Sunday, 4 August 2013

Wealth Inequality in America


The video at the link above is pasted below, but it doesn't display properly - the right-hand-side is somewhat clipped; so it's best viewed by going to the link.


Thursday, 11 July 2013

Sexism parading as feminism on the BBC's 'This Week' show.

I was watching 'This Week' - late-night politics discussion hosted by Andrew Neill.

The special guest was Myleene Klass. Others in the discussion were Ken Livingstone, Michael Portillo and Andrew Neill.

The topic was 'casual sexism', e.g. Cameron's 'calm down dear' and Hague's 'stupid woman' remarks during PMQ sessions, John Inverdale's 'she's not a looker' (re tennis player Marion Bartoli).

Now, ostensibly, Myleene Klass had come onto the programme to argue that casual sexism was rife and unacceptable.

But, interestingly, she was the one who came across as least feminist in her views, compared to all the men present, particularly Livingstone.

One clue to this was the fact that she proclaimed herself a 'feminist' very emphatically - too emphatically, especially when she should have understood that everyone already assumes that, given her self-appointed role in the discussion.

But there were much bigger give-aways.

For example, Livingstone made the obvious argument about popular media, e.g. The Sun, barraging us with images of women in bikinis.

That's obviously correct: if women's 'bits' are always emphasised, and their opinions always invisible, then that obviously makes them lesser people than men.

Klass was emphatic in her disagreement with Livingstone, e.g. 'Oh, you can't blame it all on the media.'

Klass' defence of page 3 was a clear illustration of Upton Sinclair's principle, 'difficult for someone to understand something when their salary depends on their not understanding': Klass has profited greatly from the bikini shot, so that's why she struggles to see it as demeaning to women.

Klass also took great issue with Livingstone's argument for positive discrimination to boost women numbers, e.g. in parliament. Klass' emphatic riposte was that selection of women should depend on their ability to do the job.

This is a red-herring, though. There are plenty of women (and men) capable of doing a good job (politics, finance, law, education, science). The issue really is about pushing/enticing them into those positions rather than finding enough 'capable' women.

To trump it all, the biggest enemy of women that Klass identified was women themselves: how bitchy they are about each other, how they bring each other down.

That too is bollocks though. Compared to women, if anything, men excel when it comes to bitchy comments out each other, jealousy, vindictiveness, etc.

Moreover, if we accept Klass' argument, then, actually, it follows that there is no problem to be addressed by society: according to Klass women need to go away and sort themselves and their attitudes to each other out.

Klass is clearly a pseudo-feminist at best, or sexist at worst (much like many hacks are pseudo-journalists or propagandists).


Thursday, 23 May 2013

2013 Woolwich attack in perspective

This is helps put the 2013 Woolwich attack in perspective:

"Deaths with a (known or suspected) racial element 2000 onwards":

Wednesday, 22 May 2013

'The Big Bang Theory', and 'The Hawking Problem'.

Do you watch 'The Big Bang Theory'? What do you think? (How will they handle 'The Hawking Problem'?)

The characters are all highly intelligent, highly accomplished scientists.

Moreover, they discuss a very wide range of topics, well beyond physics, e.g. biology, history.

The question that fascinates me is: how long can they keep making episodes without ever having the characters chat politics or climate change? Their continued avoidance of those subjects looks increasingly incongruous, given how wide-ranging their conversations are.

Also, here's a real humdinger ...

Stephen Hawking is a favourite recurring character/topic for them. Indeed, he was the main theme of finale episode (May 2013) of the latest season (season 6).

But now, Hawking is equally?/more? famous for his political output as his physics output.

CBS is a New York-based corporation, i.e. at the heart of Jewish-lobby America. Has Hawking breached the bounds of acceptable speech such that he will disappear from the sitcom's universe of discourse?

Sunday, 3 March 2013

Israel breaches truce 820 times in three months

Human rights organisations have revealed that Israel has breached its ceasefire agreement with the Palestinians on more than 800 occasions since it was signed last November. In stark contrast, the Palestinians have broken the truce just twice. - See more at:

/full article here:
Human rights organisations have revealed that Israel has breached its ceasefire agreement with the Palestinians on more than 800 occasions since it was signed last November. In stark contrast, the Palestinians have broken the truce just twice. - See more at:
Human rights organisations have revealed that Israel has breached its ceasefire agreement with the Palestinians on more than 800 occasions since it was signed last November. In stark contrast, the Palestinians have broken the truce just twice. - See more at:
Human rights organisations have revealed that Israel has breached its ceasefire agreement with the Palestinians on more than 800 occasions since it was signed last November. In stark contrast, the Palestinians have broken the truce just twice. - See more at:

Wednesday, 23 January 2013

Some quotes from Orwell that the liberal media don't quote on Orwell day

Media Lens Message Board

Some quotes from Orwell that the liberal media don't quote on Orwell day

Posted by Hidari [User Info] on January 23, 2013, 8:46 pm

With the Guardian trying to present him as a cuddly liberal here's George.

"When I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on."

" Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket. "

"Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war."

"All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting."

" Power is not a means, it is an end.... The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. "

"War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it."

" War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. "

"Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception."

" Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties... - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable. "

"In our time political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible."

"Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper."

"The huge British and French empires —(are) in essence nothing but mechanisms for exploiting cheap coloured labour (and) what we always forget is that the over­whelming bulk of the British proletariat does not live in Britain, but in Asia and Africa....This is the system which we all live on and which we denounce when there seems to be no danger of its being altered."

" Nothing is likely to save us except the emergence ... of a real mass party whose first pledges are to refuse war and to right imperial injustice. But if any such party exists at present, it is only as a possibility, in a few tiny germs lying here and there in unwatered soil."

"Liberal- a power worshipper without power."

Monday, 21 January 2013

The Martin Luther King You Don't See on TV

Sunday, 6 January 2013

UK Chilcot Inquiry: “The Iraq War Was Unlawful”. Unanimous Legal Opinion of Foreign Office Lawyers Cameron government is blocking publication of their “official” report

The UK Cameron government is blocking publication of their “official” report on Iraq war until perhaps 2014 or later, according to the UK’s most popular newspaper website.
Perhaps this delay is in part because the Blair government was advised before the war by all 27 attorneys in their Foreign Affairs Office that war on Iraq was unlawful. That would mean armed attack on Iraq would be an unlawful War of Aggression, with identical criminal implication on US armed attack on Iraq.
Unlawful war requires US military to refuse all war orders and arrest those who issue them (more documentation here).
Public understanding that current wars “on terror” are not even close to lawful would end these wars. War law forbids all armed attack unless under attack by another nation’s government.
As I wrote in 2010:
All the lawyers in the UK’s Foreign Affairs Department concluded the US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression. Their expert advice is the most qualified to make that legal determination; all 27 of them were in agreement. This powerful judgment of unlawful war follows the Dutch government’s recent unanimous report and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements.
This stunning information was disclosed at the UK Chilcot inquiry by the testimony of Foreign Affairs leading legal advisor, Sir Michael Wood, who added that the reply from Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office to his legal department’s professional work was chastisement for putting their unanimous legal opinion in writing.
Sir Michael testified that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw preferred to take the legal position that the laws governing war were vague and open to broad interpretation: “He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.”
Mr. Straw’s opinion is an Orwellian lie of the crystal-clear letter and spirit of the UN Charter that outlawed wars of choice in 1945. The UN Charter forbids all use of force except when explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council, or in a narrow definition of self-defense upon an armed attack by another nation’s government. This is arguably the single most important and clear law on the planet, the victory of the generation who sacrificed during World War 2, and damning criminal testimony for anyone in government to claim that this law is vague.
Violation of the laws which prevent a War of Aggression and a Crime Against Peace, are also arguably to worst crime a nation can commit.
UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith testified he ”changed his mind” against the unanimous legal opinion of all 27 of the Foreign Office attorneys to agree with the US legal argument that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized use of force at the discretion of any nation’s choice. This testimony is also criminally damning: arguing that an individual nation has the right to choose war violates the purpose, letter and spirit of the UN Charter, as well as violates 1441 that reaffirms jurisdiction of the Security Council in governance of the issue. This Orwellian argument contradicts the express purpose of the Charter to prevent individual nations from engaging in wars. A two-minute video of his mincing testimony is below as he pretends that war is still a lawful foreign policy option.
Moreover, the US and UK “legal argument” is in further Orwellian opposition to their UN Ambassadors’ statements when 1441 was passed that this did not authorize any use of force:
John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN:
[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Ambassador to the UN:
We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” — the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response… There is no “automaticity” in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.
The Chilcot inquiry was initiated from public outrage against UK participation in the Iraq War, with public opinion having to engage a second time to force hearings to become public rather than closed and secret. The hearings were not authorized to consider criminal charges, which is the next battle for UK public opinion.
Concentrated US corporate media will not report the Chilcot inquiry “emperor has no clothes” facts and conclusion that the current US wars are unlawful. The US Senate Church Committee revealed CIA infiltration of US corporate media to disinform the American public to support US political agendas.
The cost of these unlawful wars is over a million Iraqi lives above those expected to have died in pre-war conditions and $3-$5 TRILLION in long-term US taxpayer costs (that’s $30,000 to $50,000 per average US household of $50,000 annual income; do the math to figure your family’s share).
US Senate and House Committee investigation has shown through all disclosed evidence that all of the justifications for war with Iraq were known to be lies at the time they were presented to the public. You are an irresponsible citizen if you do not verify these easily-understood facts from the disclosed evidence. A colluding corporate media for unlawful wars is a lame excuse for inaction when the facts are in front of you now.