No, not that one.
"The ex-vice-president of the Democratic Republic of Congo has been extradited to The Hague to face trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity" BBC
Interesting that this should occur in the same week as Mugabe declared himself the winner of the Zimbabwe presidential election. You know, the one with only one candidate. "crimes against humanity"? Sounds familiar that. While I'm not denying that our Congolese friend should be in front of the International Criminal Court (ICC), I'd be more than happy to see Mugabe alongside him.
Rhodesia* used to be the breadbasket of Africa, so much so that it exported food across the continent and across the world. It has abundant mineral reserves just waiting to be exploited. Now it's people starve and inflation is at god-knows what level. I cannot doubt that Africa has fared worse under its home-grown leaders than it ever did under colonial masters. Liberal interventionism isn't exactly popular post-Iraq, and Britain doesn't exactly have the means to launch a full scale liberation of Rhodesia. All that the West can really do is sit and watch the African nation implode, slowly dragging the rest of the continent down with it.
I'd dearly like to see Mugabe on trial; held to account for his crimes commited in the name of sovereignty - not to mention the economic genocide carried out against white Rhodesians. But given his advanced age, and the tyrants that have gone unpunished before, I won't hold my breath.
* On a side note, I've never been too happy when uppity regimes take it on themselves to rename older establishments. Hence my preference of Rhodesia - honouring Cecil Rhodes after all - over the ridiculous revisionist Zimbabwe. Same goes for Bombay-Mumbai, etc.
Thursday, 3 July 2008
Obama aiming for the Faith-head vote
From the BBC News site:
"US presidential hopeful Barack Obama has said he would expand George W Bush's programme of involving religious groups in government initiatives."
Just brilliant. So not only have the Democrats (supposedly the US' more liberal party) picked the candidate least able to beat McCain, he's getting into bed with the same fundamentalist lunatics as the Bush administration. Why is it that not one US politician can seem to remember that the United States is supposed to have a complete seperation between church and state? It's written down in the Constitution after all, not to mention countless other pieces of paper (Treaty of Tripoli anyone?). Jefferson himself was an Atheist, or at least a Deist - at any rate he clearly didn't envisage a US where religious groups set the national agenda.
I believe politics students have a word for states where faith determines policy - they're called theocracies.
A question I'd have to ask about this 'council' of religious groups that young Barack is planning. Will all groups be given equal representation? I mean, you could just have all Baptists, the dominent denomination in the south. Let's not forget the Methodists, or the Lutherans. What about the Catholics, I imagine they'd need representation too. Better not leave out the Jews (Orthodox and Reformed, naturally) - or the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists, etc, etc, etc...
O-barmy
Obviously this could get very very complicated. Well, if they all claim to be the One True Faith, I guess they'll have to be given some representation. Then there's us atheists and agnostics - obviously atheist citizens in the US can expect to be properly represented on this council (though since this is the US, maybe not). Yes, this make take some thought...
To be entirely honest, it's not as if I wasn't expecting this. Religious fundamentalism would appear to be growing so rapidly within the United States' interior that you would be forgiven for thinking that the entire nation is intent on throwing itself back into a dark age - one with cars and fast food, obviously. Therefore we see the inherant flaw with democracy; the winning candidate will only ever be as good as the electorate. Right now the members of the electorate Obama is trying to appeal to are the conservative religious types - hence this new statement suggesting that one of things I hated most about the Bush administration may not be disappeaing for good come November.
Sunday, 15 June 2008
Sitcom of the Week: Peep Show
Given my newfound fondness for watching TV through any medium other than actually useing a real television, it could only be a matter of time before I discoved one of Channel 4 on demand's special features - the archive. That's right, unlike boring old BBC iPlayer, 4oD allows me to download programmes from years before. As you can imagine, i'm up to my neck in old Dispatches and other Doc's that i've downloaded but am yet to actually watch.
Another programme that has made my acquaintance is Peep Show, a Channel 4 sitcom that has been going for several years apparently. It's got that lovely David Mitchell in it - often seen on panel games such as QI and HIGNFY. In Peep Show he plays a character called Mark Corrigan, someone I can very much identify with. The BBC has described this character thus:
"As Mark Corrigan, David reached out to all those middle-aged men in a twentysomething's body, who believe drugs are boring and systems are necessary if society is to function at all."
If only we had more people like myself and Mark Corrigan. I have often thought that making peace with the establishment is an important part of maturity and despise much of 'popular culture' - an oxymoron in itself. To my fellow twenty-somethings who wouldn't agree, well, you can stick two fingers up to "the system" as much as you like, but being rude doesn't pay the bills.
Another programme that has made my acquaintance is Peep Show, a Channel 4 sitcom that has been going for several years apparently. It's got that lovely David Mitchell in it - often seen on panel games such as QI and HIGNFY. In Peep Show he plays a character called Mark Corrigan, someone I can very much identify with. The BBC has described this character thus:
"As Mark Corrigan, David reached out to all those middle-aged men in a twentysomething's body, who believe drugs are boring and systems are necessary if society is to function at all."
If only we had more people like myself and Mark Corrigan. I have often thought that making peace with the establishment is an important part of maturity and despise much of 'popular culture' - an oxymoron in itself. To my fellow twenty-somethings who wouldn't agree, well, you can stick two fingers up to "the system" as much as you like, but being rude doesn't pay the bills.
Saturday, 14 June 2008
So the "slant-eyes" got it right?
I have somewhat mixed views regarding our Royal Family. While from a Leftist meritocratic point of view I naturally find their positions absolutely impossible to justify, I am nevertheless quite fond of them. Though hard for me to pick a favourate, at the moment Prince Phillip seems to be doing it for me. A television interview this week shows how he believes overpopulation has put too many pressures on the world (Times article). This is something i have long belived in.
Call me a neo-Malthusian if you like, but to me it doesn't take a genius to work out that this Earth of ours can only hold so many people. Yes, we can use technology to increase that number and cram more and more of us on this rock (actual quality of life being another thing entirely) but ultimatly there has to be limits to growth.
World population has rocketed in the last 50 years for the simple fact that people are still being born, but seem to be dying less often. Thats why there are (at time of writing) around 6,757,871,300 of us. That's 6.7 billion to be approximate., and rising rapidly - an extra 200 since I wrote the line above.
And when we reach the limit? A huge population crash, more devestating than any other man- made disaster, and it's likely we'll take the global ecosystem with us. So it's endangered? So what, i'm hungry. That's what it'll boil down to in the end. Since I first started reading about demographics, I have firmly believed that as a species we need to control our own fertility. The Chinese one-child policy is not a nice way for any nation to deal with the problem of too many people, but it is a necessary evil. I for one would be happy to see it rolled out across the whole African continent - the place where the population explosion is most horrific. Should that be successful, it could be rolled out across Latin America and the Middle East (excluding Israel obviously), possibly southern Asia too. With luck we could eventually see global population at 1900 levels.
Of course, it probably won't happen. No government in Africa is anywhere near strong or stable enough to implement such a policy. To have it forced upon the underdeveloped world by the developed nations - despite being entirely for their own good - would probably cause incredible PR problems such that no nation on Earth has the sheer guts to do it. The best we can probably hope for is a plateau at 9 billion in 2050. Though what sort of world it'll be, i shudder to think.
In the course up reading up on this subjuct, I stumbled upon the site of the Optimum Population Trust. Apparently, world population now stands at 6,757,874,151.
And before everything gets too serious, heres an old Duke of Edinburgh related clip from the classic that was Spitting Image.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IAGOIGVC_VU
Call me a neo-Malthusian if you like, but to me it doesn't take a genius to work out that this Earth of ours can only hold so many people. Yes, we can use technology to increase that number and cram more and more of us on this rock (actual quality of life being another thing entirely) but ultimatly there has to be limits to growth.
World population has rocketed in the last 50 years for the simple fact that people are still being born, but seem to be dying less often. Thats why there are (at time of writing) around 6,757,871,300 of us. That's 6.7 billion to be approximate., and rising rapidly - an extra 200 since I wrote the line above.
And when we reach the limit? A huge population crash, more devestating than any other man- made disaster, and it's likely we'll take the global ecosystem with us. So it's endangered? So what, i'm hungry. That's what it'll boil down to in the end. Since I first started reading about demographics, I have firmly believed that as a species we need to control our own fertility. The Chinese one-child policy is not a nice way for any nation to deal with the problem of too many people, but it is a necessary evil. I for one would be happy to see it rolled out across the whole African continent - the place where the population explosion is most horrific. Should that be successful, it could be rolled out across Latin America and the Middle East (excluding Israel obviously), possibly southern Asia too. With luck we could eventually see global population at 1900 levels.
Of course, it probably won't happen. No government in Africa is anywhere near strong or stable enough to implement such a policy. To have it forced upon the underdeveloped world by the developed nations - despite being entirely for their own good - would probably cause incredible PR problems such that no nation on Earth has the sheer guts to do it. The best we can probably hope for is a plateau at 9 billion in 2050. Though what sort of world it'll be, i shudder to think.
In the course up reading up on this subjuct, I stumbled upon the site of the Optimum Population Trust. Apparently, world population now stands at 6,757,874,151.
And before everything gets too serious, heres an old Duke of Edinburgh related clip from the classic that was Spitting Image.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IAGOIGVC_VU
Eco-Criminals disrupt fuel supply
Earlier yesterday morning, this story caught my attention. Apparently a bunch of self-righteous ecowarriors has taken it upon themselves to intercept a train delivering coal to a North Yorkshire power station. This act of trespass was made by members of imaginatively titled greeny group "Leave it in the Ground". Having climbed aboard the train, they proceded to use spades to empty its contents all over the ground nearby. Sounds more like on the ground to me.
In my eyes, the people who have carried out this act are no more than common criminals and should be treated as such. They have not only trespassed onto the railway lines, but effectively hijacked the train and stolen its contents - coal which they then used to despoil the surrounding land. They have caused inconvenience to many - not least other rail passengers whose trains were diverted, as well as rail staff and the poor workmen who no doubt have to clean up their mess.
If there is a silver lining in this incident, it is that the plant the coal was destined for will not be impacted and will operate "business as normal". Good for them.
I remember thinking at the time that these criminals (or 'campaigners' if you insist, though they don't deserve the positive connotations of the term) should be round up be the police and given a nice stretch at Her Majesty's pleasure. It was with glee that today I read a follow-up article informing me that police had removed all the protesters and that arrests went "into double figures".
"Those arrested face possible charges of conspiracy to obstruct trains, obstructing trains and railway trespass, police said."
Lovely.
That said, part of me had visions of militia moving in and dealing with each of them swiftly. One bullet each if you catch my drift. Still, i take my hat off to the police officers involved.
If you aren't happy about Britain's energy policy, there is an established and proper way to amend it. Either write to your MP, or if you really aren't satisfied; join one of the three main political parties, stand as an MP, enter the Commons, and influence legislation that way. Ok, if you're really angry, you can sign a petition. What we don't need is highly illegal activities carried out by greener-than-thou tossers which disrupt the ordinary flow of life and increase the tax burden (through higher police costs) on the average person.
Right, I'm off to burn some coal.
Saturday, 7 June 2008
Are all cultures equal?
No
That's the short answer. The question comes up often enough, or the topic is raised. It has become oh so trendy in recent decades to label the cultural practices of far away lands as 'different but equal' to our own.
I don't know where this particular piece of loony left dogma comes from, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the culture of the self-hating westerner. After all, anyone growing up in modern day Britian knows that to be European is nothing to be proud of. Ok, so Europe may be the birthplace of democracy, freedom, civil liberties and humanism. It may be responsible for the greatest scientific and technological discoveries in history. It may also be the place where some of the worlds best artwork and literature was produced, but never mind all that. As any so-called intellectual will tell you, collective European culture is no more superior to that of tribal people living in mud huts and worshiping the sun.
This is the one part of New Age bollocks I tolerate least. It has given us one of the prime reasons behind the fragmentation of the British state - Multiculturalism. In general, multiculturalism is based on the premise that all cultures are equally 'good' and that all should be celebrated. This I won't stand for. Western Parliamentary democracy is so much superior to Islamic theocracy. Civil liberties and respect for the human being is far more intelligent than stone age 'Holy scriptures'. The great classical muscians are without doubt infinately better than the tribal drumming of darkest Africa.
So the next time someone tells me I should be more open minded about a society which still practices ritual slaughter, 'traditional' herbal medicine, or the genital mutilation of it's own children; my first instinct will be to tell them to piss off. Secondly, i will point out that as a European, I am heir to the greatest culture to have ever existed on Earth and that it is not chauvanistic or 'rascist' to remain true to that fact. Queen Victoria once declared that she wanted Britain to 'civilise the world'
If only we'd finished that job.
Cultures are not all equal - some are just better.
Green Lane Update
I've always been a bit of a fan of Ian Hislop, and the wonderful satirical organ that is Private Eye. Indeed, it was that fine publication that inspired an earlier satirical blog of mine. (Free subscription for the plug please Ed.)
And so it was from the current issue (No 1211) that I first saw an update on the Channel 4 dispatches programme i blogged about recently. If you remember rightly, having been shown the film that clearly showed the local religious loonies in full anti-West hate mode to the police, it was none other than the film-makers that were hauled before the court. The brains that are West Midlands Police (or more exactly Anil Patani) made a complaint that selective editing had unfortunately portrayed this particular group of hate filled theocratic nutcases intent on destroying British freedom and democracy - as hate filled theocratic nutcases intent on destroying British freedom and democracy.
Its not every day that you get in trouble with the CPS for actually telling the truth.
Unless its the truth about religion of course. Or more exactly, about Islam.
An old friend of mine once complained that while you could say whatever you liked about Christianity, Islam seemed to be protected by a collective vow of silence. While i didn't entirely sympathise with him - believing that you should indeed be allowed free speech with regards to Christianity - the hypocracy is quite apparent. In the documentary, the invariably bearded sociopaths (i.e. preachers) expressed multiple times thier anti-semitism, homophobia and mysogyny. Were any true British citizen to express such backward opinions (backward for the civilised world at least) they would surely have their collar felt.
Quite rightly so, but if Jonny Imam says it, the Old Bill 'respectfully' tiptoe away. Wouldn't want to offend muslims would we - even if it comes at the cost of condoning murder, domestric abuse and treason to the British state. Sometimes it feels like there's a little game of minority Top Trumps going on - maybe the police have a pack so they know who should be offended under which circumstances.
If West Midlands Police were doing their job properly, Green Lane mosque would have been closed, its preachers of hate locked away for a very long time indeed. Anil Patani would be thrown out on his heels for not realising that there can be no greater threat to 'community cohesion' than a bunch of deluded man men preaching hatred in our own back yard.
With Policemen like this, who needs Al Qaeda...
And so it was from the current issue (No 1211) that I first saw an update on the Channel 4 dispatches programme i blogged about recently. If you remember rightly, having been shown the film that clearly showed the local religious loonies in full anti-West hate mode to the police, it was none other than the film-makers that were hauled before the court. The brains that are West Midlands Police (or more exactly Anil Patani) made a complaint that selective editing had unfortunately portrayed this particular group of hate filled theocratic nutcases intent on destroying British freedom and democracy - as hate filled theocratic nutcases intent on destroying British freedom and democracy.
Its not every day that you get in trouble with the CPS for actually telling the truth.
Unless its the truth about religion of course. Or more exactly, about Islam.
An old friend of mine once complained that while you could say whatever you liked about Christianity, Islam seemed to be protected by a collective vow of silence. While i didn't entirely sympathise with him - believing that you should indeed be allowed free speech with regards to Christianity - the hypocracy is quite apparent. In the documentary, the invariably bearded sociopaths (i.e. preachers) expressed multiple times thier anti-semitism, homophobia and mysogyny. Were any true British citizen to express such backward opinions (backward for the civilised world at least) they would surely have their collar felt.
Quite rightly so, but if Jonny Imam says it, the Old Bill 'respectfully' tiptoe away. Wouldn't want to offend muslims would we - even if it comes at the cost of condoning murder, domestric abuse and treason to the British state. Sometimes it feels like there's a little game of minority Top Trumps going on - maybe the police have a pack so they know who should be offended under which circumstances.
If West Midlands Police were doing their job properly, Green Lane mosque would have been closed, its preachers of hate locked away for a very long time indeed. Anil Patani would be thrown out on his heels for not realising that there can be no greater threat to 'community cohesion' than a bunch of deluded man men preaching hatred in our own back yard.
With Policemen like this, who needs Al Qaeda...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)