Wednesday, 5 May 2010

Cameron's blue demographic deja-vu?

If you believe most of the national newspapers and pre-election polls, with the exception of those lucky enough to escape scrutiny by the Murdoch media machine, the nation faces the likely prospect of a (at least part-) Cameron premiership starting this Friday. However, this is by no means set in stone, or in this case, the finest Afghan marble - after all, the new black (or grey) gold of the East... could it be a reason for our troops taking a little longer than expected?

The reasons for the leap in attention devoted to tomorrow's elections are wide-ranging: the first-ever string of live televised prime ministerial candidate debates (unfortunately, one of these was exclusively aired on the fee-charging, non-terrestrial... you know where) has meant that personality politics has taken centre-stage in this celebrity-obsessed TV nation (long live that great Anglo-American copycat alliance!) - but did these three-party discussions by the good old school boys really widen nations' democratic landscape?

A combination of the will to escape the biggest economic recession to hit Britain in 70 years, newly re-discovered grounds for optimism in light of the real possibility of change (despite overkill of the word 'change' by all parties), and the resulting likely increase in voter turnout by all those caustically apathetic or unwilling to accept the status quo [UK records indicate a continuous slump from just under 84% in 1950 to a risible 61.4% in 2005 - two percent higher than in 2001 (Source 1), yet still lower than the 62% in Iraq's March 2010 elections (Source 2), where openly casting your vote involved a real risk of being assassinated by those opposed to democratic reform], could all be harbingers of a true electoral hurricane, tomorrow! Let's just hope we won't see similar bloodshed spread to the streets of Britain if real parliamentary reform and the abolishment of the houses of Lords are introduced...

Not unlike in the US, the nature of our democratic system and, indeed, the strength of arguments put forward by the politicians, could be brushed aside as dedicated donations dictate the electorate's mindset at the ballot box, massaged by the last stretches of partisan persuasion rallying for support.

Let's just hope the Queen herself won't be outed as having been a secret supplier of campaigning capital (the thought of Her Majesty slipping Cameron a cheque under a Buckingham Palace banquet table! - priceless, quite literally), or even funding the detonation of council house blocks after a forced inverse exodus of 'non-EU natives'. Months before the 2005 elections, the, then, unsurprisingly jibing anti-Murdoch Times newspaper went into minute, time-lined details about the 'true blue' royal lineage of the tory leader, bickering about how he was 'related to the Queen, through an illegitimate royal child' (Source 3).

Now, even though this is hardly a policy-based critique of any party agenda, it does speak genealogical volumes about the characteristics of the typical Tory voter... Especially, since in the whirlwind of personal digs at all three contestants (and let's be honest, there aren't any surprise stallions catching up any time soon in this three-horse race, yet - sorry, George Monbiot) over the past weeks, the Murdoch-muffled mouths have been keeping awfully quiet on this issue.

Well, at least Cameron has an excuse to be in a bigot-free bubble, floating high above that chippy he ordered a round of its finest with 'salt and vinegar all around' for everyone whose support he needed (Source 4), to get through a last-ditch, all-night campaigning cod-fest!

Source 1:
Source 2:
Source 3:
Source 4:

Wednesday, 11 June 2008

McCain thinks Germany is a warzone
If you watch the short video at the bottom of this page you'll see a perfect example of John McCain's ignorance. He tries to put the US troops in Germany as being in the same position as the ones in Iraq. The only difference being that the ones in Germany are not fighting a greedy and undemocratic war over oil. They are simply lounging around beating themselves (and British soldiers) up, as I happen to know from an inside source.
This man needs to be outed by everybody via the internet or anywhere else possible.
I bet he can't even point out Germany on the World map.
He should be eaten as a chip after being fried in the oil of his greasy lies. McCains be sold deep-frozen in pack of 1.5kg, not as a puppet for the right-wing US government hawks.

Islamic vs. Islamist

As this is my very first blog it might be a little basic, but here it goes.
As I was reading up on what the Home Office does on their website, I stopped at one of their targest which was to "support local people and organisations who are willing to challenge anti-Islamic activity". I wondered what exactly the term anti-Islamic meant in this context, and discovered on the site called Jihadwatch ( that The Right Honorable Jacqui Smith MP (Home Secretary) had coined this phrase to describe events such as the 7/11 bomb attacks on London tubes and a bus in a way that would not offend, or even appeal to moderate Muslims. At this point in the discussion, I do find it very important to stress the difference between the words Islamic and Islamist. By definition, Islamic refers to Islam, and Islamist refers to fundamental forms of it.
Describing these vicious acts of terrorism as anti-Islamic is surely misleading, as the main target of the bombs are the non-believers.
As there are many different interpretations of Islam, varying very widely in terms of fundamentalism, it is more important to put the onus on what these deranged acts of terrorism are and not what they are not. They are islamist, fundamentalist, extremist acts of extreme violence. Performed, not in the name of Islam, but a fundamentalist, misguided interpretation of it.