Meanderings of a Monkey Juggler - news_and_politics

RGB or Composite?

noreply@blogspirit.com (Alby) — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:15:00 +0100

This isn't about methods of plugging DVD players into a telly, more a few thoughts about politics so switch off now if you aren't interested.

It has been said in the past that Greens are often socialists in disguise; this is the so-called "watermelon" hypothesis. IE green on the outside covering a red centre. Is it possible to add a bit of conservatism to the mix to create an RGB type? I think it is. And it probably describes me. I just wrote a long meandering piece but it was basically rubbish so I binned it. I'll have a think again later and see if I can put it into words. I would guess though that this political make-up puts me firmly in the majority of people in the country.

Oh and this is my 300th post.

Have fun.

[edit 12/9/06] Can you tell that I wasn't really thinking straight when I wrote the above? What I basically mean is that most of us have pulls to various ends of the political spectra. That's it really.

Notes for a rant

noreply@blogspirit.com (Alby) — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:05:00 +0100

I wasn't going to write this up on this site. It was more an exercise for me to get some thoughts down whilst watching a TV show. But now, having seen the news re potential terrorist threats against the UK I thought it would be worth rehearsing publicly. What follows are the thoughts I wrote down when watching a TV show called "What Muslims Want". It was a thoughtful show hosted by a very respected news presenter (Jon Snow) and attempted to make some sense of the results of a research questionnaire about "What Muslims Want". They asked 1000 muslims in the UK from a variety of occupations and ages a few questions.

Here's what I wrote:

The thesis: Integration has stopped.

Muslims seem to think 9/11 was set up by USA and Israel. (50% of respondants)
Princess Di was killed because she was dating a muslim. (40%)
It could be argued that it's likely that people that believe any of the religious bollocks are soft-minded enough to believe this sort of crap.

82% feel British. That's nice.

The younger ones are more radical and more conservative. They all witter about the Iraq war. Not one mentions that it's muslims killing muslims more than westerners killing muslims. It's the US's fault that some muslims blow up mosques in Baghdad? Yeah right.

23% felt 7/7 bombings were justified. Scum.
The bombings were the fault of the UKs foreign policy? No the cause was 4 poor deluded fools with a mis-directed grudge (with no basis) and no intelligence.

Adulterers should be stoned to death (a 20-something UK citizen). And what about witches?
At this point another muslim man intervened and argued against him. This was good to see but I fear the interloper is a quieter voice.

66% said women should not be forced to wear the hijab themselves. This means 34% think they should be forced. Hardly an overwhelming argument for the lack of oppression of the muslim woman.

Over half feel gay people should be banned from teaching! Surely your child's faith that gayness is obscene would protect their virtue from such deviates? Or do you feel that the lure of being gay is stronger than the pull of your religious education you've forced on sorry gifted to your children?

40% are offended by the UK's "bad moral behaviour".
67% think UK parents give children too much freedom. I'd agree with them on that one.

"56%" of muslims think that they are "under attack". Well duh? I know they're stupid enough to believe all sorts of bollocks but I can't believe that they're so stupid that they're surprised that when muslims blow up bombs in the UK then other muslims in the UK will be under suspicion.

Freedom of speech:
No-one should be allowed to insult their religion. Bollocks!
The cartoon embarrassment was mentioned - "behead the artists and publishers" - oh sweet.
"everyone should be sensitive to other faiths" - right. And you can offend me can you? You stupid stupid wanker? I hold sacred the ideal of free speech. How the hell would you uphold that if I can't disrespect your prophet? I have no wish to disrespect your prophet but if it pisses the likes of you off then that's a perfectly good enough reason for me to start.

It seems that Muslims want us to give them stuff they want and they're willing to bully us to get it. Doesn't seem very peaceful to me.

In all of this it all seems that they (incidentally if you're wondering why I'm using terms like "they" here, it's because the participants kept referring to "us and them" - so I'll carry on the mode) are actively on their way to ensuring they are seperate and this, through history has never lead to any benefits. Does Islam teach you to ignore the lessons of history? It also seems that all this seperatism isn't based on religion but the politics of the tribe (back to us and them). It's always good to feel part of a tribe I suppose and never leads to inter-tribe strife [sarcasm]. I thought we could have grown out of that sort of imbecility this millennium.

And all us native WASPs are all depraved and drunk and licentious. No. That's chavs and you may be surprised to know that many of us really don't like that aspect of our country either. The difference is that I'm disciplined enough to make my own choices rather than having them made for me by some people interpreting a book. We have laws to prevent this sort of thing. The fact that they are not enforced to the standard that many want is NOT an argument for Sharia. It's an argument for decent policing.

In summary: If you're offended by me then screw you. I'm not harming you or your religion (unless it really is pathetically weak). You can't believe how angry your views have made me. I'm shaking with anger as I write this. And you had no idea did you? I'm a positive person generally. I like immigrants, I want friends of different faiths and races. I want to learn a new language. I'm against the Iraq war and generally have been against Israel and their treatment of Palestine and you have made ME this angry. Just what do you think you've done for the average white Brit? You are going to end up suffering so much if you feel that seperation, bullying and violence will get you what you want. Live and let live eh? You're not special. You deal with us the way you want us to deal with you ok? It's called basic civility. No more bullying, no more childish whinging about offence and no more wanting special treatment. I repeat, you are not special. You're just another person. Shut up and leave us alone. Sort your own problems out and don't expect us to pander to your (repeat: "your") beliefs.

That was not exactly what I wrote down on the night. What I actually wrote was far more sweary and offensive than that. But my point I think is valid.

Let's start on the "us and them" business. We hear that muslims feel that they are discriminated against. That may be and it's a sadness to me. But what you don't hear so much is that there are 1.5 million muslims in the country which in the main has allowed them to slot into the towns and cities with not too much grief. Most white brits I know aren't fussed who lives near them as long as people are nice and friendly and don't give them grief. What hacks people off is those wanting special treatment or being told to pander to peoples' beliefs (that are their own restrictions they imposed on themselves).

I deal with plenty of muslim people at work. The vast majority are lovely and friendly and I have no problems with. Occasionally you find one who is clearly horrified either that I'm a man (some women do this) or that I'm white. Screw you!

Think of it like having guests (or even neighbours). If I invite a guest in and he spends the time criticising my record collection then I'm not too disturbed. If he decides that my record collection is so offensive he's going to plant a bomb in the bedroom so he can kill the idiot with the stupid record collection then I might be narked enough to kick him out should I discover the plot. I can live (as indeed the vast, overwhelming lot of white Brits can) with people who have different ideas. I'll go further; I welcome people with different ideas. But hospitality does start to wane somewhat given the sort of grief that some morons want to kick out. The problem is also that we don't know who amongst the group are the idiots with the bombs.

Who are the terrorists harming? No-one but their own community. There may be a few people killed in an attack (even up to a couple of thousand at worst) but how many normal muslims are going to get grief from dickheads of the white community. I repeat something I mentioned earlier: if I feel angry with how some muslims are dealing with the fact they don't live in a muslim country then there are a hell of a lot more people out there who aren't as thoughtful as me and will take it out on their community (and the poor hindus, sikhs and asian christians who'll get lumped in to the same "brown" group by the idiots). It seems that the thought "I don't like this country therefore I'll leave" is too big a mental leap for these mentalists.

"Ah but that's not the point is it?" you cry. They don't like the fact that our country is interfering in their homeland's affairs therefore they'll interfere with ours. True but then they handily skip over the fact that we had the largest ever demonstration in this country a while back. What was it for? Oh yes, supporting that view. Oh and it's not the west blowing up huge numbers of civilians in Iraq (now) it's other muslims but this rarely gets raised and never discussed. Never mind we'll just kill some people anyway and get to shag some virgins as part of the deal; cool.

And to make matters worse the extremists will look at the security response and think; "They're stopping muslims. Look, look, they're stopping muslims!" at the airport for example. It's therefore clear that the whole of the UK white community is utterly Islamophobic therefore they are our enemies. And some idiots will believe them. Since white people have no talents except as oppressors.

Oh I don't know and I'm bored now.

Have fun. (Please?)

Evil gits

noreply@blogspirit.com (Alby) — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 09:15:34 +0100

Now then here's a thing. When a really nasty event happens should the papers continually re-refer to it and dissect it? Perhaps. What if the event was the brutal murder of 2 young girls? What could be gained from knowing more detail about the events then? Perhaps a modus operandum or a hint of what can be used to stop future similar events. That might be useful to some I suppose.

I saw the front page of the News of the Gits yesterday. Splash! Scream! Huntley tells all! It's a long and in-depth discussion of what Ian Huntley has told his mum about the sequence of events when he murdered 2 young girls in Soham. Without exception NONE of it is necessary to further any understanding of Huntley or his actions. What the story does do (in spades) is bring up old wounds for the girls' families. The story has loads of hideous and dreadful detail - it reads more like a horror novel rather than a news story. What the hell did the NotW expect this story to do? There isn't a single positive aspect to the story; not one. How can they live with themselves?

I don't know.

Have fun.

Whinging Poms

noreply@blogspirit.com (Alby) — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:15:00 +0100

I link from this site to Andrew Collins' blog and he recently wrote a story (here) about some imbecile contractor who wanted to move abroad because of the usual idiotic reasons. You know the sort of thing (too many speed cameras, too many immigrants etc)

Apparently there's been a study asking people if they want to move and the beeb (bless her) has put a "Have Your Say" wotsit up about this. The usual variety of loons has responded. Here are some of the more choice idiot ramblings.

What is there left for a decent hard working family in this country?

Higher taxes (that amount to legalised theft) to pay for the growing benefit queue, outsourcing of jobs to places like India, ridiculous house prices, rising crime and reduced sentences for serious convicted criminals, growing tensions between immigrants and native Britons, a government in turmoil with no leadership or direction, the list goes on and on.

Higher taxes? Yes higher than they were before but then our services were run into the ground because of tax starvation. The countries that everyone is mentioning are great have higher taxes (except the US which just doesn't have the services).
Outsourcing of jobs to India? Same in the US, same in Europe, it's called capitalism and the opposite of what you would no doubt call "the nanny state".
Rising crime - actually no. The papers want you to think that but crime by all objective measures is down.
Growing tensions - probably but that's hardly unique to the UK; spot the riots in Paris earlier this year - and the struggles in the US about whether Spanish should be used at all officially.
Government in turmoil - maybe but are any not? The US is as split as it's ever been. Germany is split too. Canada seems stable enough but then what do we know about their internal politics? And they've just had a big anti-terrorist deal going on so there are clearly problems there too.

On to the next one:

We'd move from London to LA tomorrow if we could. Our part of the world is so overcrowded now, and getting worse all the time - houses on top of each other, parking, you name it. And the political correctness that controls so many aspects of our lives drives us absolutely mad!

London is over-crowded but LA isn't? Hmmm.. So parking is now a reason to move. Has this person not realised that LA is full of cars? They have worse roads and infinitely bigger jams than the UK has too. It's also about the most polluted city in the US.
Political Correctness! Don't get them started on that good heavens. So LA isn't politically correct is it? You smoke and you're a pariah. You have a glass of wine with your meal and you're an alcoholic. The PC police are far more powerful (and vocal) in the US than they are here. At least in the UK we just scoff and ignore them; I doubt that'll work in the US.

And finally

I am planning to emigrate to Florida as soon as possible! The attraction? Better quality of life, better schools and education system for my children, lower cost of living, better health care, and better weather. You don't really live in Britain, you exist. In the US it's catered for families, friendly service, great value, cheap entertainment. Over here, businesses are just profit hungry and we are ripped off and over taxed at every turn. Talking of which, there is no income tax in Florida because the revenue from the Sales Tax/Tourism is so high - so automatically my income would be 50% greater a month with things being 50% cheaper! - a win/win by all accounts.

Better schools? I remember an American stand-up talking about his high-school diploma: "To graduate you must be this tall" [making a hand gesture about 3 feet off the ground]. I doubt the US school system is much better than ours. And in ours you don't need to dodge the loner who brings a gun to school on the last day of term instead of Buckaroo.
Better health care? Well that's a new one. The US has never had better health care than the UK since the NHS was set up. Sure if you can pay for insurance it's ok but don't get any pesky chronic conditions like asthma, diabetes or cancer. No doubt these splitters will be back to the UK for work on these should they ever get properly ill.
Better weather? This guy's going to Florida - in the centre of Hurricane Alley (hit by dozens of tropical storms and stronger every year). When it's not like that they bake - didn't we just have a thing where we were all told that the temperatures here were life-threatening? I'm sure it's hotter there.
Friendly service - read "very good at fobbing you off for crap service" at least that's what I found. "Businesses are profit hungry" huh? And the US is a socialist haven based on fairness of prices is it?
"No income tax"? That's bollocks for a start. There may be no local income tax for all I know but general income tax is national not state run.

There seems to be a vast amount of delusion over these people's eyes. It's easy to get into an "everything's shit" frame of mind. I had an on-line chat with a guy moving to Bg because there were too many speed-cameras and he didn't like the congestion charge in London. Honestly they were the things he whinged most about. It's true that Bg has neither of those things but then they have corruption in their political system, police corruption, the Mafia, really cash starved health services, really bad service ethic, freezing weather in the winter, high crime, poverty and they triple their prices when they figure out you're not local. Hmm, not a bad trade-off for not being told not to speed habitually.

Thankfully one person has some sense on the beeb's board:

I find it interesting that no-one is talking about the 'other side', those of is that left and came back. I moved to California 12 years and came back, for a lot of reasons. The U.S. (and especially CA) has become every bit expensive to live in as the U.K., you have NO guarantee of health care and people DO lose everything when they cant afford to pay. Britain is not perfect but also a lot of people suffer from 'grass is greener' syndrome. I know quite a few people who have moved away that would love to come back.

Also isn't it the ultimate irony that those complaining about immigration here now want to become immigrants themselves...

I have some faith in humankind.

Have fun.

Drugs. Need more drugs.

noreply@blogspirit.com (Alby) — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:05:00 +0100

I was listening to the radio last night about a study that the UK government funded and the report it kicked out which has now been supressed because of its controversial findings. There seems to be a history of these in the UK. I remember one on pornography that was canned because it came back with the idea that consenting adults should have access to whatever they wanted as long as no crimes were commited in the making. The UK government and the Daily Mail weren't going to allow that one through unchallenged at the time.

This new one concerns drugs. The researchers had to rank drugs in order of their harm to society and the individual: Here is their "Top 10 Worst drugs".

Heroin
Cocaine
Barbiturates
Methadone
Alcohol
Ketamine
Benzodiazopines
Amphetamines
Tobacco
Buprenorphine

No sign of Cannabis (number 11) and LSD (14) and Ecstasy (18) but somehow alcohol is up there at number 5. How can this be?

The first thing to note is the current classification system of Class A's to Class C to legal is not upheld by this league table. Here's the classification of these drugs.

Class A
Class A
Class B
Class A
Legal
Class C
Class C
Class B
Legal
Class C

Now LSD and ecstasy are class A drugs (at nos 14 and 18) but alcohol (legal) is at number 5! How can this be?

It seems that the governments drugs policy is all cock-eyed. Can that really be true? Could it be that the policy is governed by public opinion (how many votes would be lost by banning alcohol?) or by industry pressure?

Seems odd to me that this isn't more widely known. We know alcohol is an extremely destructive drug however it can be good for you in small doses. In most people it will cause no harm and can help social situations (your average Brit couldn't proceate if alcohol wasn't involved at the instigation of proceedings for example).

My point is that people who take alcohol are indulged horribly in this country. It's generally considered cool and the fact of being drunk is seen as a mitigating factor in most crimes. So I propose a solution.

Allow all these drugs. Complete decriminalising if you will. Then addicts can get safe drugs from safe suppliers and help with quitting and detox. Cut the criminal element out completely - no crime and everyone's safer.

For those who abuse the privilage of this there are harsher penalties. So instead of getting treated leniently on an assault charge because "you didn't know what you were doing" you get a tariff of say 300% because you were off your face. You are responsible enough to be allowed these drugs so you are responsible enough to take the consequences if you abuse them (and people).

Similarly those brought into A&E because of over-indulging are forced to pay the cost of their treatment.

For minor infringements like drunk and disorderly there is the "drug tank". This should be breathalyzer or blood-test enforced and therefore is not subject to abuse from annoyed police officers. You stay in there for 2 working days. Employees therefore face the wrath of their employers, self-employed people lose money from not being able to work and the unemployed are not available for work and therefore lose benefits.

Makes sense to me.

Have fun.

Death in dreamspace

noreply@blogspirit.com (Alby) — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:50:00 +0100

Now here's some sad news. I was listening to the radio and heard a tale of death and woe at a place I thought no longer existed. The description reminded me of a place I loved when I saw it in London (and where I was offered a one off job to juggle in). I went with friends including Frauke and Rebecca. Loved it. So it was sad to read this.

Here's some photos taken when I was there. I hope it doesn't mean the end for this space.

http://www.care2.com/c2c/photos/view/173/316009365/Unconnected_old_photos/Dreamspace%201.JPG.html

http://www.care2.com/c2c/photos/view/173/316009365/Unconnected_old_photos/Rebecca%20in%20Dreamspace.JPG.html

Have fun.

[Edit: 24/7/06] More evidence that those who write The Daily Fail are complete imbeciles. This story is on their front page this morning with the headline "2 Killed on Bouncy Castle". "Bouncy Castle"? What are they on about? By using this phrase to describe this structure they just demonstrate their continuing dickheadedness. It is like comparing Venus de Milo with a shop dummy or a van Gogh with a bloody etch-a-sketch picture. How much longer does this piece of shit rag have to keep publishing their uninformed shit?

I wish they'd stop doing "this shit" too.

noreply@blogspirit.com (Alby) — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:30:00 +0100

Now this is an odd post. I'm going to be supportive of a group I'm not normally supportive of.

That group is Israel. I have serious issues with how they've dealt with their neighbours and the wider world. But in this recent case I have to say I'm not too negative about their behaviour. They could certainly have toned things down a little (IE not bombing ports and mosques for instance) but my thought is how the hell else are they supposed to react to a blatant act of war from Hezbollah? Israel took lots of grief when they were in Lebanon before. They did not have any moral basis for being there nor for their reprisals against attack. However they did unilaterally withdraw from Lebanon and I can't see that would want to reinvade. So they were attacked and they responded. They now have some measure of "right" on their side. It also (sadly to me) vindicates their previous argument that if they withdraw then they'll just be attacked anyway. This is why they didn't withdraw earlier. It pains me to say this; they were right. They did the right thing by withdrawing; they still get attacked despite this.

So why did Hezbollah do this? They'll say either they want a bargaining chip to help negotiate release of prisoners or that they are showing support for Hamas. Both of these are utter bollocks. Hezbollah is a government and army without a country. They are more powerful than the Lebanese army purely because of their support from Syria and Iran. Lebanon could not disarm them; they don't have that capability (whether they had the will or not).

They did this purely as a power play and it's seriously going to backfire on them I reckon. They can't get help from abroad, they can't get supplies and now they can't escape too easily. I spy lots of dead militia very soon. I can't see how this is a particularly bad thing.

So that's now. What about later? Will this escalate? The main concern would be Syria and Iran joining in. I can't see this happening. Both of these countries know damn well that this would mean huge death and destruction in their own countries. They are really not in a winning position here. Their puppet soldiers are being hammered and their diplomatic position has been weakened. The only thing that Iran can do is sit back and carry on developing nuclear weapons quietly. They know that if they get too belligerant then their nuclear facilities will be dust within an hour or two.

My main concern is that of what the Lebonese will a: do and b: think about the future. Here was one country that was developing nicely and doing well for itself (I suppose the only other doing so well would be Jordan). Now their dream is gone because some self-elected bastards decided to provoke a war in their country. Will they hate Israel more than they hate Hezbollah? I think if my peaceful and happy country was hijacked by a non-governmental group then I'd probably hate that group most. It's difficult to say that for sure as I'm not in that situation.

So yes. Well done Israel for doing something. Boo for doing "too much". And bigger boos to Hezbollah for being utter dickheads. You've just done the impossible and made me (and no doubt many others) feel sympathy for Israel. Bet that wasn't on your agenda. You're idiots, bloodthirsty nasty pieces of work with no brain cells between you. And if you believe that random unprovoked attacks are legitimate within your religion then you are seriously misguided and by your own logic will be going to your version of hell. Spastics the lot of you.

Have fun.

Evolution in action

noreply@blogspirit.com (Alby) — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:25:46 +0100

There's a discussion programme on Radio 5 this morning about the "huge" increase in STD's in Britain over the last decade.

Can I ask just what is the problem? If young and stupid chavs want to shag themselves into the ground and catch and spread a huge number of diseases around then isn't that up to them? Some of these diseases kill you. Some make you infertile. Whichever happens it still means fewer stupid people. What's the loss?

Have fun.

Magic

noreply@blogspirit.com (Alby) — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:51:53 +0100

This is one of the most bizarre news stories I've ever seen.

http://www.swansea-res.org.uk/news.html

I do hope it's real and not a spoof site. I'm at work at the mo so I can't see the video but I'll be looking as soon as I can. I love the photos and comments particularly.

What a wonderful world we live in.

Have fun.

Scum!

noreply@blogspirit.com (Alby) — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:10:00 +0100

Now then just how would you advertise a poliical party?

First off you have to say what that party actually stands for, yes? How about saying a bit about that party's record in local and national government? What about the leader? Is he a good guy (as there are no girly leaders)?

Well that's what I'd have thought. But then I'm neither an advertising copywriter nor a politician. I suppose that the marriage of politician and advert exec would be a product made in the depths of the hell of cynicism and I'd be right.

I've just had the misfortune to see the latest "Party Election Broadcast" by the Labour lot. Well here's a turn-up - they're scum. Who'd have thought it?

Let us return to the idea of advertising yourself. What do you think this ad told us about the Labour party? Well the answer was "Nothing". A bit fat zilch and a void where content should have been.

Instead of a series of benefits to voting red all we got was a CGI chameleon riding a bike. Yes that was it. What?!

The conceit was that the chameleon was David Cameroon, changing his ciolours to fit whomever he was speaking to. Oh that's unusual! A politician tailoring his message to his audience. Never?

How on Earth do any politicians ever get off on showing that other politicians are either frugal with the truths they impart or have changed an opinion at one time or another.

TB was once a member of CND, he was a socialist, he was utterly opposed to joining the EU, he was utterly opposed to students having to pay for their education. And I'm sure there is a catalogue of similar changes of opinion and spin in all parties.

The parties in the UK are currently engaged in trying to figure out why people aren't interested in politics. Well der!

Just tell us about the bloody issues and what you are going to do about them please! I really didn't want to see a sub-Pixar piece of cack that tells me a: nothing new about any politician and b: nothing about why I should vote for anyone at all.

Have fun.

[edit: Just seen the blues advert and it hit all the buttons I decried the red one for missing. All positive stuff about "if you want to go green, vote blue!" I don't remember seeing any part of it be negative against anyone else. If this was a race between only 2 groups and I make my mind up on such trivialities as marketing then I'd have to vote blue.]