skip to main |
skip to sidebar
As my Irish ancestors may have once said: "Jesus God almighty!" Can we not have a new president or a presidential transition that doesn't court controversy? First there was the Gennifer Flowers affair with Clinton in 1992; then in 2000, you heard the accusation against conservative judges on the Supreme Court handing Bush victory; now, we've got a "pay to play" political situation regarding the Senate seat vacated by Messiah Man, Barack Obama.
Granted, this has a lot more to do with Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich than Mr. Obama. Blagojevich, your typical sewer denzien of a political hack, was apparently offered a million dollars for the seat by Jesse Jackson Jr. Jackson has denied any wrongdoing, however, and has stipulated that the governor should "forfeit his authority to make this Senate appointment." A November 3 transcript of a telephone conversation had Blago opining that the Senate seat was a "[expletive] valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing."
Blagojevich has also, according to federal prosecutors, appropriated state funds in order to convince the Chicago Tribune to fire editorial board members who were critical of him, tried to place his wife on a corporate board, and tried to secure campaign contributions in exchange for official actions. And to think that Blago was elected on a pledge to clean up after his predecessor George Ryan, who is serving a six-and-a-half-year sentence for fraud!
Hopefully this will mark a turning point for Chicago and Illinois, the politically sleaziest city and state in the nation.
● I'm guessing this is a bad time for a Greek vacation. Major cities across the Hellenic nation are burning as protestors go on the rampage. All this over a 16-year-old boy? It is absolutely a pity that the young man was shot by police, but the reaction to his death is a bit extreme, or so one who was not a far-Left anarchist airhead would think.
It is an unsettling thought that democracy in Greece has historically had the concept of anarchy at its roots. And now, anarchy means being anti-capitalist, anti-globalist, anti-American, anti-police and anti-common sense. It means to raise hell at any opportunity, at any provocation.
These Leftie whackjobs certainly lay to rest the notion that extreme liberals are always peaceful, non-violent protest types.
Honestly, the Greeks can have these people. The more I learn about Greek society, the much more grateful I am that the two societies that I know best and which have informed my worldview—American and British—frown upon anarchy and the mega-violent philosophy it engenders.
● Proposals for a change in the laws regarding prostitution here in the U.K. will be most welcomed by yours truly. The new law proposed by the Home Secretary will mean that a plea of ignorance by men who purchased the services of any woman who has been trafficked or is being exploited by a pimp will no longer be a satisfactory defense. Men can also be charged with rape on account of any sexual interaction with a trafficked prostitute, and curb-crawlers also face naming and shaming.
Now, normally I raise the alarm bell over how men's contributions to society have been cheapened or ignored, and how feminists have turned the societal tables on us. However, that sentiment—however you feel about it—does not apply here. I hardly think it's right or fair to blame the women involved in prostitution, especially as prostitution these days boils down to nothing more or less than a modern slave trade.
It's the men who call the shots, from the pimps who control the sex trade to the idiot male customers who partake in the services it has to offer. To prosecute curb-crawling men and close any and all brothels with links to trafficking should hopefully shut down the demand on this perhaps oldest but no doubt filthiest of occupations. Especially when you consider that many of the women involved did not take up this "occupation" by choice.
Sorry, dear reader. In case you wonder why my writing becomes so sporadic at times, the reason is most likely to be that (a) I'm too busy to write, (b) I'm feeling ill, (c) I lack motivation to write, or (d) any combination of the above three—quite often, all three. So I apologize for the absence. I also don't like being away because it means I haven't responded to anything you may have written. Don't take it personally. I am definitely not ignoring your writing, and I always catch up with it once I have the time to peruse my friends' blogs at leisure.
Now that we have established that, I've got things to get off my chest here. These were all meant to be separate entries, but it's obvious that they are going to have to be thrown together in a mish-mash. So, without further adieu, here we go:
● The Times, that highbrow paper of the Old British Right, recently published an opinion piece by an obviously testosterone-soaked author named Matthew Syed. I wrote a letter to The Times to give my persepective on it, but since they did not publish it—and rarely do I get rejected whenever I write a letter to a newspaper—I will do so in this space:
I'd like to register my disgust with the Opinion article written by Matthew Syed. He writes that "Britain is finally shedding its stifling and hypocritical prudishness." What, exactly, is so stifling and hypocritical about not condoning casual sex? The "prudish" attitude of decades ago ensured healthy families and a strong society.
Mr. Syed also writes that "Britain has come top among Western industrial nations in the world casual sex league." That's not the only thing Britain tops the tables with. Britain is also first in sexually trasmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, abortions and single motherhood. And this, according to Mr. Syed, is a reason to celebrate promiscuity? I'd like to know what world Mr. Syed is living in which makes it possible for him to conclude that one-night stands are not evidence of moral bankruptcy. I may be a smug married, but I do sincerely believe a commitment to someone should be a requisite for sexual activity. To be honest, I would normally regard this sort of opinion as tabloid fodder. For a venerable paper such as The Times to publish this screed is nothing short of disappointing.
I think that makes a rather satisfying riposte to the "let's all do it and not care about the consequences or the immorality of one-night stands" argument put forth by Mr. Led-By-His-Groin-and-Not-His-Brain Syed!
● I can't tell you how much I've had it with left-wing celebrities. But, actually, it's the ordinary Joe or Jill who hold such celebrities so close to their hearts who really drive me crazy.
Leonardo DiCaprio cares about the environment, you see, despite having starred in a film whose production techniques completely destroyed a significant portion of shoreline in Thailand. Bono so cares about the downtrodden people of the Third World that he dodged taxes in his native Ireland so that he could save up even more money, taking part in a capitalist system that he so often inveighs against. I could go on, but the number of column inches of this entry would circle Earth's equator 50 times if I did.
Still ... then there's George Clooney. Nice guy? Probably. He certainly looks like one, a dapper gentleman down to his core, the sort of guy I'd like to be sipping coffee with, just as he does on his Nespresso ads. Clooney also loves to preach to us about the many sins of capitalism and of the American way of life; he pulled for Barack Obama on the hope that Messiah Man would deliver on his socialist promises.
And then, last week, he held a bash in London, for which it cost £10,000 to attend. Now, admittedly, the party did raise £10 million for charity, but Cripes—wasn't that just another excuse for these celebrities to prance about, drink their drinks, take their drugs and preen for the cameras, articulating with their expressions, "Look at me, aren't I wonderful? I spent £10,000 to attend this orgy of self-congratulation because I can!" The aforementioned Bono was there too, no surprise.
I just wish people would realize that the lifestyles of the celebs they hold in such high esteem buck the very crusades they so often lecture the rest of us about.
● Going back to the real world, which those of us who aren't celebrities have to live in—and work in, if we're lucky—a Tory politician here in England got in trouble for suggesting that the recession could be "good for people." Insensitive comment? Yes and no.
When Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, asserted that the recession was good for us, he may have touched several thousands of raw nerves, nerves that have been affected by loss of income, loss of property, etc. But here's what Mr. Lansley actually wrote (in his blog) about the recession:
"Interestingly, on many counts, recession can be good for us. People tend to smoke less, drink less alcohol, eat less rich food and spend more time at home with families."
Face it, he's right, isn't he? If no longer having the cash to buy cigarettes forces a smoker to quit that filthy habit, then couldn't it be said that the cloud of recession did indeed have a silver lining?
After the firestorm of controversy that erupted, largely thanks to the Labour party calling him "shameful" and "out of touch," Mr Lansley issued the following statement: "I'm very sorry for any offense this has caused and I totally withdraw my comments."
He should not have had to do that. Anyone with half a brain cell could easily interpret the argument Lansley was trying to make.
Unfortunately, after 11 years of a Labour government, most people in this country have been left with only a quarter of a brain cell. (Which, of course, is just what Labour was counting on all those years ago to stay in power for so long, no doubt.)
● Speaking of the Tories—and a solid reason why Labour should be trounced in the 2009 General Election—the shadow Home Office minister Damian Green was arrested and had his office and home searched by counter-terrorism officers. He was released on bail but will face further questioning in February.
Green's crime? He leaked information on the Labour Government's immigration policy, provided by a whistleblower. David Cameron, the Conservative leader, called the arrest "Stalinist," and he's dead-on with his description.
Mr. Green had this to say, shortly after his release: "I emphatically deny that I have done anything wrong. I have many times made public information that the government wanted to keep secret, information that the public has a right to know ... In a democracy, opposition politicians have a duty to hold the government to account. I was elected to the House of Commons precisely to do that and I certainly intend to continue doing so."
Damian Green was further highlighting Labour's total incompetence with regard to immigration policy and Labour decided they had enough of Green's political incorrectness. The complaint against Green, after all, came from the Cabinet Office.
The Home Office whistleblower was arrested as well, which should come as no surprise.
And the present Government insists that mass immigration is good for us. Bad enough illegals steal precious land from us, but stealing our democracy via a government so keen to encourage them?
Stalinist? I'd say that Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe have all had a say Green's arrest as well.
Well, I'll have to continue this mish-mash tomorrow. It appears that I'm getting a genuine column out of stuff I intened to write columns about!
You'll forgive me for feeling this way, dear reader, but I am not feeling so awful about America's foreign policy under Barack Obama.
One: The obvious. Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State. While I shuddered at the thought of her being President, while she's quite liberal, and while she's a Clinton, I nevertheless thought she was a good pick for the post. Mrs. Clinton may be lacking in several ways—and I can never forget the way she treated those Travel Office staff—warmth, empathy and cuddliness are not what I look for in a Secretary of State. Condi was an excellent S.o.S., but it's obvious that Obama would not keep her on (despite the fact that she's black), and Clinton is apt to be much better and more effective than the maudlin Madeline Albright. Hilary is tough-as-nails and she will not back down. It was Hilary, after all, who talked of "obliterating" Iran if they attacked Israel back in April. You cannot accuse Hilary Clinton of being a dove; so therefore, I think Mrs. Clinton will make a credible Secretary of State.
Two: Robert Gates remaining as Secretary of Defense. Gates served well as S.o.D. for two years and he adds another vital hawkish element to Obama's foreign policy administration. Mr. Gates also has a close working relationship with General Petraeus, who has overseen both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and Obama is committed to the Afghanistan effort—even risking the goodwill of Britain and the European nations by demanding higher troop levels—and may even be brought around on Iraq. Adding Gen. James Jones, the former head of NATO, as National Security Adviser is also a very shrewd move on Obama's part.
Three: The almost Bush-like speech that Obama delivered the other day, in which he declared that the United States must be the strongest military power. Obama said, "To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet ... We cannot tolerate a world where innocents are being killed by extremists." He added that his administration was "absolutely committed to eliminating the threat of terrorism."
Mr. Obama seems to be travelling down a more conciliatory path while still sounding tough, something that Bush himself has been demonstrating for the past two years.
I still gravely fear Obama's domestic policies. But, far from signing away the farm, as I feared he'd do, Barack Obama seems genuinely committed to protecting America, foreign policy wise.
(previously published on Blogcritics)
If you, faithful reader, knew nothing about Britain and went by what you read in the current headlines over here, you might very well conclude that the neglect, beating, torture and even killing of young children was as much a British tradition as high tea.
We have the recent case of the single mother whose two young boys died in a house fire that they may have inadvertently started. It is quite likely that she was too stoned out of her gourd to properly supervise them. Their mom, you see, loved to party which didn't leave much time for parenting. She was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter and child neglect.
Next we have the case of the mother who drowned her four-year-old daughter because she, the "mom," was embarrassed by her cerebral palsy. Another mother killed her two sons in order to better love herself. Well, that's what she told the police. She is, obviously, currently being assessed in a mental health facility.
In 2007, a "mother" by the name of Karen Matthews organized a kidnap of her schoolgirl daughter Shannon by the uncle of her live-in partner. The live-in partner, incidentally, a retarded-looking lowlife by the name of Craig Meehan, was prosecuted for possessing child pornography soon after the kidnap story broke.
I'll give you just one more example, but this one is the most galling and most disturbing of them all. A 16-month-old child, known to us only by the name Baby P, was routinely beaten and eventually killed by his mother's boyfriend and the couple's lodger. Baby P's mother now brags confidently that she'll be out of jail by Christmas. Despite the baby's horrific injuries, social workers kept accepting the mother's lies about how the toddler incurred them. A 15-year-old who lived in the house, but was too scared to come forward before now, has revealed the full horror behind the child's torment and eventual death. It makes for gut-wreching, stomach-turning reading.
What really boils my blood is that these people will not know anything approaching the terror that the infant routinely felt during his 16 short months of life, unless they receive vigilante action by fellow inmates in prison, which I most sincerely hope they do. They certainly won't be put to death by the legal system, as they should be, as Britain abolished capital punishment in 1964.
Now, the question for you, dear reader, is this: How on earth does a mother kill her children "in order to better love herself"? How on earth can any parent think it's alright to party till the small hours when she's got two kids to look after? How does a mother fake the kidnapping of her daughter simply for attention or for greedy purposes? And how does an infant boy get treated so viciously, for so long?
The answer: We permit morons to breed. Plain and simple. We are allowing children to be born to people who—and I'm being kind here—are better off dead, because they barely have the brainpower and social skills necessary to conduct a transaction at the convenience store for their booze, cigarettes and lottery tickets (bought with welfare money, of course), never mind having and raising children. But have children they do and in ever-depressing numbers. And we allow it. Despite knowing what desultory sort of life these children must be leading, we continue to cling to the liberal notion of, "Well, we can't tell others how to live their lives."
We are talking about the third and fourth generations of violent layabouts being born to parents who were themselves the victims of hedonistic, immoral, alcoholic, drug-addled cretins with no sense of social responsibility whatsoever. And this is why children are being neglected, tortured and/or killed everyday across Britain and why the cycle will simply continue, because we aren't sterilizing these wastes of space and resources as we should be doing.
Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn nails it perfectly when he writes, as he did on November 14: "Britain seems to have cornered the market in welfare layabouts, drug addicts, feral gangs of obese children and hideous, drunken scrubbers, littering the gutters of even our more genteel suburbs. The women are the worst of the lot, giving birth to a procession of bay-bees by different, transient fathers and expecting—nay, being encouraged by—the state to pay for their upbringing."
And there you have it. Decent, hard-working people, who so often cannot afford to raise more than one child of their own, have to support the ever-growing underclass of imbecilic filth who can have as many children they like, most of whom would have to consider themselves lucky if they make it past the age of 10.
Which, of course, according to public school education, is just the right age to start the next generation of scum. After all, they've long become a British tradition.
Apparently, sperm donations in Britain—and in London especially—have fallen so dramatically that it can be quantified as a critical shortage, and a radical overhaul of sperm donation services is required.
Now for the million-pound question: Why, exactly, is this a bad thing?
You only have to look around you at any point in the day or evening to conclude that Britain certainly does not, in any way classifiable or conceivable, have a fertility problem. Little buggers are everywhere, getting pushed along the sidewalks in their oversized prams by chain-smoking mamas or picking their noses as they waddle four-square along the sidewalks on the way to school.
I wonder if the freefall in sperm donations is in any way related to the fact that over 50 percent of British adults view children as "animals"? Which really distresses me as I consider that a grevious insult to animals.
Of course, mind you, I don't necessarily consider children on the same level as cockroaches, but all people in general. I found myself nodding solemnly while reading this column by Charlie Brooker, in which he opines: "Two's company. Three's a crowd. And whoever they are, I don't trust them. Yes, in the ever expanding list of things I don't 'get,' the most crippling entry has to be people. I don't get people. What's their appeal, precisely? They waddle around with their haircuts on, cluttering the pavement like gormless, farting skittles. They're awful."
Anyway, getting back to sperm donations, that's one thing that I've never gotten. Who in their right mind wants to consider the fact that somebody, somwhere, will be conceived carrying half their genes, possibly even their same facial features, hair and eye color, blood type and the same curious inability to not say "heeeellll, yeaaah!" at the end of every conversation? Honestly, who can be comfortable with the thought of spreading themselves around without even enjoying the so-called action? (Don't get me wrong: I'm very much a keep-it-in-your-pants sort of guy. I simply ask on a theoretical level.)
On a more serious note, sperm donation also encourages single motherhood. I cannot in all honesty say that I am a fan of that lifestyle. There is definitely a straightforward relationship between the "children are animals" sentiment and the emotional effects that single motherhood creates in a child who, through no choice of his or her own, has been denied the vital male influence.
The article cites the removal of anonymity in 2005 as the biggest reason for the nose-dive in sperm donations. In other words, once a child born in 2005 or after turns 18, they can chase their sperm donor down. This was just the sort of thing sperm donors never had to worry about in the past.
Which leaves me to conclude one salient point about all this: For once, this Labour government actually did something good. Only the sperm banks would disagree.
OK, if we could just move away from the subject of the Obama-nation that has occurred just for a bit, because there is, believe it or not, other news out there besides our rock-star of a messiah of a President-elect ...
I have never really liked Britain's celebrity chef Jamie Oliver—second only to Gordon Ramsay in terms of fame and notoriety—as this piece that I wrote many moons ago testifies. Mssr. Oliver really hit a low point when he slaughtered a live lamb on TV in 2005.
However, since that despicable incident I have slowly started liking Oliver a bit more and more. Earlier this year, Oliver highlighted just how terrible living conditions are for battery-reared poultry birds, and persuaded the supermarket chain Sainsbury's—for whom he's been doing television commercials for the past ten years—to stop selling poultry from battery farms and sell only free-range bird meat instead.
I also appreciate Oliver's ceaseless attempts to highlight the obesity crisis and how it's down to a real lack of education about food, and his demands for better food standards constitutes a noble cause. Mr. Oliver recently told a parliamentary inquiry that poor food standards are contributing to a real breakdown of family life and that the U.K. is heading for an obesity horror show. Mr. Oliver even linked the problem to working mothers who are too busy to feed their families and themselves properly. That took some guts in this politically correct, how-dare-you-say-that culture of ours, which, on that basis alone, wins him my admiration and respect.
"Health, obesity and education has struggled to be taken seriously for ten years, but I think it's a bloody emergency," Oliver told politicians at the inquiry. Oliver also asked of the government to consider putting a cap on the number of fast-food outlets in town centers. He's right. Take a walk down any main street in Britain, and you will be amazed at how many burger, kebab and fried chicken shops you'll encounter. There should be a limit on just how many of these joints are allowed to exist, and they should not be allowed to proliferate to the extent that they have.
I was thinking about all this the other day while waiting for my bus into work. A chubby man was there, sipping a regular, full-sugar Coke and smoking a cigarette. He then chucked the can over the wall—proving that those who don't care about themselves certainly do not care about the environment—and walked straight into the Morley's fried chicken establishment. This man represented everything that is wrong with contemporary lifestyles, especially in urban areas.
I am not an advocate for big government or the nanny state. Honestly, I'm not. However, I do think some sort of government intervention is necessary when the ignorance of people who just don't know any better is contributing to a public services emergency. I don't relish paying higher taxes to keep the NHS alive because the health service is being burdened by people who are ill simply from smoking too much, drinking too much, not getting enough (or any) exercise, and eating way too much fatty, nutrient-poor garbage.
Personally, I'd just exterminate people like this and be done with it. (Joke!) But seriously, unless we want to be regarded as no better than the Ba'athist regime we overthrew in Iraq, then we need to try other, far more milder tactics: Even higher taxes on tobacco products and strong booze; alcoholic drinks stronger than 3.5% by volume to be sold only in state-run shops as they do in Sweden; ban trans-fats; institute a cap on the number of fast-food joints for every square mile of urban area; and at least consider delivering a healthy eating pamphlet to every household, similar to the Home Information Packs that the government came out with last year.
If this seems too radical, then please tell me where it's written—anywhere—that liberty and democracy means being as corpulent and unhealthy as you please, placing a strain on public/social services and driving up health care premiums for people who actually deign to look after themselves.
Jamie Oliver warns of a "profound" health crisis if this issue of good food and health is not taken seriously.
"This isn't about fresh trainers (sneakers) or mobile phones or Sky (satellite) dishes or plasma TV screens—they've got all that. It is a poverty of being able to nourish their family, in any class," Oliver told politicians at the inquiry.
Godspeed, Jamie Oliver. The sooner you win your battle for nationwide healthy food standards, the better off we'll be.
While doing the dishes, a chore I loathe and so usually try to entertain myself while doing it, I made up the following scenario in my head:
Barack Obama addresses the crowd on Inauguration Day in January. He looks solemnly over the cheering audience and intones:
"Ladies and gentlemen, you voted for change. Change is paramount and will be an essential part of my administration. I solemnly promise to give you that change. But, first: Yo, hit that shit!"
Obama immediately launches into a rap:
"Barack Obama, that is my name
Celebratin' ma victory over John McCain
Proved to everyone that I was man, not mouse
Tell me everybody—who in da House?
Bush, yeah cuz, he won't be back.
I won the election 'cause I is black.
I gonna spend fo' years just spendin' and taxin'
And I gonna do it without first axin'.
Now break it down!"
Then Obama starts breakdancing and body-popping while the crowd goes wild.
Honestly, it's just the sort of thing In Living Color could've done.
If any of you out there wish to add to Barry's rap song, please feel free. Let's try to stretch that motha' out.
