skip to main |
skip to sidebar
If you were part of a social networking website (Facebook, 'cause I is a name-dropper) that refused to take down a page dedicated to a psychopathic lunatic—one of far too many people out there for whom a miscarriage would have been a blessing—that encouraged anti-police violence, and gave some semblance of creedence to the testosterone-soaked, thuggish culture that is flourishing in this country (Britain), wouldn't you be shocked?
Prime Minister David Cameron even demanded that the killer's digusting memorial page be removed, expressing his horror at it and enquiring of Facebook if it had any respect for the victims and the majority—or what I dearly hope is the majority—of the nation that felt nothing but revlusion for Raoul Moat and his crimes.
Raoul Moat is a former bouncer, a steroid-raging creature who shot dead his ex-girfriend and her new boyfriend, and nearly killed a policeman, who is now disabled as a result of his encounter with Moat.
Facebook refused. They responded that they did not care to get involved because everyone has the right to free expression. Isn't that just groovy? I wanted to see if there were any Charles Manson, Jon Venables or Josef Fritzl fan pages on Facebook, but I was too frightened to conduct that research. I feared the worst, which is to say, I was confident of finding them.
The lesson to be learned from this, apparently, is not that Facebook will allow any garbage to flourish on their site, but that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom doesn't support free speech. Bummer, man.
I announced that I was leaving Facebook in protest, and the support I received was nothing short of underwhelming. The cumulative response was something along the lines of what sort of fascist, authoritarian creep was I for denying such obviously outstanding citizens their right to free speech?
When I stated that I needed no lessons in defending free speech, taking into account my experience in helping to revive the student newspaper during my college days, and therefore no-one had better dare to lecture me about that subject, I was told, "It's got nothing to do with a dare, but everything to do with free speech." Brick wall, anyone? (This same wingnut accused me of being as bad as Moat because I support capital punishment. As I'm sure he would tell you, he deserves an award for that.)
I would, of course, tell you of any supportive replies I received if not for the fact that they were completely non-existent.
Thirty-thousand people expressed their total love and devotion to a paranoid killer, a monster, and that's of no concern whatsoever to these self-dubbed Voltaires. There is no line you can't cross these days, unless you're calling terrorists well, "terrorists." Then, lo and behold, we find that there is no such thing as free speech!
But making a heroic figure out of a murderous bully? Who cares? There are more important things to worry about, such as when will the next Strictly Come Dancing show be on and does KFC have a new range of sauces?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by any of this, considering we're living in a society that thinks ass-crack is a fashion accessory.
The page did come down two days ago, but not through any official decision made by Facebook themselves. The creator of the site de-activated it. Turns out, whatever decent people are left in the world were harrassing and threatening her. So, citing personal safety concerns, she removed the page from the site. But she still feels that Mr. Moat is "legend" and hopes to re-activate the page if/when the furor dies down.
The good First Amendment stalwarts at Facebook, meanwhile, will still be operating out of their collective back passage while the Ted Bundy Love-In page attracts more than 100,000 admirers.
I don't know about this Gulf of Mexico oil spill, dear reader. The fact that it's eclipsed the Exxon Valdez spill in magnitude is all-too-clear. Part of me is cheering the President on; I'm glad Obama's angry. But, I question, why is he angry—are there extenuating circumstances behind the obvious reason that someone is behind this disaster and deserves an ass-kicking?
Some people think that Obama's response to the crisis was as laconic as Bush's regarding Hurricane Katrina. Others say that the President's executive order shutting down domestic oil-drilling operations is a case of too much and too late. I wouldn't necessarily argue with either.
It's obvious to me that Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, cares a lot more about profit than the environmental impact of his company's big-time screw-up. His insensitive, moronically flippant comments in defense of his company bear testimony to that.
It's also apparent that the Prez is endangering the "special relationship" between the U.S. and U.K. by focusing a little too much on the "British" in British Petroleum. It's as if the British themselves are suddenly of two minds: Well, yes, we did root for him, but blimey, he's a bit of an ingrate, isn't he? You could see the amazement, and even hurt, on the anchormen's faces on the evening news when they reported that Obama wished to know "whose ass to kick," knowing full well that it likely meant limey ass. BP pension holders are certainly rethinking their affection for the Messiah.
Is this the whole story though? Of course not. We have to see how this continues to play out. I would, however, like to present you with a hypothetical situation, dear reader.
It's midterm election time, right? Obama is nowhere near as popular as he was on the domestic front when he first got elected. Incumbents all over the country are facing defeat due to anti-establishment sentiment, and Obama himself no longer seems above the establishment but part of it.
So imagine a secret White House call going through to BP headquarters, instructing them to cook up an oil leak in the Gulf. Imagine BP willing to do this without fear of serious reprisal because they know they'll be protected. Indulge yourself the thought that Mr. Obama told Mr. Hayward, "Hey, I'm gonna have to pretend to be very angry with you, but don't sweat it. Thanks for your help, Tony."
Sound implausbile? Sound insane? Of course it does.
But, if you could believe that Dubya Bush could order more than 3,000 deaths to bolster support for an aggressive foreign policy—something he campaigned against in 2000—I suppose you could be hare-brained enough to believe Obama engineered the BP Gulf disaster.
After all, where's your conspiratorial outrage now, you crunchy granola types? Moreover, where's your consistency?
Well, dear reader, last week there was a gun massacre which claimed the lives of twelve people. This did not happen in the U.S., however. This carnage took place in Cumbria, a quiet and picturesque district in northwest England.
Derrick Bird, a previously popular and well-liked 52-year-old, was a gun permit holder for twenty years prior to last week's rampage. Details on why Bird flipped out are still sketchy, but it had something to do with a family squabble. Bird was disputing his mother's will, and frustratingly told a group of associates the night before the shooting spree, "there's going to be a rampage in this town tomorrow and it's going to start with my mother." No-one took him seriously.
Bird was as good as his word, and the result was the worst gun massacre in Britain since the 1996 Dunblane school shooting in Scotland.
Yes, it's a terrible tragedy. And, yes, it's absolutely natural to think, if not for that rifle, twelve people would not have died from bullets lodged in their bodies.
But Prime Minister David Cameron was absolutely correct in resisting knee-jerk reactions to the massacre. Mr. Cameron said that gun control laws in Britain were already among the toughest in the world and that he would see to it that tragedies such as the one in Cumbria "cannot happen again."
The Prime Minister stated, "You can't legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone's head and this sort of dreadful action taking place." My thoughts exactly.
Britain has a serious knife culture at the moment. And while legislation exists to severely punish those caught carrying a knife, we haven't banned knives. We realize that knives are tools first, weapons second. Same thing with guns. We cannot ban guns on the premise that somebody will suddenly lose his mind and abuse that tool.
Compare the PM's level-headed assertion with that of MP John Pugh who questioned how a "simple taxi driver could possibly justify the apparently lawful possession of such a formidable and devastating arsenal." Excuse me, but how exactly does a shotgun and a .22 rifle constitute a "devastating" arsenal? Hyperbole, much?
Inner-city gangs may possess an arsenal, but the demented Mr. Bird certainly didn't. Britain's gun control laws are fairly strict. Futhermore, strict gun control laws in Finland didn't prevent two massacres in that country last year.
Mr. Cameron is correct. You cannot legislate against what people will do without crushing certain civil liberties in the process. As unfortunate as it is, you can only review existing laws, close loopholes where they may exist, punish killers with the death penalty (assuming they haven't already killed themselves), and help pick up the pieces after the fact.
People's reasons for owning a gun are not always nefarious. Lots of gun owners don't hunt nor look for people to pick off when they're pissed off. Guns, like furniture, can be a family artifact. Some people enjoy target shooting; in fact, the social activity inherent in shooting clays or "cowboy action" shooting can be very enjoyable. Some people like having a collection; they enjoy their guns' historical value and they're an investment. And, though I realize this assertion opens up a veritable Pandora's box of arguments, guns are kept for self-defence, something I fervently believe in.
And as much as I abhore hunting, let's face it: Hunting is never going to be declared illegal in any country, so, given that fact, how can you deny gun permits for it? The flannel-shirted redneck who likes nothing better than to stalk deer in the woods isn't going to be armed with a scythe, is he?
That doesn't make me a slavish devotee of the NRA or their "I shoot anything that moves on four feet" defenders. I am liberal enough to feel a palpable measure of disgust at just how much Republican/conservative politics are controlled by this militant lobby. I also have no problem with reasonable gun control laws. I don't think anyone can walk into a Walmart, pick up a rifle and proceed through check-out with it along with their groceries, sofa cushions and six-pack of beer. That's too insane for words.
Yet I remain conservative enough to recognize the fallacy of the "let's ban guns" argument. A nation that bans guns or makes them just short of impossible to attain is every bit as loopy and short-sighted as one that has very lax gun control legislation. There has got to be a balance.
What happened in Cumbria last week was an outrage. However, the killer was Derrick Bird, not his guns. I know that sounds clichéd. But it's true.
I can't believe, in this day and age, that two grown men could be given 14 years of hard labor simply for exploring their sexuality.
Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga were given the harsh sentence for committing "unnatural acts."
Unnatural acts—like daring to find someone of the same sex attractive; for daring not to breed; for daring to be human.
If ever there was a human rights case worthy of the title, this is it. We're not talking about some scummy terrorist who entered Britain on a student visa and can't be sent back to Pakistan because, oh no, he'll be tortured or possibly killed there! Who the fuck cares? I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep.
This is different; this is the very case for which human rights is entirely applicable. Yet, Britain, one of Malawi's biggest donors, has not withdrawn aid, though it condemned the Malawian judge's decision. No Western country, as far as I'm aware, has withheld aid to protest the sentence. (I'm not much for giving aid to Africa anyway, since it never seems to help and therefore seems like a waste of resources. I'm content to leave it to charities to help out there.)
Now, I'm all for any culture deciding what to do with themselves. If a people want to be soulless sticks-in-the-mud by disapproving of homosexuality, that's their business. I'm no fan of gay militancy, which disregards any other way of life as valid or worthy of respect. It's one thing to discourage homosexuality as long as human rights are protected and no-one gets hurt. But a culture that despises gays and will lock them up in a tough prison where they may not live to see out those 14 years? That's an outrage.
Furthermore, this wasn't just one judge's decision. Most Malawians approve of the sentence. Some even shouted "you deserve death" at Monjeza and Chimbalanga.
Right now, I don't care how badly Malawi or any other homophobic African country needs our aid. They can struggle and starve until they get with the 21st century. Anti-gay fervor of this type is an outrage and the West should send a message that's every bit as strong as the sentence.
We finally have a brand-new government here in Britain—and it's being run by a Clam.
The election resulted in the predicted hung parliament—which means no party won enough seats to claim a majority rule—but the Conservatives won the most. Labour came second and the Liberal Democrats third.
For five days, there was a lot of political wrangling. There was a lot of handshaking, hand-wringing and deals being struck. But, despite their second-place showing, Labour knew their time was up, and Gordon Brown executed perhaps his greatest decision of his entire five-year tenure by stepping down. Technically, he had the right to stay at No. 10 till September, but he intelligently chose to resign, paving the way for a new coalition government to take over. Gordon Brown eventually showed his mettle and recognized the will of the people, and we must give him credit for that.
The Conservative leader David Cameron is now Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (the British equivalent of a Vice President) is Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg. The two managed to hammer out a Cabinet that is mostly Conservative in make-up but with enough of a sprinkling of Liberal Democrats to, what they hope, will reign in the more strident Right-wingers of Cameron's cabinet.
It's really weird, having a Deputy PM that is of a different party—and different political outlook—than the Prime Minister. But the two leaders have promised to work together closely for the next five years. They have both received a warm congratulatory response by President Obama.
Cameron, without too much trouble from Mr. Clegg, has solidified Britain's commitment to Afghanistan, set an annual limit for non-EU immigration, protected their promise to reform education by raising standards and weakening teachers' union power, appointed a tough Home Office to deal with crime and to cut the red tape for more effective policing, and scrapped Labour's ID scheme. Hopefully, this will mean a significant loosening of our stifling database state. A return to greater civil liberty will be much welcomed.
The new government will also hopefully tackle the welfare culture, getting millions back in jobs, and slash benefits for slackers. They plan on cutting the deficit through the public sector, not by raising taxes.
If there are any roadblocks or unpopular decisions, both parties will bear the burden of blame. That, right there, is one benefit of a coalition government.
David Cameron is a gentleman as well as a pragmatist and Nick Clegg, Leftie idealist though he may be, is no less of a likeable man. And they're both young. Both men are only 43 years of age. Gordon Brown was already active in campus politics by 1972; in that same year, Clegg and Cameron were going grocery shopping with their mommies and asking if they could have the sugary cereal. I'm proud to have two of my fellow Gen-X'ers in charge.
Both men appear to have forgiven any election campaign rancor and buried whatever axes they may previously have tried to swing at each other. (One editorial cartoon, published in the wake of the Rose Garden press conference, showed Clegg as Jerry and Cameron as Tom!) I do believe, not even naïvely, that these two mean business.
Cameron and Clegg—Clam for short—represent a refreshing and much-welcomed change of government. Well done, fellas. Now get to work, because there's a heck of a lot to be done.
This guy may be a Labour candidate, but if I lived in the community he hopes to represent, I'd vote for him.
This is what parliamentarian hopeful Manish Soon had to say about Gordon Brown on his webpage:
"Immigration has gone up which is creating friction within communities. The country is getting bigger and messier. The role of ministers has gone bureaucratic and the action of ministers has gone downhill—it is corrupt. I believe Gordon Brown has been the worst prime minister we have had in this country. It is a disgrace and he owes an apology to the people and the Queen."
Now, not even I think Mr. Brown should have to apologize to Her Majesty (the Queen, in recent years, seems to have only just herself realized her duty to the people), but he certainly owes every member of the voting public an apology.
Whatever happens as a result of tonight's election, whatever type of country we wake up to tomorrow, can I just say that Labour could badly do with more MPs of your ilk, Mr. Sood.
At London's Methodist Central Hall earlier this week, Gordon Brown was moved at the sight of 14-year-old Tiara Sanchez crying as she delivered a personal testimony to him. When the Prime Minister asked her what was wrong, she responded that her family, who work as cleaners, are condemned to a life of poverty. Brown responded in a most heartfelt manner that she, and other poor, struggling families, could count on him to be a "friend" and a "brother."
Oh, please! This is politricking at its best—or do I mean worst? Brown is trying to save his own skin. We saw the real Gordon Brown last week when he called a hard-working 65-year-old woman a bigot, during what he thought was a private conversation with his staff, because she dared to voice her concern over the flood of immigrants swallowing up the country's resources.
This girl and her family are finding it hard to make ends meet, Mr. Brown, because you've budgeted millions worth of government money to meet the greedy, utopian and, more than anything else, anti-British demands of the European Union. Hardly a red cent you've provided for loyal British troops, to ensure the health of the British armed forces and the U.K.'s commitment to NATO.
You've also doled out plenty from the state coffers on multi-culti programs, and toward bailing out the banks, only you didn't give the banks millions; you gave them billions.
Funny how a family named Sanchez doesn't seem to have benefitted much from the diversity-praising society you've created. Not to mention all the money you've allocated toward child benefits. People should have families based on their own budgets, not the government's.
Well, as I've already noted, at least no-one can accuse you of spending too much on defense.
Nightdragon endorses David Cameron and the Conservative Party for tonight's general election. I don't feel particularly glad that fox-hunting enthusiasts may return to power, but there are other issues that badly need sorting out in order to promise the nation some sort of future. If the Tories would simply follow Ann Widdecombe's example, they'd be perfect—something they're currently not. But they're the best choice for the next five years.
(Previously published by Blogcritics)
Avatar.
That's all I'm seeing lately. A close-up of a blue face with a yellow cat-like eye staring at me from every bus stop, and 1,001 versions of newspaper advertisements and television commercials extolling the apparently overwhelming need for your own DVD or Blu-ray copy of what has been declared mankind's all-time motion picture achievement. It's Avatar overload. I don't think I've ever witnessed such fawning saturation of the market for any film before this one.
If Avatar had stuck purely to its message of respect for the environment and people's rights, then fine, I might be willing to watch it and perhaps even agree with the sentiment. I have no love or respect for corporations who plunder and ruin the environment for no other good reason than profit. But director James Cameron takes things much further.
Uncle Sam had to get up to his devilish ways and try to destroy everything and everyone on the Avatar planet in order to fulfill a thirsty desire for a rare mineral found there. This storyline is every bit as puerile as it is predictable.
Cameron, like most self-styled Left-wing heroes, conveniently ignores that fact that the United States is to be reckoned with with respect to environmental technology and that the majority of Americans approve of conservation. If Cameron's message was that America was being controlled by some sinister lobby which ensured that the film's fictional administration had to provide the mineral at all costs, that would be one thing. A stretch, but at least some sort of excuse. Instead, Cameron gets all Michael Moore on us, gleefully informing worldwide audiences that America, through its rock-solid belief in capitalism and its armed forces, is always reckless and dangerous.
As one sentinent critic observes: "James Cameron believes that the way forward is to tear down the factories, to tear down the cities, and give up on all mod cons."
Then there's the charge of racism as it pertains to Avatar. That one of the leading human characters, a white researcher, defends the Avatarians, enforces the notion that a fictional race of other people of color should need and rely on white assistance in order to defeat a threat to their way of life.
As this review makes clear, in Avatar, "the narcissistic fantasy of the white hero who leads people of another color in a struggle of liberation presents whites a pleasing images of themselves as saviors rather than oppressors. The racial masquerade is another fantasy solution to white guilt in which the white hero crosses over and pretends to be black or native American."
Gee, let's all smile and hold hands, shall we? This fantasy is very adept at perpetuating the notion that Caucasians—especially Anglo-Saxon ones—are deeply suspect, sinister and even evil unless they turn their backs on and reject their fellow war-like, rampaging whites. Whoever coined the phrase "blue-eyed devil" was a natural at PR and Cameron was only too eager to extrapolate on this theme.
Again, this very conveniently ignores the fact the great majority of environmentalists are, and have been, whites. When you think of a member of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club or Friends of the Earth, what's the first image that pops into your head to define the look of the average member? That's right: I'm thinking Shaggy from Scooby-Doo myself.
(Besides, let's not forget that Avatar's director is the same man who was happy to see several domesticated rats drown in the attempt to perfect a scene in an earlier film of his, The Abyss. Some nature-lover.)
If racism and civil rights is what you're concerned about, you only have to look at the way most Americans have reacted with horror to Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law to know that the nation's civil-rights consciousness is stronger than ever. (A completely misguided sense of civil rights outrage, mind you, but surely admirable in the eyes of Cameron clones nonetheless.)
In other words, I'm sick to practically the point of death—surely a good thing according to whackjobs like Cameron on account of my being white—of Avatar due to its only-too-predictable anti-Western, anti-American, anti-white, anti-capitalist bias. There is nothing "pro-" about this film. It has "anti-" written all throughout its screamingly obvious agenda.
