In my previous Blog on Russell Brand, I suggested, Brand was at least "tackling political issues" in his own unique style. A style that in the very least raised the profile of an issue and looked at it from a counterintuitive perspective. I like that. Unfortunately, as is often the case, these views are left wanting when pressed with some vigour. But that is not wholly the case here. No, Brand went that much further, and not content with being 'controversial' decided to be plain and simple whacky, aligning himself with conspiracy theorist on the subject of 9/11.
What a complete klutz. But should we be surprised by Brands total foolishness? Not at all. As recovering addicts like all addicts, he is, and will be, prone to relapse. Unfortunately, this is more than a 'relapse' this is shooting yourself in both feet, body and head! Moreover, it is undoubtedly more evidence of once you 'scratch' the surface--of pseudo middle class intellectuals--there is very little actual substance. Hence, the need for 'shock' statements and 'contrary' positions to keep the public interested. A contrarian such as Christopher Hitchens, he is not.
Of course, not all is lost for Brand with a reported 15 million fortune he is immune to cataclysmic fuck ups of everyday folk! He could just disappear from public view (highly doubtful considering his egotistical craving personality) rather, he'll just brush it off, or offer some caveat, as is the case with his spat with John Lydon. Brands romantic view of 'revolution' (I've not read his book) is in keeping with a long line of such misguided 'romance'. I mean, it would be interesting to know how many students could actually explain the story of the much idealised Che Guevare? appearing on those obligatory t-shirts forming part of student dress.
At the end of the day, is it not just another celeb wanting to reinvent himself to continually stay in the public eye? To continually crave that attention of the addict he so wishes to leave behind? Or is there more.....
Sunday, 2 November 2014
Wednesday, 24 September 2014
Parliament will vote for intervention
Well, it's the eve of Parliament voting for intervention in Iraq, but not Syria (yet?). Of course, not intervening in Syria will give those 'war weary' MPs a sense of victory per se against intervention. As the US has made clear, its near on impossible now, to actually make any sort of discernible distinction between radical groups. The US have with some gulf states assistance stepped up its air campaign. It would be right and proper, that any need for ground troops (highly probable), would most definitely come from Arab states. Will the Arab states step up? If history is anything to go by, most unlikely. I say this simultaneously suggesting it is 'the Arab states' that have much to lose, considering ISIL gains.
As I suggested in my previous blog (13-8-14) I fully support intervention, on this occasion. My only concern, is why it's took us so long to get to this point, but considering 'the Scottish question' our MPs can be forgiven, if not excused, for being otherwise occupied (I wouldn't go as-far-as saying they were actually 'busy').
But what for the future? Again, we hear very little on what political intentions have been drawn and mapped out, other than Iraq forming a government what else? How are we going to include Assad? Questions that will eventually need answering.
As I suggested in my previous blog (13-8-14) I fully support intervention, on this occasion. My only concern, is why it's took us so long to get to this point, but considering 'the Scottish question' our MPs can be forgiven, if not excused, for being otherwise occupied (I wouldn't go as-far-as saying they were actually 'busy').
But what for the future? Again, we hear very little on what political intentions have been drawn and mapped out, other than Iraq forming a government what else? How are we going to include Assad? Questions that will eventually need answering.
Friday, 5 September 2014
Russell Brandism
Russell Brand has become quite the political commentator of late. With his new youtube channel 'Trews' like some modern day polymath, uploading opinion pieces on topics as- diverse- as the food industry, to the present terrorist threat of IS. Good on him, I say. Whether you're a 'fan' of Brand, or not, should in no way detract you from at least giving his 'Trews' channel a sneaky view. It is his latest assessment of British Asians (I use that term with caution) going of to fight for the barbaric movement IS, that interests me. Brand suggests " "we are to blame for young Asian joining IS" Going on to suggest someone has to "feel so alienated" from society, that it makes them run off and join IS.
The 'alienation' of minority groups is not a new phenomena. It has been widely covered in academia, particularly from a sociological perspective, for many, many years. Without getting side tracked, I will simply say, the effects, policy and doctrine of 'multiculturalism' is the place for that debate. What I want to concentrate on is Brands comments on why he feels they are flocking to IS.
I presume, many of the Asian living in the UK came initially for a 'better life' a 'higher standard of living' they liked the appeal of a stable nation with 'prospects for their family'. Of course, on the face of it, very idealistic sentiments but plausible all the same. Poverty in places like Pakistan tells its own story. Fast forward to where we are now, and we have second and third generation Muslims wanting to fight for a cause so 'barbaric' and 'hideous' (look at my intervention blog) that AQ want very little to do with them. That alone should send shivers down the spine of any normal thinking (not conditioned, as Brand may suggest) but 'normal' thinking person. The promise of some utopian 'Caliphate' is definitely NO Brave New World.
I say it's wrongheaded to suggest it is wholly the fault of a host nation, for the actions of upwards of 500 Muslims now fighting in the ME region. Totally wrongheaded. We only need to look at the 7/7 bombers and see it has to be more than an intergration problem. They had jobs, went to university, were fully functioning members of society (bar one who was reportedly unsettled) an 'unsettled' teenager WOW! that must be the justification. Not to trivialise, or make light of the sickening act, but who doesn't know a unsettled, troubled teenager?
It has to be more. The one 'constant' in all this is 'Religion'. Good old religion (was religion ever good?) has much to answer for. I'm not going into the eternal debate around religion, but the facts remains all these 'Jihadist' have flocked under the banner of Islam. Whether it's a 'misrepresented', 'misinterpreted' or damn right 'fallacious' it does not matter. These Muslims are flocking to the call. So I say, Brands wrongheadedness needs to realign. It is the persuasive and pervasive nature of Islam for within the Muslim community. It seems that in all but one area of their life have they left the 'old ways' behind (of course the overwhelming majority are born in the UK) but because of the culturally staunch conservative nature of their society, they drag with them their religion.
To Brands opinions, sometimes trying to hard to be 'different' actually only makes us lockstep in tune with just another 'groupthink' position.
The 'alienation' of minority groups is not a new phenomena. It has been widely covered in academia, particularly from a sociological perspective, for many, many years. Without getting side tracked, I will simply say, the effects, policy and doctrine of 'multiculturalism' is the place for that debate. What I want to concentrate on is Brands comments on why he feels they are flocking to IS.
I presume, many of the Asian living in the UK came initially for a 'better life' a 'higher standard of living' they liked the appeal of a stable nation with 'prospects for their family'. Of course, on the face of it, very idealistic sentiments but plausible all the same. Poverty in places like Pakistan tells its own story. Fast forward to where we are now, and we have second and third generation Muslims wanting to fight for a cause so 'barbaric' and 'hideous' (look at my intervention blog) that AQ want very little to do with them. That alone should send shivers down the spine of any normal thinking (not conditioned, as Brand may suggest) but 'normal' thinking person. The promise of some utopian 'Caliphate' is definitely NO Brave New World.
I say it's wrongheaded to suggest it is wholly the fault of a host nation, for the actions of upwards of 500 Muslims now fighting in the ME region. Totally wrongheaded. We only need to look at the 7/7 bombers and see it has to be more than an intergration problem. They had jobs, went to university, were fully functioning members of society (bar one who was reportedly unsettled) an 'unsettled' teenager WOW! that must be the justification. Not to trivialise, or make light of the sickening act, but who doesn't know a unsettled, troubled teenager?
It has to be more. The one 'constant' in all this is 'Religion'. Good old religion (was religion ever good?) has much to answer for. I'm not going into the eternal debate around religion, but the facts remains all these 'Jihadist' have flocked under the banner of Islam. Whether it's a 'misrepresented', 'misinterpreted' or damn right 'fallacious' it does not matter. These Muslims are flocking to the call. So I say, Brands wrongheadedness needs to realign. It is the persuasive and pervasive nature of Islam for within the Muslim community. It seems that in all but one area of their life have they left the 'old ways' behind (of course the overwhelming majority are born in the UK) but because of the culturally staunch conservative nature of their society, they drag with them their religion.
To Brands opinions, sometimes trying to hard to be 'different' actually only makes us lockstep in tune with just another 'groupthink' position.
Wednesday, 13 August 2014
INTERVENTION?
Intervention in the ME has a less than impressive track record. Look at the chaos in Libya as the most recent of interventionist policy. Arguably, creating an even more unstable country since military intervention. But is it fair to lambast and judge those countries that intervened, even before the dust has had chance to settle from coalition ordnance? Obviously, I'm begging the question.
Recent events in Iraq show 11yrs on total carnage and disarray still prevails. Before the advance of IS (formerly ISIS) it seemed not a day went by without a suicide bomber or some form of retaliatory violent action. Not to get bogged down with history, other than to ask, should we be surprised? You need not be some 'polymath' or ME expert, or be in possession of countless facts, to reach a logical and plausible conclusion on the complexities of Iraq.
Iraq under the Sunni despot Saddam Hussein was a brutal and oppressive state. Undoubtedly a megalomaniac, Saddam brutally oppressed all those outside his inner circle, and all the differing factions, although predominantly the Kurds and Shi'a majority. Fast forward to the 2003 coalition invasion and the subsequent total destabilization of Iraq left a massive power vacuum. A power vacuum is rarely a desirable situation.
So here we are again, contemplating military action over Iraq! I think we need to ask some important questions on whose behalf-- and for what reason-- are we intending to 'intervene'? For me, initially, it is right to ask: what are the major Gulf players (Saudi Arabia for example) doing to stem the flow of IS? Why should it be the WEST? Very valid questions, in my opinion. Rumours over Saudi involvement seem to point towards loyalties elsewhere. Even though the US supply massive amounts of military hardware to the Saudi's, can they truly rely on their support? Who really knows. What I would say, is, the Sunni Shia schism is prevalent and pervasive in equal measure. It is not to overstate the point, if I say, it's hard to find Such deep rooted hatred anywhere else on the planet.
To the question. The possible lack of stopping an IS advance would be a disaster on the scale of something rarely seen, even in conflicts of old. When reports suggest AQ want nothing to do with IS, you should be under no illusion over their 'make up'. Recent reports of IS Jihadists burying people alive should repulse every sane and moral person. So I'm for air strikes in protection of the Kurds and displaced Christian Yazidis people. Not for religious reasons, not for political reasons, not for furthering our own interests, no, simply for 'good' old protection of the oppressed from a fanatical ideology. I say, that should be more than enough of a reason.
Recent events in Iraq show 11yrs on total carnage and disarray still prevails. Before the advance of IS (formerly ISIS) it seemed not a day went by without a suicide bomber or some form of retaliatory violent action. Not to get bogged down with history, other than to ask, should we be surprised? You need not be some 'polymath' or ME expert, or be in possession of countless facts, to reach a logical and plausible conclusion on the complexities of Iraq.
Iraq under the Sunni despot Saddam Hussein was a brutal and oppressive state. Undoubtedly a megalomaniac, Saddam brutally oppressed all those outside his inner circle, and all the differing factions, although predominantly the Kurds and Shi'a majority. Fast forward to the 2003 coalition invasion and the subsequent total destabilization of Iraq left a massive power vacuum. A power vacuum is rarely a desirable situation.
So here we are again, contemplating military action over Iraq! I think we need to ask some important questions on whose behalf-- and for what reason-- are we intending to 'intervene'? For me, initially, it is right to ask: what are the major Gulf players (Saudi Arabia for example) doing to stem the flow of IS? Why should it be the WEST? Very valid questions, in my opinion. Rumours over Saudi involvement seem to point towards loyalties elsewhere. Even though the US supply massive amounts of military hardware to the Saudi's, can they truly rely on their support? Who really knows. What I would say, is, the Sunni Shia schism is prevalent and pervasive in equal measure. It is not to overstate the point, if I say, it's hard to find Such deep rooted hatred anywhere else on the planet.
To the question. The possible lack of stopping an IS advance would be a disaster on the scale of something rarely seen, even in conflicts of old. When reports suggest AQ want nothing to do with IS, you should be under no illusion over their 'make up'. Recent reports of IS Jihadists burying people alive should repulse every sane and moral person. So I'm for air strikes in protection of the Kurds and displaced Christian Yazidis people. Not for religious reasons, not for political reasons, not for furthering our own interests, no, simply for 'good' old protection of the oppressed from a fanatical ideology. I say, that should be more than enough of a reason.
Saturday, 9 August 2014
PASSION POLITICS: The confused Left!
PASSION POLITICS: The confused Left!: It is not a new phenomena the 'Stop the war coalition' for the invasion of Iraq, and more recently the American opposition to inter...
The confused Left!
It is not a new phenomena the 'Stop the war coalition' for the invasion of Iraq, and more recently the American opposition to intervention over Syria has witnessed some strange bed-fellows. On the face of it 'strange' in the sense that rarely do the political Left and Right converge in any meaningful way, but it speaks of little else of note. Fast forward to the present unrest in the Middle East and opinion, or rather support from the Left has become bizarre and all the more dangerous!
Only today the 'i' newspaper ran a story there is actually an ISIS gift shop and rather than people commenting on how barbaric this group actually is with reports of killing and rape of innocent Christians they were in fact defending 'the right' of Muslims to wear an attire commensurate with their faith. If this is not the most grotesque example of missing the point, I don't know what is. I can't say I'm massively in-favour of interventionist policy, I have a mixed record on the subject (I supported the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq), but this has to be one of the clearest justifications yet for intervention of some kind.
ISIS have declared 'renounce your faith' or 'pay a high tax', otherwise, a gruesome death awaits. And what do we have those on the Left suggesting? Muslims have the right to wear the clothing of their choice. If it was not bad enough that they miss the fundamental point above, they also miss the point that it is NOT a true choice in some normative sense of the word, rather, they are following the strict code of a draconian, archaic religion. Some choice hey?
Not to conflate issues that share some analogousness, but the recent upsurge in tensions between Israel and the Palestinians but again, you need to remind yourself of some fundamentals. As-long-as Hamas has a charter that seeks the total annihilation of the Jews then peace is a distant proposition. Of course, Israel has carried out its share of barbarism, with many unanswered questions from its recent incursion into the Gaza strip. Unfortunately, it is the innocent that bare the brunt of such force.
What is strikingly clear this time round, what a horrible way to put it, but the feelings of deja vu are all apparent-- is that Israel rather than receiving muted criticism from the majority of the international community, are receiving their fiercest criticism in recent history. Again, the Left, or rather 'hard' Left are most vocal. Only this week the narcissist, loathsome George Galloway stoked community tension in Bradford by suggesting everything Israeli was banned from entering Bradford. Could you imagine being a Jew living in Bradford? Again, this self obsessed narcissist is apparently a mouthpiece for the Left! What dire position the Left has let itself be dragged too. Such vitriolic lexicon does nothing to aid a conflict known for occupying a 'tinder box'.
In essence, we see the Left aligning itself with the worse extremes of Islam in IS and Hamas, purporting to be on the side of the 'oppressed'. Well, one thing is for sure, if the caliphate is visited to these shores anytime soon what do you think will become of those 'ever so' tolerant types?
Only today the 'i' newspaper ran a story there is actually an ISIS gift shop and rather than people commenting on how barbaric this group actually is with reports of killing and rape of innocent Christians they were in fact defending 'the right' of Muslims to wear an attire commensurate with their faith. If this is not the most grotesque example of missing the point, I don't know what is. I can't say I'm massively in-favour of interventionist policy, I have a mixed record on the subject (I supported the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq), but this has to be one of the clearest justifications yet for intervention of some kind.
ISIS have declared 'renounce your faith' or 'pay a high tax', otherwise, a gruesome death awaits. And what do we have those on the Left suggesting? Muslims have the right to wear the clothing of their choice. If it was not bad enough that they miss the fundamental point above, they also miss the point that it is NOT a true choice in some normative sense of the word, rather, they are following the strict code of a draconian, archaic religion. Some choice hey?
Not to conflate issues that share some analogousness, but the recent upsurge in tensions between Israel and the Palestinians but again, you need to remind yourself of some fundamentals. As-long-as Hamas has a charter that seeks the total annihilation of the Jews then peace is a distant proposition. Of course, Israel has carried out its share of barbarism, with many unanswered questions from its recent incursion into the Gaza strip. Unfortunately, it is the innocent that bare the brunt of such force.
What is strikingly clear this time round, what a horrible way to put it, but the feelings of deja vu are all apparent-- is that Israel rather than receiving muted criticism from the majority of the international community, are receiving their fiercest criticism in recent history. Again, the Left, or rather 'hard' Left are most vocal. Only this week the narcissist, loathsome George Galloway stoked community tension in Bradford by suggesting everything Israeli was banned from entering Bradford. Could you imagine being a Jew living in Bradford? Again, this self obsessed narcissist is apparently a mouthpiece for the Left! What dire position the Left has let itself be dragged too. Such vitriolic lexicon does nothing to aid a conflict known for occupying a 'tinder box'.
In essence, we see the Left aligning itself with the worse extremes of Islam in IS and Hamas, purporting to be on the side of the 'oppressed'. Well, one thing is for sure, if the caliphate is visited to these shores anytime soon what do you think will become of those 'ever so' tolerant types?
Saturday, 8 March 2014
Slave to the money then you die!
At Glastonbury 2008 Richard Ashcroft the front man and lead singer of ' The Verve' frenzied the crowd when he said "it's a struggle, life's a struggle, and Monday morning may be a struggle for a lot of you in a job you despise, working for a boss you despise". What poignant words! For so many working class people in the UK how true this must be. The grotesque income inequalities under capitalism seem omnipresent. Just a few weeks ago Manchester UTD working class hero Wayne Rooney signs a contract for a reported £300K a week! Making him over 15million a year (without individual sponsors) contrast that with the UK median of £26,200 a year. Of course, it is not the fault of any individual person-be he a footballer-or bank chief executive- but a system so based on greed, these distortions are not only accepted but actively encouraged, in the name of 'free market liberalism'. Everyone is able to 'individually' be who he, or she, wants, the theory purports. But what about those that lack the natural talents, are blessed with luck or those that behaved within the law *cough* this disparate bunch are all looking for that proverbial 'pot of gold', at the end of the rainbow.
What have we got? A Labour party so afraid of it's own shadow--so mainstream--that a 'true alternative' is not in sight, or is it? The rise of UKIP as a party for the protest vote, is testament, to an undercurrent not necessarily for an anti European party, rather, an anti mainstream politics, politics that has seen to fail so many people. Of course, there is no appetite for ideologies of the past, one mention of the dreaded 'Communism' invokes feelings of 'Stalinist' Russia, and rightly so, I mean, how can a theoretical interpretation once turned into a practical system of government, resulting in millions of deaths, actually be taken seriously as some form of credible alternative? NO. It should be unashamedly cast adrift to the doldrums of societal structure. Where does that leave us?
What have we got? A Labour party so afraid of it's own shadow--so mainstream--that a 'true alternative' is not in sight, or is it? The rise of UKIP as a party for the protest vote, is testament, to an undercurrent not necessarily for an anti European party, rather, an anti mainstream politics, politics that has seen to fail so many people. Of course, there is no appetite for ideologies of the past, one mention of the dreaded 'Communism' invokes feelings of 'Stalinist' Russia, and rightly so, I mean, how can a theoretical interpretation once turned into a practical system of government, resulting in millions of deaths, actually be taken seriously as some form of credible alternative? NO. It should be unashamedly cast adrift to the doldrums of societal structure. Where does that leave us?
Tuesday, 18 February 2014
EVERYONES TALKING
BENEFITS STREET
Has got most everyone talking, everyone has an opinion! Put aside the contention over the motive for making the program (benefits porn) and it has pushed to the fore a complex, and thought provoking topic. Of course, the emotive topic of benefits has always lurked, interwoven amongst public discourse, but this show has at the very least laid it bare for all to see.
One inescapable fact, is the amount the previous Labour government spent on welfare, which was reportedly to be an increase of 66% on the previous government could not be sustained, for the long term. And why should it be? Surely, a budget of that size points to a society 'bloated' in the wrong area. Of course a welfare budget is made up of many complex component parts. This complex budget is reported to be 165 Billion a staggering amount, on the face of it. But then, when we factor in 'in-work- benefits' and pensions, and other benefits we get a less than staggering figure. That the pejorative term 'benefits' has taken on this derogative persona, is blatantly unfair, and creates a false illusion.
With the budget made up of such a complex array of redistributed money it does not deserve such a disparaging label. Like in wider society we see 'good' and 'bad', 'honest' and 'dishonest' so again, it is wrong to assume those on benefits are any different. A favourite pass-time of late is to bash the bankers something that those from all political persuasion have enjoyed with a 'zeal' sometimes verging on hatred so vitriolic, that we lose a sense of proportion. Of course there has been those that have committed devastatingly 'risky' and 'stupid' acts, but it was system in place 'begging to be abused' that is deserving of such hatred. The 'Bankers' are very much like those that 'milk the benefits' system, only on a financially larger and more destructive scale.
What does this tell us? Society is not that to dissimilar once you weave amongst the classes. If you have a flawed system(s), as I believe we have, don't be so surprised when scandal raises it's crooked head. What for those persons on James Turner Street? They'll enjoy their two minutes of fame--milk it if they have any sense--then no doubt we'll go back to the same old dichotomous arguments of old! For me, the stand out point of this series was we have a Britain, with a portion of society, in need of proper attention. Attention intrusive in nature, that will provide help where needed, and not a system leaving those most vulnerable cast adrift--only cementing--their already desperate situation.
Has got most everyone talking, everyone has an opinion! Put aside the contention over the motive for making the program (benefits porn) and it has pushed to the fore a complex, and thought provoking topic. Of course, the emotive topic of benefits has always lurked, interwoven amongst public discourse, but this show has at the very least laid it bare for all to see.
One inescapable fact, is the amount the previous Labour government spent on welfare, which was reportedly to be an increase of 66% on the previous government could not be sustained, for the long term. And why should it be? Surely, a budget of that size points to a society 'bloated' in the wrong area. Of course a welfare budget is made up of many complex component parts. This complex budget is reported to be 165 Billion a staggering amount, on the face of it. But then, when we factor in 'in-work- benefits' and pensions, and other benefits we get a less than staggering figure. That the pejorative term 'benefits' has taken on this derogative persona, is blatantly unfair, and creates a false illusion.
With the budget made up of such a complex array of redistributed money it does not deserve such a disparaging label. Like in wider society we see 'good' and 'bad', 'honest' and 'dishonest' so again, it is wrong to assume those on benefits are any different. A favourite pass-time of late is to bash the bankers something that those from all political persuasion have enjoyed with a 'zeal' sometimes verging on hatred so vitriolic, that we lose a sense of proportion. Of course there has been those that have committed devastatingly 'risky' and 'stupid' acts, but it was system in place 'begging to be abused' that is deserving of such hatred. The 'Bankers' are very much like those that 'milk the benefits' system, only on a financially larger and more destructive scale.
What does this tell us? Society is not that to dissimilar once you weave amongst the classes. If you have a flawed system(s), as I believe we have, don't be so surprised when scandal raises it's crooked head. What for those persons on James Turner Street? They'll enjoy their two minutes of fame--milk it if they have any sense--then no doubt we'll go back to the same old dichotomous arguments of old! For me, the stand out point of this series was we have a Britain, with a portion of society, in need of proper attention. Attention intrusive in nature, that will provide help where needed, and not a system leaving those most vulnerable cast adrift--only cementing--their already desperate situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)