Editorial Bear

Goodbye...

2007-08-23T17:21:00.000-07:00

I, Editorial Bear, have sadly decided to cease my opinionating.

There are various reasons for this, including an exciting new career which makes my trademark inflammatory indignation somewhat imprudent.

Time restraints factor also. Despite being a bear who burns the Bunsen at both ends, Editorial Ursavus does require sleep from time to time!

But it’s been fun. Whether you agreed with E.B.’s opinions or not, I hope my thoughts have been interesting. This blog will remain in place, to allow unwitting web-surfers the opportunity to stumble over Editorial Bear’s brain-spillings and respond accordingly.

With the greatest gratitude for your readership,

Editorial Bear
E.B.

Ban the Burkha...

2007-07-09T12:23:00.000-07:00

I don't want to be accused of being culturally insensitive, but I think we've had more than enough evidence presented to firmly establish that the wearing of a burkha - a traditional Muslim headscarf that covers a woman's entire face - is often entirely incompatible with national security.

One of the failed London bombers managed to skip the country while wearing his sister's burkha. He breezed straight through airport security without anybody checking his identity OR gender.

And today, a new burkha story hit the headlines, managing to squeeze onto Yahoo's front page in between all of Alistair Campbell revelations. A juror in a London murder trial sat smugly in the Jury Box, her burkha disguising the fact that she was listening to her iPod instead of listening to the evidence.

She's soon going to be facing a jury of her own. They've charged her with contempt of court.

See the story here.

Advocates of a Muslim's right to wear a burhka often talk about 'respect.' Respect for freedom of choice and sensitivity to a different culture. But respect is a two way street and this woman obviously has very little of it. She chose to listen to music, rather than evidence which might let a killer walk free, or send an innocent man to jail.

It's very simple. Whether it's at the airport or in the courtroom, there are times and places where it is completely inappropriate for a burkha to be worn and it's about time somebody established legislation to that end.

Campbell Soup

2007-07-09T07:13:00.000-07:00

There is a journalist sitting at Yahoo's Shaftsbury Avenue headquarters with a copy of Alistair Campbell's new biography.

Every time they finish reading a chapter, whatever revelations Campbell made that morning find their way onto Yahoo.co.uk's news headlines.

At the time of writing, three of the six top headlines feature Campbell's comments. Yahoo must be saving a fortune on Associated Press content.

Now I'm sure the secrets of Tony Blair's former Director of Communications make for great reading - but does pushing his new book really take precedence over other headlines, like the conviction of the 21/7 London Bombers or the release of the 3 year old girl kidnapped in Nigeria?

One thing's for sure. Campbell's ability to manipulate the headlines obviously hasn't diminished since his departure from Tony Blair's right hand.

http://screen.2mg.com/movies/TurnpikePictures/44298_Sirius_C1a.movChapter 2http://screen.2mg.com/movies/TurnpikePictures/44298_Sirius_C2a.movChapter 3http://screen.2mg.com/movies/TurnpikePictures/44298_Sirius_C3a.movChapter 4http://screen.2mg.com/movies/TurnpikePictures/44298_Sirius_C4a.movChapter 5http://screen.2mg.com/movies/TurnpikePictures/44298_Sirius_C5a.movChapter 6http://screen.2mg.com/movies/TurnpikePictures/44298_Sirius_C6a.mov

Terrorism on the Cheap

2007-07-04T09:37:00.000-07:00

9/11 was the most devastating terrorist attack in living history. Saturday's attack on Glasgow airport was not. In fact, as time progresses, it seems al-Qa'eda's ability to strike at the heart of the Decadent Imperialistic Western World is getting more and more eroded.

I think security has a lot to say for this. The last six years have seen an explosion in intelligence. There's now one CCTV camera in the UK for every 14 residents. You can't enter the United States without your biometric data getting whipped around the FBI, CIA and BCIS computers.

Al-Qa'eda's ability to organise and enable large scale terrorist bombings, like 9/11 or the Madrid attacks, has been fatally compromised by American and British security services.

But wiping out al-Qa'eda's organisational ability hasn't wiped out the terrorist attacks in Britain. In fact, it's just highlighted the danger Islamic Fundamentalism poses. Unlike the IRA - or perhaps any terrorist organisation in recent history - the fundamentalists are capable of operating entirely independently.

The car bombs found in London and the SUV which plowed into Glasgow Airport were home made. Simply cars stuffed with ineffective explosives, nails, screws and propane canisters. The kind of weapons blokes like me could have made.

And that's the whole point. The lack of a cohesive organisational structure has not made the Islamic Fundamentalists any less dangerous. Now, it's small groups of determined men and women (many of whom were born and raised in England) making the spontaneous decision to attack when and where they can. This will make any future attacks in England very unpredictable and dangerous.

Because the minority of Islamic fundamentalists blend in seamlessly with the majority of peaceful British Muslims, it's almost impossible to keep track of them. It creates more and more disparity between the Muslim population and the rest of an increasingly suspicious Britain.

This will make the lives of Britain's peaceful Muslims more and more difficult and, inevitably, that will make the ambitions of the al-Qa'eda taskmasters easier.

Terror

2007-07-03T15:39:00.000-07:00

Sadly, growing up in Britain during 'the troubles,' my generation is no stranger to terrorism.

Back in the day, it was a regular occurrence to see news reports of bombs going off in shopping centres or city streets. The IRA had a pretty good structure behind it - murdering civilians over in the UK, while simultaneously presenting a whiter-than-white facade to their American financial backers.

It's still a common misconception in New York that the IRA never targeted non-military targets. If only that had been true.

But if 9/11 had any benefit - which of course it didn't - it was in ending the IRA's reign of murder and terror. Now that America had been introduced to the realities of terrorism, it was no longer a legitimate political tool. New Yorkers who might once have slipped five bucks into a tin to support 'the boys back home' had woken up to what their money was paying for.

Sadly, as the events of the last few days have reminded us, the end of the IRA has not led to an end to terrorism in Britain. True Islamic Fundamentalism - the stuff behind murder and mayhem for decades in the Middle East - has arrived in force in the UK. While the methods, organisation and objectives of the new millenium's terrorists may be different - the consequences seem to be the same.

Speed Camera Appeal Reveals a European's True Rights

2007-06-29T05:33:00.001-07:00

If they both weren't so arrogant and difficult, Idris Francis and Gerard O'Halloran could have been national heroes.

The retired petrol heads have fought a long battle to have their convictions for speeding overturned, based on the philosophy that signing a release form confirming who was driving a speeding vehicle breaches a citizen's 'right to silence.'

And they're absolutely right. In the UK, if a Gatso camera catches you breaking the speed limit, you are required to sign a statement confirming that you were behind the wheel of the car. That's plain and simple self-incrimination if I ever saw it, which breaches the whole "you have the right to remain silent" spiel.

However, the European Court of Human Rights revealed the truth about this perceived 'right to silence.'

Their statement was: "The court did not accept the applicants' argument that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself were absolute rights."

Translation: There is no right to silence. No Fifth Amendment for us Europeans.

In fact, we already knew this, didn't we? A few years ago the mantra a police officer repeats as he's arresting somebody was changed so that a suspect's right to remain silent could actually be used in court to infer guilt.

As far as this legal battle goes - if Idris Francis and Gerard O'Halloran had been fighting for something slightly more significant than their right to break the speed limit, perhaps this insight into what rights a European Citizen has might have made more of an impact on people.

As quite often happens, a case in America is mirroring the one in Europe. Larry Lemay (yes, that is his real name) is suing the New Hampshire Department of Transport for the speed limits in his area to be raised, claiming that they're set unfairly low.

He has suggested that speed limits aren't there to encourage safer driving - merely to help raise money for the Police Department in the form of fines. This accusation is the same one often aimed at Britain's Gatso cameras, which generate about 21 million pounds of revenue every year (about the same as American Idol star Simon Cowell pays in income tax in the UK.)

Whether there's any truth in the accusation, I couldn't tell you. When I was working on advertising with the Hampshire County Council Road Safety Department, however, I was told that the 30 mph limit was not intended to prevent accidents OR raise revenue.

Whether the limit is 30, 40 or even 50, there might only ever be the same number of accidents on a stretch of road. However somebody hit at 30mph has an 80% chance of survival. At 40mph, that becomes a 80% chance of fatality.

So even if higher speed limits might not cause more accidents, it's entirely reasonable to assume that they might cause more severe injuries in those involved.

British Story

American Story

Who's responsible for your children?

2007-06-06T15:17:00.000-07:00

It's terribly sad.

An eighteen year old girl from Waterford, Pa., was charged with involuntary manslaughter today after she fell asleep while babysitting - and the two toddlers she was looking after took advantage of the opportunity to go swimming. Tragically, both children died.

The babysitter fell asleep. Now she's being held responsible for the death of the two children.

How come the parents of Madeleine McCann, who left three children alone while they went out for a boozy dinner, aren't being held equally liable? If they hadn't left their kids alone, the opportunity for Maddie to be snatched might not have occurred.

Find out more about the toddlers here.

Cindy Sheehan 'Retires'

2007-05-29T08:48:00.000-07:00

"Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can't make you be that country unless you want it."

'Peace Mom's' decision to stand down from her anti-war crusade was marked by that statement, which she posted on her blog.

Both the right wing and left have concluded that it's about time. Sheehan's recent behaviour has been erratic, earning her a label as "anti-American" even amongst the liberal left who once supported her.

It's no great surprise, really. Cindy Sheehan isn't a politician. She's simply a grieving mother. A woman who lost a child and who found a target for her rage in George Bush.

It was the anti-war movement who adopted her and focused her grief. But at the end of the day, they couldn't control Cindy Sheehan any more than she could control America.

She shook hands with dictators and terrorists - and the militant left sidled quietly aside and distanced themselves from this wounded woman.

What they left behind was an exhausted, grief stricken woman.

When she ceased to be useful, she was abandoned by the movement that had thrust her into the public eye in the first place. She started off losing her son. Now she's lost her crusade. It adds a whole new layer of tragedy to an already heartbreaking story.

The right wing often see Cindy Sheehan as their enemy. They shouldn't. They should see her as a victim. The less scrupulous members of the anti-war movement simply scooped her up and now she's of no further use to them, they sent her home even more broken then she was before.

"It's up to you now." Article about Cindy Sheehan's retirement.

Has Political Correctness really gone mad?

2007-05-29T02:16:00.000-07:00

It's a grossly overused expression, often motivated by one too many gin and tonics and a Daily Mail headline.

"That," the cry goes, "is Political Correctness gone MAD!"

Occasionally the 'mad' bit is drawn out and sounds something like "maaaaad" or a very bad sheep impression.

Anyway. Despite being uttered many millions of times in recent years, it appears Political Correctness has actually gone totally bonkers down in sunny Australia.

The Peel Hotel, which isn't actually a hotel (trade descriptions, anybody?) has just managed to legally ban heterosexual and lesbian patrons.

The Peel is a gay bar, just to clarify. It's one of Sydney's hottest spots for gay men and owner Tom McFeely wants it to stay that way.

"When large numbers of heterosexuals are in my hotel, many gay men feel uncomfortable."

McFeely has managed to get his bigotry ratified by a Civil Tribunal, which supports his right to ban customers based on their sexuality. Unless you're gay, you can't play. You'll have to visit one of Sydney's other drinking establishments (for whom I have coined the expression "Not Gay" bars.)

This decision annoys me. It takes any pretense of equality and chucks it out the window. It's legally binding proof that there's one rule for some and another for the rest of us.

Imagine if the situation was reversed? If a bar in Sydney (of which there are many) refused service to gay men. In rugged, macho Australia, I'm sure there'd be no shortage of volunteers.

The result would be uproar. Marches. Banners. Newspaper headlines. Bigotry and homophobia would be the overused mots du jour. In modern society, it would be completely unacceptable to ban people from bars because of the gender they choose to sleep with.

Yet this is exactly what's happening here. The only reason the Civil Tribunal has passed this ridiculous law is because they've bought into the Politically Correct illusion that bigotry and intolerance don't go both ways.

Customers are being excluded based on their sexuality. That's the sort of ruling gay pride movements have spent the last forty years trying to abolish. Ironically, they're all for intolerance and discrimination if it works in their favour.

I'm sure I don't need to point out that this Civil Tribunal breaches Australian law. The question is, are we all too Politically Correct to say anything about it?

Read about the madness here.

O.J. Simpson

2007-05-24T07:01:00.000-07:00

OJ Simpson has been in the headlines quite a lot recently. Today, it's regarding a ruling in Los Angeles spearheaded by attorney David Cooke. The ruling forced Simpson's attorney to fork over $3,500 he was holding for the former NFL star.

Aside from Simpson's NFL Pension and Florida Home, every penny 'The Juice' earns must be handed over in accordance with a 1997 court ruling, which found Simpson responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman and ordered him to pay $33.5 million to their families in 'damages.'

It raises once again a very interesting issue regarding the O.J. Simpson case - and it has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. It's simply how ethical it is for a CIVIL court to find a man guilty of a crime for which a CRIMINAL court exonerated him.

The logistics of it are easy to understand. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the defendant committed the crime. In a civil case, the jury simply has to decide which side they're on. That's why lawyers were able to get a 'guilty' verdict in the civil case whereas they couldn't in the criminal one.

But it does boggle my mind. I'd have thought, in a civil court case, the most overwhelming piece of evidence in Simpson's favour was that the US Criminal Courts had declared: "There is insufficient evidence to convict this man of this offence."

But the theory goes that a 'not guilty' verdict in a criminal case is very different to being truly innocent. It means that the prosecution were simply not able to prove conclusively, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Simpson committed the crime. It doesn't mean he didn't do it.

It does make me wonder about the whole issue of double indemnity and the sheer craziness of America's litigation culture. We're lucky that the trend didn't catch on. Otherwise criminal cases might not be fought on physical evidence and witness testimony, but on heresay, rumour and clever legal wrangles. Criminals wouldn't do time or community service - they'd simply pay out settlements.

I'm not going to comment on whether Mr Simpson committed the crime or not. The fact is he was found 'not guilty' by the American legal system. In civilised society, that should have been the end of it.

Yahoo News: The Simpson Lawsuit.

Illegal Amnesty

2007-05-21T08:49:00.000-07:00

During my love affair with America, I can quite happily say that I've been right-royally buggered by American Immigrations.

I've been slung back and forth over the Atlantic. I've been fingerprinted and mugshotted. I've waited for hours at the US embassy for a five-minute dismissal and I've waited years to finally get permission to return.

But Tina and I did our time. We waited it out. We paid the thousands of dollars required to lawyers and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. And eventually - Oh, soooo EVENTUALLY - we got the green light to move back to the United States.

But right now, in Congress, the suits are debating some radical changes to the American Immigration System. And I don't like them ONE DAMN BIT.

It's an amnesty. There's no other way to describe it. If current legislation goes through, the nearly 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States will be granted a legitimate shot at citizenship.

And at the same time - MY GOD this annoys me - the restrictions regarding visas for family members and legitimate immigrants will be tightened.

It is the most cack-handed, backward lunacy I think of. Further proof that if the opposite of pro is con, the opposite of progress must be congress.

It upsets me for myriad reasons, but most of all because it's a slap in our face. Tina and I obeyed the rules, we respected the system and we got racked through the meat-grinder. Yet millions of immigrants, who spat in the face of the immigration system and broke the law, are being granted everything it took Tina and I years to achieve.

It's not that I hate illegal immigrants. In fact I know a few. People who slipped through the BCIS net and wound up in the wrong pile of forms. Since they're married or related to American citizens, they're getting the squeeze in this new wave of immigration reforms. That doesn't seem fair.

It's actually the workers from Mexico who really win out. These are the ones who sneaked across the border in the company of 'Coyotes,' professional Mexican people smugglers. They came to America to work in farms or factories, for a staggering ten times what they'd earn back home.

You can't argue with their motivation for smuggling themselves to America - one in seven Mexican workers now comes illegally to the United States. However you can argue with the way they act while they're here.

The fact is, it's not easy being illegal. No bank account. No driver's licence. No medical care or insurance. And for the illegal workers, if you can't get it, you don't have it. This means there are literally millions of illegal immigrants driving clapped out, undisputed cars with no insurance. They rely on free medical care (paid for at the US taxpayer's expense.) And what money they do earn, they send an average of 30% of it out of the country back to Mexico.

With 15% of Mexico's working population currently working illegally in the United States, you can imagine what a drain on America's GDP that is.

What congress have to ask themselves, before they grant this fearsome demographic permission to work in the United States, is: Will anything will change when they do?

Will the newly legal immigrants scurry out to get bank accounts and car insurance? Will they chip in for health coverage? Or will they continue the way they've been going? Because the sad fact is, on an illegal immigrant's miserable basic wages, it's a lot cheaper to stay 'illegal' than pay for all the gubbins we law abiding US residents are required to.

It's madness, pure and simple. It's just more immigration insanity shoehorned in by the Bush government. After scrapping the tolerable Immigration and Naturalization Service and replacing it with the incompetent BCIS, the reigning government is attempting to secure a legacy (a non Iraq legacy) and tidy up their immigration mess with this ridiculous legislation.

It has only one saving grace. It Just Won't Work.

You see, in order to squeeze it past the more conservative members of Congress, the laws require heads of households to return to Mexico to await their immigration paperwork. The work permits illegal immigrants will be granted are temporary, requiring a year outside of the United States before they're renewed. Basically, immigrants will be REQUIRED to leave the USA before they can get on the road to citizenship. And none of them will.

For heads of households, the problem is a simple one. Sigfrido Villalta, an illegal worker in a car wash, says: "If I have to leave the country, how will my family here exist?"

For illegal workers already in the country, leaving the United States is simply not an option. Which means this offensive, incompetent piece of legislation will flop at the first fence. If the path to citizenship involves leaving America, the majority of immigrants won't take it - which means we'll be left with as many illegal immigrants AFTER the law has been passed as we had before.

Britain's hottest Gingers

2007-05-17T05:19:00.000-07:00

Recently, The Independent published The Pink List.

A list of Britain's 101 biggest gays, it contained a startlingly varied list of of gay men and women who have contributed to Britain's recent financial, political and entertainment successes.

I even knew one of them - journalist and author Paul Burston, who I hope to publish an interview with shortly.

It made me think about a minority group I belong to - ginger people. Ironically the percentage of gay people in Britain is roughly one fifth of the number of redheaded people, so I wondered which redheads were currently making it big in Britain.

Here's who I came up with:

J.K. Rowling: The hottest redhead by far, J.K. Rowling has amassed a personal fortune of over a BILLION dollars, thanks to the adventures of fictional wizard Harry Potter. With the finale to the Hogwarts saga just about to be released - and the latest movie hitting the cinemas - J.K. Rowling's stratospheric rise seems to show no signs of slowing.

Chris Evans: A man who's name is almost synonymous with "ginger," Chris Evans celebrated his hair colour and set up "Ginger Productions," which he later sold to cement his fortune. Despite heavy ridicule, Evans remains a favourite with television and radio audiences and was named Music Radio Personality of the Year in 2006.

Prince Harry: As third in line to the throne, Prince Harry has recently hit the headlines because of "will he/won't he" discussions regarding his deployment to Iraq. A lieutenant in the Blues and Royals regiment of the Household Cavalry, Prince Charle's youngest son has clearly grown up from his boozing, drug fueled teenage years and now seems devoted to an army career. It's very sad that the young prince has been humiliated by the media circus regarding his Iraq ambitions.

Lorraine Heggessey: Lorraine Heggessey made headlines in 2000 when she became the first female Controller of BBC One, making her mark by insisting on the re-commissioning of hit science fiction show Doctor Who. She's now still making TV waves as Chief Executive of talkbackTHAMES, delivering Golden Globe winning television dramas such as Friends and Crocodiles and Gideon's Daughter.

Catherine Tate: One of the most recognizable and popular faces on television at the moment, Catherine Tate's comedy sketch show has created a whole new generation of catchphrases - including the famous "Bovver'd?" Guest starring in the Doctor Who Christmas special and bantering on screen with Prime Minister Tony Blair has cemented this talented comedian's place in British comedy history.

Anne Robinson: Known as The Queen of Mean, Anne Robinson wasn't always the dour puss you see on television's hit quiz The Weakest Link. As host of Watchdog and Points of View, she was the nation's favourite and most trusted redhead. It wasn't until 2000 that The Weakest Link revealed Robinson's true character and she soon became the ginger people loved to hate, on both sides of the Atlantic. Now worth over £60 MILLION, she was voted on of TV's 50 Greatest Stars in 2006.

Rebekah Wade: No stranger to controversy, Rebekah Wade's career in journalism has been marked by enormous scandal and meteoric spikes in sales. She was the youngest editor of a national British newspaper in 2000 when she took the helm of News of the World, but it's as Editor of The Sun that this redhead's really made her impact - both writing and hitting the headlines. Described as a "ginger ninja" for her attack on husband Ross Kemp, Wade has managed to keep The Sun Britain's favourite newspaper.

Clair Cooper: Stunning redhead Clair Cooper was crowned Miss London in 2006, purely by accident. A production manager for live music venue Jazz Cafe, she entered the competition for a giggle and ended up winning the crown. After her victory, she admitted: "I think at long last, my years of practising walking in cripplingly high shoes must have paid off."

Paul Collingwood: Last summer was the year cricket relocated it's place in the nation's heart. It was the 2006/07 Commonwealth Bank Series in Australia that saw the rise of sterling British Cricketer Paul Collingwood, who put in three match winning performances at the end of the competition and was hailed by the British media as helping "secure the trophy for England." After Britain's poor performances in the 2007 world cup, Collingwood has been tipped to take the captaincy next season.

Rupert Grint: Winner of the Young Artist Award for Most Promising Newcomer, Rupert Grint is educating a whole generation of teenage girls that ginger can be sexy. As Harry Potter's best pal Ron, British actor Grint is probably the biggest redheaded cinema star there is at the moment - and with Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix about to be released, his popularity shows no signs of diminishing.

Alan Ball: A man who's made an incredible contribution to football, redheaded Alan Ball only hit the headlines recently when he passed away. The youngest member of the historic 1966 England World Cup team, he scored over 180 goals at league level, before managing major teams like Pompey, The Saints and Manchester United. In 2000, he was awarded the MBE for his services to football.

Kelly Hoppen: She's the biggest thing in interior design at the moment. Which is a good thing, apparently. Nicknamed the "Madonna of Decor," redheaded Hoppen is famed for her simple but opulent style of design and the self-taught decorator can boast many celebrity customers and features in international newspapers and magazines.

Ginny Dougary: Award winning journalist for The Times, Ginny has made a career out of breaking new ground. Her books include The Executive Tart and Other Myths and Amazonians. She's also raised a few eyebrows with her musical talents, penning the controversial David Blunkett: The Musical and writing a choral piece dedicated to the hardships of growing up ginger.

Tribute to Tony Blair - a poem by Roland Hulme

2007-05-10T07:48:00.000-07:00

Oh Tony, Tony, Tony Blair.
Don't ever think that we don't care.
You're shuffling off the centre stage,
Before you get to Thatcher's age.

(She was 65.)

Back in the nineties, we all knew,
The next PM, it would be you.
I wrote a story 'bout it too.
Although it didn't feature you.

Much.

Paul Daniels said: "He wins? I quit!"
But he's still here, the lying git.
But Tony, dude, that's long ago,
When ladies thought of you: "Tres beau."

"He's a bit of all right," they said.

And Britain's suffered no great loss.
In the decade since you've been boss,
You've aged a bit since then, old mate,
At least you haven't gained much weight.

Maybe a couple of pounds?

During your reign in Number 10,
Just five minutes from old Big Ben,
You've ruled the nation, true and fair,
And haven't quite lost ALL your hair.

Just a bit.

You introduced Minimum Wage,
In Northern Ireland, turned a page,
You helped Saddam come a cropper,
But told us all one big whopper...

About the WMD's.

America? They loved you, Blair
All tall and charming - with great hair!
They thought you charming, wise and bright,
Compared to George, by God they're right!

He didn't have Alastair Campbell, of course.

But now, dear Tony... Time to go,
It's time to end the Tony Show.
Your decade's up, you've had your day,
Now that git Brown is here to stay.

Depending on if he wins the leadership contest or not.

What will you do now, Mr Blair?
What use will be your coiffered hair?
Your open palms and tasteful ties,
And Ali Campbell's packs of lies?

'Alleged' packs of lies.

I'm sure a new career awaits,
You'd make a fortune in the States!
But do make sure your pension's safe,
Now Gordon Brown is on the case.

'Cos he'll nick it.

What are we supposed to use against them? Harsh language?

2007-05-04T03:30:00.000-07:00

In Washington D.C., Democratic party leaders are deep in discussion about Iraq.

They want the troops out - and fast. But the way in which they're attempting to achieve that goal seems spectacularly cackhanded.

In Congress, the Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over finance - specifically, the money needed by the army to continue the occupation of Iraq.

While the U.S. Army has enough in it's bank account to tide it over until July, after that the generals will be calling on Congress to have their coffers refreshed. The Democrats believe stopping this funding is the most effective way to squash continued occupation plans.

But is that true?

It seems to me that cutting funding will hurt only one section of the U.S. Army's occupation force. The troops themselves.

If the purse strings are tightened, the cuts will be felt most sharply on the front line. It's the soldiers themselves who'll struggle to effectively do their jobs - or just stay safe - when the resources they rely on are taken away from them.

I can understand the Democrat's desire to end the occupation, but this approach benefits nobody. It's a gross betrayal of the men and women serving in Iraq - men and women who dodge bullets every day for the same wages as a waitress.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is backing a far clearer plan. A repeal of the 2002 resolution authorising military activity in Iraq. If she manages to push that through, it will require President Bush to seek the approval of Congress in October to continue the occupation.

If Bush can't pull that off, the troops would be required to leave Iraq - but at least they'd still have all the funding, equipment and support they require until that date.

Read more about this issue here.

I think there's a bigger problem here, however.

Whether American troops are in Iraq rightly or wrongly, the country is in turmoil at the moment because of the actions of the US Government. If we yanked American and British troops out of the region, what would be left to fill the vacuum? Certainly not democracy.

Most likely, another fundamentalist Muslim regime. Insurgents and terrorists are already hard at work causing instability and unrest. Without American support, could the fledgling democratic government of Iraq survive?

It's doubtful - and if Darwin's theories are anything to go by, it'll be something tough, but ugly that ends up ruling the region. Can we afford to see another fundamentalist country pop up in the middle east, embittered and emboldened by America's inopportunely abandoned foreign policy?

I think both Democrats and Republicans have to think very long and very hard about their role in Iraq. Pulling out with the job half done might be far more dangerous than making the investment to help a true democracy emerge in the middle east.

But if that true democracy can be built - and that's a big if - it will be built on the bodies of young American soldiers. It's an impossible decision to make. Whether America decides to stay or go, the cost will be enormous.

Islam and America.... Can they integrate?

2007-05-01T04:10:00.000-07:00

Forget what the loony left or radical right tell you. America and Islam CAN find peace.

My friend Sarah, while on holiday in Marrakech, took this snap. Proof indeed that America and Islam can coexist peacefully. With a side order of fries and a Coca Cola.

Culling the Lead Dog

2007-04-28T09:18:00.000-07:00

It all started when The Politico - a Capital Hill newspaper with half the readership of The Hampshire Chronicle - published an article headlined: "Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win."

"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.

"The new, and not so improved Hitler Version 3! - Comment by Can-O-Whoop-Ass — April 24, 2007 @ 10:06 pm"

"A warning to you all- vote for this man and live in hell - Comment by truthfairy — April 24, 2007 @ 10:07 pm"

"F*ck you, Giuliani. I say that most sincerely — F*ck you. - Comment by Zooey — April 24, 2007 @ 10:07 pm"

"We know it was a GOP’er who did the last terrorist attack mailing Anthrax to Democrats. We know it’s always the GOP’ers who commit things like the Oklahoma Bombing, and of course there’s bombing “planned parenthoods”. Not to mention it’s always those GOP’ers caught molesting children. The GOP is a virus upon the world. - Comment by Can-O-Whoop-Ass — April 24, 2007 @ 10:12 pm"

"What he means is, if you don’t vote GOP, we will nuke your sorry little asses until you vote the “correct” way in future.GOP = Fascist Nazi Party - Comment by RAL — April 25, 2007 @ 7:11 am"

"...who are we kidding…most of the American people are dumb enough to buy this line of bullsh*t…. - Comment by Cobalt60 — April 24, 2007 @ 10:29 pm"

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.

Brilliant Post

2007-04-25T13:36:00.000-07:00

One of the smartest people I have ever met wrote the following, and I think it bears repeating here.

From Sarah Bailey's blog, Conrad's Ex Girlfriend...

"In America and many other parts of the world, we assume that we will be safe. We are shocked when violence tears things apart. This is also why terrorism is so effective against us – it shatters our sense of security."

"I know the lovely and interesting Burundians I’ve been working with would have been sympathetic if I brought up the Virginia Tech tragedy, but I shy away from any subject that touches on the deep tragedies that they themselves have faced. If we as Americans gave as much news coverage to parents in Burundi, Iraq, Afghanistan, Congo, Somalia, Rwanda, Israel, and Palestine, showed pictures of the brothers and sisters who perished, the children who died, the grandparents...maybe there is too much tragedy in the world to show it all with the same intensity."

"It’s natural to be hit hardest by tragedies close to home – the perplexing grief of something senseless and random. But while not as random, the violence that has occurred or is occurring in each of these countries is just as senseless, and parents mourn with the same depth of grief, if not with the same shock."

Pompey Stadium

2007-04-25T08:13:00.000-07:00

Portsmouth is fast becoming an American looking city.

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.

Read the story here.

Virginia Tech Shootings... Pass the Buck!

2007-04-18T01:23:00.000-07:00

PTB is an American expression - Pass The Buck. As in, how can I shift blame onto some other chump? Since the tragedy of Monday's shooting, the left wing and the right wing in America have both been scrabbling to find somebody to blame.

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.

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 %.
Over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data. [9]
Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.
Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.[8]
UK banned private ownership of all handguns in 1997. Since 1998 the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled, despite massive increase in number of police personnel.[9]
Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned.

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

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.

AMENDMENT: It turns out that Cho might well have bought the guns legitimately and filed the serials off himself. That does change my perspective on things.

Only in America

2007-04-17T02:01:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, a student calmly walked into Virginia Tech University, in Blacksburg VA, and murdered 30 people with a handgun. He then turned the gun on himself, ending the most horrific school shooting in American history.

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.

Shilpa Shetty - Setting India Alight

2007-04-16T08:39:00.000-07:00

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

Anti Semitism is A-OK! As long as you're a muslim...

2007-04-03T01:43:00.000-07:00

Here in Europe, we're not very enlightened when it comes to freedom of speech.

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.

Iran firebombs British Embassy in Tehran

2007-04-01T07:42:00.000-07:00

Now, I don't agree with the statement on the left... But patience is running out with "peaceful" Iran.

First, Iran blatantly lies and claims British troops entered Iranian waters. Then they kidnap fifteen soldiers and hold them without reason. And NOW they're throwing molotovs at OUR embassy in Iran?

Sheer lunacy. How can THEY be protesting a situation entirely of their own making?

This will not end well. Yahoo Story Here.

Charge first! Ask Questions Later!

2007-03-30T02:57:00.000-07:00

It's payday!

But for up to 400,000 workers (possibly including myself) the fruits of our labours won't be hitting our bank accounts today. Due to a monumental "problem" (read: Cock Up) with the BACS system, hundreds of thousands of people's pay cheques won't work their way through the system by the time they're supposed to. Full story here.

It's alright, though. The banks have promised that any fines they doll out because of missed payments (if your pay cheque arrived AFTER that rent payment was went to go out) will be refunded in full.

The question I have is this: If the banks know almost half a million people could be struck with this "problem" (read: Cock Up) why on earth should they be allowed to fine anybody in the first place?

It's their error, not the customers. I think it's absolutely disgusting that bank charges are such an automatic and institutionalised system that we would even entertain the idea of letting them FINE us for THEIR error.

I know what people will say - that the systems that charge customers are automated and it would be more of a hassle to stop the charges than just repay them afterwards. However I think that's a pretty sorry situation to be in.

I've already written about the liberties my bank takes with my money - and I'm DAMN sure I need it more than they do. I think far too many people forget that a bank doesn't just render a service - 'looking after' our money. It also makes a very healthy profit from having OUR cash in THEIR coffers.

There are hundreds of banks and building societies. I would like FOR ONCE to see my bank actually behave like they appreciate my business - and appreciate the fact that I'm trusting my hard earned money with them and not with one of their myriad competitors.

Abu Muslim al-Austraili: The Truth about David Hicks

2007-03-27T01:34:00.000-07:00

Meet David Hicks.

David is a 31 year old former kangaroo skinner from Australia. For the last five years, he's been an inmate of controversial US prison complex Guantanamo Bay, after being arrested by US forces in Afghanistan.

David has the dubious honour of being the first Gitmo inmate to face trial for war crimes commited against the United States. He's shocked the international news community by pleading guilty to these charges.

I think the reason they're so shocked is because they've been reading too many of their own editorials.

I've written extensively on Editorial Bear about the slanted bias of the media. Nowhere is this more clear than in the trial of David Hicks. Read Yahoo's editorial here.

If you believe everything you read, David Hicks is a victim. Arrested and imprisoned in Afghanistan, this unassuming Australian was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's taken as a given in most of the recent news reports that he's innocent.

David's guilty plea is spun quite effectively into this hypothesis: The US Courts would have found him guilty either way.

It's unofficially accepted that the US War Tribunals are 'Show Trials' and since David Hicks would have been facing a guilty verdict either way, he might as well get a lesser sentence by pleading guilty.

But the fact is, all these news reports are wrong. David Hicks is not innocent. He's as guilty as sin and the plea he's entered in court admits to just a fraction of the crimes he's committed.

What's conspicuously lacking from any of the news reports about the trial of David Hicks are the facts about David himself.

Who is he? What was he doing in Afghanistan in the first place? Why was he arrested?

The biased media is so focused on attacking the American institution that they have totally glossed over the facts. And the facts are pretty shocking.

David Hicks was born in Adelaide, Australia. A former car thief and drug addict, he dropped out of school at the age of 14 and then drifted around the outback, working on cattle stations and as a kangaroo skinner in a meat packing factory.

He fathered two children with girlfriend Jodie Sparrow, before moving away from Australia in 1996 to train horses in Japan.

Failing to settle down in Japan, his next move wasn't back home. He flew to Albania, where he inexplicably joined the Kosovo Liberation Army, fighting the Serbs in the Bosnian conflict.

David finally found his calling in life. He wanted to be a soldier.

Hicks served with the Kosovo Liberation Army for a mere two months, having missed any of the actual fighting. Returning to Australia, he decided to follow his dream and applied to join the Australian Army. They rejected him on the grounds of his poor education.

Fortunately for David, there was a military force that was happy to accept him. In 1999, David Hicks converted to Islam, changed his name to Abu Muslim al-Austraili and moved to Pakistan to fight against the Indians in Kashmir.

Joining the Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists, David was trained in guerilla warfare, kidnapping, assassination and the use of landmines. He fought in the 'controlled war' on the Indian border until the events of 9/11. When Lashkar-e-Toiba was disbanded, David joined another terrorist organisation - Al Qaeda.

Feroz Abbasi, an Al Qaeda terrorist and another Guantanamo inmate, reports the David Hicks was accepted by al Qaeda with open arms, becoming something of a 'golden child' who took it upon himself to translate the Al Qaeda training manuals into English to assist in recruiting more people to the cause of Islamic Fundamentalism.

In letters to his parents, Hicks claims he met personally with Osama Bin Laden on several occasions and gave important information about the travel habits of Australians, which may have played an important factor in the Bali bombings.

When the United States, in retaliation for 9/11, invaded Afghanistan, David Hicks was equipped with an AK47 and grenades and went off with his terrorist comrades to fight the coalition forces.

He was later captured by the Northern Alliance, the Afghanistan forces fighting against the Taliban. As an object of some curiosity, the Australian prisoner was handed over to US Forces on December 17th 2001.

A terrorist. A traitor. An enemy combatant.

How come Yahoo, the BBC - just about every western news outlet - fails to remember this? He's no friend of ours - yet so many people are so desperate to attack the US government that they'll support him and accept his allegations of mistreatment without reservation - despite the fact that they're proven to be exaggerated or entirely fictional.

British sailors seized by Iran

2007-03-23T08:56:00.000-07:00

If you believe everything the protestors tell you, it's Washington beating the war drums concerning Iran. George Bush has been demonised for plotting the invasion of another Middle Eastern country.

Yet recent events consistently seem to indicate that Iran is not the victim of invasive western aggression, like President Ahmadinejad portrays the country to be. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already refused to allow UN Inspectors the chance to examine his 'innocent' nuclear processing plants - and now his soldiers have kidnapped 15 British troops. See the story here.

The kidnapped Royal Navy sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters, checking local shipping to crack down on smuggling. The Iranians entered Iraqi water and confronted the Brits. I assume the 'kidnapping' itself was facilitated by our troop's reluctance to fire on their kidnappers and spark off a conflict. Their restraint saved Iranian lives at the risk of their own. True Brit Grit.

This kidnapping is further evidence that Iran's behaviour remains consistantly mischevious.

I honestly believe Ahmadinejad's masterplan is to simply keep niggling at the United States or Britain until one of the two countries find themselves forced to react aggressively.

If Ahmadinejad's taunting gets the desired reaction, America or Britain will be viewed as 'overreacting' and Iran will get to play the 'innocent' victim of 'western aggression.' Given the growing popularity of the anti-war stance in Britain and America, I'm worried niave people will fail to see that it's Iran behind the diplomatic fireworks - not Bush or Blair.

President Ahmadinejad is a cunning, immoral man who seems to want to lead his country into a war it cannot win - no matter what price his people must pay.

All we can hope is that our diplomats show the same restraint our kidnapped troops did - and resist the urge to react to Iran's provocative behaviour.

Simply not Cricket!

2007-03-23T01:43:00.000-07:00

Pakistan cricket coach Bob Woolmer, leading the Pakistan Cricket team during their matches in Jamiaca, was recently discovered dead in his hotel room. It was confirmed today that he'd been strangled - making his death an act of murder. Full story here.

But who would strangle a cricket coach? Does anybody really take the game that seriously?

The Pakistanis certainly do. And after being knocked out of the game in a crushing defeat by Ireland, rumour has it that Woolmer was set to reveal match fixing allegations. The Pakistanis have already flirted with allegations like this - would they be willing to kill to protect their team's shredded reputation?

At the moment, all we can do is speculate. However the Pakistani team has been fingerprinted and one man - confirmed as a non-Jamaican resident - has been arrested. Full story here.

Tory Blair

2007-03-15T04:59:00.000-07:00

I once went out with a girl whose nickname was: "Tory Wife."

She was the only female member of the Conservative Society that I joined during my first year at University. So not only did I fend off the competition - I also had the dubious honour of 'working my way' through the entire society's female compliment. All one of them!

Anyway. I remember staying up with her all night during Mayday 1997, when Tony Blair became Prime Minister. Back then, as a Conservative (with a big C) I was dead set against Mr Blair and the Labour Party. I was a conservative!

Little did I know that the following decade would reveal Tony to be a far more effective Conservative Prime Minister than anybody in the Tory Party could have been.

Tony Blair reinvented the Labour party as "New Labour," shifting the traditionally socialist party to the centre of British politics. This nudged the wounded Conservatives out of their traditional place and the party has never since been able to recover.

New Labour was able to do what the traditional socialists hadn't been able to do. Win an election. And in doing that, Tony Blair gathered enough momentum to perform what must be the biggest and most incredible political fraud in British history.

New Labour became the New Conservatives.

Socialism went out of the window. More and more traditionally Conservative values were adopted and instigated. Like a cuckoo, kicking the other eggs out of the nest, New Labour unseated the Tories and took their place.

Never more so has this been evident than yesterday, when Tony Blair managed to win a crucial vote securing the future of Trident, Britain's nuclear submarine deterrent.

It was a real landmark vote. The Labour Party, since the end of the Second World War, has traditionally been against nuclear proliferation and now the cold war is over, the official 'Party Line' has been that Britain's nukes must go.

Yet here was Labour's Leader, calling for twenty billion pounds of investment in Nuclear Weapons. Whatever the ruling party had become, it was no longer the Labour we knew as children.

Tony Blair only managed to win the crucial vote by calling on the support of David Cameron and the Conservative Party itself. 95 Labour MP's stood firm to traditionally Labour values and voted against the missiles.

But Tony Blair won - with almost the entire Tory party backing his motion. Finally a man who has acted for a decade like a Conservative Prime Minister found himself standing at the de facto head of the real Conservative Party (what's left of it.)

But the rebellion by those 95 labour dissenters, mostly hailing from the old school north of Britain, hinted at the reemergence of a new Labour movement. A return to the socialist roots that Tony Blair and New Labour abandoned.

Old Labour could be making a comeback.

What this will do to Britain's traditionally bipartisan political scene, who can tell? It will be interesting to find out.

In the safety of another country.

:-)

Read the original story here: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2034300,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11

Star Crossed Lovers

2007-03-01T05:53:00.000-08:00

Star-crossed lovers quit West Bank

By Matthew Price

The couple married three years ago after meeting in Jerusalem.

She is a 26-year-old Jewish Israeli. Her name is Jasmine Avissar. He is a 27-year-old Palestinian Muslim, Osama Zaatar. Jasmine and Osama's is a love story, and it tells you so much about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Full story here.

This is a very sad story - I have to admit, I emphasis a lot.

When marrying somebody from another country, the challenges you face as newlyweds are startlingly different from the ones normal people deal with.

While most couples were dealing with paying rent and maybe buying a house, Tina and I had to deal with a more fundamental problem - which country would we live in? Which country would have us?

Most newlyweds lay out their hard earned cash for furniture and carpets... Tina and I found ours was filtered off into the pockets of unscrupulous immigration lawyers and handed over to American and British government departments.

To get Tina's permission to live in the UK cost us over £1,000 in all.

To finally get my green card cost us thousands of dollars.

And if the financial cost wasn't bad enough, Tina and I lost years. We were married in 2003 and we won't finally be able to start our lives until at least December of 2007.

But maybe that indicates how thousands of miles and the meddling of bureaucratic governments can't come between people who care about each other.

Abolish Free Choice

2007-02-27T05:15:00.000-08:00

Burger Off! Charles Wants Big Mac Ban

Tuesday February 27, 11:44 AM

Prince Charles has suggested banning McDonald's is the key to improving children's eating habits. He targeted the fast food chain as he attended the launch of a public health awareness campaign aimed at fighting diabetes. A McDonald's spokeswoman said Charles's remark was "disappointing". Full story here.

I don't blame McDonalds for finding Charles' statement disappointing. It is.

While child obesity is a very real problem, levelling all the blame on a single company seems impossibly naive. Especially when you consider that McDonalds have reconfigured their company profile to combat that. Besides, there are more companies selling high sugar, high fat products than just Chateau McDo.

Ice cream, chips, cookies, cake, crisps, chocolate, candy, fried chicken, kebabs... You can buy them from supermarkets, burger vans, corner shops and kebab houses... The world's obesity problem cannot be laid at McDonald's door. That's like blaming all smoking related lung cancer on the Marlboro Man, ignoring the input of Silk Cut, Winston and all the other hundreds of tobacco companies.

Besides, while McDonalds products are full of sugar, fat and empty calories, the problem is not the products themselves - it's the people who eat them and HOW they eat them.

Morgan Spurlock attacked McDonalds before Prince Charles thought it was fashionable, with his brilliant documentary Supersize Me, in which he lived off nothing but McDonalds food for a month and recorded the weight gain and health issues that resulted... But what Spurlock's documentary failed to mention is that NOBODY should eat nothing but McDonald's products for a month - or even a week.

Like a hot dog in the park, or a burger at the races, a McDonalds is a treat. The high calories and sugar from one treat should be balanced out by a decent diet for the rest of the week. In fact, it's even simpler than that. Healthy eating is pure mathematics. To combat obesity, people simply need to consume fewer calories than they exhert.

If people can do that, they can eat at McDonalds every day - like trim 12 stone American Dan Gorske, who eats two Big Macs a day.

Prince Charles suggestion that they ban McDonalds is horribly simplistic. There are families who eat at McDonalds far too much, but amongst poverty stricken people, there's a reason for that. To prepare a healthy meal for one person from the supermarket takes several pounds. Fries and a burger from McDonalds are 99p.

One of the major reasons for obesity - and the reason it effects poorer people - is because healthy food is expensive. These days, healthy eating is a fad and you can buy all sorts of healthy products - but like organic food, there is a premium attached.

People used to be trimmer and healthier because a regular, healthy meal could be prepared cheaply - more cheaply than going to McDonalds. These days, that situation is reversed.

This indicates that there's a bigger problem than can be cured simply by banning one particular restaurant chain.

But banning things is Britain's answer to everything. It's naive and it doesn't work. Human beings are individuals and are responsible for making their own decisions. If you ban McDonalds, how long will it be before you're banning ice cream, chocolate and cake? In fact, banning the Big Mac would start us towards a future in which all 'meals' are government approved and probably come pre-packed, with no variety.

That's not a democracy. That's a police state, straight out of Orwell's worst nightmares.

I enjoy my wine and I enjoy my food. But if we live in England, how much longer will I be allowed to enjoy them for? There are already talks about banning commercials for alcohol. Will pubs be next? Or alcohol entirely?

People ask me why I want to move to the United States. Maybe it's because they still appreciate individual choice out there and have learnt their lesson from the 18th Amendment.

Rudy Giuliani for President 2008

2007-02-26T04:48:00.000-08:00

Well, the days of a Bush in the White house are coming to a close - unless Jeb decides to play his hand. Hopefully he won't, though. I think the entire American nation agrees that there needs to be some change.

Now during the race for Congress and the Senate, I was pretty keen on getting some democrats in there. The Republicans absolutely dominated the political circus for far too long and we needed some contrast and conflict to keep things real.

Fortunately, if the Democrat/Republican balance is going to be preserved, the Republicans have two pretty good candidates running for the presidency. John McCain is considered a bit of a Republican maverick and although, at 72, he'd be the oldest US President in History I know for a fact that some septuagenarians are sharper than the average 29 year old.

My favourite has to be Rudy Giuliani, though.

After Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani is the most famous candidate for the 2008 Presidency. He's known as "America's Mayor" for his amazing leadership during 9/11 and for transforming New York City into the shining beacon it is today.

What I like about Rudy is the fact that he's an individual, not just a 'Republican.' In fact, Rudy started his political career as a member of the Democrats.

Rudy's political beliefs fit neatly with mine. He's really a centurist, rather than a Republican. What's more, he's got real personality. A working class boy from Brooklyn, he scrabbled his way to the top and has never let politics get in the way of what he believed in - like the time he ejected Yasser Arafat from the Lincoln Centre during a do for the United Nations.

My experiences of America are actually quite limited. I really only know New York. But from what I know of New Yorkers, you could do a lot worse than a self-made kid from Brooklyn in the White House.

It would be a delicious contrast to the last two terms. George W. Bush was born into spectacular wealth. Rudy's father was an ex con. I think Giuliani will bring a down to earth attitude to American politics that the Bush legacy could never match - despite Dubya's cowboy pretensions.

I'd be very interested to hear what tickets you'll be backing for 2008. Please comment below.

Reducing Gun Crime by Banning Fake Guns

2007-02-19T06:01:00.000-08:00

Replica gun law 'may be speeded up'

Monday February 19, 01:30 PM

The implementation of a new law banning the manufacture of replica guns could be brought forward in the wake of a spate of fatal shootings, Home Secretary John Reid said. Full story here.

This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard for a long time.

After a spate of brutal shootings in London, the Home Secretary decides to target - you guessed it - replica guns.

Now let me just fill you in on a little fact about replica guns. They aren't real. They don't shoot bullets. In fact, all they do is look like real guns.

No, I'm not saying replica guns are perfectly fine things to own. I'm well aware of the fact that people commit robberies with them and police accidentally shoot suspects who are holding them.

But the fact remains. Since the invention of the replica gun, the worldwide death toll from replica-gun inflicted deaths has remained at 0.

Replica guns can't kill anybody.

So when the Home Secretary is faced with a very REAL and very DANGEROUS problem of gun crime in London, it seems a pointless exercise to focus on replica guns. It seems almost like a knee-jerk reaction to a problem, intended to divert attention away from the real issue and make it look like the government's DOING something.

What I have to ask is: How stupid does John Reid think we are?

This is bound to upset a few people...

2007-02-15T08:13:00.000-08:00

A sign of things to come? English road gets directions in Polish

Thursday February 15, 11:52 AM

LONDON (AFP) - A British local authority has erected road signs in Polish to cater for growing numbers of drivers from the eastern European country. Full story here.

Apparently the anti 'politically correct' are up in arms about this. Now normally, I'm the first to campaign against this sort of thing - I'm certainly against signs in Spanish being put up all over New York.

But the fact is, a large number of the Spanish speaking immigrants to America are illegal. To pander to their needs by supplying signs in their native language is ridiculous. REAL immigrants (like myself) have to prove a working knowledge of English (I just scraped through.) However, like immigration and even criminal laws, this is another American law that illegal immigrants seem to think doesn't apply to them.

It's a completely different story in England.

We're part of the European Union. Polish, Dutch, Spanish... Whatever EU nation you're from, you have FULL rights to live and work in England. Britain is no longer a truly sovriegn nation. We're part of something bigger - Europe.

If the Polish immigrants number sufficently to make Polish signs a requirement - they should be erected. It's NO DIFFERENT to there being signs in English all across France, to cater to the growing number of Brits who've had enough of England and decided to head abroad.

Giving Terrorists Exactly What They Want

2007-02-15T03:41:00.000-08:00

Spain on edge as Madrid train bomb trial begins
Thursday February 15, 07:29 AM

MADRID (Reuters) - Twenty-nine people go on trial in Spain on Thursday charged over the 2004 Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people, and triggered the fall of the government and the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. Full story here.

There's that old saying: "We don't negotiate with terrorists."

That's because terrorism normally has an aim, and if you capitulate, terrorists realise than violence is a legitimate means to achieve their ambitions.

The March 2003 bombings in Spain were an unmitigated disaster as far as the War on Terror went. 191 people were killed and more than 2,000 wounded when Muslim terrorists blew up satchel bombs on the rush hour metro system.

As a result, the Spanish people protested, the right-wing government fell and the Spanish army was withdrawn from the Iraq war.

Al Queda learned an important lesson. Violence gets results in Spain.

As is being revealed in the court case in Madrid, the 2003 bombings were a result of Osama Bin Laden's call his followers to strike at Spain, for it's role in the Iraq war. The fact that the bombings led directly to a withdrawal of Spanish troops makes Al Queda's cowardly strike nothing short of a stunning victory.

It's disappointing, but understandable. In the face of such a brutal terrorist attack, I can understand the Spanish people being deeply wary of their role in the Iraq war. But by withdrawing, they folded to Al Queda's bullying and confirmed to the terrorists that their violent tactics worked.

Thanks to Spanish people's reaction, Al Queda now knows that terror attacks in Europe are an effective means to achieve their goals. God help us all.

STABBED! For being ginger...

2007-02-13T08:05:00.000-08:00

Man stabbed over 'ginger hair'

A 20-year-old man has been stabbed in the back after an argument over his ginger hair. Full story here.

I've mentioned several times how having ginger hair places you in a very nasty situation. In this ridiculous country, you can't even enjoy a pint without some clod swaggering over to you and sneering: "Oi, Ginger."

I've backed down from confrontations several times - but this shocking story reveals that I'm not the only person to have dealt with this curiously British racism.

Surely that's what it is - racism. How come the attacker hasn't been jailed for committing a hate crime, like he would have been if he'd attacked somebody for being black or Asian?

BBC threatens strike - News Team faces Layoffs

2007-02-09T07:46:00.000-08:00

BBC staff to strike over pay

Friday February 9, 03:42 PM

BBC workers are to stage a 24-hour strike in a row over pay which unions warned would seriously disrupt news programmes.

The broadcasting workers union Bectu said the walkout will be held on February 26 after members voted in favour of industrial action.

The dispute involves job cuts, with unions saying they were determined to avoid compulsory redundancies. Full story here.

While the BBC is laying off members of the news teams, because they can't afford to pay them their modest wages, it's interesting to look at the salaries of some of the other personalities employed by the Beeb.

Terry Wogan, host of Radio 2's breakfast show, annually £800,000

Equivilent to more than 30 journalist's salaries.

Chris Moyles, host of Radio 1's breakfast show, is paid £630,000.

Equivilent to more than 30 entry level journalist's salaries.

Jonathan Ross earns £530,000 - for 52 days of work a year.

Jeremy Paxman is said to earn £1,040,000 for presenting Newsnight and University Challenge on BBC Two.

The fact that it's us, the British taxpayer, who pays for the BBC makes these salaries seem somewhat... inflated. To put things into perspective - 8254 people have to pay their licence fee just to balance Jeremy Paxman's salary.

Commercial radio and television stations simply cannot compete.

How and Why Extremist Islam is growing in England

2007-02-08T07:53:00.000-08:00

We do use books that call Jews 'apes' admits head of Islamic school

07.02.07

The principal of an Islamic school has admitted that it uses textbooks which describe Jews as "apes" and Christians as "pigs" and has refused to withdraw them. Full story here.

A Saudi run school in Acton, London, has cheerful textbooks brainwashing kids about the evil Judeo Christian subhumans.

Considering it took only a few weeks to brainwash the previously admirable blokes who became Britain's first suicide bombers, imagine what a hardcore hatred for Christians and Jews the students at this school must be developing?

THIS explains what's happening in Britain - how extremist Islam is clawing more and more of a foothold in 'this sceptered isle,' perverting and brainwashing the children of those muslims who came to England to escape the backwards governments of their native fundementalist muslim countries.

Those muslims came to England to seek a better life - yet some of their children are joining the ranks of those who want to tear down and destroy everything bright and positive about the country they escaped to.

Kuala Lampaur Summit - Mahathir Mohamad in spectacular hypocrisy

2007-02-05T09:14:00.000-08:00

Blair in dock at "house of horrors" summit

Monday February 5, 07:46 AM

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - About 2,000 peace activists applauded on Monday as the leaders of the United States and Britain were branded "fascist war criminals" at a conference featuring gruesome exhibits of their alleged crimes. Full article here.

Mahathir Mohamad, former premiere of Malaysia, who's regime was criticised for brutality and torture, hosted a conference in Kuala Lumpur today in which he accused Tony Blair and George Bush of war crimes.

In order to maintain complete impartiality and objective bias, a macabre 'house of horrors' was set up for the 2,000 so called 'peace activists' at the summit to enjoy, including scenes depicting torture at Guantanamo Bay, including scenes of nails being driven into prisoner's flesh.

Speakers at the conference included former U.S. lawmaker Cynthia McKinney and former U.N. assistant secretary-general Hans von Sponeck, who obviously assumed the allegations of torture must be true if an unrepentant torturer like Mahathir Mohamad was making them.

It's laughable, if it wasn't so distasteful.

This former brutal torturer has made a fairground ride based around the fictional crimes of the USA's and UK's leaders (the torture scenes represented weren't just exaggerated - they were fictional.) We're supposed to take his allegations seriously?

I'm no fan of Guantanamo Bay, which is disgustingly unAmerican. The Abu Gharib scandal was a wound that will forever scar the American conscience. But instead of using evidence of actual wrong doings, Mahathir Mohamad prefers the safety of propaganda and lies.

If Cynthia McKinney and Hans von Sponeck really want to help sort out the mess in the middle east, they'd be better off associating with the people who matter, not discredited Media Circus performers like Mahathir Mohamad.

Example of Media Bias #5 - The BBC again...

2007-02-05T08:04:00.000-08:00

I found a wonderful article about the BIAS at the BBC, written by Tom Gross.

Check it out here.

And a small tidbit:

THE BBC makes many good programs when it comes to drama, comedy, sport, and science. But its enormous news division — by far the world's biggest — is another story. Using lavish public funding (courtesy of the British taxpayer) and an unprecedented worldwide news reach (its radio service alone, broadcasting in 43 languages, attracts over 150 million listeners daily), it is — in blatant breach of its own charter — virtually conducting its own anti-American and anti-Israeli foreign policy. Anyone who doesn't agree with its policies (Tony Blair, for example) finds himself at the mercy of BBC news coverage.

Was this a racist attack?

2007-02-05T06:30:00.000-08:00

Murder's hit the headlines only a few miles from home, as a 15 year old was stabbed to death for apparently being a Chav in Totton, near Southampton.

Stabbed To Death For Being A 'Chav'
Monday February 5, 01:32 PM

The family of a schoolboy murdered after allegedly being called a "chav" have spoken of their devastation. Dele Little, 15, was stabbed near a Tesco store in West Totton Shopping Arcade, Hampshire, on Saturday evening. Police are investigating eyewitness reports that he was called a chav by a woman before he was attacked by a man who rode up on a motorcycle. Full story here.

As much as I loathe the repugnant 'Chav' movement that's created monsterous role models like Jade Goody, picking on somebody for the way they look - however they look - is horrible. Ironically, it's more the sort of crime in which you'd expect a Chav to be the perpetrator, not the victim.

I'm interested in how the police and media handle this. Was it a 'racist' attack? Certainly 'Chavs' aren't a race... But they're a very real and identifiable group. Sadly, though, I don't think the Hampshire Constabulary will handle it any differently to a normal murder. The victim was white - and apparently white people cannot be the victims of hate crimes.

This fifteen year old was murdered merely because he was a 'Chav.' And if that's not a hate crime, I don't know what is. I hope the police treat the murderer like the bigoted thug he plainly is and punish him just as harshly as if he'd shouted out abuse at a black person and murdered them because of the colour of their skin.

That'd be true racial equality.

British Values

2007-01-25T01:45:00.000-08:00

Schools to teach 'British values'
Thursday January 25, 09:28 AM

Ministers will unveil plans to teach teenagers core "British values" amid fears that schools are failing to convey a sense of national identity.

Schools dominated by white pupils should do more to foster good community relations and improve children's understanding of diversity, Education Secretary Alan Johnson will say. Full story here.

This got me thinking: What are British Values?

According to TV and newspapers at the moment, British values are:

1: Racist Bulling.
2: Rampant Looting.
3: Petty destruction and ASBOs.
4: Football hooliganism.
5: Suicide bombing.
6: Teenage pregnancy.
7: Binge drinking.

Sharia Law in the US?

2007-01-20T03:21:00.000-08:00

In a move that brings Michigan's legal system one step closer to Pakistan's, the state's appeal courts have been forced to rule that adultary is now a felony - punishable by up to life in prison.

Okay, so it falls a long way short of being stoned to death, as happens to adulterers (and rape victims) in parts of Pakistan, but even Judge William Murphy seemed amazed at his own court's decision.

"We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today," he admitted, "but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion."

Full story here.

In the mean time, residents of Michigan are advised to keep their noses clean.

Rick of Flooding! Hosepipe Ban Lifted!

2007-01-18T02:37:00.000-08:00

Two news stories that hit my desk at the same time today.

Weather warnings as storms batter Britain
Thursday January 18, 09:00 AM

Stormy weather is sweeping over parts of Britain with winds of up to 80mph forecast.

Western areas of the UK are already being battered and the storms are expected to hit most regions throughout the day. There is also a strong chance of flooding in the Midlands and north of England. Full story here.

Am I the only person who finds it ironic that this story was issued today as well?

Water firms lift hosepipe use bans
Thursday January 18, 04:24 AM

A hosepipe ban affecting more than 12 million people has been lifted.

The two-year drought, the worst for 73 years, has been declared over by four water companies. Full story here.

British Muslims

2007-01-17T12:03:00.000-08:00

In Woolwich Crown Court, the dark side of Islam in Britain is being carefully picked over, as six defendents face charges linked to their attempt to blow themselves up on the London Underground. Their crime took place just a week after more than 50 Londoners were murdered by Islamic Fundementalist suicide bombers.

But the tarnished image of Islam in Britain has a new champion.

Imam Sayed Bukhari, who preaches that suicide bombings are against Islamic Law, took the stand to give evidence against one of the bombers. Despite what must be incredible pressure from his community, this Imam has the guts to stand up and rail against the men who do terrible things in the name of his religion.

The Right Wing often claim a conspiracy of silence amongst the Muslim community, who conspicuously fail to criticise the killings and bombings commited in the name of Islam.

Finally, there is a brave British Muslim who is willing to breach that conspiracy. We should all appreciate his bravery.

Full story here.

Racial Profiling, Airport Security, Islamophobia

2007-01-17T09:14:00.000-08:00

The news today reported how "sensitive" a particular muslim passenger was when he and his friends were stopped at Heathrow and questioned.

But, of course! Stopping muslims at airports is RACIST! Stopping anybody else, whether they are black, brown, asian or white, is of course fine. But if you stop a muslim, it's RACIST.

The irony was that this particular muslim, Muktah Said Ibrahim, was later arrested after attempting to blow himself up on the London Underground, copying the suicide bombings that had killed fifty the week earlier.

Accused bomber raised suspicion at Heathrow
Wednesday January 17, 01:52 PM

LONDON (Reuters) - One of six men on trial for plotting to bomb London in 2005 was stopped at Heathrow seven months earlier and asked about his Muslim beliefs and why he was flying to Pakistan, a police witness said on Wednesday. Full story here.

It proves the ugly truth. The truth we're not allowed to speak, here in England. Political correctness has muzzled us from saying what Muktah Said Ibrahim's actions proved.

We need to stop and question more muslim travellers.

Add this horrific admission from Woolwich Crown Court to my previous report on why the Burka should be banned. Left wing political correctness is threatening all our lives. Not all muslims are terrorists - but all terrorists are muslim. If you DO NOT stop or questions them - or allow them to pass through airport security dressed in an all encompassing Burka - then it will not be long before the shocking events of 7th July are repeated.

It's ironic that the 'liberal left' are the ones muzzling us. The media groups who consider themselves the bastions of freedom of expression have insidiously prevented anybody from speaking up. We can't talk about the insanity of allowing a particular religious group to enjoy civil liberties none of the rest of us have. If we do, we're labelled RACIST. That alone is bad enough, but when you consider that this religious group contains elements responsible for Britain's first ever suicide bombing, it makes the madness seem fevered.

If you're a British person with white skin, or from an Eastern Asian blackground, or have parents who are Indian, you can expect to be stopped and questioned. I've spent my share of time being quizzed by immigration. But not if you're muslim. That's RACIST.

It's about time we stoped cow-towing to the outrageous demands of the Muslim community and made THEM adhear to the same restrictions we do. As equals.

And what could be racist about equality?

How Biased are the BBC?

2007-01-17T03:26:00.000-08:00

This is a real chestnut!

I have complained before that the BBC is highly biased and anti-American in it's news and editorial. These are allegations that have been growing in strength, even leading head of BBC News Helen Broaden to make the following statement:

"...we have admitted that we are an organisation of trendy, left-leaning liberals who are anti-American, biased against Christianity, in favour of multiculturalism, and staffed by people who wouldn’t know an unbiased fact if it hit them on the head." Quote taken ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT!

It is interesting to note, however, that the BBC is curiously economical with the facts.

For example, I was doing some research into a post I'm planning about the IRA and the way it's murderous actions have been curiously distorted or omitted in the United States. In doing so, I went to the BBC website and read their very interesting analysis of the Provisional IRA.

You can read it here.

Notice anything remarkable about it? How about the fact that it does not mention ANY of the violent bombings, murders or terrorist actions commited by the Provisional IRA. It's as if they didn't happen. Just a nice, fluffy Freedom Force fighting (non violently) for a united Ireland.

Compare that to the BBC analysis of the UDF/UAA - who they accurately hold responsible for 408 deaths.

Why report casualties caused by one side? But not the other?

The fact is, until September the 11th, the Provisional IRA was the most barbaric terrorist organisation in the world and committed acts which killed over 1,800 people - 621 of whom were civilians.

I think it's VERY telling that the BBC chose to detail the atrocities commited by one side and left out the murders commited by the other. Just further evidence of the bias in the BBC's reporting.

Dinish D'Souza - American Hero

2007-01-16T08:03:00.000-08:00

In WHAT’S SO GREAT ABOUT AMERICA by Dinesh D'Souza, American immigrant D'Souza writes an uplifting and stirring book outlining just a few of the things that make America the wonderful country it is.

This book is especially interesting since Dinish D'Souza is an immigrant to the United States, originally born in India. Somewhat controversially, I have often said it takes an immigrant to really appreciate the opportunities America offers and D'Souza does exactly that in this book.

It's a refreshing opinion, especially during a period in which America's left wing seems intent on blaming itself for the foriegn criticism targeted towards America.

Certainly, the United States is not a perfect country. D'Souza admits that, but clearly identifies the freedoms, ideals and opportunities he discovered and appreciated when he arrived in America.

Part of this book's appeal comes from D'Souza's unique point of view. I recommend it to any disillusioned American. By reading What's So Great About America, it's difficult not to gain a new appreciation and perspective on this wonderful country.

Dinesh D'Souza - American Taliban

2007-01-16T07:40:00.000-08:00

In THE ENEMY AT HOME:THE CULTURAL LEFT AND ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR 9/11 by Dinesh D'Souza, unmitigated know-it-all and self publicist D'Souza does just what the conservatives have been accusing the liberals of doing and turns the blame for 9/11 in on itself.

According to him, the 'debauched' left wing liberals of America are responsible for 9/11 and all other terrorist attacks on America and her people. And he says the War on Terror is fought on two fronts. Destroying Al Queda and also stamping out decadent and disgusting behaviour at home.

I think this is a truly disgusting book and it's opinion is repellent. Just like the liberals who try to blame terrorism on American foreign policy, D'Souza is missing the point entirely.

There is no justification for the murder of 3,000 people. The moment you blame somebody else, you take the blame off the Islamic Fundamentalists. It's blatantly apparent that D'Souza shares more in common with the fundementalists than with free, democratic Americans. In fact, he even concludes his essay with: "American conservatives should join the Muslims."

The American Taliban is here.

American Taliban - Fundamentalism's the Problem, not Religion

2007-01-16T02:45:00.000-08:00

Via Jenn of the Jungle's blog, I was led to an interesting blog by a man who identifies himself as a 21st century Kashmiri Nomad.

It's interesting because these are the thoughts and opinions of an intelligent, literate Muslim and his take on the modern world. This is an interesting perspective because my opinions are centurist, leaning towards the right and the only other political blog I regularly read are Jenn of the Jungle's unabashedly right wing rants - fighting P.C. B.S.

That's Politically Correct Bull Shit, for the benefit of the uninitiated.

By visiting Kashmiri's blog, I get an entirely unique perspective on things. And I agree with very little of it. Many of the people who comment on his blog make references to fundamentalist propaganda, such as the idea that George Bush and the 'Zionist Illuminati' organised 9/11. Basically, amongst a certain Muslim circle, lies such as those are accepted as fact.

However, Kashmiri is an interesting and intelligent writer and before being led off via lies and half truths, he touches on some valid points.

One such post was entitled Christofascism: Christianity's Little Secret.

In it, he rails against the commonly used (and perfectly valid) term Islamofascism. In retaliation, he suggests that there is an equally valid argument regarding fascist behaviour by Christian groups.

So far so good, because it's true.

That's where Kashmiri loses it, though. Instead of exploring the very real issues raised by Christian Fundementalism, he throws up Hitler as an example of Christofascism. Which is enormously ironic because Hitler was a lapsed Catholic who reinvented religion for his own purposes. According to him, Jesus "recognized the Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them!" Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922, published in My New Order, quoted in Free thought Today April 1990

Come on, Adolf. We all know Jesus was a Lover, not a Fighter.

Hitler's a terrible and inappropriate example of Christian Fundementalism. It's blatantly apparent that Kashmiri was in a toss up between using facts (which I shall discuss shortly) or hoisting up Hitler hoping that the great dictator's name would cover his lack of research by delivering the immediate revulsion he was aiming for.

Lazy, Kashmiri. Shame on you.

The irony is that Christofascism exists. There is a growing body of Christian Fundamentalism in the heartland of America and their beliefs have earned them the terrifying nickname: American Taliban. You'd think Kashmiri might have actually done some research into them.

The American Taliban are a reactionary movement that believes life and government should be dictated in accordance with the bible, not by the tenants of Freedom and Democracy and the American Constitution.

"Do you realize that the only thing that gives democracy existence is sin? The absence of democracy is perfect obedience to God." Robert T. Lee, Society for the Practical Establishment of the Ten Commandments.

Despite the fact that the founding fathers themselves, the men who gave birth to the United States of America, dictated that there should be a clear division between Church and State - the American Taliban believe this division is their greatest enemy.

"Anybody that believes in separation of church and state needs to leave right now." Star Parker, Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education.

"There should be absolutely no 'Separation of Church and State' in America." David Barton, Wallbuilders.

No pluralism for them. No tolerance. None of that: "All Men are Created Equal" crap. America shouldn't be the wonderful, beautiful cultural melting pot it thankfully is now.

In the terrifying words of former President George Bush (Snr:)

"I don't know that atheists [and I assume non-Christians] should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

I find it ironic that the enemy we're facing in the War on Terror shares a common goal with America's religious heartland. The total extermination of all other religion.

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." Randall Terry (Operation Rescue)

Consider that opinion. Compare those words in comparison to the opinion of Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic: "There can be no peace or coexistence between Islamic faith and non-Islamic faith and institutions. The Islamic movement must and can take power as soon as it is morally and numerically strong enough, not only to destroy the non-Islamic power, but to build up a new Islamic one." From his book 'Muslim Declaration'

Basically, they share a common goal. The destruction or conversion of everybody who does not follow their religious beliefs.

That's not the only opinion the Islamofascists and the American Taliban share. We in the 'civilized' west often attack Islam for their treatment and opinion of women. The fundamentalists especially treat their womenfolk disgustingly.

British journalist Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan, points out that "radical Islamists preach death to gays, the subjugation of women and the stoning of adulterers."

Match that to Presidential Candidate Pat Buchanan's thoughts: "Rail as they will about 'discrimination,' women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism." He REALLY ought to meet my wife, mother, sister, sister in law, other sister in law AND mother in law before he spouts off this kind of stuff!

How about Pastor Fred Phelp's views on homosexuality: "Not only is homosexuality a sin, but anyone who supports fags is just as guilty as they are. You are both worthy of death."

Or Californian congressman Bob Dornan: "Don't use the word 'gay' unless it's an acronym for 'Got Aids Yet'"

Thank goodness stoning doesn't happen in America. But Lester Roloff, founder of Texas Homes for Wayward Youth, had this to say about corporal punishment: "Better a pink bottom than a black soul." Ironic, perhaps, that he was jailed twice for child abuse carried out in his Texas Homes.

No, it appears the opinions and laws of Christian Fundamentalism are awfully close to the opinions and laws of Islamic Fundamentalism. Medieval, basically.

That's another horrific trait that both Christian Fundamentalism and Islamic Fundamentalism share. The abhorrance of progress.

In Islamic society, education and science is outlawed unless it matches what's decreed in Sharia law. For the Christian fundamentalists?

"When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data." Henry Morris Founder, Institute for Creation Research, died 2006

Fundamentalism, whether it's Christian or Muslim, worships the Cult of Ignorance.

Consider how terrifying that is, when you hear the words of James Watt, Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan administration and responsible for National Policy regarding the Environment: "We don't have to protect the environment. The Second Coming is at hand."

Islamic Fundamentalism rails against free thought and opinion. This is why they dominate the lives of young Muslims, in order to indoctrinate and brainwash them before exposure to the real world shows the horrible and inhuman flaws in the values they have been taught.

Christian Fundamentalism does exactly the same thing. In the recently documentary Jesus Camp, it's possible to see this brainwashing in action, as children as young as five become 'born again' Christians.

Finally, there's the most important link between Islamic Fundamentalism and Christian Fundamentalism. Acts of violence.

I don't need to outline the number of murders committed by fundamentalists in the name of Islam. Every day, in Iraq and Israel, people are murdered by suicide bombers. Less that two years ago, brainwashed British Muslims murdered more than fifty in the London Underground. On the 9th September 2001, 3,000 were murdered by fundamentalists in hijacked planes.

But Christian fundamentalism has spurred terrorism too. On a much smaller scale, admittedly, but bombings of abortion clinics and the murder of abortion workers are regularly committed by 'God's Soldiers.' Almost two thousand attacks have taken place in the last twenty years. At least five people have been killed by men and women who preach "Thous shalt not commit murder."

If Kashmiri Nomad had looked at all of this evidence and presented it, not a soul would have been able to deny that Christofascism exists. However he was too lazy and too blinded by his own narrow agenda.

The evidence I've presented outlines a sinister and dangerous situation. But when a tolerant and democratic society, like modern America, is faced by a heartless and cruel enemy like Islamofascism; is it not logical that an equally dangerous and powerful force rears it's head to combat the threat?

Some people, like Jesus Camp director Heidi Ewing, reported: "The difference [between us and the Islamofascists] is that Evangelicals do not need to strap on guns and bombs."

The question is: For How Long?

The fact is, while Islamofascism continues to rail against the forces of democracy, freedom and sanity, Christian Fundamentalism will gain strength and support. And as long as President George W. Bush relies so heavily on American Evangelicalism to buoy up his flagging support, the American Taliban will continue to grow and flourish.

BBC does Good! For once! Example of Biased Media #3

2007-01-15T07:30:00.000-08:00

First Magazine's Cover story:

Pete: I married Kate for her Soul!

The story? That Pete Docherty married Kate Moss because of her lovely soul.

The Bias? Come on! Surely I'm not the only one that read it as: "I married Kate for HER SOUL! Mwuh ha ha. Because I have NO SOUL OF MY OWN!"

AMENDMENT:

Continuing in the Docherty-as-schmuck vein, the BBC have finally done something I agree with.

Doherty banned from BBC kids' shows
Monday January 15, 02:35 PM
By WENN

Troubled rocker Pete Doherty is barred from BBC children's TV because the network's bosses don't believe he's a good role model for kids. Full story here.

I think Pete's not only a terrible role model for kids, he's a terrible example of how being rich and famous allows you to get away with anything. Despite being arrested countless times, for possession of cocaine, possession of heroin and even stealing a car, he's managed to escape jail. The moral of the story? Do whatever the hell you want, kids. If you've got a skinny girlfriend and a few record sales, you can get away with murder.

I think he's dirty and disgusting and I totally support the BBC on this (which is a position I didn't think I'd find myself in.)

Why the Burkha Should be Banned

2007-01-15T06:53:00.000-08:00

Accused 'fled London wearing burka'
Monday January 15, 12:34 PM

One of the alleged July 21 bombers fled London after the attempted attacks disguised as a woman wearing a burka, their trial heard.

Yassin Omar was captured on CCTV at Golders Green coach station in north London and at Birmingham coach station disguised in the traditional Muslim women's dress. Full story here.

If you're looking for a more damning reason why the traditional Muslim burka should be banned, you'll be hard pressed to find one.

A terrorist suspect escaped the country in a burka. Weeks after another murder suspect did exactly the same thing. Allowing people to pass through border security in an all-encompassing black sheet is simply incompatible with national security.

For example, CNN reporters including Daniel Pearl skipped through Iraq's borders dressed in burkas. I'm surprised the insurgents aren't as upset about the whole issue as I am!

No, the burka should be banned. Especially in Britain, after we suffered a terrifying small scale glimpse of what our very own 9/11 might look like.

Certainly the actions and beliefs of the suicide bombers represent only a tiny minority of British muslims. But while Britain tolerates this absurd outfit for the sake of the majority of muslims, it will be exploited by the minority - the killers and terrorists.

It should be banned.

This isn't a religious issue.

The whole thing reminded me, in fact, of The Saint in New York, in which Simon Templar dresses up in a Nun's habit and guns down a gangster on the steps of the City Courtroom. He sheds the black hood and robes and escapes without trace.

Whether they represent the Muslim faith or the Catholic one, all encompassing disguises have no place at security checkpoints. As the Chief of Police himself pointed out, you might as well allow people dressed as Pantomime Horses through.

Media Bias Example #2

2007-01-11T05:30:00.000-08:00

Reuters, reporting on the trial of the failed London suicide bombings.

"The deadly attacks on July 7 were the first by suicide bombers in Western Europe and the government has since increased security to prevent a repeat by home-grown Islamist militants, angered by domestic foreign policy." Full story here.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but I don't like this bit: "...angered by foreign domestic policy."

Why on earth does it matter WHY they did it?

What evidence is there to suggest that this was their motive?

It simply strikes me as a tiny, insidious little jab against Britain's foreign policy, while the issue of the trial is a matter of law, not politics. They are supposed to be reporting facts, not speculating motivation.

As an advertising copywriter, I know just how powerful a few additional words can be. Those five words push this article into editorial, not reporting.

Tufts Professor arrested in Georgia

2007-01-11T03:05:00.000-08:00

Historian 'pinned to ground by US police and beaten for jaywalking'
By Laura Clout 11/01/2007

A distinguished British historian claims he was knocked to the ground by an American policeman before being arrested and spending eight hours in jail — because he crossed the road in the wrong place.

Prof Fernandez-Armesto after crossing the street in the wrong place

Felipe Fernandez-Armesto said he had been the victim of "terrible, terrible violence" after he inadvertently committed the offence of "jaywalking" in Atlanta, Georgia, last week and failed to realise the man telling him to stop was an officer. Full story here.

From my experiences in New York, I developed a generally positive opinion of US Cops. The whole organisation of the American police force is dramatically different to the UK, but I still feel it's effective. While Guilliani's 'zero tolerance' approach to crime in Manhattan was brutal enough to leave law abiding citizens fearing arrest (there was even an article in the New Yorker entitled: What to do if you're arrested) it was incredible effective at stopping crime.

But those strengths are also possible weaknesses.

Each 'county' has a police force. On Long Island, we had the Suffolk County Police, the Nassau County Police and of course the good ol' NYPD in Manhattan. Depending on the severity of the offence, you could cross a 'county line' and the police would no longer have jurisdiction to arrest you (just like in Dukes of Hazzard.)

Each localised police authority has deep roots in the local community. On Long Island, I know the police were generally seen as positive, sympathetic and effective. Their motto was: "Don't mistake kindness for weakness."

But these deep community roots can allow injustice to occur.

That's because localised police forces lack accountability. If a policeman steps out of line, his comrades will quickly close ranks to protect him. The local police force will stick tightly together and complaining about the conduct of a local officer will make an enemy of the entire county police force. Most people wouldn't dare do it. Hence most police misconduct goes unreported and unpunished.

That lack of accountability has sometimes given police officers an arrogant attitude.That's the root cause of this particular problem.

Our humble professor did not recognize that the man shouting curtly at him was a police officer. Therefore he did not show the officer the expected level of 'respect.' If he'd have simply doffed his cap, this would never have occured. Unfortuntely the professor didn't realise he was talking to a policeman and reacted how anybody would when confronted by a curt, angry and downright rude man.

We're lucky that the judge in question immediately saw the injustice that had occured and dropped the charges. But then, while police officers can sometimes be above the law, judges in America are more accountable than they are back in England.

The judiciary in America is elected locally, whereas British judges are 'selected' by parliament. Although that election process allows for corruption, it also means judges have to think very hard about how the voters will react to each judgement they make.

That's why justice was eventually done and hopefully the resultant investigation will punish the officer in question. He should have clearly identified himself. When the officer was asked by Fernandez-Armesto for ID, he shouldn't have taken offence at the statement. He should have clearly shown his badge.

The officer was clearly in the wrong and will deserve everything he has coming to him (although that will probably be just a slap on the wrist.)

The real moral of the story is to always treat American police officers with respect, as I'm sure Ferandez-Armesto would have done, if he'd known who the officer was.

While their conduct might sometimes seem brusque or even arrogant, Police Officers in America face a much more dangerous and challenging environment than their peers in England.

Concealed weapons are not the exception, they're the rule. You can understand why a man facing death every day might seem edgy.

And the real truth of the matter is this: Whilst they might come across as rude, every Police Officer in America is out there enforcing the law and protecting the public - and risking their lives to do it. We might complain about them in the day-to-day, but when we're attacked, or robbed, or wronged... We're damn glad to see them.

European Media Bias

2007-01-09T12:23:00.000-08:00

Example of possible media bias...

"Many dead" in U.S. strike at al Qaeda in Somalia
Tuesday January 9, 07:28 PM

MOGADISHU (Reuters) - Many people were killed in Somalia in a U.S. air strike targeting al Qaeda suspects among fleeing Islamist fighters, Somali officials said on Tuesday.

The U.S. strike, part of a wide offensive also involving Ethiopian planes, was apparently [why insert the word 'apparently?' Even if that's not who they hit, this was their declared target. There's nothing 'apparent' about it.] aimed at an al Qaeda cell said to include suspects in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in east Africa and a hotel on the Kenyan coast.

A Somali elder or traditional leader reported a second U.S. air attack on Tuesday that killed up to 27 people but that could not be confirmed by other sources. [So why is it included in this report?] Full article here.

Gas Leak in New York: Never Trust What The Authorities Tell You

2007-01-09T03:46:00.000-08:00

NY gas smell sends 7 to hospital
Mon Jan 8, 2007 8:20 PM GMT

By Daniel Trotta

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A powerful, mysterious smell of natural gas wafted over much of Manhattan and parts of New Jersey on Monday, forcing building evacuations and a temporary suspension of commuter train service before dissipating.

Seven people were hospitalized in New Jersey, just across the Hudson River from New York, even though Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the odour was not dangerous and no unusual gas leaks had been found. Full story here.

So why were they hospitalised, then?

Part of me believes that this is nothing to worry about and the NJ residents being admitted to hospital suffered nothing worse than good old fashioned American hypochondria...

But with seven people in hospital, it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence when Bloomberg promises "there's nothing to worry about."

Conspiracy Against Milk

2007-01-09T02:53:00.000-08:00

Oh, I know... It sounds crazy. But I'm increasingly believing that there is a conspiracy against milk - and diary products as a whole.

Now I don't actually drink that much milk. I certainly wouldn't normally drink a glass of it. I occasionally use it to make scrambled eggs or in a very rare hot chocolate, but I have my coffee black. In fact, we buy about two pints a week and often have to pour some of it down the sink before it goes bad.

But I like milk. What's more, I like butter and cheese. Having grown up on a farm, with happy, healthy cows, I like milk entirely and think it's a healthy food full of calcium and vitamins and a great source of calories for busy, growing people.

But milk is increasingly frowned upon as a foodstuff. Websites like Notmilk have even popped up. Here's what they have to say about the White Stuff.

"Among children [milk causes problems of] allergy, ear and tonsillarinfections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colicand childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seem centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy,sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia,lymphoma and cancer."

They even hit us with:

"More ominous is the fear of viral infection with bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as concern for childhood diabetes."

This information comes from a letter written by Robert M. Kradjian, MD, a Californian Doctor. He cites 500 documents to support his beliefs - yet gives no reference in the letter to any of them.

The fact is, I think this is just another medical conspiracy coming out of California - the birthplace of quack science.

The fact is, Milk is a highly calorific food substance with plenty of life's building blocks in it. Milk is 'designed' for infants to consume, providing them with a huge wodge of essential energy and developmental materials quickly and easily.

In today's food-rich environment, we should be aware of how many calories we consume (the daily recommendation is 2,500) and how many of these we receive from fat, carbohydrate and protein. But we do need all three of these substances to function correctly - even fat. And milk is an excellent source of it. As long as it's consumed in moderation, milk is a good food substance, not the evil substance this ridiculous website claims it is.

But are the milk fascists furthering their ridiculous claims? This highly credible story was published today:

Milk cancels health benefit of drinking tea
Tuesday January 9, 05:47 AM

LONDON (Reuters) - Drinking tea can reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke but only if milk is not added to the brew, German scientists said on Tuesday.

Research has shown that tea improves blood flow and the ability of the arteries to relax but researchers at the Charite Hospital at the University of Berlin in Mitte found milk eliminates the protective effect against cardiovascular disease. Full article here.

Gas leak in Manhattan? Smells Fishy...

2007-01-08T09:07:00.000-08:00

New York gas smell shuts trains
Monday January 8, 03:53 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The smell of gas throughout much of Manhattan forced the evacuation of buildings and the suspension of a commuter train service on Monday, authorities and media reported.

There were no immediate reports of injuries. Full story here.

This is all rather worrying.

With the smell spreading across almost the entirity of midtown Manhattan, buildings and office blocks have been evacuated. Initial reports say there's no risk to human life.

But what is it?

What with the mysterious lorry being stopped in Miami yesterday, the entire East Coast is surely on high alert.

European Media is Biased and Misleading.

2007-01-08T02:05:00.000-08:00

Court drops charges against Saddam
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq -

Saddam Hussein's trial for the killing of 180,000 Kurds in the 1980s resumed Monday with the late dictator's seat empty, nine days after he went to the gallows. The court's first order of business was to drop all charges against Saddam. Full story here.

Okay, take a deep breath. It's not what you think.

Saddam was charged with crimes that took him to the gallows - but those weren't the only crimes he commited. But why continue to prove his guilt for further crimes when Saddam's already dead and buried?

So the rest of the charges will be dropped. It doesn't mean he's innocent of them.

My annoyance with this story is how misleading it is.

Given top billing on the BBC and Yahoo Europe, a day after Blair apparently complained about the manner of Saddam's death, it suggests that the charges which led to Saddam's execution were dropped. If nobody bothered to read beyond the headline, they'd understandably be lead to believe that dropping these charges resulted in the execution of an 'innocent' man.

For some reason, the European media has fallen in line behind the dead dictator. Sure, I disagree with the death penalty and have problems with the legitimacy of his trial - but Saddam was a monster and deserved to die. I will not waste any effort trying to vilify the son of a bitch.

Miscarriages of justice occur far too often. Let's save the energy to help the innocent and the alive, not the guilty and dead.

Hanging of Saddam Hussein was Immoral

2007-01-07T14:24:00.000-08:00

Blair critical of hanging scenes
BBC Sunday 7th January 2006

Saddam Hussein was hanged after a lengthy trial. Tony Blair believes the manner in which Saddam Hussein's execution was conducted was "completely wrong", his official spokesman has said.

Mobile phone footage showed Saddam Hussein was taunted before the hanging. Full story here.

Oh, I'm TERRIBLY SORRY.

I wasn't given the memo telling me that I should CARE.

The Butcher of Baghdad, who killed thousands and tortured thousands more, via rape, beatings whippings, eletrical torture... We're suddenly meant to feel sorry for him?

Give me a Goddamned break. Why the hell is this the top story on the BBC? Please, do I need to convince anybody else that this outdated media dinosaur has a diabolical bias to it's reporting?

The murdering old bastard is DEAD. End of.

Detained at Miami

2007-01-07T13:47:00.000-08:00

3 detained trying to enter Port of Miami
By KELLI KENNEDY, Associated Press

MIAMI - Three men were caught trying to slip past a checkpoint in a cargo truck Sunday at the Port of Miami, said authorities, who increased security at the busy trade hub.

A port security officer became suspicious when the truck driver could not produce proper paperwork to enter the port about 8 a.m., Miami-Dade Police Detective Richard Williams said.

The driver also indicated he was alone in the truck.

Officers searched the truck and found two men in the cab trying to hide, Williams said.

The three men — two Iraqis and one Lebanese national who are legal permanent U.S. residents — were taken into custody for questioning. They had not been arrested or charged by Sunday afternoon.

The men do not appear on any terrorist watch list, said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez. Full article here.

Three men, stopped at the border for breaking regulations.

Having been halted myself at JFK and turned around by the US Immigrations, I know that it takes but a minor discrepancy or oversight to dissatisfy their strict regulations.

But American immigration regulations are in place for a reason. In 2001, nineteen Arabic men who were legally resident in the United States hijacked three aircraft and murdered - there is no other word for it - 3,000 people.

It puts perspective on this case. These three men, all Middle Eastern, were obviously up to no good. You don't try to sneak into a restricted border area if you've got Permanent Residency. There was a reason why these men tried to pull a fast one and thank Goodness the Immigration Officials at the US Ports are on the case.

The three middle eastern men were in a truck. What's in the truck?

What did they have to hide that involved two legal residents of the USA being willing to risk deportation?

I dread to think.

More news as we have it.

Was Gerald Washington Murdered?

2007-01-06T07:56:00.000-08:00

La. mayor's death sparks controversy
By DOUG SIMPSON, Associated Press Writer Sat Jan 6, 6:39 AM ET

WESTLAKE, La. - In the hours before his death on the evening of Dec. 30, the first black mayor of this overwhelmingly white town started learning his new job.

About noon, he set City Hall's alarm system for the first time. He got instructions on how to raise and lower the U.S. flag. He had already ordered a new mayoral letterhead with his name on it and a button-down shirt embroidered "Gerald Washington, Mayor."

A few hours later he indulged in a hobby, placing a $4 bet at a nearby horse racing track.

But by 10 p.m. Gerald "Wash" Washington was dead in the deserted parking lot of a former high school, a bullet wound in his chest. His gun was found by the body. Full story here.

New Orleans, Louisiana.

Still on of the hottest points in U.S. politics at the moment.

After Hurricane Katrina, the government response to the tragedy was underwhelming. Overnight, the first world became the third and the ugly reality of human nature was revealed as law and order disappeared and murder, rape and robbery became the harsh reality on the streets of New Orleans.

Starkly highlighted were the underlying racial tensions. Most of the white population could afford to evacuate the city. The black population were unable or unwilling to abandon their homes. They were the ones hit by the disaster.

Now the city is rebuilding, but the damage has been done.

With victims and villains on both side of the colour barrier, it was a controversial moment when African American Gerald Washington became the first black mayor of Westlake, La - a suburb of New Orleans.

A charismatic Vietnam vet, Gerald Washington's election heralded changes. And within a day of beginning office, he was dead.

In Mossville, a nearby town where he'd attended school.

Cause of death? A bullet wound to the chest. Weapon? A gun, a pearl handled revolver, lying by his body. The gun was registered to Mayor Washington.

The police have called his death a suicide. But why should an apparently happy man, just beginning a promising new job, kill himself?

Powder burns on the body indicate Washington was killed by a point blank shot to the chest. But how many people commiting suicide shoot themselves in the chest, rather than the head?

And why was Washington in the car park of his old school?

As if the Mayor's death didn't raise enough questions, the swiftness in which local police are attempting to wrap up the investigation suggests something smells fishy.

And it's not the delicious Louisiana seafood.

Postive Benefits of Immigration

2007-01-04T02:11:00.000-08:00

Immigrants behind 25 percent of startups
By RACHEL KONRAD, AP Technology Writer Wed Jan 3, 6:55 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO - Foreign-born entrepreneurs were behind one in four U.S. technology startups over the past decade, according to a study to be published Thursday.

A team of researchers at Duke University estimated that 25 percent of technology and engineering companies started from 1995 to 2005 had at least one senior executive — a founder, chief executive, president or chief technology officer — born outside the United States. Full article here.

Illegal Immigration is a real problem in America and needs to be dealt with - but this article is one in the eye for the right wing loonies who call for a reduction (or stop altogether) in legitimate immigration to America.

As an American immigrant, I can fully appreciate the wonderful opportunities America offers. Sadly, I can probably only dream to join the ranks of these succesful foreign-born businessmen, who generated a whopping $52 BILLION to the American economy in 2005.

America has always been a melting pot for immigrants. America doesn't exist as an ethnicity or race. It's an ideal. It's the dream that you can be whoever and whatever you want. And for most, the dream might never come true. But contrary to popular belief, you can live off dreams and aspirations as long as they continue to drive you forward.

In England, it's all about the status quo. It's about 'knowing your place.' Those who aspire to be better are frowned upon and dismissed. We're all too self concious to dare to dream.

I think the feeling that I could shed my inhibitions and wallow in ambition was one of the things that made me fall in love with America. As this article shows, I'm not the only immigrant who believes whole heartedly in the American Dream, even if it always remains elusively beyond my grasp.

Cheese is Unhealthy

2007-01-04T01:31:00.000-08:00

TV ban on adverts for cheese, the latest 'junk food'
3rd January 2007

Cheese is to be treated as junk food under new advertising rules for children's television.

Commercials promoting it will be banned during children's TV programmes and those with a large proportion of young viewers. Full article here.

What. The. Hell.

My God, this ridiculous country annoys me sometimes. And lumping cheese in with hamburgers and crisps as an 'unhealthy' food is just one more nail in the coffin of common sense.

The reasoning is thus: Foods are measured on their 'healthiness' based on the salt, sugar and fat contents in a 100g serving. But nobody sits down and eats 100g of cheese in one sitting (except the French, and they're all skinny.)

Cheese is actually incredibly good for you. Very rich in protein, calcium and phospherus. And while cheese is blamed for the increase in heart disease in America (the average American eats 30lbs of cheese per year) that's obviously rubbish, since the average French person eats 45lb of the stuff each year and they have a much lower rate of heart disease.

Some studies have even shown that some cheese, like chedder, mozzerella, Swiss and American, can help prevent tooth decay.

Cheese is great and kids should be eating more of it, not less.

Those Danish Cartoons

2007-01-03T06:17:00.000-08:00

British Muslim regrets cartoon demo outburst
Wednesday January 3, 01:52 PM

LONDON (Reuters) - A British Muslim said on Wednesday he regretted calling for the United States and Denmark to be bombed during a protest in London last year against publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad. Full article here.

Damn right he 'regrets' it. If the British legal system still has any teeth left, this murderous bastard's going to have his ass nailed to the wall for what he said.

I think we've gone past the stage in which religious extremists can hold up their hands after the fact and say: "I didn't mean it."

When they were preaching hate in mosques in Leeds, somebody did mean it. And that led to four British born muslims strapping bombs to themselves and killing fifty people in the July suicide bombings.

There are angry, stupid, brainwashed people out there who listen to these hate filled rants and are prepared to act on what they hear. This is no longer an issue of "freedom of expression." If somebody calls for bombings, they should be held accountable for their words and punished accordingly.

Jewish Fundementalism

2007-01-02T05:01:00.000-08:00

Orthodox Jews trash prison vehicle over electronic tagging
Tuesday January 2, 10:43 AM

JERUSALEM (AFP) - Crowds trashed a prison vehicle in an Israeli city in a row over the electronic tagging of an Orthodox Jewish man.

Prison officers went to Bnei Brak after they stopped receiving signals from the high-tech device that local rabbis decreed could not be worn on a Saturday, the Jewish sabbath, the Yediot Aharonot newspaper said Tuesday. Full article here.

This makes a change! Lunatic demands made by angry radicals... But this time, it's not the Muslim Fundementalists throwing their toys out of their prams. It's the Orthodox Jews.

The shabbat is the Jewish holy day and some sects of Judiasm insist that their followers refrain from using all modern devices and conveniences, such as cars, trains, light switches... Everything.

In New York City, the clever residents have a work-around - a Shabbas Goy, who is a gentile willing to do the work, be that press the elevator button or switch on the lights, for the observant jew in question.

But no such sensibilities out in the middle east.

A criminal, under house arrest for commiting violence in the name of religious extremism, refused to wear an electronic tagging device because it violated the shabbat.

Just like we've witnessed recently with the extreme fringe of Islam, religious fundementalists seem to think that the demands of their religion outway the laws and rules of their native countries - and in the case of violent criminals, the safety of the general public, too.

As a civilised and tolerant society, the west should be willing to accomodate what demands and beliefs certain religions require - as long as they do not infringe on general human rights, civil liberties, existing laws and regulations or the safety of the general public.

Whatever their religion, people who think their beliefs raise them above the law should not be tolerated.

British Trains are Awful and Expensive

2007-01-02T01:16:00.000-08:00

Fares increasing 'to ease rail overcrowding'
Tuesday January 2, 08:32 AM

The Government has been accused of driving up rail fares in an attempt to ease overcrowding on the network after prices rose by more than inflation for the fourth successive year. Full article here.

Maybe I'm just getting grumpy, but one of the things that's always annoyed me about Britain are the trains.

Slow. Expensive. Unreliable. Public transport in this country is a complete joke. It costs £40 return to go to London from Winchester. For that money, you could travel from Paris to Nice on a train that goes at over 200mph.

The railways are just in a shocking state. But our government has been increasing tax on petrol and cars in order to inspire more people to use public transport and ease the gridlock on our roads (try driving into Winchester on the M3 at 8:30am on a Monday.)

And then we hear the government is hiking up fares to decrease overcrowding... What the hell?

Yes, there is overcrowding on the trains. Catching an express up to London during rush hour is like being squeezed into a smelly sardine tin (with music provided by a hundred zillion Nokias going off every five minutes.)

But the alternative is... Well, not driving. If you drive up to London in takes hours and then you have to pay a whopping £8 Congestion Charge to that itinerate crook Ken Livingston. Plus, if you can find parking in Central London that costs less that £40 a day, you're still living in 1984.

The fact is, there are no alternatives.

The government doesn't seem to realise that if you hike up the prices on both routes into the city, you ARE going to cut overcrowding - by making it too prohibitively expensive to travel.

Like so many recent government solutions, these policies seem to have been instigated by people who have simply no idea how the real world works.

Now I'm no socialist, but I honestly believe the mistake was in privatising the railways. In France, the government sponsored SNCF, the Syndicate National Chemin de Fer, runs an incredibly efficient railway system that provides quick, reliable and affordable transport across the nation. The ability to shift freight quickly and inexpensively by rail has reduced corporate dependance on lorries and trucks and helps keep the well maintained roads clearer.

In New York - in the heart of the most capitalist nation in the world - the public transport is run by the Metropolitan Transport Authority. A public benefit corporation which still manages to profitably offer affordable and reliable public transport into and out of New York City and the surrounding areas. NJ Transit is the New Jersey authority responsible for offering cheap and regular trains into the city from the suburbs of the Garden State.

It just strikes me that if the most aggresively socialist nation in the West and the most aggresively capitalist nation in the West can both get their heads around providing cheap and affordable rail transport, why the hell can't we?

Britain led the world in rail after the industrial revolution... But now our rail infrastructure is in a shocking state. SOMETHING needs to be done - but driving another nail into the coffin by hiking up the fares is not the answer.

Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

2007-01-01T03:08:00.000-08:00

Saddam Hussien missed 2007 by hours.

If there was ever anybody who deserved to die, it was him. But does his death change anything? The insurgency in Iraq is still as strong as ever and still turning people against the American and British troops bringing democracy to a country that apparently doesn't want it.

Global terrorism still hangs over us. President Bush's quote of the year was: "You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." - Interview with CBS News. That suggests that Saddam's death does not bring us any closer to safety.

It all seemed a bit of an anti-climax, really. A tired old man, shuffling forward with quiet dignity while a noose was wrapped around his neck. This was the ranting, genocidal maniac? The one who'd slaughtered thousands of Kurds without a second thought?

Bet it's warm where he's going, though.

The Gay Black Jew

2006-12-21T09:01:00.000-08:00

I seem to be stealing a lot from Jenn of the Jungle recently, but this was an interesting site she discovered, the Gay Black Jew.

The Gay Black Jew is not gay, black or Jewish. However, he monikers himself as such to position his essay on why religion is bad.

Organised religion has a lot to answer for, I'll admit. But Gay Black Jew's final conclusions are all wrong and he finished off by playing that God-awful, overrated, overplayed John Lennon monstrosity: "Imagine."

According to Gay Black Jew, if religion was abolished:

1) Terrorism would NEVER happen
2) Iraq would quickly stabilize and troops would go home, leaving a democracy
3) The Middle East would be at peace!
4) Poor and elderly people would not give money to churches or televangelists that they cannot afford
5) Churches could be used 7 days/week as homeless shelters instead of a couple days a week for mass
6) Billions would not suffer psychological damage from unnecessary guilt about human behavior that is natural: masturbation, premarital sex, etc.
7) Abortion would not be the divisive issue that warps American politics
8) People could live in the moment instead of worrying about prospects for an after-life...think John Lennon's classic, "Imagine," which contains the lyric, "And no religion too..."
9) Homophobia would become rare and anti-Semitism as well
10) Considering that most black people go to black churches and white people to white churches, race relations would likely improve
12) Stem cell research wouldn't even be an issue and scientists would be closer to medical breakthroughs
13) I could go on and on...but John Lennon says it best in his song Imagine.

Well, Gay Black Jew. Here's what I say in response:

1) Terrorism would NEVER happen

Utter rubbish. Did you really buy the 'Catholics versus Protestant' explanation for the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland? Or was it actually a territorial dispute for ownership of the province? How about the Basque seperatist movement? That's not religiously inspired, either. In fact, religion is generally a smokescreen for terrorism, not it's root cause.

2) Iraq would quickly stabilize and troops would go home, leaving a democracy

Please. Are you delusional? Dictatorship is not a religious issue. Castro is dictator over in Cuba and he's a communist. If there was no religion... It would be the ethnicity of the various factions that caused the to fight, rather than their religion. Again, utter, utter rubbish.

3) The Middle East would be at peace!

Again, territorial disputes, fight for control of oil reserves and ethnic conflict would ensure that the Middle East would always be a war zone. You can't have such a divide between poverty and wealth and not expect friction. Utter, utter rubbish.

4) Poor and elderly people would not give money to churches or televangelists that they cannot afford

Instead, as is proven every single day, they'd be conned out of their money by unscrupulous roofing merchants, time share salesmen and people selling hockey, quack medical treatments. The poor and elderly are vulnerable to exploitation, not religion. Utter, utter rubbish.

5) Churches could be used 7 days/week as homeless shelters instead of a couple days a week for mass

It depends who owns them. They could equally become schools, offices, factories... Warehouses... Or pulled down to build car parks. Ending religion doesn't mean everybody suddenly becomes a community minded socialist. Total, utter rubbish.

6) Billions would not suffer psychological damage from unnecessary guilt about human behavior that is natural: masturbation, premarital sex, etc.

What about the billions who are permanently drugged on unnecessary mood altering prescriptions? Or the people who are forced to go experience fictional 'recovered memory' by unscrupulous quacks and lawyers in order to give evidence in court? It's the nature of humanity to manipulate and misinform - not religion.

7) Abortion would not be the divisive issue that warps American politics

I personally believe that life starts the moment a child is conceived. However, I am pro-choice and think that a woman has the right to have that child or not - but if she does decide to abort, she should be in no doubt that she is killing her child. That's the dilemma - life and death. Not religion. In fact, Christians who oppose abortion sometimes paradoxically support the death penalty (which possibly indicates that they're just stupid.) It's nothing to do with religion and if religion disappeared, people would still fight against the right to abort unborn children.

8) People could live in the moment instead of worrying about prospects for an after-life...think John Lennon's classic, "Imagine," which contains the lyric, "And no religion too..."

If there was no religion, do you think people would suddenly be any more accepting of death? Probably not. The opposite, in fact. They'd be fighting and clamouring to prevent the blackness and oblivion. If it all just 'ends' then surely the point of life is to hold off that moment as long as possible.

9) Homophobia would become rare and anti-Semitism as well

How can somebody be anti-Semitic if there's no religion? You can't suggest that abolishing religion is a solution to a problem if it's the very problem in the first place. But being Jewish is a race as well as a religion and if religion wasn't the reason for hatred, ethnicity might be.

10) Considering that most black people go to black churches and white people to white churches, race relations would likely improve.

What came first? Segregation or race? People live in 'black' parts of town or 'white' parts of town. Part of it's socio-economic. Part of it's just the desire to live with people 'like you.' I think you overestimate the influence church has on people's lives.

12) Stem cell research wouldn't even be an issue and scientists would be closer to medical breakthroughs

See what I said about abortion. It's an issue of life or death, not religion. You don't need to be religious to object to scientists 'playing God.' If you abolished God, wouldn't a scientist's desire to 'ct like one' be even more offensive.

13) I could go on and on...but John Lennon says it best...

When he shuts the hell up?

Gay Black Jew is a site ripe with contradictions. However, it's well written and amusing and many of the experiences that caused the author to create this site do show up the intolerance in modern society. I just think he's missing the point. It's not religion that causes the world's problems. It's people.

People are just horrible, horrible people.

Iraqi Soldiers Eat Rabbits and Frogs at Handover Ceremony

2006-12-21T03:52:00.000-08:00

Iraqi soldiers eat frogs, rabbit at handover ceremony
Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:06pm ET

By Claudia Parsons

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraqi soldiers bit the heads off frogs and ate the heart of a rabbit as signs of courage on Wednesday at a ceremony to transfer Najaf province, home to one of Shi'ite Islam's holiest shrines, from U.S. to Iraqi control. Full Article Here.

Jenn of the Jungle blogged about this and I didn't quite believe it at first.

Apparently killing and eating the animals is a "sign of courage" - because everybody knows how dangerous rabbits can be. Didn't you see The Holy Grail?

I think this is pretty good evidence that, when it comes to the Middle East, we ain't in Kansas any more, Toto. These are different people with different customs and a totally different way of doing things. They may have cars and RPG's and helicopters (none of which work, if you'll read the article) but these are essentially tribal people still living to tribal rules.

And that's how they'll remain if America and Britain pull the troops out of Iraq. We toppled Saddam, which is great. But unless we do what George Dubya says and 'stay the course,' there'll just be another dictator to take his place soon enough. Iraq is still a land ruled by the gun... Strength isn't measured in opinion polls. It's measured in the ability to command and to rule. And that's a process that has nothing to do with democracy.

I'll agree that bringing democracy and peace to Iraq isn't the job of our soldiers - but what they're doing will eventually benefit all of us. So we should all think about the challenges our soldiers are facing while they serve out there.

Open Border

2006-12-20T02:44:00.000-08:00

Murder suspect may have fled in veil
Wednesday December 20, 09:59 AM

LONDON (Reuters) - Detectives said on Wednesday that a man wanted for questioning over the murder of a female police officer could have fled the country disguised as a Muslim woman wearing a full veil. Full article here.

Wait a second? Did I read this right?

A man dressed in a full burhka, took his sister's passport and walked straight through Airport Security? And he didn't get checked? At all?

Oh my God! What a complete joke! This is appauling!

There are certain bits I like especially about this article:

Asked whether Mustaf Jama had used a full Muslim veil to evade checks, a spokesman for West Yorkshire police said: "It's a possibility. He could have been wearing a pantomime horse outfit as well. But until we get him, we won't know for sure."

So does that mean I'd be allowed through airport security unchecked if I wore a pantomime horse outfit? That they wouldn't even ask me to take the head off to check that I was who I was claiming to be?

I mean, bloody hell. This means anybody - ANYBODY - could come and go through British borders dressed in a burhka. Osama Bin Laden could don the veil, borrow anybody's passport (since they don't check, he doesn't even need to superficially resemble the owner) and come and go to his heart's content.

For Christ's sake, Osama's probably hopping over here to do his Christmas shopping - I mean, after all the sale's on at Harrods.

"The idea that under any circumstances you could be let through passport control wearing a veil is barely credible," said David Davis, the Conservative's Home Affairs spokesman. "Doing so when an All Persons Bulletin for murder has been issued demonstrates that our borders are not just porous but non-existent."

Aside from winning the award for Most Blatantly Obvious Statement of the Week, David Davis has just secured my conservative vote in the next general election. Because it is CRAZY that people can go through the ENTIRE SECURITY process and not have ANYBODY peek under their veil.

Hey, when I go to America I have to get stopped at the border and fingerprinted EVERY TIME to ensure that I am the same Roland Hulme they have on their immense security database. So if somebody who looked like me (that bugger Chris Evans, for example) nabbed my passport and tried to blag his way past security at J.F.K., he'd be found out immediately and get the full cavity search he so richly deserves.

Why on earth don't we have the same security in England?

"However BAA denied it was responsible and said individual airlines should be checking passengers' passport details."

Wait? The British Airport Authority doesn't feel it's responsible for checking passports? Then what are they responsible for? Making sure there are no peanuts on the airplane? I thought the whole reason we had a British Airport Authority was to keep our airports secure.

But it's this bit I like most of all:

"It is like open season against Muslims in this country," Ahmed Versi, editor of the Muslim News newspaper told Reuters.

How utterly disgusting.

Because the truth is actually the opposite. If anybody Jewish, Hindi or Christian demanded to be allowed through customs while wearing a full body covering - which obscured their face to the extent that their identity and gender couldn't be determined - they would be stopped and the covering removed. Immediately. With no arguement.

But because we Brits are pandering wildly to the demands of the muslim community - bending over backwards to comply with whatever batshit crazy requests they insist on. We're so worried about not being rascist or politically incorrect that we are willing to bypass basic security measures simply so as not to offend. But since it's muslims who are behind the terror attacks in New York, Madrid and London, it's pure insanity to give them less security screening when - at the risk of sounding politically incorrect - they should be subjected to more.

And Ahmed Versi's comments disgust me even more so because the crazy rants the muslim community make are getting more and more ridiculous. How can a simple observation - that the suspect excaped in a veil - be seen as an attack on the muslim community?

If the muslim community demand that we start censoring TRUTH and FACT from the media then we're in trouble. The suspect used a veil to escape capture. Saying that is not an attack on muslims. That would be like somebody saying Nazi allegations of a POW using a wooden horse as cover to dig an escape tunnel is an attack on the British community.

But the sad truth is, Ahmed Versi and the muslim community quickly get the attention and capitulation they demand when they 'cry out' against alleged injustice. Just like a two year old throwing a tantrum, the more we give in to the muslim community, the more they'll see how effective their rants and riots can be.

We need the political equivilant of a 'naughty step.' Ahmed Versi needs to be sent to his room without any supper to think VERY HARD about what his community has done.

Blame the West...

2006-12-19T04:19:00.000-08:00

Libya court to deliver nurses' HIV case verdict
Sunday December 17, 03:17 PM

TRIPOLI (Reuters) - Five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor could face the firing squad if a Libyan court convicts them on Tuesday on charges of deliberately infecting hundreds of Libyan children with the virus that causes AIDS.

Concluding a re-trial regarded by the outside world as a test of justice in Libya, the court will make a decision that, either way, is likely to have repercussions on the north African country's gradual rapprochement with the West.

The six are accused of intentionally infecting 426 Libyan children with HIV at a hospital in Benghazi in the late 1990s. The prosecution has demanded the death penalty.

"We are fully confident that the accused group is criminal and will be convicted," Ramadan Faitori, a spokesman for the HIV-infected children's families, told Reuters.

Defence lawyer Othman Bizanti told Reuters: "No one can predict the verdict. A just verdict would represent the real and legal truth, which we presented to the court in our pleading."

The medics were convicted in a 2004 trial and sentenced to death by firing squad. But the supreme court quashed the ruling last year and ordered the case be returned to a lower court.

Rights groups the world over have rallied to the medics' defence to stop what they say may be a miscarriage of justice.

But in Benghazi, where more than 50 of the infected children have died, there is profound public anger against the nurses and international efforts to free them.

LIBYAN MEDIA WANTS GUILTY VERDICT

State-controlled media want a guilty verdict for the six, who have been in detention since 1999.

"We say to everyone: Our children's blood is precious," Aljamahirya newspaper wrote.
Al-Shams newspaper wrote: "It's very difficult to understand the stance of those in solidarity with the accused."

"Who deserves greater reason for solidarity -- The children who are dying without having committed any offence, or those in white coats who distributed death and wiped the smile from the lips of hundreds of families?"

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, who helped negotiate a full resumption of diplomatic relations between the United States and Libya, arrived in Tripoli on Friday and discussed "issues which hinder improvements in relations" with Libyan officials, the Libyan news agency Jana reported.

It gave no details. Welch has previously said a way should be found for the nurses to return home.

The case has hampered Tripoli's process of rapprochement with the West, which moved up a gear when it abandoned its pursuit of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in 2003.

But analysts say freeing the defendants would put the focus on alleged negligence and poor hygiene in Libyan hospitals, which western scientists say are the real culprits in the case.

Bizanti has said that in 1997 -- a year before the nurses came to Libya -- about 207 cases of HIV infection had been found in Benghazi that had not resulted in any legal proceedings. He has questioned why the authorities have not followed them up.

In June 2005 a Libyan court acquitted nine Libyan policemen and a doctor of torturing the medics.

Washington backs Bulgaria and the European Union in saying the medics are innocent. Libya has proposed compensation which it says would open a way for a pardon and the medics' release.

Sofia and its allies reject that proposal.

It's just been confirmed that all 6 have been found guilty by the Libyan court.

How utterly horrific. The accusation that these six medics deliberately infected nearly 500 children is ridiculous. Washington and the EU both confirm that and it's fairly obvious that the real culprit has to be the diabolical hygiene conditions in the Libyan hospitals. Over 200 similar infections occurred in the year before these medics arrived. Yet in the interest of political expediency and in order to stir up further mistrust between the first world and the middle east, Libya has 'found' these six people guilty.

They've already been incarcerated in Libya since 1999 and tortured by the police for their alleged crimes. Shortly, they'll be executed by firing squad.

I find it ironic that Libya can quantify such a disgusting abuse of justice, yet still remain vocal in it's accusations of human rights abuses by the west in Iraq.

Unfortunately, though, this seems to be the state of fundamentalist Middle Eastern politics. There is no democracy. There is no truth. There can never be any peace. And while these countries wallow in the misery created by their fundamentalist Muslim dictatorships, we in the west berate ourselves introspectively for denying our enemies any of the rights we're lucky enough to enjoy ourselves.

As much as a disagree with Gitmo and imprisoning suspected terrorists without trial, I think putting people into 'stress positions' and flushing korans down the toilet pales in comparison to deliberately fabricating criminal charges, painfully torturing prisoners for seven years and then lining them up against a brick wall. Bang.

Over in the West, I think our prickling humanitarian conscience is symptomatic of our stronger moral convictions. I'm not suggesting that we should ever condone stepping on the basic human rights and priviledges we enjoy - but we should acknowledge that we will never be fighting on a level playing field while countries like Libya are still so willing to murder innocents to support this ideological jihad against freedom, democracy, justice and peace.

French show which side they're on...

2006-12-11T12:29:00.000-08:00

French court sentences 3 in Real IRA trial
Monday December 11, 04:55 PM

PARIS (Reuters) - A French court on Monday sentenced two Irishmen and a Frenchman, all with suspected links to the Irish republican splinter group the Real IRA, in connection with the discovery of arms in France in 2003.

All three were charged with "criminal association with a terrorist group".

Irishman Gary Roche was arrested in Portugal last year before being turned over to France. He was sentenced to 4 years in prison and is forbidden from ever returning to French territory.

Another Irishman, Kieron Doran, received the same sentence after being tried in absentia. An international arrest warrant has been issued for him.

French sympathiser Bernard le Gac, who was arrested in November 2003 during a police operation in Brittany in western France, received a suspended two-year sentence.

Police discovered the stash of two machine guns, an automatic pistol and two silencers buried in a forest near the town of Dieppe in northern France in November 2003.

The Real IRA is a breakaway from the IRA, which fought a three-decade campaign against British rule in Northern Ireland during which 3,600 people died.

The Real IRA was responsible for the single deadliest attack of the conflict when it detonated a bomb in the Northern Irish market town of Omagh in 1998, killing 29 people and injuring hundreds of others just months after a peace deal was signed.

Since then, the bombings and shootings that marked 30 years of sectarian conflict in the province have largely come to a halt -- a shift underlined last year when the main IRA movement pledged to end violence for good.

Northern Ireland's cease-fire watchdog has said it believes the IRA is keeping to that promise but issued a report in October saying it considers the much smaller Real IRA to be still active and dangerous.

Now, anti-American sentiment in Europe has been annoying me for quite a while... But I remember, when I was in America, that anti-French sentiment annoyed me as well. Cheese eating surrender monkeys was one of their favourites. French fries became Freedom Fries. The jokes about suntanned armpits and the German army marching in the shade were rampant.

But with this action, the French have firmly established that they won't tolerate terrorism. And despite the "war on terror" bravado, I'm sure that there are certain parts of the American community that won't like it one bit.

This is because the IRA, despite blowing up bombs in city centres and stations, still manages to have some credibility in America. Especially amongst forth generation Irish barflies, who shove a fiver in the kitty when some drunken Irishman staggers about demanding "something for the boys back home?"

The fact is, that Irishman is off to spend that money in the pub next door. And the fact is, the 'boys back home' - if you're referring to the IRA - are doing a roaring trade in arms and drugs and don't need any of American charity thank you very much.

The IRA sell drugs. They sell weapons. They sell training-in-terrorism to America's enemies. They basically run a big mafia across Northern Ireland. They are real, old school terrorists. The people who blow women and children up via remote control because they're gutless cowards (rather than ranting psychos, like the suicide bombers.)

There is nothing - NOTHING - noble or good about the IRA. And I hope some day that America realises this and treats them with the same murderous disdain that they do the bastards who knocked down the Twin Towers or blew themselves up in the London Underground.

Today it seems the French have shown more backbone about something than the Americans. and if that doesn't spur them into action in this War on Terror, I don't know what will!

THOSE BASTARDS!

2006-12-06T11:09:00.000-08:00

Spy Probe Continues
18:34 LONDON

In a separate development, traces of polonium-210 have been found at Arsenal's new stadium, in Highbury, north London.

Golly, where's James Bond when you need him?

God! No! Not my fried chicken!!!!

2006-12-05T08:55:00.000-08:00

NYC health board votes to ban trans fats
By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago

NEW YORK - The Board of Health voted Tuesday to make New York the first city in the nation to ban artificial trans fats at restaurants — from the corner pizzeria to high-end bakeries.

The board, which passed the ban by a unanimous vote, did give restaurants a slight break by relaxing what had been considered a tight deadline for compliance. Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July 1, and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of its foods by July 1, 2008.

For God's sake! If I want to eat fried chicken, I have a God given, constitutionally protected right to! First you ban smoking - I don't even smoke, but it pissed me off - and now you're banning delicious trans fat?

Okay, so it's bad for you... But you use it in fried chicken! And cookies! And a ton of other stuff!

Instead of banning everything, it's about time America AND the world faced up to people and said: You! Fatties! You're the ones who are responsible for your obesity. If you don't want to get fat, don't eat so much!

Okay, so some people have glandular problems... Additictive personalities. There are exceptions - but for the most part people have free choice in what they eat. It's a slippery slope when you start to ban food that's bad for people. What's next? Banning alcohol?

Seriously - I will launch a one man revolution if they try to pull that crap. Has NOBODY learnt anything from Prohibition?

Dude, just lock him UP already!!!

2006-12-04T06:12:00.000-08:00

Rocker Pete Doherty is spared jail time
By KATIE FRETLAND, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago

LONDON - British rocker Pete Doherty smiled and hugged fans outside court on Monday after a judge ruled he will not serve jail time for possession of drugs including heroin and crack cocaine.

District Judge Jane McIvor ordered the 27-year-old Babyshambles singer to pay $1,525 in fines and court costs and forbade him from driving for four months.

"I feel relieved," Doherty told reporters outside Thames Magistrate Court in London.
The singer from east London was arrested in April for possession of less than 2 grams each of heroin, cannabis and cocaine. just three hours after he was sentenced to two years of community service for previous drug offenses. The drugs were found in the vehicle he was in and at his home.

Doherty was arrested again Aug. 7 with a crack pipe and a small amount of crack cocaine, and pleaded guilty Aug. 18 to all five counts.

"He's not going to jail. It's amazing," said 16-year-old fan Georgina Raymond, who jumped up and down screaming into her cell phone, "I hugged him!"

In September, McIvor told Doherty he would not serve jail time for the charges if he continued rehabilitation, stayed employed and did not commit any other offenses. She also complimented him for his song, "The Blinding." Doherty did not break any of the imposed restrictions, McIvor said.

"Hitting your pocket is the way of punishing you in this case," McIvor said Monday. Doherty has been in and out of court on drug charges and spent time at the Priory rehabilitation clinic.

His lawyer, Sean Curran, said there had been a "breakdown" in Doherty's rehabilitation. Curran gave no details, but said he hoped Doherty would continue to make an effort to break his drug habit.

In November, Doherty, the on-off boyfriend of supermodel Kate Moss, was fined $1,485 for assaulting British Broadcasting Corp. reporter Trudi Barber outside the same court.

His drug habit gained international attention after a British tabloid printed pictures of Moss allegedly using cocaine at a music studio where Doherty and his band were recording. Moss was not charged.

Oh, for God's sake.

It's just typical, isn't it? Poor little misunderstood Pete AGAIN ducks prison time because... Well, why? Basically because he's rich and famous.

I think this is disgusting - I think he's disgusting. Pete plays up to the whole 'addict' thing because it's 'rock and roll.' He laughingly goes to rehab when and if the courts demand it. Then, days later, he's caught injecting heroin into passed out teenagers.

If this was anybody else, they'd be banged up for a long time.

But not old Pete. Because he's rich and famous and self destructive celebrity seems to be a get-out-of-jail-free card in this country.

No more racial profiling?

2006-12-01T04:08:00.000-08:00

U.S. rates travelers for terror risk
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Without their knowledge, millions of Americans and foreigners crossing U.S. borders in the past four years have been assigned scores generated by U.S. government computers rating the risk that the travelers are terrorists or criminals.

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years.

The government calls the system critical to national security following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Some privacy advocates call it one of the most intrusive and risky schemes yet mounted in the name of anti-terrorism efforts.

Virtually every person entering and leaving the United States by air, sea or land is scored by the Homeland Security Department's Automated Targeting System, or ATS. The scores are based on ATS' analysis of their travel records and other data, including items such as where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.

Now, as some of you might know, I am rather more intimately aquainted with the US Immigration officals than I'd like to be - although that is in my past now and I am a happy and proud Permanant Resident of the USA.

But even though I feel like I've been treated fairly roughly by the Immigration boys, I applaud this machine.

The problem is that anti-terrorism security and political correctness don't go well together. Practically all terrorists are muslim. Yet if you pick on muslims for security screenings, that's deemed 'rascist.' Now I don't want to sound insensitive, but I'm more comfortable with being called a rascist than getting onto a plane with possible suspects who have specifically NOT been searched in case it raised questions of political correctness.

This system the US have implemented simply records travel information from the passengers - all information that's pretty much freely available - and cross references it with a risk assesser. It's totally immune to racism. It'll red flag, perhaps, passengers who fly from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia - but only on their travel history, not their race or religeon.

It'll flag you, basically, if there's a reason you should be flagged. And that might been you have a couple of questions to answer. But if you've got nothing to hide, there's nothing to worry about.

And I say that despite knowing I'll be questioned each and every time I arrive in America. But I'm okay with that, if it makes us safer. Instead of complaining about it, people should be celebrating it.

Maybe these measures will soon mean I can get my missus onto an airplane without three large gin and tonics and a xanax!

I feel safer already.

Let the deportees out on bail. i'm sure they'll ALL come back to be deported when it's time...

2006-12-01T03:39:00.000-08:00

Immigration centre unrest contained
Wednesday November 29, 07:41 PM

Around 150 immigrants facing removal from Britain are to be released on bail as a result of a protest at the country's largest immigration detention centre.

The news emerged as officials said that unrest at the Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre near Heathrow Airport was "contained" after a day of protests from detainees.

Fires were lit inside and detainees gathered in a courtyard spelling out the words "SOS" and "Freedom" with what appeared to be sheets or clothing in a courtyard.

The protest broke out on the day a report was released raising concerns about poor relations between staff and detainees at the centre near Heathrow.

Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers said her new report on Harmondsworth was the poorest she had yet issued on such a facility.

It was not meeting any of her major tests and more than 60% of detainees said they felt unsafe, the report said.

But Lin Homer, Director General of the Immigration Nationality Directorate (IND), described the unrest as a deliberate attempt to sabotage the removals process.

As the disturbances were being brought under control, she said that some detainees would be moved from Harmondsworth to other IND or prison facilities.

But around 150 other "immigration offenders" - failed asylum seekers or other illegal entrants due to be removed - would have to be be released to make room for them.

In a statement she said: "The situation at Harmondsworth remains contained. The perimeter remains secure, and no-one has escaped. There has been no risk to the public."

Now, is it just me, or is releasing 150 people who were about to be deported not exactly the smartest choice?

I mean, maybe it's just me, but if I was going to be deported, but somebody let me out and said: "D'ya mind coming back on this date so we can deport you?" I would be out of there like a shot and off to wherever it is that illegal immigrants go. I would NEVER go back.

It's ridiculous. This country has no controls over it's immigration at all. The only people who do get victimised and exploited are the legitimate immigrants, like my wife, who was forced to shell out £500 to live in England. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants live here for free - some even claim benefits from the government!

It strikes me that if the government had deemed this 150 naughty enough to lock up in the first place, perhaps letting them go is not the safest or smartest option. It's just another example of political expediancy getting in the way of the public interest.

Trampling on Dead Soldier's Graves

2006-11-29T09:13:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-29T05:00:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-11-27T02:50:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-26T14:36:00.000-08:00

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!

2006-11-24T03:57:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-21T09:25:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-11-18T08:42:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-15T10:48:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-13T09:00:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-11T01:33:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-08T01:42:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-08T01:20:00.000-08:00

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!

2006-11-07T08:47:00.000-08:00

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?

2006-11-07T01:52:00.000-08:00

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...

2006-11-06T15:02:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-11-06T03:21:00.000-08:00

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!

2006-11-06T02:38:00.001-08:00

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!

2006-11-06T02:38:00.000-08:00

Letter from a Senior Citizen

2006-11-06T02:30:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-06T01:47:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-03T01:43:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-02T16:10:00.000-08:00

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

Press play to watch it.

Your browser is not configured correctly to receive WMV streamed video
Please refer to our FAQ

Everybody Loves George and Tony!

2006-11-02T16:06:00.000-08:00

A short movie I produced with The Movies game from Activision...

Your browser is not configured correctly to receive WMV streamed video
Please refer to our FAQ