Editorial Bear: November 2006

Trampling on Dead Soldier's Graves ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials
By Garance Burke Associated Press
Sunday, July 23, 2006

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals nationwide filed suit in federal court, saying a Missouri law banning such picketing infringes on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by picketing service members' funerals with signs condemning homosexuality.

The church and the Rev. Fred Phelps say God is allowing troops, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates gay men and lesbians.

Missouri lawmakers were spurred to action after members of the church protested in St. Joseph, Mo., last August at the funeral of Army Spec. Edward L. Myers.

The law bans picketing and protests "in front of or about" any location where a funeral is held, from an hour before it begins until an hour after it ends. Offenders can face fines and jail time.
A number of other state laws and a federal law, signed in May by President Bush, bar such protests within a certain distance of a cemetery or funeral.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU says the Missouri law tries to limit protesters' free speech based on the content of their message. It is asking the court to declare the ban unconstitutional and to issue an injunction to keep it from being enforced, which would allow the group to resume picketing.

"I told the nation, as each state went after these laws, that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them," said Phelps's daughter Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the church in Topeka, Kan. "At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country."
Scott Holste, a spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, said, "We're not going to acquiesce to anything that they're asking for in this lawsuit."

The suit names Nixon, Gov. Matt Blunt (R) and others as defendants.

Oh my God. How resolutely disgusting is this?

Sueing for the right to picket at somebody's funeral? That's just wrong. The fact that a 'church' is trying to fight for this right just makes it even worse.

There's a big problem today that so much intolerance, bigotry and general idiocy is conducted by people who call themselves Christians. I mean, I believe in God but I'm getting more and more reticent about admitting to people in case they billet me in with this lot. It's why I feel deeply uncomfortable going to church. In all the flood of self rightousness, far too many 'modern' Christians have forgotten the very concept of 'Christian' values.

Considering the major figures of modern 'Christianity' are not doing their Brethren any good (take homophobic Ted Haggard, with his recent meth/male prostitute revelatations.)

Attention, militant Christians of the world: If you deem yourselves to be our moral guardians, make DAMN sure you uphold the same impossible moral standards in your own lives that you're demanding from us.

Jesus himself said 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' If he was alive today, he'd almost certainly tell his followers that people who worship in stained-glass churches shouldn't throw stones.

Russian Secret Service Given Carte Blanc to Commit Murder A new Russian law, adopted earlier in the year, formally permits the extra-judicial killings abroad of those Moscow accuses of "extremism".

In the wake of the death of ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko in London, the Sunday Telegraph has alleged that Russian spy agencies - "emboldened" by the new law - have carried out a number of such targeted killings.

In July, the upper chamber of the Russian parliament - the Federation Council - approved a law which permits the Russian president to use the country's armed forces and special services outside Russia's borders to combat terrorism and extremism.

At the same time, amendments to several other laws, governing the security services, mass media and communications, were adopted.

The overall result was to dramatically expand those defined as terrorist or extremist.
Along with those seeking to overthrow the Russian government, the term is also applied to "those causing mass disturbances, committing hooliganism or acts of vandalism".

Much more controversially, the law also defines "those slandering the individual occupying the post of president of the Russian Federation" as extremists.

So basically the Russian Secret Service have a licence to kill. And they're doing so. First the shooting of Anna Politkovskaya. Then the poisoning of Alexander Litvenenko. And those are only the ones that have hit the headlines. It appears a string of politically unpopular Russian Emigres are being bumped off. Seriously, it's like something out of John Le Carre.

And who's behind it all?

Vladamir Putin. It's obvious.

Okay, okay. So I have none of that 'evidence' people get so het up on these days. But consider this.

Is first name is Vladamir. Like Vlad the Impaler. A.K.A. Dracula.

And secondly, look at the following. Isn't Putin just THE SPITTING IMAGE of lethal S.P.E.C.T.R.E. operative Kronsteen? It's uncanny...

On the left, the mastermind Kronsteen, who thought up the plot to steal the Lektor Decoder in From Russia With Love.

And on the right, Vladamir Putin, ex K.G.B. agent who runs the Kremlin with murderous efficiency.

Network Rail announces first profit
Monday November 27, 08:48 AM

The firm in charge of Britain's railway tracks and signals has made a profit for the first time in its history.

Network Rail delivered a surplus of £747 million for the six months to September 30, compared with losses of £108 million a year earlier.

The not-for-dividend firm, which replaced Railtrack in 2002, will spend the cash on the rail network.

The results also showed train punctuality for the period averaging at 89.5% - the highest level for seven years.

And around £1.1 billion has been taken out of the cost of operating and maintaining the railway infrastructure in the past two and a half years.

At the same time, a further 7% increase in capital expenditure has seen almost £1.5 billion invested in the network over the last six months.

Oh. My. God.

Can this really be true? Can the British railways have REALLY turned a profit?

Not surprising considering they charge sixty gesmillion quid for a single to London from here.

In France, the railways are subsidised by the government... And run quickly, efficiently and cheaply across the country.

In New York/New Jersey, the railways are a company designed to run cost effectively. And the trains run quickly, efficiently and cheapy across the tri-state area.

So what the bloody hell is wrong with British trains?

This is a start. Hopefully we can get our act together soon.

Ban the Bike - Update The day after writing that article, my wife and I drove into town. At the statue of King Alfred, there was an ambulance and two police cars, blue lights flashing.

We didn't stop to rubber neck. But we did see a mangled bike lying on the road.

Could that accident have been avoided?

Ban the Bloody Bicycle! These days, people take health very seriously.

Smoking is banned from public places. Doctors are able to refuse medical attention to those suffering from obesity or illness caused by alcohol.

If this trend continues, I look forward very soon to the government tackling the problem of cyclists.

It is a proven fact that two wheels are considerably more dangerous than four. Motor cyclists are given the morbid nickname “organ donors” in emergency rooms and collisions between cyclists and automobiles never end well.

For many years, it seems the onus has been on the car driver to protect cyclists. However, I think it’s about time somebody faced up to reality and told cyclists that they should be responsible for their own safety.

I reached this conclusion observing cyclists in Winchester. As a small, compact city, a bicycle seems like a logical way to avoid traffic and travel cheaply and quickly across town. However, the reality is that our medieval streets were no more designed for two wheels than they were for four.

What I propose is simple. Ban the bicycle.

The fact is: Bicycles are dangerous. Cyclists are a danger to motorists. They’re a danger to pedestrians. Most importantly, they’re a danger to themselves.

Most of these dangers are created by the cyclists themselves. A few moments observation will confirm that barely any cyclists in Winchester deem that the Highway Code applies to them. If a car driver was to speed down the pavement, turn on a red light or create their own lane of traffic, they would quite rightly be banned or jailed. However, cyclists do these things on a regular basis and still feel arrogantly qualified to criticise motorists.

By doing so, they place themselves in considerable danger. Bicycles are small and move faster than the normal flow of traffic. They are difficult for even the most conscientious driver to see. Yet if a cyclist cuts up a driver and gets involved in a collision, the immediate instinct is to blame the motorist.

Combined with the danger of bicycles is the inconvenience. Bicyclists snarl up the traffic. While one cyclist struggles up a hill, an increasing flow of traffic builds up behind. Should a driver overtake, they face oncoming traffic or risk upsetting the wobbling cyclist. Winchester’s roads are already unsuitable for vehicles. Don’t compound the problem by encouraging selfish and dangerous cyclists.

Their mode of transport is unnecessary. Winchester already has a very efficient public transport system in place. It’s called walking. My wife walks forty minutes to work each morning and is fitter and brighter as a result. Why can’t the cyclists?

Perhaps to compliment our existing ‘park & ride’ scheme, we should offer something similar for cyclists. They can stow their cycles outside the city walls and walk the rest of the way. I think it should be called ‘Park & Walk.’

Goldeneye In Pierce Brosnan's debut as James Bond, he faced renegade Russians trying to hijack a satellite weapon. And his opinions of the new "Glasnost" Russian democracy?

"Governments change. The lies stay the same."

Ten years later, it looks like Pierce was on the money.

It seems Russia has never been destined to succeed. From the days of the Tsars to the reign of Stalin, the government has always been corrupted and discension dealt with by silver or lead. And while the free market economy has arrived behind what was once the iron curtain, it appears other facets of western culture haven't.

I blame that bastard Putin. It's becoming more and more obvious that his government was up to the neck in the murder of outspoken journalist Politkovskaya - brutally shot dead in her apartment. And when an exiled journalist, Alexander Litvinenko, met with one of his sources to learn more on her murder, the steely hand of the Russian government reached out to touch him.

Radioactive thallium is believed to have been slipped into a cup of tea and now Litvinenko lies in a hospital bed, possibly close to death. Thallium, as it happens, has been a regular contributer to the unexplained (yet inexplicably convenient) deaths of outspoken reporters.

It was back in 1978 when another Russian journlist, Georgi Markov, was murdered with a very James-Bond poisoned umbrella in an attack on the London Underground. It just goes to show that the shadow of Soviet Russia is still hanging over that country and Britain and America should regard the great Russian bear with as much suspicion and concern as we did during the Cold War.

Dutch to ban wearing of burqa in public
Saturday November 18, 06:25 AM

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The Dutch government agreed on Friday a total ban on the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, justifying the move on security grounds.

Expect to see flag burning, cries for murder and general rioting across the world.

But this is a brilliant thing. There are so many reasons why the burqha is a ridiculous concept in western society. For a start, it's degrading to women. Secondly, it encourages the growing cultural divide between the Muslim community and the rest of Europe and, most importantly, it means people's faces will be shown. And in a world of bombers and terrorists, that's going to make all of us a lot safer.

English Speaking Al Jezeera English-speaking Al Jazeera debuts
Wednesday November 15, 05:55 PM

LONDON (Reuters) - Arabic television station Al Jazeera launched an English-speaking channel on Wednesday to report world news from a Middle East perspective and challenge the dominance of Western media.

The station, which has angered Washington and some Arab governments with its reporting from Iraq, said it wanted to give a fresh voice to under-reported regions round the world.

"We are trying to expand our audience beyond the Arabic-speaking world, and enter the English-speaking world," said Wadah Khanfar, director general of the Al Jazeera Group.

"One of our goals is to reverse the flow of information to the south," he said, arguing that the Middle East and developing nations have until now not had a voice of their own.

In doing so the new channel mirrors projects in France, Russia and Africa that aim to give a regional perspective in English, the dominant global language, but offer little commercial reward to their owners.

"The model is the BBC's World Service," Steven Barnett, a professor of communications at the University of Westminster, said. "The Foreign Office didn't fund that out of generosity. It funded it because it was spreading the voice of Britain.

"It was not forcing propaganda down people's throats but it was still bringing to bear a perspective that was essentially British and spreading it around the world," he told Reuters.
The channel's Arabic sister service shook the Arab and Western world when it launched in 1996.
After making its name in the Afghan war with exclusive footage of Osama bin Laden, the Qatar-based satellite channel drew fierce criticism for showing footage of dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq and prisoners of war.

"The existing broadcasters do not provide what Al Jazeera is about to provide," said Sue Phillips, London Bureau chief.

"We want to push the boundaries, we want to cover parts of the world that are not covered by the other organisations, the unreported world, (and) ... we want to probe and ask those questions that perhaps others don't ask," she told Reuters.

The channel was to launch earlier this year but was delayed several times. Al Jazeera officials blamed technical problems, denying U.S. media reports that right wing groups were pressing cable networks not to carry the channel in the United States.

FRESH PERSPECTIVE

Moscow set up the state-funded "Russia Today" channel in 2005 to show news from a Russian perspective and a French 24-hour news channel is due to launch at the end of this year to offset the "unified, Anglo-Saxon" outlook.

A pan-African 24-hour news network, "A24", run by Africans for Africans to challenge the Western-dominated coverage of the continent is also in the planning stage with a view to launch by the end of 2007.

"Why shouldn't other countries, in an era of globalisation, do their best to make sure that their culture, language and way of life are more familiar," Barnett said.

The English-language Al Jazeera will broadcast via satellite from four centres in Kuala Lumpur, Doha, London and Washington. It is funded by the Emir of Qatar, as is the Arabic channel
Peter Preston, former editor of the Guardian, said it had become increasingly evident new voices with different opinions were needed on English-language networks as one all-encompassing 24-hour news channel was not enough.

"CNN can attempt to do that by running hugely different programmes ... to the rest of the world than it does in America. The BBC can attempt to do it by a massive amount of fairness and balance in the traditional BBC way," he told Reuters.

"But actually what you see in the Middle East in the last 10 years is a feeling that the Middle East needs not just one but two of its own 24-hour channels that will tell something of the story of the region from a Middle East perspective."

Barnett said success should not be measured by ratings or advertising they attract but whether they become influential.

"If another situation develops where America wants to get involved in a foreign country like Iraq and tries to use the same propaganda methods, the existence of something like a French channel could be a factor," he said.

"If it is done properly ... it could be a real contribution to global diplomacy."
(Additional reporting by Odai Sirri in Qatar)

The right wing Americans are right. We are at war.

But the thing they don't realise is that this war cannot be won with bombs or bullets. It's a war for people's hearts and minds and the arrival of an English language Al Jezeera is akin to the arrival of a new battalion.

I'm not saying this channel should be censored or outlawed, because I believe very strongly in free speech. But if ideals such as tolerance, humanity and freedom are to be presented to the world, it needs to be done now. This new channel, along with the heavily slanted BBC and media outlets in Europe, push an increasingly apologetic agenda amongst the west and an increasingly militant agenda amongst Europe's muslims.

Europe and America are multicultural. We're rightly told that all religions and their opinions should be tolerated. But an increasingly loud voice seems to insist that Islam's intolerance of Western values and freedoms, despite being in total opposition to the standard to which we hold other religions, should be accepted.

Men with Beards - Santa and Mohommad Christian and Muslim Britons say leave Christmas alone
Monday November 13, 03:48 PM

LONDON (Reuters) - Christian and Muslim Britons joined forces on Monday to tell city officials to stop taking the Christianity out of Christmas, warning them that this fuelled right-wing extremism.

They attacked local authorities which used titles like "Winterval" for their Christmas celebrations and avoided using Christian symbols in case they offended minority groups, especially Muslims and Hindus.

The question of how best to integrate Muslims into European society, which has Christian roots but is increasingly secular, has become a burning issue, with Britain playing its part in the debate after years of promoting multiculturalism.

The Christian Muslim Forum, set up by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the spiritual head of the Church of England, complained that taking the Christian message out of Christmas played into the hands of right-wing extremists who then accused Muslims of undermining Britain's Christian culture.

"The desire to secularise religious festivals is in itself offensive to both our communities," said Dr Ataullah Siddiqui, vice chairman of the forum.

Anglican Bishop of Bolton David Gillett said that when local authorities rename Christmas so as not to offend other religions, their stance "will tend to backfire badly on the Muslim community in particular."

"We are concerned that those approaches which are based on anti-religious philosophies or a fear of religion are causing alienation in a wide variety of communities and fanning the growth of extremism," said Gillett, the forum chairman.

"Sadly it is they (Muslims) who get the blame for something they are not saying. And after all, the Koran speaks with honour about Jesus and tells of his birth to Mary, a virgin," he added.

The threat of radical Islam, rammed home by last year's London bombings, has led the government to rethink its traditionally tolerant attitude to ethnic minorities.

The government has launched a debate on whether the policy of not imposing a single British identity on immigrants, and instead promoting multiculturalism, has led to the segregation of minority communities.

The London bombings in July last year prompted much soul-searching over what led four young Muslim Britons to become suicide bombers and kill 52 people.

Many experts fear the focus on Islam could backfire if Britain's 1.8 million Muslims feel they are under attack.

Religious controversies have often made frontpage news in papers this year, including Muslim protests over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, Pope Benedict's remarks about Islam and the debate over Muslim women wearing full veils.

Bishop Gillett said: "Following the many controversies through which my Muslim friends have gone this year ... I am particularly conscious of wanting to say to them in my Christmas cards and in person -- May the peace and blessing of God be with you this Christmas."

This is quite reassuring.

It's very true that the muslim community has been doing itself no favours by throwing riots and protests when anybody - from a journlist to the pope - dares to say anything about Islam. After Pope Benedict read a passage describing Islam as a violent religion, an outraged muslim in Africa stabbed to death a priest. Which wasn't exactly the way to prove the pope wrong.

So maybe this policy, of tolerating and supporting Britain's Christian heritage, might help repair some of the damage the muslim community has done to it's own image.

The fact is, we're all British. Whether your skin is black, brown, yellow or white. Whether you worship God, Allah or whichever Big Brother contestent is popular at the moment. And maybe by supporting a Christian festival - which promotes only togetherness, friendship and family - will make the average Christian more open and understanding to Islam as a faith.

One Rule for Me... Redux

UK mulls hate law reform as far-right leader cleared
Saturday November 11, 08:21 AM

LONDON (Reuters) - Racial and religious hatred laws may need reform after a court cleared a far-right leader for the second time this year over a speech in which he called Islam a "wicked, vicious faith", ministers said.

Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, was found not guilty on Friday of inciting racial hatred during secretly filmed speeches in 2004.

Two senior ministers said the comments had upset most Britons and British Muslims needed reassurance that the laws would protect them.

"Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country and I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out," Chancellor Gordon Brown told the BBC.

Now, I don't like the BNP.

I think they're offensive idiots who are still pushing the blackshirt agenda in the only arena it still has feet. The poorest and most marginalised parts of the country.

But the fact is, people have the right to free speech.

We might not like it. In fact, it might make us gnash our teeth and be disgusted at a bigoted, idiotic slice of Britain we liked to think we'd grown out of. But the fact is the comments Nick Griffin made attacked religion, not race, and called for political, not violent action.

The law is very clear that what he said, while offensive to many, was not illegal.

If Gordon Brown wants to change the law to make such comments illegal, I hope he's willing to hold the whole country to these standards. The next time a muslim spokesman calls for action against Isreal or Judaism in Hyde Park, I hope he winds up in court. The next time Rowan Atkinson stands up on stage and makes a throwaway joke about Jesus, are we going to sling him in jail?

The fact is, we all know what will happen. In a Britain pandering more and more to extremist factions, any law passed banning comment on religion will only be enforced on one side. Make a comment about Islam and face the judge. Meanwhile, crowds will gather in Finsbury Park Mosque and listen to hate filled rants against Christianity and Judiasm.

It's all very Orwellian. When it comes to racial equality in Great Britain, some races are more equal than others.

Stop the hate. Stop the rascism. But please, for the love of all that's good and sane, stop it on both sides. Don't marginalise the Christians and Jews of this country and turn a blind eye to what's going on in the muslim community. We don't want to encourage rascism, but when British citizens blow themselves up in the Tube in the name of Islam, we have to wake up, smell the coffee and face the fact that we have a problem and in the name of political correctness, we're pretending it doesn't exist.

Roland doesn't know anything Jimmy Montague, whose opinionated and fascinating blog of a life well lived can be found here, had this to say about my opinions of American politics: I read what you say here and I understand you know nothing of American politics. If you knew more, you might never come here again.

Jimmy's found me out - I really don't know anything about American politics. My ignorance is staggering. I'm just a verbose and enthusiastic amateur (like most people who have vaguely political blogs.) But I disagree with the "you might never want to come here again" comment. I'm getting that more and more from people, who seemed horrified at the 'state of the nation' in America.

But I still say she rocks.

And I know, I know, I'm obsessed. I'm just completely doolaly about the place and the people. I think it's a lovely country. I'm under no illusions that it's perfect, but it is perfect for me. I take one deep breath of that cinnamon scented air and I'm in heaven.

England is a country in which ambition is stamped on. Prince Charles recently told people that they should 'know their place.' In America nobody knows their place. They're all clamoring for a piece of that American Pie. To some people, the racket they make would be deafening. I find it exhilarating.

In England my daft schemes are just that - daft schemes. In America, my daft schemes are, in the great scheme of things, pretty sensible.

I mean look at the place. Only in America could a two seater sports car come with eight beverage cup holders. Only in America would somebody celebrate the worlds largest ball of twine. Only in America could you make your fortune clipping two frying pans together and calling it "The Perfect Pancake Maker."

It's a wonderful, inspiring country full of wonderful, inspiring people. Almost three hundred million of them. And that makes almost 300,000 exciting new friends to make for every 1 corrupt member of government.

To truly appreciate the American nation, you have to look beyond the government to the people and the places themselves. And they're brilliant.

Some of the things that make me SO excited about living in America:

Vote Democrat - Except in New Jersey There's an old adage about engaging your brain before you open your mouth. And I didn't follow it with my 'Vote Democrat' post yesterday.

Because in New Jersey, which I guess is what I'm going to soon call my home state, the candidate for governer who won was a Democrat, but he certainly wasn't the right man for the job.

The Republican candidate was Tom Kean Jnr, who is a pretty moderate Republican. He's pro-choice, demands some answers from Bush regarding the war in Iraq and wants to lower the property taxes in New Jersey and abolish the Inheritance Tax. Upon learning that, I deeply regretted pushing everybody to vote Democrat.

Because it was a democrat who won. Newly elected Governer Bob Menendez, who has been twice accused of ethical misconduct. His one saving grace was the staunch defence he put up against selling the New York ports to that company from Dubai.

I still stand by what I said - there was no good to come from another two years of a Republican 'holy trinity.' But if you voted for a candidate, rather than a party, Republican Tom Kean Jnr deserved to be elected in New Jersey.

America! Please vote Democrat! Not because I'm a democrat. I'm British, remember. I'm neither (at the moment.)

It's just with Congress run by the Republicans and a Republican President in the White House, America has slewed to something of a political stop.

In the House of Representative and the Senate, the Republicans can pass through whichever laws they want. With a Republican President, none of them need to get veto'd. Which means that the Republicans are in an incredibly powerful position and the Democrats - who represent roughly half of the United States - are completely impotent.

Unless at least one of the houses gets back into the hands of the Democrats, America will continue to march forward in a unipartisan direction that will deepen the gap between the United States and the rest of the world.

Democracy thrives on conflict, not unity. It's debate and dialect that powers the engines of change and progress - not a machine that churns out party policy and rubber stamps it.

The Republican party stands for a lot of good things - but it also panders to Christian fundementalists and the far right, whose beliefs are often in conflict with the fundements of the American Nation. Some of the things we've seen a Republican America bring into being - like the Patriot Act - fly in the face of the constitution.

America should not be a nation that suspends Habeus Corpus and the Right to Free Speech. We may be fighting a war on terror, but if we suspend these liberties that the founding fathers fought and died for, we actually take a step closer to becoming one of the regimes we're fighting against.

Whatever your political beliefs, vote Democrat this mid-term and bring something that's sorely missing back to the American Political Arena - a dissenting voice.

Will SOMEBODY lay off the police? Muslim removed from guard duty - paper
Tuesday November 7, 08:42 AM

LONDON (Reuters) - A Muslim firearms officer is taking legal action against the police after he was removed from a squad that guards senior officials, including Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Independent newspaper said on Tuesday.

A police spokeswoman confirmed that the Metropolitan Police had been notified of an employment tribunal claim by a policeman "alleging discrimination on the grounds of race and religious belief". She declined to comment further.

The Independent said Amjad Farooq, 39, was told in 2003 he was a threat to national security because two of his five children had gone to a mosque associated with a suspected extremist group.

It said he was also told by colleagues that his presence on the protection squad might concern U.S. security officials if he was posted outside the U.S. embassy in London.

Farooq, who denied any extremist links or inappropriate behaviour, was transferred to a constabulary in west London.

His lawyer, Lawrence Davies, told the newspaper: "Muslims are labelled guilty by association. Doubt is insufficient to save them."

Wait. Let me get this straight.

A muslim man, who has almost certainly gone through intense screening by the police, is taken off guard duty for the Prime Minister? Merely because he's Muslim?

And. Erm. Merely because his kids go to a mosque linked to terrorism? And this bloke is equipped with a machine gun and has frequent contact with the head of our country's government?

I'm sure this chap has done nothing wrong - but I can completely understand why the police have done this. Imagine if somebody kidnapped his kid and told him that he had to empty a clip into Tony Blair or they'd behead the wee tyke?

Or, rather, imagine the headlines. "Muslim man whose kids attended extremist mosque assasinates prime minister with gun given to him by the police."

A bunch of smart arse journlists would be complaining about how a man with his background shouldn't have been put on guard duty. Just like, if Jean Charles de Menezes had been a suicide bomber and succeeded in blowing himself up, the journalists would be complaining that the police HADN'T shot him.

This is yet another situation in which the police can't win. They're given the responsibility of looking after us, but then vilified for doing the things they have to do in order to protect our safety.

Can't we just let the police do their job? Can't the tabloids just shut their whiny traps?

One Rule For Me... Parliament backs fast-track extradition to U.S.
Monday November 6, 09:19 PM

LONDON (Reuters) - The lower house of parliament voted again on Monday to reject a move by the upper house to block fast-track extraditions to the United States.

The House of Lords argues the burden of proof required in a 2003 extradition treaty makes it too easy for U.S. authorities to demand that British citizens face trial in America. Their bid follows a row over the extradition of three former NatWest bankers to the United States to answer fraud charges relating to the collapse of energy company Enron.

Under the treaty, the United States can demand a Briton's extradition without having to show there is a case to answer based on available evidence, but Britain must provide evidence of "probable cause" in a U.S. court in order to extradite U.S. citizens to Britain.

What the hell is this?

The Natwest Three was bad enough. Three men facing NO criminal charges in this country were extradited to America to face charges there. That shouldn't happen. But the law Blair is trying to pass makes the process even easier.

But what's really wrong is that there's no reciprocity. We allow America to extradite suspected criminals without any burden of proof - yet we Brits are still required to prove our point in court.

Excuse my language, but this is bullshit.

I've never been the biggest fan of Tony Blair, but I was always under the (apparently mistaken) belief that he had testicles. But this proves that he's totally under the thumb of the American administration.

Not that there's anything wrong with the American administration. But when we allow them freedoms in our country that aren't reciprocated there, something is deeply wrong with the 'special relationship' between America and Britain.

We are still a sovereign nation. It's about time we acted like one. America is the most important ally we have. Let's at least try to maintain our dignity in our relations with her.

Anne Coulter - The Republican Michael Moore, only attractive.

Ann Coulter.

Ann Couleter, who is a tall, skinny blonde woman who looks stunning in a mini skirt, is a radical columnist and staunch Republican. She's been described as "The Female Rush Limbagh" and in living up to that nickname, she's been required to spout an awful lot of crap.

Including the following:

"The swing voters -- I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster."

See? Utter tripe she's spouting. If only she didn't look so GOOD doing it!

If you have decided that you're a liberal or you're a conservative - and you're not willing to switch no matter what the circumstances - then you're an idiot. I mean, whatever happened to taking an interest in politics and making up your own mind?

The sad fact is that the swing voters - a tiny minority of the potential voters in America - are the only ones who make a difference. They vote on principles and ideas, not on spoon-fed dogma.

If any Americans read this - make sure you make YOUR OWN mind up during these midterms.

Fear the Liberal! In America, politics is totally polarised. There are the Democrats and the Republicans and that's about it. It used to be the same in England (Tory vs. Labour) until both got so totally pathetic that people started voting Liberal Democrat.

But in America, you're either one or the other. Or, you're like 56% of the country and don't really give two hoots either way. I was quite shocked to discover than Tina had never voted.

The politically minded label themselves. Republicans are "Conservatives." Democrats are "Liberals." And the conservatives hate the liberals.

In the same way the homophobic tend to be obsessed with gay people, most of the conservatives who rant on the internet tend to be obsessed with the the liberals.

This is the thing that really troubles me about American politics. Less than half of the country are actually politically motivivated - and those that are seem totally unwilling to have their own opinions. You're either Liberal or Conservative - there's no middle ground. There's no room for making up your own mind.

It would be nice if some of the conservatives could look at the liberals and say: "Hey, I don't agree with most of their policies, but maybe a few things that they say are on the right track."

Likewise, it would be nice if some of the liberals looked at the conservatives and said: "Hey, some of what they say makes sense."

For example, free speech.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that the 'liberals' of American politics are deeply uncomfortable with free speech. As in, speech which criticizes things such as religion. By spending so much time arguing that minorities and the oppressed must be protected, they've pretty much stamped out any opinions which aren't politically correct. People don't dare say: "Hey, this Islam religion is kind of out dated and it's not really very nice to women" because that's islamophobic. Likewise the issue of illegal immigration into America has been swept under the carpet because talking about illegal immigrants generally means you're talking about people from Mexico (who make up the vast percentage of them.) And, if you're doing that, you're rascist.

'Liberal' America is very far from that.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, find that their core support comes from the Christian right wing and certain 'unique' groups, some of whom have been known to wear white sheets on their head. And not just on Halloween.

In order to court this core voting group, they have to be willing to let them say what they want to. Which normally results in a bunch of batshit crazy people ranting about white supremacy and how Jesus will wipe California off the face of the earth for promoting homosexuality. (See my above comment about homophobics and their obsessions - then see the news headlines about a certain anti-gay evangelical Christian and his male escort massage pals.)

So despite the fact that convervatives are just that - conservative - it appears that they value free speech much more than the liberal side of America. Because for their very survival, they must court the more extremist groups of people who love to shoot their mouth off.

Just like homophobes obsessed with gay people are often repressing certain unwanted urges of their own, I think the conservatives obsessed with 'liberal bashing' are secretly disgusted with how liberal they are. I mean, they'll let ANYBODY spout their opinion about ANYTHING!

But in doing so, they're protecting the First Amendment far more than the politically correct liberals are.

Fear the Liberal! Death to the Neocon! In America, politics is totally polarised. There are the Democrats and the Republicans and that's about it. It used to be the same in England (Tory vs. Labour) until both got so totally pathetic that people started voting Liberal Democrat.

But in America, you're either one or the other. Or, you're like 56% of the country and don't really give two hoots either way. I was quite shocked to discover than Tina had never voted.

The politically minded label themselves. Republicans are "Conservatives." Democrats are "Liberals." And the conservatives hate the liberals. The liberals hate the conservatives.

In the same way the homophobic tend to be obsessed with gay people, most of the conservatives who rant on the internet tend to be obsessed with the the liberals.

Letter from a Senior Citizen Something else totally stolen from Jenn's website.

Letter from a senior citizen,

I am a senior citizen. During the Clinton Administration I had an extremely good and well paying job. I took numerous vacations and had several vacation homes.

Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change for the worse. I lost my job. I lost my two sons in that terrible Iraqi War. I lost my homes. I lost my health insurance. As a matter of fact I lost virtually everything and became homeless.

Adding insult to injury, when the authorities found me living like an animal, instead of helping me, they arrested me.

I will do anything that Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy want to insure that a Democrat is back in the White House.

Bush has to go!

Sincerely,

Saddam Hussein

Saddam Hussein's Sentencing Deliberately Coincides with Mid Term Elections

That's the official line in the press here in England.

That's right! In order to bouy up the Republican votes in the upcoming Mid Terms, the entire Iraqi criminal process has been stage managed by the Bush administration.

I TOTALLY buy that. (Heavy Sarcasm.)

Bush Voted More Dangerous Than Lunatics With Nukes LONDON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush presents more of a threat to world peace than the leaders of North Korea and Iran, and only Osama bin Laden is more feared, according to a poll of British voters published in The Guardian.

Ah, The Guardian. What a horrible old rag that is.

I am getting very tired of this repeated 'opinion' which the papers and BBC are shoving down our throats on a daily basis. I am NOT the world's biggest George Bush fan, but I do not think he threatens world peice more than Kim Jong Il - and I'll never believe it no matter how many times newspapers tell me that I do.

The current opinion du jour is that all the problems with terrorism can be traced back to Bush. George Bush is apparently to blame for everything. 9/11, 11/7 and when it rained last Friday.

What utter crap.

George Bush was only in the White House for a few months before 9/11 and (as Micheal Moore delighted in telling us) the Bushmeister hadn't done a whole hell of a lot while he was there. If 9/11 occured in retaliation for anything America had done, it had been done a long time before Mr Bush came onto the scene. And that would probably place the blame neatly in Bill Clinton's lap. But the real truth is that America is not to blame for anything.

The terrorism plagueing the world at the moment is the fault of a few fundementalist muslims who hate America. Not because of what America's done, but because of what it is. These fundementalists (just to clarify, I'm saying they're not representative of the entire muslim population) hate all countries that have democratic governments, treat women equally and eat porkchops.

If we capitulated to all of their demands, if Isreal was abandoned and if the West withdrew entirely from the Middle East, it wouldn't make any difference. These are just flimsy excuses the fundementalist muslims use to justify their continued campaign of violence. The only thing that will truly end their reign of violence is when they have achieved the goals set out by Mohammed. Converting or exterminating all non muslims and governing the world by the laws set out in the Koran.

It wouldn't matter what America had done. She'd have still been attacked. Because America is a shining beacon of liberty, justice and equality - and that's what the fundementalists fear most of all.

That's the truth, but the media seems terrified of it. Instead, we blame ourselves. We're being attacked. We're being targeted? What did we do wrong? Let's blame America.

And the anti American feeling in Europe is growing. Today, I had two people make throwaway comments about stupid Americans and their stupid country - unaware that I was married to an American and a huge fan of the country. It pissed me off because these comments were ignorant and stereotypical fantasies - about how Americans are ignorant and believe in stereotypes.

I just wish there were more people who didn't believe the highly slanted tripe we're being spoon fed on a daily basis in this country. Hell, even the BBC admitted that they were no longer an unbiased entity and had a specific left wing agenda behind their news and documentries.

Somebody said that the only way to bring peace to Iraq was to with the war of hearts and minds. The scary thing is that a war to win our hearts and minds is being fought in this country as well - and we're losing.

The Price of Freedom Another movie I made about six months ago. This one is slightly more serious - despite the Michael Caine impersonations!

Press play to watch it.

Everybody Loves George and Tony! A short movie I produced with The Movies game from Activision...

US Soldiers illustrate advanced training in Sarcasm John Kerry, who was the presidential candidate who ran on the campaign of "Vote For Me, I'm Not Bush' was recently in trouble for a few comments about the boys in the US Army. Apparently, he implied they were thick.

This is their response. I love it.

Police Shoot Armed Robber - Armed Robber's Rights Violated De Menezes officers in new shooting death Thursday November 2, 05:52 AM

LONDON (Reuters) - Officers who took part in the fatal shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes were involved in another police operation this week in which a man was shot dead, police said on Thursday.

The Daily Mail reported that one of the marksmen who opened fire on de Menezes also shot an armed robber in the operation at a building society in Kent on Tuesday night.

"The specialist firearms team (CO19) involved in the Flying Squad operation in Kent did include officers from the same team who were involved in the Stockwell shooting in July last year," London's Metropolitan Police said in a statement.

De Menezes, a 27-year-old electrician, was shot dead in July 2005 after being mistaken for a suicide bomber at Stockwell subway station in south London.

A police spokesman declined to comment on whether one of the officers who fired at the Brazilian also shot the unnamed man.

The Daily Mail, citing police sources, said one of the marksmen had been taking part in the Kent operation to prevent a building society robbery when he shot and wounded the man, who later died in hospital.

Police said an investigation was being conducted into what happened during the operation in which three other men were arrested. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has also launched an inquiry.

The de Menezes shooting triggered a barrage of criticism against the police, in particular London police chief Ian Blair.

Next October, the Metropolitan Police is due to stand trial on health and safety charges over the killing.

This is ridiculous.

Personally, I found the entire De Menezes debarcle disgusting. Our police officers are entrusted with protecting the public from harm. In order to perform their duties, we equip them with guns and expect them to make life-and-death decisions at a moment's notice. And when they do? The public go up in arms and attack them.

If these police officers risk criminal charges every time they squeeze the trigger, it's not going to be long before they all refuse to carry guns in the first place. Then we, the general public, will be totally defenceless against terrorists and armed criminals.

During the De Menezes incident, the police made a mistake. The officers involved shot an innocent man and will have to live with that knowledge for the rest of their lives. But it happened after terrorists had killed more than 50 people on the Tube and as those officers fired their weapons, they must have been thinking that they were potentially saving more lives then they were taking.

Personally, I salute the officers who choose to carry guns and are prepared to shoulder the responsibility of protecting us. I know for a fact that it's not a job I could do. If I had to make a snap decision like they're asked to, I would bottle.

I just wish the tabloids and the public would stop being traitors to the police. I sympathise with the mother of De Menezes - she lost a son - but flying her over to England, parading her in front of the public and crucifying the police officers involved was a real kick in the nuts for the man and women who risk their lives to keep us safe.

We should look after the police. They look after us.

The Editorial Bear has landed. This is a blog for political comment, discussion and trying to avoid batshit crazy comments on my day-to-day, boring, I-had-toast-for-breakfast blog at rolandhulme.blogspot.com.

Editorial Bear

Photos

Advertisement

Categories

Resources

Sample Text

Ads