After a series of massive airstrikes on the Gaza Strip the IDF finally moved ground troops into the Gaza Strip on Sunday. It's fair to say that this has been roundly condemmed by just about every democratic government in the world. The French president Sarkozy and the Czech Foreign Minister (the Czech Republic currently holds the EU presidency) are currently in the Middle East pushing for a ceasefire. The US took a more pro-Israeli line with soon to be replaced President Bush stating that Hamas are to blame. Ehud Olmert has rejected calls for a ceasefire taking the view that if a ceasefire is negotiated then it will give Hamas the impression that they can continue their rocket attacks against Israel unabated.
The first point to consider here is whether Israel is under threat from Hamas. Hamas does want to wipe Israel from the map. This is something that can be clearly seen in their charter or covenant. This is of course a completely ludicrous thing to state in a political group's charter. Israel has the right to exist and I don't think many would disagree despite the fact that they drove Arabs away through the same terrorist tactics that they are now trying to combat.
Here's some history - In the post war British Mandate of Palestine, Menachim Begin and Yitzhak Shamir (who went on to be Israeli Prime Ministers) were terrorists who carried out bombings (King David Hotel) and political assassinations (UN Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte).
Hamas are very unlikely to accept a two state solution and until they do Israel will continue to blockade and bomb the fuck out of the Gaza Strip and Hamas will continue to launch rockets at southern Israeli towns. Hamas govern a tiny amount of land. This area has been blockaded by Israel for the last 18 months. All border crossings are closed and economic supplies are heavily restricted. Israel has been trying to starve Hamas for over a year. Gaza's residents are completely dependent on food aid, about 400 trucks worth a day. The hospitals in Gaza are poorly staffed and poorly supplied. This is not punishing the Hamas government, it is punishing the 1.4 million residents of Gaza. Reading this I defy anyone to suggest that the actions of the Israeli government are not directly radicalizing the Gazan population. If someone locked you in your bedroom for 18 months you would definitely try to kick the fucking door down.
The Israeli government is deluded thinking that military action is the corect course of action. Hamas are of course terrorists and have carried out sickening attacks on civilians, but so have Israel. One only needs to listen to what the Red Crescent are saying and what Gazan doctors are saying. Then Israel come out and say that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza (I heard this on a BBC TV interview with the foreign minister herself, I apologise for not being able to provide a reference).
If I could think of an analogy it would be the one of Bloody Sunday, an injustice performed by the British Army in Derry, Northern Ireland. This act was to prove to be the PIRA's biggest recruiting drive ever. Israel performs at least one of these events every year. Benjamin Netanyahu claimed on British television that Israel was doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties which is of course impossible in an area as crowded as the Gaza Strip. Also it does not explain them using this -
That is an airburst white phosphorous artillery shell, my time working in a bomb disposal team with a lot of ex-squaddies taught me that using one of these in a densely populated urban area is not a good way to limit civillian casulaties.
These actions are gonna make life a lot harder for Israel AND Palestine.
The study concluded the following - 'These results are consistent with the existenceof an environmental trigger for autism among genetically vulnerablechildren that is positively associated with precipitation. Furtherstudies focused on establishing whether such a trigger existsand identifying the specific trigger are warranted.' Autism Prevalence and Precipitation Rates in California, Oregon, and Washington Counties
Michael Waldman, PhD; Sean Nicholson, PhD; Nodir Adilov, PhD; John Williams, MD, MBA
So somehow the BBC picked up this 'science' story which is so, so, so dumb the man/woman who considered it news worthy should cut their own head off to prevent themselves publishing further drivel.
Now I understand that the article does indeed state that experts in the UK consider this study to be as much use as a solar powered torch. However, this is just the sort of garbage science reporting that can misinform and confuse a proportion of the country who are not scientifically literate.
Note the headline - Rainfall autism theory suggested
That is as far as some people will read.
Really the headline should read something like - Rainfall autism link completely dumb.
Autism is one condition that is poorly understood by the public. All the evidence points towards autism being a genetic condition. More and more children are being diagnosed with autism. It was highlighted as a condition commonly misdiagnosed and techniques were improved.
So 100's upon 1000's of quacks, playmates of the year (Jenny McCarthy - she's a proponent of the notion that child vaccinations cause autism. For the record that is pseudo-scientific bullshit and nothing but) and lazy doctors try to find a link between autism and absolutely anything. Recent 'links' have been made between autism and cell phone useage, electric pylons, heavy metals like mercury, older fathers and early television useage. That is a whole lot of weird unrelated stuff. Time to add something else to the list then.
The article claims that scientists (who have been published in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine)have concluded that 'increased rainfall, or something linked to it, may be connected to the development of autism'. It then explains that it might be chemicals related to the rainfall and/or the rain itself that is striking down children with autism.........Then what? How? Why? Evidence? Got any? They haven't got any, they just looked at some statistics and the rain....................................
This is a not scientific investigation. It's confusing association with causation. So for instance I could state that because it is known Artic icesheets are retreating, and more celebrities are joining the anti-vaccine movement. That Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy could be responsible for retreating ice sheets. Then I don't have to print any evidence as to how, and my work gets published? I'll read the paper.
Please be sceptical when reading science stories. These are the sorts of stories that sell papers unfortunately. The sensationalist, dumb ones. The ones that gutter press print week after week about a particular sort of bread causing throat cancer one week then reducing bowel cancer the next. It's rubbish.
Thank god for that. I just heard John McCain thank Sarah Palin for being "one of the most effective campaigners I have ever seen."
I think this means that Americans have voted for the right person, because if they'd elected McCain they would have clearly elected a liar. Joking aside, he was very honourable in his 'I just got served' speech and would have been a better president than Bush was. It was a landslide and I'm sort of glad I stayed up to watch it.
Everyone has to have an opinion on this one. Most people are familiar with the phrase - 'everytime America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold'. This is why you should have an opinion. You may be currently hearing the words 'credit' and 'crunch' practically everytime you turn on the news. This was an American sneeze that has certainly given my country of residence (UK) a pretty snotty nose, sore throat and a headache. In the case of Iceland it appears to have given them full blown pneumonia and completely destroyed their banking system. So start following American politics, get some American friends and get them to vote for the right guy, whoever you think that is.
The last Republican president has the following as his legacy - The Iraq War (dumb), a global economic crisis (ok, debatable whether he was solely responsible but I'll tell you this much....he's been president for the last 8 years), global warming denial (and I quote, "the jury's out on the causes of global warming"), a real dodgy election (nice work Jeb and Katherine you crafty dogs) and a complete lack of knowledge of the rest of the world (this knowledge was not improved upon even during his 8 year stint, I quote again, he actually send this to the Brazillian president Fernando Cardoso - "Do you have blacks too?"). If you think Bush is a great president then you clearly have not served in Iraq, were not in New Orleans when Katrina paid a visit and you clearly have never heard him open his mouth and speak.
This article is not about Bush though. It's about the new candidates, namely John 'Maverick' McCain and Barack 'Change' Obama. It's also about the American public and how I think they will react on later on today.
Let's get started with the veteran with the creepy smile and the Bush-esque, fruit fly research hating running mate who puts the Alas back into Alaska, Sarah 'I'll get back to ya' Palin.
Apparently McCain is a maverick because he has been known to disagree with party policy. This is not really a selling point. Just because you disagree with the party line occasionally does not make you a maverick, it just means that your opinion differs from others occasionally. Under this rationale everyone in the world is a maverick because we will never, ever all agree. It's like that Chris Rock sketch where he talks about people taking credit for things they are supposed to do.
McCain - 'I sometimes disagree with the party line.' Chris Rock - 'You're supposed to!'
McCain's military experience is a plus point, but as commander in chief I don't think we can use this experience to judge how good he will be in this role. Bush had very little experience, he did not listen to his generals, but he did listen to a former board member of Kelloggs (Rumsfeld) who quite quickly pushed him up an Iraqi shit-creek and denied him a paddle. I think McCain will fare better than Bush but his party is awful hawkish and I fear he will be pushed around by politicians rather than generals. McCain was tortured in Vietnam as a POW but voted to continue waterboarding, this is disgusting and is a blot on his record. McCain had previously voted to improve conditions for prisoners (not POWs, just prisoners) at Guantamano but doesn't think that simulated drowning is that bad. Hmmmmm. He wants victory in Iraq, unfortunately I have not heard him define how he will achieve victory. God help him if he has to face war widows whilst he's shouting out 'We Won!!!' He wants Bin Laden and says 'I'll get him!', again............how exactly?
McCain and Palin seem to not care about the environment and science in general. Anyone who has not heard Sarah Palin's attempts to enter scientific debate should watch this
If you care about science (and you should since without it we'd all die) you will have probably slapped your forehead by now. This was a galactically stupid comment from an inexplicably stupid lady. McCain must have a lot in common with this woman because they are campaigning together. Science and the environment are commonly overlooked issues in politics and the McCain/Palin stance is very worrying. Bush said some very, very stupid things about the environment and McCain/Palin are not calming the fears of rational people who know better.
The economy is the last bit I'll cover. McCain's policies do not favour the vast majority of the population of America. His policies favour making the very rich, much, much richer. He wants to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, decrease corporation tax and reduce the growth of Medicare so insurance companies can carry on denying health care to the poor. These policies would not stick in my country. It is the government's duty to help those that need help the most, whilst I'm sure John McCain has a barely beating heart in his chest, his policies do seem skewed towards those that need the least help. Bush tried to make the rich richer and then approved an enormous loan from the federal government to prevent banks from imploding with the force of 17 black holes at the end of his tenure. McCain appears to have an even more conservative approach to economic policy. However, he has made hints that lucrative serverance packages and monstrous wages paid to CEOs will be curbed. I commend him for that, these huge bonuses to seem to have contributed to the global economic crisis and the banks agree.
This is Barack Obama, if this picture is anything to go by he will kick your ass if you don't vote for him. Barack has used the word 'change' an awful lot recently. He has changed politics in America for good by being the very first African-American to run for precidency. Seeing as 50 years ago America was still segregated, this is a testament to him. I didn't think I would see this happening in the US for a while yet and I'm really chuffed it's happened now. But what about the man himself, I'll be honest, alot of what I have heard at his rallies has been pretty rhetorical. He has been whipping up fervour rather than concentrating on policies. He has repeated the slightly ambiguous word change an awful lot. This is American politics however, it's more about the person than the policies. Change is important right now in American politics. America needs to start making more friends.
I personally would have put in a 3 year old child in the Oval Office instead of Bush, at least we would never have gotten into Iraq with a 3 year old president. Joking aside I will run down the same issues I discussed on my McCain section.
Like most politicians Barack has no military experience, like McCain, Obama has travelled the world and appears to be intelligent. Barack wants troops out of Iraq, I believe he talks of phased re-deployment, note he does not mention victory. Barack opposed the war from its outset, I don't think 'complete and total victory' is possible in Iraq. Just the same way the British Army will never achieve 'victory' in Northern Ireland. If Obama uses diplomacy adequately in Iraq he could end this ongoing war and eventually improve the standard of living in Iraq which is the only reason there is still violence there. If people feel safe and secure in Iraq then the violence will cease. I experienced Northern Ireland during the troubles and can tell you that you do not feel safe when lots of soldiers are walking around pointing guns at you. However, once dialogue was opened with the very people a conservative government swore never to talk to, peace came, soldiers started leaving, the standard of living increased and the violence ceased to the point where there are very few sectarian paramilitary groups left in Northern Ireland. Barack appears to want to take this route and I believe it is the right one.
Barack actually knows something about environmental issues and has campaigned very hard on environmental and scientific issues like recycling in Harlem and regulating emissions from coal fired power stations. This stands in stark contrast with the McCain/Palin ticket who seem absolutely clueless and want money diverted from research that they are just completely ignorant to. I really don't have to expend much time on this issue, it isn't an issue for the Republicans but the Democrats take this issue seriously. If McCain saw it as a national security issue he might do something about it. Obama on the other hand knows that the environment is a national security issue.
Barack's economic policy also stands in stark contrast to McCain's in fact it's the complete opposite with tax cuts for the rich being scrapped and policies that reflect the FDR New Deal social welfare policies. Something that McCain wants to put into a private fund (so people can make money from poor people). Obama's policies favour the majority of American's and he wants to remove the class divisions present in America that were so apparent during Hurricane Katrina when poor people were left to die while the president went to McCain's birthday party.
So who will the American public vote for? The polls claim that Obama is ahead on nearly all fronts. All the issues, all the key states. American people generally don't vote for the statesman they vote for the actor, the guy who stands a better chance of being in a Hollywood movie. Just look at the last election, Kerry was clearly the better politician but instead they voted for the warmongering, apparently down to earth rich boy. I know so many Americans who voted Bush in for a second term but now can't believe they did it. The American media does a great job at painting a picture of politicians that is not neccesarily the truth. American news stations actually pick a candidate and support them. This does not happen in the UK where news stations are completely impartial. I mean if Obama wins, I seriously believe that Fox News won't announce the results until about 4 hours after everyone else. Ever since I can remember, the person voted in as US president is the most charismatic and photogenic. Luckily the guy who fits that bill THIS time, appears to be the right guy for the job.
I won't name him, work it out for yourself.
This took sooo long to write, it's 4am now, jeez. Well done if you read the whole thing, reward yourself.
The aim of this blog is to try and give a completely biased and personal view of any and all news stories I can pick up. Now the word biased may with good reason ring alarm bells in your head. However, this blog is opinion and nothing else. I will not be able to provide much factual evidence because quite simply, I don't have the resources/money/patience to collect any. What I do have is a lot to say. Here's my first go.
So let me start with what is inexplicably hogging the headlines of just about every tabloid, broadsheet, internet news site and tv news programme in the UK currently. Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand (2 British comedians who are so far up their own asses they can see the feet of their biggest fans) at the weekend left 3 prank call messages on the answerphone of a guest they were to have on their radio show, but who cancelled at the last second. The man in question is Andrew Sachs of Fawlty Towers fame. He played an endearing idiot of a Spaniard called Manuel, this Youtube clip will give you the idea
Mssrs Brand and Ross then left 3 barely offensive on Mr Sachs' answerphone, judge for yourself. I mean you would have to be about 15 times more cutting to piss me off
In the last few days, Brand has resigned under pressure from the BBC and Ross has been suspended by the BBC. The Daily Mail ran this story on their front page, overlooking the fact that the US Airforce had bombed Syria on the same day. They emplored that the BBC 'stand up for common decency' and sack them both. The BBC has opened an enquiry and is presumably just using this time to deflect some blame from themselves and onto the individuals.
The big thing about these prank calls is the fact that Brand and Ross said that Andrew Sachs' granddaughter is a bit of a fitty (please judge for yourself)
and hinted that Brand may have slept with her . If Andrew Sachs (and his grand-daughter herself after she sold her story to The Sun newspaper proclaiming how offended she is about the whole thing) thinks that his grand-daughter is holier than thou then he is clearly wearing sunglasses with a picture of Mother Teresa stuck to the inside everytime he lays eyes on her. Pictures speak a million words and the one I just gave a link to shows Andrew Sachs' grandaughter resting a guitar neck between her tits and vagina. She's with her band, they are called The Satanic Sluts.
So Mr Sachs' grandaughter is outraged and Andrew Sachs himself says he's accepted their apologies. But still the bastions of common decency (the gutter press) are slagging off the BBC and Brand and Ross. They are banging the same old drums they bang when they have something to complain about the BBC. Namely license fees, being a public service broadcaster, etc etc.
Here's my view - this show was pre-recorded, Mr Sachs was asked by producers at Radio 2 whether he would mind them broadcasting the messages. Apparently he said no, but the BBC did it anyway. Then in the fallout the two comedians get the blame. Listen, comedy is not serious, it's funny jokes and if the Sachs family are taking this seriously then they should eat a slice of reality cake. Get over it, it was a funny prank call. They didn't ring up, call your grandaughter the 'c' word and threaten to rape her. THAT would have been obscene and offensive. Instead they alluded to fancy a girl who has no problem being photographed in her bra and pants, rubbing a bass guitar over her soft parts with 2 other Satanic Sluts. If anyone should be demonised it should be the BBC for broadcasting it, not Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross for making the jokes in the first place.
The ability of the UK press to turn a mole hill sized event into a gargantuan one is shocking. There are far more important things to worry about than 3 pretty funny prank calls. As for the Daily Mail, how they can claim to stand up for common decency when half the stories they print are filthy and verging on the xenophobic, absolutely befuddles me.
As for the poor, little, innocent grandaughter (I'm refusing to call her by her real name for the simple fact that that's what the press keep calling her in an attempt to make her seem like a delicate flower rather than a half naked bass guitar fetish goth girl) honey don't sell your story to The Sun claiming you're mortally offended, you are clearly very happy The Sun newspaper is paying you thousands of pounds.
The poor, privacy breached, delicate flower subsequently did a kiss and tell where she claimed that Mr Brand was disappointing in bed. ONE DAY after complaining that her right to privacy was breached. I believe this is having your cake, AND eating it at the same time. Get over it my dear, I am............well now I've finished writing 800 odd words on it anyway.
