Editorial Bear

"Rudy Giuliani," the article stated, "said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001."

There was immediate outcry from the Democrats. The story was quickly picked up across the nation. What hypocrisy, from the man who's presidential ambitions are rooted in the aftermath of America's worst terrorist attack.

Jenn of the Jungle kindly sourced some of the comments Left Wingers and Liberals made on their own blogs when they heard the news.

You can see the effect this article had on those who consider themselves liberals. Rudy Giuliani - a Republican presidential candidate who could actually appeal to the Democrats - was suddenly discredited. His election advantage - a Democrat friendly manifesto - was null and void.

It's amazing how quick the Democrats and Liberals were to condemn 'America's Mayor.' Has Rudy's election portfolio been irreparably damaged?

If it has, somebody in the background is laughing manically. Because here's the kicker of this political scandal - Rudy Giuliani said NO SUCH THING.

The Politico went ahead and posted this inflammatory article without a single quote to support it's story or headline. The other newspapers and networks picked it up and ran with it - without checking any of the facts or validity of the article.

Rudy Giuliani, who is probably the last politician who'd ever use 9/11 as a political tool, was nobbled, plain and simple. The truth, often second fiddle to scandal, might never penetrate the rock hard noggins of the Democrats who were so quick to condemn him.

I smell a rat.

Rudy Giuliani, who was himself a Democrat before he joined the GOP, was the most promising of the Republican's presidential candidates. With his own views on immigration, abortion, gun control and the economy, even as a Republican, he'd have made a more acceptable presidential candidate to Democrats than many of their other options.

His appeal to the left wing might have been what it would take to swing a presidential election in the Republican's favour. Republicans would never vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Democrats, on the other hand (especially in traditionally Democratic New York) might hit the polls to support "America's Mayor" in favour of bossy, brutal Hillary.

He was their best option - and I'm not the only person to realise it.

Because somewhere in the background of Capital Hill, somebody set out to nobble his election chances as early as they could.

Did they realise, as they printed a totally false article smearing Giuliani's name, that it would snowball and engulf the rest of the US Media?

Has it damaged Rudy's election chances beyond repair?

Did the Democrats just cripple their most fearsome enemy in an act of infamy?

Only time will tell.

But I am now more determined than ever to support Rudy all the way to the White House, if he can be convinced to run and makes it through the nominations. He'd be a President America could be proud of. And obviously I'm not the only one to think so - that's why somebody made a concerted effort to stop Rudy's march to Pennsylvania Avenue before it began.

With skyscrapers and the amazing Spinnaker tower, it makes a pretty impressive vista as you roll down the M271 into the city centre.

All it was missing was a bloody great stadium - Fratton Park was built during the end of Queen Victoria's days and she looks it.

But now, at the whopping cost of £600 MILLION, a brand new 13 acre stadium is to be built, comprising of 36,000 seats. Take a look at some of the plans on 107.4 The Quay's website.

And that's not all. Pompey Village, as the development will apparently be called, will include 1,500 new flats and a shopping centre with restaurants, cafes and probably a poncy gym.

But Fratton Park? The pride of Portsmouth?

She'll be demolished - replaced with 750 new houses.

It's rather a sad end to the park, if you ask me.

In her 108 year history, she's seen some pretty amazing things. They played a first round Olympic football game there in 1948 (one of only two played outside of London.)

In 1956, she became the first floodlit stadium in Britain.

For the 1949 FA Cup sixth round game between Pompey and Derby County, a massive 51,385 people squeezed into the 20,000 seater stadium.

History, gone forever. But such is the inexorable march of progress - especially in a city which identifies itself so strongly with Pompey's football heritage.

The left wing targeted private gun ownership. If guns weren't available in shops or stores, the shooter at Virginia Tech wouldn't have had any weapons to commit his murders with. Hence, ban all guns and stop all shootings.

This is a very worthy, but inaccurate assessment. Cho Sueng Hui, the 23 year old gunman, obtained his two weapons illegally. Their serial numbers were scratched off. Whether he bought them on the black market, or from some dodgy criminal in an alleyway, the fact is that banning handguns would not have stopped this tragedy. There are hundreds of millions of guns floating around in the United States. Gun control can only control the registered and recorded ones.

What gun control might have done, however, was to have prevented other shootings. The Colombine massacre, for example, was committed with two legally purchased 12 bore shotguns (obtained by the gunman's friend) and a Tec-9 semi-automatic bought from a second hand gun store. If handguns and shotguns were pretty much illegal (as they are in the UK) the boys in question wouldn't have had those weapons.

What they would have had, however, were the pipe bombs they'd made from gas cylinders and fireworks. One of the gunmen set up an explosive in Colombine school cafeteria. Police say, if it had detonated, it could have killed 250 people and destroyed the building.

So take the guns away and murders will still carry on.

Gun control is fundamentally flawed, as I have mentioned above. Out of the millions of guns floating around America, a significant number (15% apparently) are unregistered and illegal. These are the guns floating around in the hands of criminals. This minority of guns causes the majority of crimes and banning the 85% of registered weapons will do nothing to curb the circulation of illegal firearms.

In fact, statistics show gun control can have a negative impact on crime figures.

The problem is in America itself. Despite a century of advancement, the country is still very much like the Wild West. Guns are everywhere. Effective gun control, like we've got in the UK, would take decades to really work.

Statistics suggest that 9 children under the age of 19 die from gunshots every single day in the United States. If private gun ownership was banned, would that figure be reduced?

But more importantly, would the American right wing be willing to sacrifice the "security" of private gun ownership to prevent these deaths?

In a country in which most states still allow people to carry concealed weapons (at least the cowboys had 'em on show) I think the answer to that question is a resounding no.

The right wing barked in defence of private gun ownership even before the smoke was clearing from Virginia Tech. The problems wasn't guns, they yelled. It was the shooter. An immigrant.

Cho Sueng Hui was a South Korean.

In the cultural melting pot of America, there's nothing that inflames a right winger more than an illegal alien. Except, perhaps, a legal one who commits a crime like this.

Across several right wing sites, the cry is a ban on immigration. All immigration. No more marriage visas, work visas or student visas. People can come to visit Disneyland, but then they're gone again.

Fortunately, it appears to only be a limited number of people who've adopted this lunatic suggestion. They seem totally unaware than the idea of banning immigration would have had as much effect on the Virginia Tech shootings as banning handguns would.

Cho Sueng Hui was South Korean, certainly. But he'd been in the United States since 1992. He was a legal, permanent resident and unless the right wing wanted to follow up their immigration ban by exporting every non-US citizen currently in the country, he'd have still been in America to commit the shootings even while the borders were closed.

Just like banning handguns will only effect the law-abiding citizens who purchase and register their weapons (leaving millions of guns floating around in the hands of criminals) a total ban on legal immigration would only target those entering the country legally.

Millions would still pass over the 5,000 miles of undefended US border along Mexico and Canada. And thousands more would arrive on tourist visas and then never choose to leave. Illegal immigration would continue - probably at an accelerated pace, as more and more people are forced to break immigration laws just to enter America.

Separating families and loved ones. Reducing access to skilled migrant workers. Taking millions of dollars of revenue out of the American higher education system. Banning all immigration would have a terrible effect on America and do nothing to achieve the right wing's aims.

Sheer lunacy.

And what's worse, such right wing posturing makes America's position in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan increasingly untenable. If America shuts it's doors to other countries, why on Earth should America feel it's appropriate to play it's part in the international community.

Like a dog chasing it's tail, the few right wingers who want to totally ban immigration to America simply find themselves spinning in circles.

Even as I learned of the horrible news, I knew what people would be saying: "Only in America."

It upset me quite a bit. I was astounded that an event like this would not be followed up by shock or sympathy - but instead a smug tut from people living in a more 'civilised' country.

I wasn't proven wrong. While the victims are still being counted, the British news reports have already begun questioning what failings in American society led to this terrible event - just the latest in what seems like a long list of school and college shootings.

Was it a breakdown in society? Too much violent television and too many video games? Was this just more evidence that the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms was outdated and dangerous?

But all these questions originated from an assumption - that tragedies like this only occur in the United States. But is that true?

Of course it isn't.

In fact, in recent British history, two horrific events mirrored yesterday's shootings - and marked the end of private gun ownership in the UK.

In 1987, in Hungerford, Micheal Robert Ryan calmly strode the streets of the peaceful country town with an AK47 and Beretta handgun, executing 16 people, including his mother.

In 1996, Scout leader Thomas Hamilton walked into a school in Dunblane, Scotland, with two 9mm Browning semi-automatics and two Smith and Wesson revolvers. He fatally shot 16 students and a teacher, before turning the gun on himself.

Two men who 'snapped' just like gunman at Virginia tech.

Over the border, in Montreal, two school massacres occurred within just three years of each other, at the Ecole Polytechnique and Concordia University. 18 people were killed in total, not including the gunmen (one of whom is eligible for parole in 2014.) A further shooting in 2006 at Dawson College, Montreal, led to many injuries and two fatalities.

There are similar stories from Japan, Germany, Russia and China. While the majority of school shootings occur in the United States, they are by no means an American problem. They occur all over the world. When guns aren't available, knives are used, as seen in massacres in China and Horrett Campbell's brutal nursery school attack in Wolverhampton.

Madness recognizes no borders. The problem is not with one particular country or society, but with people themselves. To all those people who think last night's tragedy could "only happen in America" - I think it's rather telling that the gunman is supposedly a South Korean exchange student.

So stop trying to analyse the problem and pin the blame on American society. Let's all give our thoughts and wishes to the victims of this tragedy instead.

Just a few months ago, residents of Mumbai were burning effigies of Jade Goody as the grotesque chav bullied and riled beautiful and moody Bollywood superstar Shilpa Shetty.

But now the upper hand is on the other foot, as the Bollywood Actress said the Bishop. Shocked by a public display of affection by Hollywood weirdo Richard Gere, hard line Indians have dug out the matchbook and started turning those unburnt Jade effigies into Gere ones.

It all kicked off at an HIV/AIDS function, in which Richard Gere swept up Shilpa in his arms and planted kisses on all over the awkwardly laughing actress's face and arms. For the hard core indians, such as those from the Nationalist Shiv Sena group, this carnel display is so shocking that the only thing to do is burn headshots of Shilpa and string up burning Richard Gere dolls.

The crowds are gathering in Mumbai and Varanasi, crying "Down with Shilpa Shetty!"

Unfair, really, since the poor girl was obviously mortified by Richard Gere's over-friendly embrace. Pictures reveal her stuggling to escape Gere's hug - looking a lot like that cartoon pussycat, wriggling free of Pepé le Pew's overamarous attentions in all those old Loony Tunes Cartoons.

Full story here: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20070416/ten-indian-crowds-burn-effigies-of-gere-5a7c575.html

It's not a protected right, like it is in America (the First Amendment, in fact.) And while we like to think we're all fairly enlightened, there are still some 'free opinions' none of us want to deal with.

Like the beliefs of historian David Irving, who used to run lectures in which he denied the Holocaust took place. He was arrested for peddling this rubbish and wound up in jail.

Now as offensive as the idea of holocaust denial is - should you really be locked up for your beliefs?

Well, that question just got a little more complicated, after an article in the Daily Mail revealed that the government has discovered more and more British schools dropping Holocaust History from their curriculum - due to concerns that they might 'offend' Muslim students.

Muslims, of course, refute the holocaust. In fact, Iran recently hosted a conference based around the idea that the slaughter of six millions Jewish people never took place. It was frighteningly well attended too, with Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke turning up to pitch his wildly fictitious take on established world history.

So in order to pander to the growing number of Muslim students attending British schools, the holocaust - probably the most significant and frightening historical event of the 20th Century - has been dropped. Humanity's darkest moment has been wiped from history's slate - and the important lessons we needed to learn from it are being ignored.

I find it astonishing. I find it wildly offensive. I find it so terrifying that it's almost laughable. But most of all, I find it highly ironic. If you are a white man, you can be jailed for denying that the holocaust took place. If you are a Muslim, holocaust denial appears to be a universally accepted and tolerated part of your cultural beliefs.

Double standards are one of my biggest problems with the way the British are tackling Muslim integration. It seems again and again that there's one rule for Muslims and another for everybody else. This is the most horrific example of that duality yet.

I'd like a one way ticket out of this country, please.