Oit, James Blunt And Chris Bryant! You Are Both Wazzocks.

I feel the need to take a different approach to this much commented upon spat between these two. As you may have read, which is likely if you've found this blog way down in the search engine results on somewhere around page 48,000, Chris Bryant stating that he believed it was considerably easier for those from privileged backgrounds to find 'success in the arts'. Unsurprisingly one of those privileged people hit back, enter (stage left) James Blunt.

In response to Chris Bryant comments about privilege and the arts, James Blunt launched in a rant about his personal experience and how privilege will not necessarily lead to success. Citing his experiences as proof that privilege does not open doors for people in the entertainment industry. In the process calling him a classist gimp and a wazzock.

I couldn't agree more with Mr Blunt, he is a complete wazzock. This is clearly a trait they both share, as within this rant James Blunt reveals how little he understood what was being stated. One look at the wider media will tell you how class works overwhelming in favour of the educated, middle to upper class, white people, to which James Blunt belongs. Everything from ballet to sitcoms are rammed full of cast members over representing the red-brick universities and public schools to which Chris Bryant was referring. To ignore such obvious and overwhelming evidence is to condone the existing situation, thus believing that is the way it should be, and in James Blunt's own language, to be a classist gimp. 

Regardless of his own personal journey, which I admittedly knew very little about prior to reading this story today so I cannot verify the difficulties James Blunt claimed to face in making his name, the fact remains that being from a wealthy background does afford you certain privileges that the lower classes would not be able to rely upon. For instance, the correct assertion that having wealthy family members would help the aspiring performer to afford the schooling fees and years of low income that characterises someones early years within such a competitive industry. They simply have a reliable source of financial support that means they do not have to compromise their time with those pesky distractions such as making some money to eat, drink and sleep somewhere warm. 

Clearly Chris Bryant has said nothing that is not factually accurate in this respect. So why is he a classist gimp and a wazzock, just like James Blunt? 

Had he not used the example he did, discussing celebrities, and instead focused upon the other 'traditional' elitist institutions such as the one he represents then I may be inclined to disagree once more with James Blunt. However, he did not. His comments and focus upon the entertainment industry assumes that the lower classes do not desire meaningful, academic, or any of the traditionally important and well paid roles within society. The comments seem to be playing upon the stereotypical image of the lower classes as dumb, work shy and averse to responsibility and only desiring instant fame and gratification. He is all too happy to discuss inequality in the media but ignores the place in which he earns his livelihood, the houses of parliament, hardly a place famous throughout the UK for being bastion of working class representation. This may be because he, much like his sparring partner Blunt, is a boarding school, publicly educated, child of privilege. 

That seems to me to be the point of the attack and the reason he shares the 'wazzock trait' with Mr Blunt. By highlighting the inherent advantage of the privileged few in terms of making it in the entertainment industry, he has simultaneously brought about a focus upon his own privilege, and the privilege of the vast majority of his peers, within the establishment. Something which I hope doesn't go without notice within the ranks of the 'plebs' he is trying to distract from the more important conversation about representation in the decision making processes in society.

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.