Political Rage.

Why I think that poverty can never truly be eradicated

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:33:52 GMT

People and politicians often talk about how they could eradicate poverty in countries like Africa if they could just provide free education, health care and good social security, but there is no evidence that any of this would work. Even if you managed to provide these facilities, some people would still be financially. As an example these things are available at a very high quality in the UK, yet there are still many examples of poverty here. I really believe that some states of poverty are in the mind and not issues of a lack of finance, but of lifestyle. Almost no one living in a city should be more than 2 miles from a free school, but there is still a massive illiteracy problem.

There is plenty of opportunity to get out of poverty, for a start no one should be illiterate, the country has some of the best social housing in the world, and one of the worlds best social security systems. Children living in the third world can walk for over an hour to get to school, this problem has been almost been eradicated here, but there are still children who don't go to school regularly out of their own choice. Poverty should not be nearly as prevalent as it is.

I know of plenty of people who the government would consider as poor. They do not want to do anything to change their financial status and throwing money at them will not induce motivation. My point is that it is pointless to make statements about eradicating poverty when not everyone wants to get out of poverty. Some people are comfortable in their economic state and if they make the choice not to change their situation, then that choice should be respected. As long as some people are making that choice, poverty will never be eradicated.

Hah.

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:38:51 GMT

Isn't it ironic that we have a man running against two dynasties, and everytime he starts to pull ahead his opponents, (one in particular) wants to play herself up to be the underdog in this election. What makes it more ironic and even funny is that some people feel sorry for her when she is on the ropes and is losing. These same people who all the time say politicians are all crooks, and are rich fat cats who don't know what they go through or give a damn about them.

I find it even more hilarious that most people get annoyed with politicians saying the same old crap every four years to scare up votes. I've heard many people on the street say such things as, "Politicians always tell you what you wanna hear, then when we elect them they never live up to their promises." This is funny because when we do finally get a politician who'll occasinally tell us some things we may not want to hear, or tell the truth, we let the media scrutinize them to no end, or vote against them in favor of someone who is more corrupted and less honest, and more well known.

What Obama said about bitter people clinging to God and guns when times get tough is exactly right. That's exactly what a lot of people do. I live in a state where in some areas I see people do just that. It's not an elitest statement. It's the truth. I don't see why that statement would cause such alarm. It shows that Obama's been paying attention.

Sometimes I think Obama is too honest to be a politician, because again so many people in this country swear up and down they want a politican who'll tell them the truth, but it seems that a lot people just want to be cheated and lied to by politicians because that is what they are used to.

Obama is not perfect, but he is different. I think after what we have now, people should be more eager to at least give this guy a shot. He's at least worth that much judging from the way he's run his campaign. And again he's running against two dynasties: The Clinton Dynasty, and The McCain Military One. He didn't have a whole lot of connections at the start of his campaign compared to his opponents.

Excellent article on post war Iraq

Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:51:33 GMT

What the Left dont want you to know.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=290819336173209

Sian Berry: Tit

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:25:20 GMT

Although I strongly support environmentalism, I've always been suspicious of the Green Party. This confirmed my suspicions.

Really, what the fuck made her imagine allying with Ken Leavingsoon was a good idea? Yes, I agree that Boris Johnson would be woeful on the environment (and everything else). But why infer from this that you should be supporting Leavingsoon, who quite obviously doesn't care about the environment or anything else apart from himself and his mates? I don't think for one minute that she means what she says. There must be some purpose behind it, but what? It stinks.

If she had supported the Lib Dems I might have had some respect for her. But now we can see that Paddick is the greenest of all the candidates, as Nutty has just ruled herself out.

barack obama

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:46:32 GMT

I can't believe this.

Is America really such a country of sheep, who blindly follow those who happen to have a smooth, coaxing voice?

Nothing Senator Barack Obama said in his "amazing" speech yesterday made any of it better. The bottom line is, he supported a preacher for 20 years. If he's the Christian he said he is (which I have fought to the death with some people over - I defended him on this fact) he goes to church to be fed, to renew the Spirit within him, to hear about God's love. To give his children the experience of the Spirit and the life God promises for us all. How can you go to a preacher for twenty years and, if you're really paying attention, not be influenced by things like this? What kind of preacher preaches hate? And how do you tell your children not to listen? Preachers are, or at least should be, some of the people you can always count on. How do you go home from church after a sermon like that and then say, "Now kids, forget all that he said!"

Doesn't his wife's comment make sense now? About how this is the first time in her adult life that she's proud to be an American? How well this fits in!

Nothing he said changes the fact that he supported a preacher who preaches hate. And if this doesn't bother you Obama supporters, why not the fact that he lied to you? He mislead you. When this first came out during this election he said he had no idea that the preacher had said anything like this at all. Now he says he has had knowledge of it. And of course he did - this isn't the first time this has happened. It happened earlier, a few years back I think, and Obama knew about it. So he lied to you, America, trying to save his own butt. And he has said that this man never gives him political advise. Didn't Obama also say that he never makes a decision without consulting him?

And you may argue church and state, but the preacher broke this by talking about it in his sermons! Isn't the purpose of a Christian life to spread the Word? To convert others to Christianity? In the long run, like oh I don't know ETERNITY, who you voted for in a stupid election isn't really going to matter. Obama said that we've probably all heard some things from our preachers that we disagree with. Actually, no, Senator Obama. That's just you. My preacher doesn't yell at me to hate other races.

But what makes me really angry is his speech. He is a very, very excellent speaker. So is his wife. They have smooth voices, they have a way with words, they know how to get you inspired and energized. He knows this. And what I hate is that he used this to his advantage. He knew that if he told you words of change, that if he could tell you pitying stories of his life, that he could sway America. And what's worse is that America blindly follows. He hasn't erased anything! He knows he can say the word "change" and a huge amount of people will latch onto it, because no one likes where we are right now! He knows he can fool us all, especially those who want him to make it better. Those who dislike Hillary they just want to vote for him to keep her out. So they will hear this and think there's the answer! But it doesn't make it better. It's not the answer.

I don't see how anyone has any respect left for him. He just needs to step down.

Just what i always thought...

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:59:19 GMT

I have just found an good article that confirms what i always suspected about socialism and Marxism. Socialism stiffles competition, which we need for innovation to occur. Capitalism thrives of competition which leads to innovation, better technology, economic growth and ultimately better living standards.

Competition - [drives] - Innovation -[drives] - Improved Technology -[drives] - Economic Growth -[drives] - Funding for Innovation -[drives] - Improved Technology -[drives]- Economic Growth... ad infinitum

The Meaning of Marxism
http://www.targetofopportunity.com/marxism.htm

Western Liberal Hypocrisy

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:43:51 GMT

Somehow Anti-Americanism has somehow become the great cause of western liberal idealists. Ironic considering America is one of the few countries in the world that allows large liberal movements to flourish. The countries often defended by western liberals do not themeselves allow any liberal movements, free speech or equal rights for their own citizens. The only common trait they (countries supported by western liberals) seem to share is a hatred for America and/or capitalism. Its as though a government can commit as many atrocities or human rights abuses as they wish, for as long as they are anti American and/or capitalist they can expect the strong support of western liberals. The hypocisy lies in the fact that western liberals deride America for commiting the very same human rights abuses the countries they support lead the world in.

Bottom Brown strikes again!

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:53:51 GMT

I just read this in the Guardian today and im very surprised at what looks like a major mistake by Brown. Selling half of the UK's gold reserves for $275 an once! What a cock up. Even my dad knows that over the long term gold will only keep increasing in value and his no ecomomist ;)

Brown must of been desperate for the cash to drop that clanger.

Looks like the buyer of the Gold is laughing all the way to the bank though!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/mar/05/mining.economy

"Gordon Brown's decision to sell half of Britain's gold reserves nearly a decade ago was coming back to haunt him last night as the price of the precious metal looked poised to break through the $1,000 an ounce barrier for the first time."
"Alistair Darling, the chancellor, will be questioned in the Commons tomorrow about the decision of his predecessor, which the Conservatives said last night had cost the exchequer £4bn - double the losses suffered by the Bank of England on Black Wednesday. "
"The gold price this week set a new high of $989 (£498) an ounce. Although it dipped slightly yesterday, analysts said it was only a matter of time until it burst through the $1,000-an-ounce level. The Treasury's gold sales between 1999 and 2002 netted an average price of $275 an ounce."

Question

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:04:21 GMT

All the time I hear people talk about how they're so sick of the same old politicians in office not doing anything for years and years, and how they all should be voted out, and new people should sworn in so we could get something done. I also hear people say things like the senate and congressional terms should have strict limits just so we can eliminate all the old politicians who do nothing. When I tell people that members of congress get unlimited terms unless they don't get re-elected by their state or district, they become outraged. "Are you serious?" they ask me. "And they've been in there that long, and what have we gotten from it?" It seems like a lot of people desire new leadership. At least that's the impression I get when they talk to me.

But as soon as election time comes, a few of these people start changing their minds when a candidate they really like doesn't have "experience." Then they end up voting for the senior statesman again, and we make no progress. I know this first hand because I live in Connecticut and our state was dumb enough to re-elect tired old, Iraq war supporting, John McCain endorsing, trader, Joe Lieberman in 2006. But now, many who voted for him regret it. They regret it so much so, that Obama took our state in the primary during Super Tuesday, narrowly, but he did it, which means people woke up.

But let's face facts. All politicians are crooks in one way or another. It's a dirty business being in public office. But what I can't stand is how people want to believe experience trumps character and judgement when they know in their hearts it isn't true. Like I said my state re-elected Joe Lieberman all because of the experience factor, even though he switched parties just to get in again. And because we re-elected him, we now look like a bunch of idiots for having done so, because former Vice Presidential Candidate Joe Lieberman, who'd been a democrat in the senate for 18 years, and who constantly made people aware of how much he emulated JFK, and was for doing the right thing etc etc, supports the Iraq war, and doesn't care if his new best friend John McCain keeps us there for 100 years.

All because of experience.

If experience in national politics was so damn important, then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in because everyone in Bush's cabinet has plenty of experience. Dick Cheney was a congressman for 10 years, and then a secretary of defense for 4 years after that (under George H.W Bush's administration), so why aren't we safe? Why do we, as of this administration, need a department of homeland security to waste more tax money? What happened to experience? Donald Rumsfeld had 4 decades of experience in public office and a big long resume. He'd been a congressman, a white house chief of staff, and a secretary of defense under two previous administrations. We thought he'd be around until the end, but his bad judgment did him in.

And in light of examples like this, and there are a lot, why do people still look at experience as a factor for picking anyone for anything? When Hillary Clinton says she's been fighting for this, that and the other thing for 35 years, why shouldn't that statement alone do her in because when she says that, I and many other people look at each other and go, "And this is as far as we've gotten after you've been fighting for 35 years?"

And for the record, people didn't vote for Bush in 2000 because he promised change or because he was somebody people wanted to have a beer with, they voted for him because of name recognition, and because they thought since his father had been president, maybe he'd have some idea of what he was doing based on his family's long legacy of being in politics. And look where we are.

Experience doesn't mean anything if you have no common sense or conscience.

Disgusting pandering to Muslim Violence AGAIN!

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:43:12 GMT

I think it is disgusting how the UK, EU and USA has caved in to muslim violence and stolen land from Serbia to invent a country for the violent Albanians living in Serbia. The same thing happened before when the British invented Pakistan to please violent Muslims demanding independance in India.Even more disgusting is how the Serb leader Slobodan was sent to the Hague for war crimes whilst the leader of the KLA (who have been responsible for just as many if not more attrocities) has been given a country to rule.

I sympathies go out to the Serbs.

I HATE THE MEDIA

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:39:43 GMT

I REALLY cannot stand the media. They are RIDICULOUSLY biased against Hillary Clinton. Does anyone else see this? Every time I go on CNN there's a new positive Obama article and a new negative Hillary article. It MAKES ME SICK. Don't even get me started on Fox and MSNBC.

Why is it okay to bash Hillary and her family and it's completely unacceptable to say anything bad about the SAVIOUR OF THE EARTH OBAMA. There is NOTHING that great about him. Seriously, I don't understand it.

If someone made the kind of attacks on Obama's daughters that they have made on Chelsea all her life there would be HELL TO PAY for them. With the Clintons, it's like any insult, any accusation, anything is acceptable.

The AMOUNT OF SHIT Hillary has had to put up with is DISGUSTING. I don't know how she is still managing to go on while facing all of this, but she is. The disrespect shown to that family makes me sick. I don't care if you don't like them, but at least respect them for what they have done for your country.

Clinton haters: do not want to hear why you hate them.
Clinton lovers: please join http://community.livejournal.com/hillary_daily/profile There needs to be more Clinton positivity online!

I Hate Anti Americanism

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:27:18 GMT

First let me get one thing straight, i am not religious, i am not a conservative and i do not love George Bush. Infact im not even white.

I hate the current wave of anti americanism sweeping accross the UK. Everyone seems to be anti american, its become totally acceptable and even fashionable to be against america. In every global conflict america seems to be blamed for either doing to much or not doing enough. They seem damned if they do and damned if they dont. I often hear people claim america will only help a country if it has oil, but there was no oil in Bosian. No one on this tiny island seems to realise how vast america is both geographically and socially. As an example a collegue recently told me he hated americans. I asked him who specifically he hated, white americans, black americas, hispanic americans, asian americas, liberal americas, conservative americas, native americans, pro choice americas, pro life americans, athiest americans, religeous americans etc. He looked surprised answering he probably meant conservative white americans for backing the war on terror. So i asked why did he not say he hated American foriegn policy, why did he decide to say he hated all americans without even understanding who he meant. The general anti american bigotry is unbelievable and very unsavoury.
It would not be publically acceptable to say 'i hate all pakistanis' or 'i hate all chinese'', etc because even though these countries have a far worse record of human rights abuses than america ever has, it would be seen as racist and unfair to blame the people for the crimes of their leaders, yet this is acceptable when discussing america.

Reasons why hating the whole of america is wrong:-
As soon as a natural disaster anywhere around the world happens the US is the first international military force to arrive and spend the most money on disaster relief.
The internet was originally developed by the american military
NASA spin off technology has provided, cat scan technology, smoke detectors, satellite communications, advanced computer design and simulation technology, structural analysis programs, water purification systems etchttp://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
This technology could not ever of been provided by any other country since no one else can afford such a large space program, yet the benefits of this technology is available to all of mankind.
Many amerians are publicaly polarised over opinion such as the reason for the war on terror.
All americans are just as to blame for their governments actions as all of the palestinians are for Hamas, all the pakistanis for the violence in kashmir, and all of the chinese for the the Tibetan massacre.
Oh and back to Bosnia, impotent europe sat on its ass and cried like a baby for american help because it never had the balls to sort out what was happening. It was up to the americans to do the dirty work for europe. Im sick of people declaring america only goes to war for oil, THERE WAS NO OIL IN BOSNIA (or 1945 germany for that matter). Im not saying Bush isnt a oil hungry bastard, but the world was in plenty of termoil before he turned up.

My point is not that we should love or hate a whole country, but rather we should treat everyone as individuals. Even the Americans. implied. This is not an isolated case, everyone i meet seems to hate

Demicans and republicrats

Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:20:41 GMT

I hate how the 2 major United States political parties are nearly identical to eachother. I just heard recently that John McCain might select hard-core christian theocrat MIKE HUCKABEE as his running mate. I was planning to vote for McCain in November, but if he selects Huckabee, then I might vote for Clinton/Obama, or I might not vote for either candidate, just like I didn't vote for either candidate in the last 2 presidential elections. I am not an unrealistic idealist; it is my intent to vote for the candidate that I hate less, that is, the lesser evil (I have never seen a politician or political party that has ideals that I actually support; Oh how I hate those crowds of fanatical politician supporters that see the candidate that they vote for as someone that is actually good, rather than merely a lesser evil.). However, it is more often than not the case that the demican candidate and the republicratic candidate are equally evil, so there is no point in voting for either one.

Today, the republican party supports a christian theocracy in the United States, whereas the democratic party supports an islamic theocracy in the United States, by letting Al-Qaida and the iranians take over Iraq (Al-Qaida in the north, Iran in the south), and consequently establish a jihadist theocracy in Iraq that will build, AND USE, WMDs against the United States and other secular countries, unless and until the people of said countries convert to Islam. Christian theocracy, islamic theocracy, big fucking difference. On the plus side, Obama said that he would invade northwest Pakistan, so between him and McCain/Huckabee I might vote for Obama, but if it were Hillary, I most likely wouldn't vote at all.

If it were my choice, all of the christian theocrats like Huckabee, Romney, Ron Paul, McCain (whose is a christian theocrat, just not as extreme as Huckabee; remember that I said that I intend to vote for the lesser evil), GWBush, and most republicans, and all of the leftist islamic theocrats like Hillary, Obama, Ron Paul (who supports both christian theocracy and islamic theocracy, because he supports theocracy in general), and most democrats, would all be beheaded, at best. Their bodies would then be processed to harvest donor organs, meat, and byproducts which can be processed into oil via thermal depolymerization. Their meat would then be sold at a low price at grocery stores and restaurants. That would also serve to reduce overpopulation (and cut greenhouse emissions, pollution, and deforestation as an added bonus) and increase home ownership by freeing up houses. Who's with me?

Edit, in response to a comment:
These links show how insanely fanatical Ron Paul is:
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html
He actually uses the term 'liberty' in a doublethink manner to mean 'theocracy'. He also has the most fanatical psychological profile of any of the candidates. He also blamed the United States for 9-11, rather than the jihadists. Even Ron Paul's pro-liberty positions derive from his belief that the state is in competition with the church, and that the former should be replaced by the latter.

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:47:55 GMT

It fills me with visceral disgust to hear the President of the United States - even a president as shitty as Bush - refer to a man who's little more than a dictator with a pedigree, as "Your Majesty." It makes me feel like throwing up.

Am I alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

Arghhh! Why is the West so Guliable?

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:09:21 GMT

Reading the papers today you would believe Isreal has cut the power to the whole of the Gaza Strip plunging its entire population into darkness. Hospital patients are dying as their life support machines fail, old people are falling down the stairs, children are bieng hit by cars and generally chaos has insued. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!

As the Israel's Foreign Ministry notes, the supply of electricity to Gaza from the Israel and the Egyptian power grids (124 Megawatts and 17 Megawatts respectively) has continued uninterrupted. These 141 Megawatts of power represents about three quarters of Gaza's electricity needs. THERE IS NO POWER BLACKOUT!

The only power station affected by the power cut is the one in Qassam which ironicaly is the one Hamas is constantly attacking with rockets.

DONT FALL FOR THE SPIN!

THERE IS NO BLACKOUT!

The British are very easily persuaded by the press. Its no wonder Tony Blair used spin so effectively to remain in power. Hamas are using it just as effectively to sway western media.

Bourgeois and proud!

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:36:23 GMT

Im am bourgeois and im proud! My parents worked very hard to be able to buy a house in a nice area, their hard work enabled me to go to a good school where i tried hard and got good grades. I now work very hard 5 days a week to maintain a good qualitiy of life for my children whilst paying all of my taxes. These taxes fund the national health service, the welfare state, the education system, safe roads, prisons, social services, local councils, waste disposal, police, fire service. Infact without the bourgeois taxes the entire country would grind to a halt. So why do liberals consistantly demonise the bourgeois? Why am i to blame for the wrongs of society? If some lazy ass scally decides to shag a 12 year old and have 3 kids why is this my problem? I dont mind paying taxes and helping those who have not had such a good family as i have but neither am i to blame for their short comings. People need to stop blaming the middle classes for their ills and instead be grateful that some of us can be bothered to get up at 6 in the morning 5 days a week to earn enough money for all of us to benefit from.

Damn you Mike Huckabee!

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:35:08 GMT

First, let me say that i am NOT a morning person and had not had my coffee yet when this occured. At first I thought I might stillbe dreaming.

Earlier this morning I drove to the bank to deposit a check. To my shock and horror, there were about 10 people standing out front with "Honk for Huckabee" or "Vote Huckabee for me" signs. While I was there, I actually heard someone honk!

Of course my smartass self could not resist saying something to them. As I waited for the lady to process my check I wondered which stupid idea of Huckabees would be the best to address with them. After much consideration ( i mean, between the evolution, the dog thing, his foreign policy, and much much more) I decided on asking them about his desire to ammend the constitution.

So, i rolled down my window while waiting at the stoplight and asked " don't you know that he wants to change to constitution so it lines up with the bible?". to my dismay they answered "well, hell yeah, that's why we're voting for him".

I couldn't even respond to that with more than a shaking of my head in disbelief. what is the world coming to? are you freaking kidding me?

Globalization is Inevitable

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 02:38:02 GMT

I'm fed up with people making anti globalisation comments. It amazes me how small minded and naive people can be. Would people actually prefer it if the human race was still separated into various territories and tribes? If we want a united world with no borders we are going to need to unite the globe ergo globalisation is a necessary stage for global harmony. Globalisation is also needed to reduce poverty in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization "The percentage of people living on less than $2 a day has decreased greatly in areas effected by globalization, whereas poverty rates in other areas have remained largely stagnant". Take Microsoft (software criticisms aside) for example, the uniform approach of all their software has lead to a massive increase in the usability of computers around the world. If you can use Win2000 in the UK you can use it anywhere (language aside). This has lead to many jobs in the IT field such as teaching, training, software development, maintenance, installation etc, all around the world. Without the globalisation of Microsoft everyone would be doing their own thing and the industry would not be what we know it as today. I teach computers to many international students and all of them have come across Microsoft in their own countries. It is a global standard in IT and the industry is all the better for it. People need to grow up and accept that the world will only get smaller and eventually like it or not we will become a globalised society.

One of the ironies of the recent success of India and China is the fear that... success in these two countries comes at the expense of the United States. These fears are fundamentally wrong and, even worse, dangerous. They are wrong because the world is not a zero-sum struggle... but rather is a positive-sum opportunity in which improving technologies and skills can raise living standards around the world.

—Jeffrey D. Sachs, The End of Poverty, 2005

inevitable

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:54:19 GMT

Okay, so I don't even WANT to like Ron Paul anymore. He's old as fuck, horribly uncharismatic, awful at public relations, and has backwards views on science. I thought he might be smart about economics, but I don't even know anymore. I mean--if Austrian economic theory was so great, wouldn't more people be saying what he was saying?

Ugh, except, we HAVE to get out of Iraq, and stop this over extended foreign policy. It's ridiculous the quagmire we have gotten ourselves into.

The one thing is...he actually provides a reasonable plan for reducing the national debt. The other Republicans all talk about lowering taxes. The Democrats all talk about increasing spending. Both will only dig the hole deeper.

Like Barack. Man, I really, REALLY want to like this guy. He's just so...pandering. He proposes all these new programs and expenditures, and then just gives some vague lip service to fiscal responsibility. I mean, what's the point in promoting pay-as-you-go Congressional rules if you're not willing to lay out how all your programs are going to be paid for from the get go? And in the end, he's just like the rest of them: globalists, career politicians, lying, sneaky...grrr.

God send me a reasonable, atheist candidate who offers a balanced fucking budget and a humble foreign policy.