the average man would (not that you can defend yourself from unexpected rocket attacks). It is likely that neither the average man or woman would have received training in counter-terrorist survival tactics, or natural disaster survival methods, or any of the other news stories of tragedies that you are likely to see this sexism highlighted in. It is the old sexist myth of 'women and children first' rearing its head, children should survive with their mothers to look after them, and men should display the macho heroism of self sacrifice to ensure this happens. When this does not happen it is considered by some as an affront to the natural order of things, that it is inappropriate behaviour for men to seek self-preservation, and that chivalrous (sexist) behaviour is dead.

Often people will claim that the reason for the perceived superiority of the female life is not because women are characterised by society as being weaker, they claim that it is purely biological. They might point to female reproductivity as a resource that needs protecting more than male reproductive rights. To them it is simple mathematics that justify this increased attention to female deaths, 50 males and 1 female = 9 months per child vs 1 male and 50 females = 9 months per 50 children, so to them "each woman matters because women have a much more limited reproductive potential". This attitude that biology should determine the relative importance of male and female lives is not without sexism. It is implying that a females worth to the planet or a particular society is measurable purely by their capacity to be reproductive. It is measuring a woman's worth through her ability to reproduce. Those who claim that the relative importance of a woman's continued existence is so they can fulfil their primary function, to be mothers, are being sexist. This attitude may have been excusable in a pre-modern society in which childbirth, alongside diseases and famine, would ravage populations making female reproduction key to the survival of a society. However, in today's society population levels are not as fragile, if anything child birth is too common. For the proponents of this biologically deterministic view, that female life will always be inseparably linked to reproduction, supporting this means ascribing to the notion that the feminine and domestic sphere are also inseparable. That the woman's place is in the home, all safe and secure.

This gendered sexism does sometimes even extend to the group being repeatedly mentioned that would require an uneven level of protection, children. One notable and recent example of this is the abductions of boys and girls by Boko Haram in Nigeria. The media coverage between the abduction of 300 girls and later 100 young men, many boys, is a perfect example of this. No one would have missed the vast news coverage of the abduction of 300 girls from their school in Chibok, with everyone from Michelle Obama and David Cameron to some 'celebrities' I have never heard, of all joining in on a huge twitter campaign (#bringbackourgirls) to raise awareness. A few days ago Boko Haram struck again this time taking 100 males from a village in Nigeria to be forced to serve as soldiers for them, yet it has not received a fraction of the media coverage that the girls received. There is no #bringbackourboys, no celebrity news coverage calling for their safe return, there is no rolling news reports, and there is barely comparable number of articles having been written about it. The only reason I can think of is because 'men are strong' and are meant to defend themselves, being kidnapped is seen by many (including those in Boko Haram) as being their own fault. Not an attitude that would have been expressed towards the female captives. Whilst they are both considered victims the coverage tells a different story. They are in the eyes of the world's media not equal. The teenage boys are their own victims, the girls are victims of the aggressors. Females are always considered weaker and more in need of defending from the evils of the world by men, even as children.

It is sexist to highlight tragedies of one gender more than others. Doing so trivialises male tragedies, makes women seem weak and powerless, and it does not help anyone in the long run.

The Censorship of our Internet

As Google hides its first links to news sources on the internet deemed “old or irrelevant”, from websites including the BBC and Wikipedia under the 'right to be forgotten' legislation, you have to wonder what the future of the internet will look like.

This is an important question for many. The growing concern about the 'right to be forgotten' is stemming from the way the internet has become a hugely democratic space. A great societal leveller. It is somewhere information is disseminated between vast swathes of individuals, often for the purpose of making society more transparent. This need for a free and open internet is an essential requisite in the spreading and retention of important information, it helps preserve that which could all too easily be swept under the carpet in the past.

The 'right to be forgotten' is not a terrible piece of legislation, it could be fantastic, as long as it is used correctly. It could be incredibly useful for many who should be afforded the right to start afresh. Theoretically, much of the stigma attached to people deserving of a second chance who have made mistakes, suffered bankruptcy, or been victims themselves could be removed, or at the very least dissipated by enacting this right.

However, the 'right to be forgotten' comes with many obvious and worrying implications. It is not impossible to see a direct line between this piece of legislation and future successful attempts to limit the freedom of important information on the internet. If your average person such as Mario Costeja Gonzalez can win a case against Google, effectively limiting the freedom of information on the internet, how long will is be until the powerful decide it is their right too? Armed with their vast reserves of cash and the best lawyers it is not impossible to think of situations in which they might be successful.

Societies elites could then effectively remove links to articles and information they do not wish to be publicised via the internet. They could, in the foreseeable future, begin to shape the bias in search results similarly to the bias they enjoy in the traditional forms of media. It leaves us Europeans (for now) open to the further censorship of the internet, and to attempts at stifling the spreading of details and nefarious workings of 'our betters'.

Google removing links to data on Wikipedia is perhaps the most important part of this. It is a milestone in the attempts to censor this important cultural space. Simply because in the case of Wikipedia, unlike the other websites to date, it is not a corporate entity. It is entirely edited by the community, by the worlds population, thus making it the largest, most influential, and most democratic source of free information in existence.

It is by extension a fundamental right.

A right you cannot help but feel is being stifled in the interests of the elites. A right afforded by the internet that seemed untouchable not too long ago.

Yet More Rubbish From The Right and Racism in the Comments

This time it is Chris Roycroft-Davis' turn to spout nonsense on a subject matter, conveniently glossing over the facts and the common sense. In his piece published on the Express website "Why didn't they send up a man with a chainsaw? UK's health and safety farce" he engages with all of the misconceptions and half-truths commonplace in right-wing unthinking ranting.

His argument is that 'elf and safety', as he constantly (and annoyingly) refers to it as, is a ridiculous blight on the British social landscape. It is inconveniencing and threatening lives of people for nothing, it is a product of the left, a disease that has infiltrated our otherwise rational Britain, and it is against our traditions. He is of course talking out of his posterior.

He begins his nonsensical swim through a pool of ill-informed idiocy, by citing that staple of autumnal/wintry weather and 'elf and safety' madness news, the trains, or more specifically the train disruption over 'trivial' rubbish. Using recognisable phrases in his rhetoric such as "leaves on the line" or the "wrong kind of snow" he is displaying the articles underlying issues, the facts do not support his argument. These train delaying inconveniences are perfect examples of this. The 'elf and safety' elements seem over the top and crazy, the truth about the hazards and complications caused by the weather actually prove them to be perfectly reasonable.

The "leaves on the line" cause something called Low Railhead Adhesion, low adhesion means slippery, slippery means slow acceleration and slow deceleration, slow deceleration is very dangerous, simple. The "wrong kind of snow" is a little more complicated. Powdery small snow flakes get blown around a lot in the turbulent air from the moving train, they sometimes get into electrical systems, they melt, water and electricity are not best friends, it causes problems. Yes snow covered countries do not have these problems, they are prepared and equipped for it, it is a common problem over there. It is not an everyday problem here. If commuters want it covered then they need to be prepared for even more expensive train tickets because it wouldn't come cheap. It is not loads of ridiculous 'elf and safety' bods being stupid, it is a simple fact that water and electricity mixing causes problems.

He cited these perceived instances of 'elf and safety' madness as a lead up to his articles main point. That a man who climbed a tree next to some lines, after being suspected of burglary, caused very long train delays. His solution would have been to unleash someone with a chainsaw to cut him out of a tree. A tad heavy handed if you want my opinion. What if the chainsaw sliced him up as his perch fell? Would he think that was okay? Would it be a fitting punishment for his (alleged) crime? Would potentially slicing him up with a chainsaw be justifiable just because he was causing delays? No, of course it would not. However, Chris Roycroft-Davis seems to think so, even stating that "if he gets hurt it serves him right". The punishment for burglary, according to at least one member of the right-wing idiot brigade, is now on round of Russian Roulette with a chainsaw.

The charming chappy then moves on to further absurdities to defend his already quite risible argument. He invokes the power of 'the war', the common go to card for anyone attempting to legitimise a poorly thought out position on something. He writes that "Britain (has) taken leave of its senses" because we would not have had 'elf and safety' assessments during 'the war'. He then gives three witless examples of 'elf and safety' gone mad. Examples that would have assured Britain lost to ze Germans in 'the war', as if it would strengthen his case.
(1) "Sorry Tommy, you can't run with your Bayonet fixed as you might trip and hurt someone."
(2) "Put that light out, you might dazzle a German bomber pilot and make him crash."
(3) "You can't shelter on the Underground because you might turn over in your sleep and roll of the platform."
I'm (not) sorry Chris Roycroft-Davis but you have just committed a major error in your arguing against those who defend 'elf and safety' regulations. Invoking 'the war', as justification for ignoring the 'elf and safety' regulations you seem to despise so much, does not provide a strong argument. In fact it makes it much weaker. In doing so he has created a straw man argument, he has created a weak argument no one has ever supported, and presented as the blanket views of 'elf and safety' supporters (in his opinion the left) in order to easily refute its necessity. When arguments resort to that they have ceded any attempt to have an informed discussion.

Chris then goes on to list quite a few poorly chosen examples of this 'elf and safety' culture being harmful to the UK populations enjoyment and safety.

(1) He almost missed a flight because a vehicle fire on the M25 caused the motorway to be temporarily closed.
I've looked and I cannot find mention of any four lane closures due to a vehicle fire. I did find a couple of two lane closures, which is understandable, car fires do create a lot of smoke and fire trucks are not the smallest of things. It is going to slow traffic to a standstill, it is impossible to avoid! If he meant all four lanes were closed I can only assume that Chris is exaggerating or making it up, both are common right-winger tactics. If he was blaming 'elf and safety' bods because a vehicle fire created delays on a motorway as they tried to put out the fire, in the process getting annoyed at the fire fighters because it almost made him late for a flight, then he has a warped sense of self-privilege. What the hell were they supposed to do then Chris?

(2) A suspected terrorist attack on a coach closing down the M6 for a few hours.
Once again this is an idiotic example and a lose-lose situation for the police. If it was a terrorist bomb, and the coach blew up, Chris Roycroft-Davis would have been screaming for their heads. However, it was not, so he thinks that it is an example of moronic 'elf and safety' bods. All because they took a member of the public's concerns seriously (defending the police hurts me, but it needs to be done here).

(3) Cordoning off Trafalgar Square because a man is threatening to jump off an eight foot high wall.
Okay this is ridiculous, if it is true. All we know about it is a man with a camera is describing what he thinks is happening. No statements from those concerned; no proof of his intentions. I will reserve judgement. But for the purposes of this post, Chris Roycroft-Davis misrepresents the information to aide his argument. He writes, about the man who attempted to jump off a wall, that "No wonder he was led away saying: "I do love England"". That is a lie, the man who filmed the incident (nothing happening) at one point said that, but Chris is attributing the quote to the wrong person. He has represented a false version of the facts (as all right-wingers do) to suit his agenda.

(4) Ipswich man climbs on a train station roof causing long and numerous delays.
What Chris fails to mention is that the roof was very weak and there was a possibility that it might give way. If it had he could have been seriously hurt but the electrical cables below, or possibly could have fallen onto the tracks. Whatever the dangers were to the man on the roof, there were some.

(5) School banning yo-yos. (6) Public kitchen hall removing knives. (7) Office staff not being allowed to use kettles.
All here from the Health and Safety Executive themselves.

(8) Man drowns in three foot deep lake, as fire fighters refuse to save him from 'level two' depth waters.
Tragic. Skewed news. This article explains that the Fire fighter in charge, Mr Nicholls, was told that the "body had been in the water for five or ten minutes" and that he saw "no obvious signs of life" thus making it "a body retrieval". In other words they chose not to go in to collect a dead body in an undignified manner, instead waiting for a specialist team who could do it whilst preserving the deceased man's dignity. An error in judgement perhaps, but it was not 'elf and safety' rules that ultimately stopped his rescue. Health and safety would not have stopped a trained life saver from saving a man they thought had a possibility of survival.

Finally, I cannot let this article go without pointing out the racism littering the comment section. IT IS DISGUSTING THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED ALREADY!

With reference to the picture accompanying the article, a black man sitting in a tree, the commentators have written:

jim c: Actually, he doesn't look out of place

judgenjury: Which zoo have I seen one of them in???

logen1: I must admit he looks very at home up there, I am sure that if they had tried to early to get him down, he would have just swung to another branch, and another tree
               Reply: bobajob: They could even have got David Attenborough to make a documentary out of it

LouisaB: Oh and look at him .... surprise surprise. You all know what I mean ...

jbl: Cant chop the tree down and destroy its habitat

By not removing these comments (after reporting them to the police for racism) the Express are condoning these abhorrent attitudes.

Bill Etheridge addressing the Farage Youth

A UKIP MEP today did something only a politician (who is not so secretly racist) could do. He advised a conference for young xenophobes in Birmingham to idolise Hitler. In Bill Etheridge's defence it was his oratory skills he told them to idolise, not his mass murdering psychopathic 'qualities'. However, that does beg the question why not Martin Luther King? Or Nelson Mandela? Why not Mary Robinson? All of these suggestions are very capable public speakers, even if they all speak about subjects too sensible for UKIP. If it was hate speech Bill Etheridge fancied then why not Maggie Thatcher? Everyone knows UKIP are slightly more racist Tories so why not one of their idols? Maybe they did just go down that route and choose a hero of theirs, after all they did choose an irrational racist who hated the rest of Europe as an example.

When you consider what UKIP stands for, its policies and members beliefs, I guess Hitler really was the only choice. They do hate women and people from Bongo-Bongo land so none of my suggestions would have worked.

It is not like they do not have previous with this sort of thing. Who remembers Nigel Farage being accused of singing Hitler Youth songs and being a proud and public racist by a teacher at his private school? An article on the Channel Four website simply titled 'Nigel Farage schooldays letter reveals concern over fascism' should jog your memory if you need it. 

Or you could just look at this collection of lovely people representing the UK in the European Parliament. Once again featuring the charming Bill Etheridge alongside his fellow advocates of decency and fairness; Dr. Julia Reed, Gerard Batten, and Roger Helmer all doing their finest to uphold the racist elements of the party (amongst other things in Roger's case). 

I've already mentioned Godfrey Bloom's Bongo-Bongo Land so that does not really need any further mentioning but what about when he shouted the Nazi slogan "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer" (in English: One People, One Empire, One Leader) at the German MEP Martin Schulz?

Finally, just because otherwise I would be here until eternity, who can forget William Henwood's famous outburst at Lenny Henry. Where he told him to emigrate to a "black country"! Presumably William meant THE black country and not a black country. Maybe all he wanted was for old Lenny to go back to Dudley? Not likely, but at least I cannot be accused of covering all the bases. 

So why are we all surprised with current (although some are ex) party members holding these views that they would want their Farage Jugend and Jungmadelbund to aspire to be like Hitler?!