Tag Archives: Politics

I’m dreaming of a White Christmas

Posted on by
6

Not quite what you think.  This would be what I am talking about.  Italy, with it’s long history of emigration rather than immigration, can’t handle it in so many ways.  But to be doing house-to-house searches?  This country has many throw-backs from the Fascist era, including Identity Cards, etc. and this reminds me of the type of thing they (The Germans and Italians) did prior to and during WWII.

And this differs from the laws introduced by Hitler before ‘The Final Solution’ only in the fact that there are no gas chambers involved.

To my mind it is a despicable thing to do.  I understand that a country cannot just ‘open it’s doors’ to all that want to come, especially when they see the prospect of a much better and economically more viable life.  However, wasn’t this similar to the things depicted by Anne Frank (again, without the gas chambers, admittedly).

Even though the news is being made here, don’t think, for a moment, that this is the terrible work of a bunch of extremist politicians.  Worse than this is the thinking of ‘ordinary people’.  You know, people like you and me!  Comments made to me here, as I have mentioned at odd times before, distress me for the fact that, although they don’t actually lead to the deportation of people or the raiding of houses, they are the reason that these things are being done by the politicians.

I have heard, far too often how the immigrants are to blame for many of the country’s woes, both here and in the UK.  Of course, it is useful for the politicians as it deflects the blame from them to these unknown and, therefore, frightening ‘flood’ of foreigners.

And, I keep thinking that, in the end, I am one of them.  Sure, lucky enough to have a job; lucky enough to have white skin; lucky enough to have been born in the EU, where the borders now allow me to live where I want within the EU; lucky enough, now, to have a white boyfriend – because there were times (a few) when I have been very scared for both V and myself; lucky enough.

But life could be very different were it not for my place of birth and my parents nationality and so on.

And, just in case you think I joke about how the UK is the same – I remember a ‘friend’ blaming the eastern Europeans for ‘bringing problems to the area’ for the increase in crime, for not feeling safe in her own town, etc.  And that leads to the BNP gaining more power.  Now, imagine that the BNP held the balance of power in the Government – what do you think happens then?

But it’s Christmas, and so, just because it is (and because I love this song), I include this:

[Video now removed as it didn’t work and I don’t remember what it was. Sorry]

Kill those damned homosexuals!

Posted on by
2

That’s not the headline, exactly. Let’s be honest, I have some special interest in this. Not that I’m planning (or was planning) to go and spend some time in Uganda but perhaps now would not be quite the right time, even if I was/had been?  This piece, in the Guardian, effectively opens the same debate but with the twist of the readers being able to openly criticise the BBC.

It’s the reactions that get me the most.  Both on the Have Your Say site (but only the ones I saw quoted) and on the Guardian site.

I find it amusing that some people are so ignorant that they post things that suggest that, if all gay people were forced onto an island, the ‘race’ of gays would die out.  Hmmm, what a splendid idea!  Shame that the person shows up how stupid they are.  Do they think that my parents were gay?  OK, so it seems to have turned out that my sister is gay too and a 50% rate (there were four of us) does seem a little higher than the average but, unless my parents (or one of them) weren’t entirely honest, it is just a coincidence.

And, then, on the Guardian site there are some people suggesting that the BBC should not have asked the question.  OK, I can understand that you think people should not be allowed to say this sort of thing and incite hatred (opposition to which seems to be the latest ‘craze’ in the UK) but I, for one, would rather know the kind of people out there.  Not talking about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in peoples’ minds.

In fact, if Uganda is considering introducing laws to effectively kill people who are gay, then I think it’s perfectly right to ask the question – at least, then, we all know where we stand!  And the BBC are saying that the proposed Ugandan law will do exactly that.

There are also those who, apparently, think that killing gay people would be a good idea.  They are fed up with all those gay pride marches.  Yes, damn me if we aren’t marching through the streets at the drop of a hat in a look-at-us-aren’t-we-normal pose, trying, as we go, to recruit members of the public or, worse, touching them because gay people, as any fule no, are highly infectious!

Actually I have been on two gay pride marches.  Two in London.  To be frank, quite boring.  Sitting on some float trying to be happy with the terrible British weather and a load of people, most of whom I couldn’t stand the sight of.  However, whereas now they are just an excuse, the original ones did do something to help [us] and for those people who marched, from that time, I am grateful.  Now, I don’t even notice that the marches are happening since the original meaning and requirement has gone.  It would be something to see people doing it in Uganda though.  Now they WOULD be fighting for something and I would give them a big cheer.

And, for those of you who have come here thinking that I am going to rant about those damned homosexual people and how terrible they are and how they undermine family values and take our jobs and harm our children and are bad people all riddled with disease – then you came to the wrong place.  Because none of that is true and it only worries me that you should be so frightened of it.  Perhaps you are on some sort of shaky ground yourself?  But fear not, I don’t think you can corrupt me into becoming a raging heterosexual.  You can keep your weird sexual practices to yourself, thanks.  I’m fine, just as I am!

I don’t often comment but just a couple of things……

Posted on by
2

It’s not often I mention anything from the UK but this is outrageous.  And not for the reasons that you might, at first, think.  My first thought on reading the headline was how bad it was that these guys, defending their family, their property from cruel and vile people, should be sent to jail……………….until you read that the thief that they caught, they subsequently beat so hard that he has suffered permanent brain damage.  Perhaps the headline should have read ‘Vicious Thugs jailed for beating the crap out of man – the UK goes back to the Dark Ages’ or something like that.

And then there’s this.  I find it astonishing that in this, the 21st century, a country that is almost a continent in its own right, should not be looking after its people in a proper and civilised way.  And if any of you Americans (sorry Gail) think that this is ‘commie’ thinking, you are completely fucking crazy!  Our Health Care systems may not be perfect but everyone does have the right to be ‘looked after’ and to have help to get better or have an operation or whatever.  It is inconceivable to me that a civilised country doesn’t already have this.  And I just don’t understand how it can even be open for debate!  There!  That’s all I have to say on the matter.

Oh yes, and today, a few minutes ago, I cancelled one of my subscriptions to one of the web sites. Here’s hoping I don’t need it again?

It’s all about protecting you

Posted on by
Reply

Its_all_about_protecting_you

I wonder, at what point will the British people rise up and revolt, really, against the changes being made to supposedly protect them?

There has been talk before (depending on where you read, of course) of Great Britain becoming a ‘police state’ and yes, it seems that there are some laws or changes that have been made with do cause some disquiet.

However, reading a couple of the latest stories (here and here), as well as numerous blogs (e.g. here), I find it hard to understand what is going on if it’s not turning into a police state.

From what I understood, the police work for us and so do the government (who make the laws upon which the police act). But something seems quite wrong, really, if innocent people, doing things that should> be fairly innocent, are surrounded by coppers thugs, handcuffed in the street for some time and then told, in the end, that it is for their safety.

I’m afraid (and I mean that in the true sense of the word) that, sooner or later, there will be a backlash. Certainly something has to happen. If nothing happens and no one cares enough then it seems like the terrorists won out in the end, destroying the freedom that we enjoyed in the UK by allowing the government (and their strong-arm boys, the Police) to make the UK resemble an old-style Fascist/Communist/Dictatorship state.

However, I’m sure this only happens in the bigger cities, so that’ll be alright, then, won’t it?

Everything is black or white here (or, rather, left or right)

Posted on by
Reply

Everything_is_black_or_white_here_or_rather_left_or_right

We were sitting, having a coffee after lunch. Not a truly memorable lunch in terms of food but not horrible, just not memorable (even if I can remember it). At least the food itself. The rest of it was as memorable as things get for my memory, or, maybe more so, since I am remembering this.

He selected to have brown sugar and I selected white.

He explained that, here, in this passionate land, everything has a political side, even sugar. Selecting white meant you were right-wing and brown, left-wing. I immediately felt quite guilty with selecting white, not because I am left-wing or right-wing, since I am probably neither but because he might have seen it as being one side or the other and, at this stage in the conversation, I didn’t want these preconceptions clouding anything. He said that he takes no notice of these things but you never know and I didn’t want him to judge me. For me it is a practical choice – I select it, in general, because it dissolves better, especially in Italian coffee which is not boiling as it would be in the UK.

Anyway, it was stupid to feel guilty but there you go.

I mentioned that my colleague at work (who so kindly brought back some Boursault (although the goat variety, so I’m not sure if that will be as good) from her holiday at her house (flat) in the South of France) had told me that there was a perfume that was associated here, in Italy, with the left or right but I could not remember.

I said I would ask her when she came back.

I recalled our conversation. I asked her. Yes, it is true, she said. She could not, immediately remember the correct spelling and I could not find it on-line. Eventually I found it. It is called patchouli oil.

She didn’t believe the ‘sugar’ thing, when I had explained. She went on to say that she hates the smell of patchouli oil – but that is because she is right-wing, I’m almost certain.

For me I hate both strong right-wing and strong left-wing because neither of them allow any middle ground and not everything is black or white but, rather, shades of grey.

And that is true for everything.

I did add, to my colleague that ‘you Italians seem very strange, sometimes’.  I’m sure I am strange to them so we’re all equal on that score.

Perception; A picture of Michael Foot and tramp

Posted on by
Reply

Michael_Foot

I find myself re-reading the thing again.  I remember, one time (or maybe it was a few times over a few days, or a week, or a month but, in any case, it was quickly) reading as far back as I could go, being intrigued and interested and savouring it all as if I was the only person reading it; as if it was written just for me or I had found something secret that no one else knew about, like an old diary or papers full of writing, hidden away from public view.

But the re-reading is slower.  Now I have a ‘thing’ to hold on to during the imagination.  A voice.  A real, live person.  The smile.  The hands, the hair, the look.

And, strangely, because I didn’t think it would be possible, the words take on an intensity that I can hardly bear.  And that’s why it’s slow.  The intensity is almost too much but I find that it makes it even better; better but harder.

But now I think each story is different than I had thought before but that, of course, is not so true.  It may be different in my own head but the story remains the same it is only my perception of it that is different and my perception means nothing to anyone else except me.  It certainly doesn’t make the story or the protagonists different or change their view of the story in any way.

I have mentioned before how a voice can make a difference to me (take Alan Bennett as a good example) but, I suppose, and I had never noticed this before, so does the physical person.

Margaret Atwood, whose Canadian accent makes each English word a new word for me, I like not only for her voice.  She is kooky with her frizzed hair and her round face and, somehow, perfect for the books she writes.  Maya Angelou, the truly great American poetess, who still fills me with some sort of awe, just to write her name, because of her voice and the fact that she is, as one would expect, or, rather, not as one would expect but as she is, a rather large and imposing lady suiting, so perfectly, her voice and with a power that is both from her voice and her physique that made me the gibbering idiot when I wanted to say that I thought she was great and that I loved her and her power with words.

And Joan Armatrading, who, when I first met her was this rather small lady, so shy, so quiet and with her voice so deep, so powerful who has, actually, grown into her voice, if you see what I mean.

And so, the person and the voice are important and are what is now making me re-read so slowly and deliberately, trying to understand more than I did and knowing that is futile, really, since who can know anyone else by anything they do or say or write or sing.

And so I read and picture and imagine.  There are bits that, although I know I have read them before, seem new and interesting and different, like they’ve been added just now, today, for me, to make it worth the effort to re-read (even if it is no effort on its own, just effort because of that intensity I mentioned before).  And, somehow, more meaningful.  And, again, I realise that it is my perception.

And, of course, it is our perception that makes the world as it is, not the world.  The world remains constant, constantly changing of course but changing in a way that is the same.  We change, however, or, rather, our perception changes and the re-reading points this out so clearly I wonder why I hadn’t realised it before now; why anyone hadn’t realised it before now – or perhaps they did and I was just late to get here. Perhaps the joke’s on me and everyone else has realised this, almost from birth.

And now I feel quite stupid for not understanding this much better.  Not that it matters as most people who read this (few they may be) don’t know me and so, will nod sagely or laugh or whatever it is that one does when one knows the truth and reads about someone else just getting there.

And I thought I would post a picture of Michael Foot because he came up in conversation, recently, and I said that he looked like a tramp.  And it might seem that this is unimportant (and, in reality, it is) but it is important to me.  And I’m sorry that the picture didn’t come out in the same way that I had saved it but I hope you get the idea.

I just can’t quite figure it out.

Posted on by
Reply

album_journey_of_a_gemini

Conservative leader condemns equipment for troops in Afghanistan as poll reveals public backs conflict

So reads the subtext below the headline on the front page of the Guardian on-line.

For me this is stunning news. The public ‘back’ the conflict. This reads as if most people (and I define ‘most’ as being the largest group) agree with the war in Afghanistan. Well, don’t you?

But, then, when you get to the article, this part appears:

>Opposition to the war, at 47%, is just ahead of support, at 46%, according to the ICM poll for the Guardian and the BBC’s Newsnight.

Hmm. So, in this poll, it seems most people were opposed to the war. I suppose the 7 percent missing were ‘undecided’ but I’m not sure this counts as support, does it? Certainly, the people actually supporting it were only slightly less than those opposing it and, if you add on the 7 percent of missing persons, then you get over half – but supporting it?

It just doesn’t read quite right to me.

A funny thing happened…..

Posted on by
Reply

A_funny_thing_happened

It was the funniest article I have read for a while. And from a government minister too!

The comments are obviously, mostly, from those right-wing types (snigger). One can tell as they seems to despise the arguments for ID Cards.

But we do need to consider what has been said and, according to this article, still being said.

I remember that ID cards were first touted by Labour (or NuLabour as they are now called by most, if not themselves). It was either soon after 9/11 or maybe 7/7. We were all so shocked about these ‘foreign’ people who were able to come into our lands and do such damage.

Except…..

In the case of 7/7, they were British citizens and, therefore, had ID cards already been ‘normal’, they would have them quite legally. And, I’m sorry, but that would have stopped them carrying out those atrocities in what way, exactly?

In addition, Italy, which has had ID cards from the Fascist era (or thereabouts) wasn’t saved when the Red Brigade start blowing things up here!

Aha, so, if Joe Public won’t fall for that one then we can go for another great public fear. What about all those illegal immigrant people.

Now, the fact that they are illegal implies that the majority of them got here either by sidestepping our Border Control or by over-staying their welcome. Now, if you were required to use your ID Card every day for many minor things (as Italians are), this could pose a problem. Or, of course, not. Since the illegal immigrants will probably be a) working for cash and b) not doing things that require an ID card (like paying by credit card, etc.), it seems unlikely that it would cause them too much distress.

Alternatively, having probably paid a small fortune to be brought here, I’m sure, for a few pounds more, there would be people making the ID card to order, for them. And, unless the Police or other powers-that-be check the database, the fraudulent ID cards would probably never be found.

Having worked out that most people realised that ID cards would, in fact, only be useful for controlling legal immigrants or citizens, it seems they are trying the latest scare tactic.

Identity Theft/Fraud! That’s what is now proposed as the reason for ID cards. I’m sorry but these people are crazy.

If you really want to step up security then do what the Italians do. Make it really difficult to buy anything (such as domain name (where you need to fax proof of yourself and owning a domain name via just the internet is just not possible); buying a second-hand car (where you need to physically visit the registration office); changing your bank account for your mobile phone (where you must go and get a form from the bank which must be stamped and signed and then take that (or, maybe, fax it) to the provider). In each case, everything must be ‘backed-up’ by a personal visit or a fax! Of course, in this fast-moving world, it does tend to make many things a lot slower and more difficult but, at least, it gives a load of people a job, thereby ensuring that unemployment is lower and the economy is much better. Doesn’t it?

And then, the article uses unsubstantiated claims of the number of people hit by identity theft/fraud; assumes that the arguments in favour of ID cards have been made and done and dusted and that, overwhelmingly, the ‘evidence’ points to them as being our saviour in all things!

A funny thing has happened in this world, don’t you think?  If one argument fails, use another.  If that fails, use yet another.  Keep going until people agree or forget what the purpose was in any event.  Make sure that each argument used is totally different from the last but make sure that each addresses a fear that the populace has!

I actually laughed out loud at this article.

p.s. Read the comments as well.

The crazy, criminal, mixed-up land in which I live

Posted on by
Reply

The_crazy_criminal_mixedup_land_in_which_I_live

I stayed away from the recent controversy with the Italian’s ‘beloved’ leader (and he’s still beloved, it would seem, at least by most). He seems to have been a very busy boy, what with giving money to (ex-?) husbands of UK politicians (not that giving the money was bribing, it was only taking it that seems to be a crime); dalliances with a young girl that his wife, for some reason, took exception to; using government money to have people fly to parties at his residence on Sardinia and, of course, the latest, the payment for young ladies of the night for services rendered – all of which, he denies, blaming all of these “rumours” on those ‘left-wing-communist types’.

We can also, perhaps, overlook the way that he said that the people from L’Aquila, made homeless by the earthquake, should make the most of living in tents, it being just like a holiday and all!

At least he made up for it by agreeing to huge (can’t remember how much and can’t be bothered to look it up) amounts of dosh to rebuild the town (although it seems it may not be quite as was first reported) and, of course, deciding to hold the G8 summit in the town in order that it gets a boost.

Now, I read about the latest development (see, still reading the Guardian rather than using the BBC site) and the President’s call to back off Berlusconi’s (ahem) ‘problems‘ so as not to embarrass Italy when, about half way down, I read this:

the prime minister assured the media that his illustrious guests would nevertheless be received in style at a large revenue guard barracks hastily converted for the occasion. He said the site would soon have 121,000 square metres of gardens with 6,850 bushes and extensive lawns.

Now, given the current economic crisis in the world and the recent death and destruction in the town in which this converted barracks is situated and in spite of not knowing how much will be spent doing this conversion (but I’m guessing not just a few Euro), etc., it struck me that this kind of thing is just crass and obscene in the extreme.

This puts those politicians (from the G8) on the same par with Madoff and (possibly) Stanford – i.e. criminals who are taking us for a ride – since they are benefiting from the outrageous spending that is being done just to show off to each other!

It’s a crazy, crazy world in which we live.

What future parliament do you want?

Posted on by
2

What_future_parliament_do_you_want

So, the Telegraph continues to hound the politicians who, whilst ‘sticking to the rules’, may not have been quite so saintly in terms of what they have claimed by way of expenses.

There are a few things here that I feel are worthy of comment.

  1. When the salaries were introduce for MPs, they were very high (compared to the average wage). Now it is not so. Therefore, like any of us, where we get the chance to be a little relaxed as to what we can claim by way of an expense account, they milked it for everything they could
    Now, what would we (you, in the UK, really) prefer? That only the people who can afford it, put themselves up to be MPs? Surely that limits democracy.

    Sure, they should have checks on the expenses that they put forward and I am not, for one moment suggesting that the MPs that have ‘made a mistake’ are not brought to book but I do feel we have to be careful as to the fall-out from this

  2. It was, indeed, a very stupid thing to have fought so hard to keep their expenses out of the public eye, for that only made people more suspicious. The seeds of doubt meant that, when eventually released, the expenses were going to be scrutinised carefully.
  3. They (the MPs) cannot expect that they will rule us (for that is, almost certainly, what they think) and demand that we are perfect if they, themselves, cannot live by the same rules. They are, after all, our representatives and make laws and rules on our behalf. They should be wary of making rules and laws to which they cannot stick.
  4. Who, in their right minds, ever thought it was the right way, to be the maker the rules of expense claims themselves. It had to, inevitably, lead to this!

To be honest they deserve this. However, as I say above, the consequences may not be exactly what we want. We should be careful not to hound them all to the point that the future MPs will either be only those that can comfortably afford it or those that are able to circumnavigate the rules. Either type do not lead to a healthy democratic parliament.

Worse still, we could end up with people like Berlusconi as PM. Surely you don’t want that, do you?