Tag Archives: Politics

Unbelievable!

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve always found it somewhat amazing that, when someone finds out their partner has been having an affair, that person often attacks the person who has been with their partner and not their partner.

I don’t understand.

You can’t blame the “other person”. If your partner has strayed then the problem is surely with either your partner or your relationship or you or all of the above. Therefore, to attack the “other” seems quite stupid and unproductive.

I’m reminded of this by this morning’s online Daily HateMail. It suggests that the Guardian were wrong to print details about the NSA story and even more wrong to allow the “sensitive personal details” of UK agents to be carried across borders. In fact, it is calling for the Guardian to be prosecuted.

And, to me, this is a little like “my partner’s having an affair so I’ll attack the other person”.

If any prosecutions were to be made let’s go to the source of the problem.

The Guardian got the data from Snowden. Snowden was a contractor working for a company that was employed by the NSA. In fact, many, many contractors work with the NSA. If one of the contractors took some information, surely the responsibility for that lies with the NSA. The NSA have the responsibility to make sure that everything they do and everything they hold is “secret” – i.e. not available to the public. That’s their job, isn’t it?

So, whether it’s right for them to obtain this data in the first place is not the point. If their job is keeping secrets safe, and some of those secrets got out, it makes them:

a) crap at the job they’re doing and
b) responsible for the leak.

So, surely, they’re the ones that should be sued?

But, of course, the British Government can hardly sue the secret agency that the British secret agencies are helping. I mean that would be stupid, wouldn’t it?

However, bringing it back to my analogy, surely one should be looking at the “relationship” and trying to fix the problem with that!

Pizza – is that a female pizzo?

Posted on by
4

Today I learnt ……

Some years ago, V and I, having got very friendly with a shop assistant in a designer shop, were invited to her house for dinner. OK, that’s not normal but she was English and therefore we developed a kind of friendship, as one does.

During that dinner, they told us about their lives including the bit about having a bar/club. They were approached by some rather unsavoury persons to pay some “money” for protection purposes. They refused, of course. They were then threatened with closure. But, the club wasn’t burnt to the ground, rather, the place was to be found heaving with drug pushers (inside and out) and the police came and made a raid and, effectively, closed the club (for the unsavoury guys?) Or it was something like that.

Although it was a little “shocking” to us innocent Brits-just-landed, it was, kind of, expected in this Land of the Mafia.

And, last night (rather than today), I learnt that this money is also paid if you have a restaurant. It’s called “pizzo” and is not the masculine version of pizza.

In this case, I was told, the restaurant owners were “lucky”. After some three visits by some suitably unsavoury characters, on the third visit when the threats were getting rather more severe, “luckily” the conversation was overheard by a regular customer who “fixed” the problem as he “belonged” to a different “clan”.

This wasn’t 20 years ago but rather more recently (like this year). The blame (by the others I was talking with) was put on the heads of the politicians but, of course, it’s not quite as simple as all that. Especially as the politicians, like Berlusconi, are probably in hock to these people and, therefore, the country is, most likely, really run by the “Mafia” anyway.

Instead, of course, one must blame “the people” since, by continuing to accept that pizzo is the norm, validate and give this “tax” a continuity that, by not paying it, it would not have, they are truly “responsible”.

It’s easy for me to say. If I were in the same situation, would I be prepared to lose all my money and hard work (as in the first case) or pay up and keep my place? More importantly, would you? In fact, could you? Could you lose everything you’ve worked for just because you didn’t want to pay the pizzo?

Difficult questions in a difficult country. And, remember, we’re not talking about the unruly South here. We’re talking about the International Finance/Fashion Centre that is Milan!

Solve this problem and Italy would be a different country.

p.s. by using the term “Mafia”, I refer to all the clans that make up the underworld in Italy.

Disgrace!

Posted on by
Reply

1 in every 2 to 3 are unemployed.

That’s young people.

It’s a disgrace both for Italy’s politicians but also for everyone else in Italy (employers, trade unions, etc.)

It doesn’t bode well for the future of Italy but this is a country run by old men (even older than me!)

It’s a disgrace, I say.

“I’ll be back”

Posted on by
2

Thank goodness for that! Berlusconi has made the equivalent of a Queen’s Speech and told us that, not only is he starting a new party but he is also going to stay in politics, for the good of Italy, whatever happens in the Senate vote.

By “whatever happens in the Senate vote”, I mean “when they kick him out of parliament for (finally) being convicted of something”.

By “the good of Italy”, I mean “for the good of Berlusconi”.

By “stay in politics”, I mean “influence said party because he has so much money and control of major media”.

By “starting a new party”, I mean “revamping the existing Berlusconi-for-everything party and making it a Berlusconi-for-everything party with a name from the past (so that will be just changing the name, then)”.

By “Queen’s Speech”, I mean “self-opinionated load of diarrhoea”.

By “Thank goodness for that”, I mean “OMG”.

It would be “I’ll be back” except, in this case it’s more of “I’m NEVER going to go away”.

Still, it always good to have something that’s stable (as in always there) in politics. And for that, you can count on him.

Where is our Charles Dickens?

Posted on by
Reply

Whilst I was on holiday, as I’ve mentioned, I read many books, including one of Dickens’.

Dickens was very much a social commentator of his time. Many of his books show the greed of his fellow man, the cruelty and, more often than not, the social injustice that we understand was prevalent in Victorian times. If you were rich, you were fine but God damn you if you were poor. If you were poor, you relied on handouts, were thrown in jail for becoming bankrupt (even if it was through no fault of your own) and, as a last resort, there was always the poorhouse.

There was no such thing as “social security”, since there was no security. Some rich people gave money to help the poorhouse but most did not. The people running the poorhouse would not think twice about starving the poor they were supposed to be looking after – “Please sir, may I have some more?”

His idea was to give a nudge to society, a wake up call, to change things.

And they changed. Particularly during the 50s, many things were introduced to change people’s lives for the better. We had a National Health system, there was help when you became unemployed, no one had to be homeless. There was a safety net. We no longer have poorhouses and people are not so desperate that they had to rely on handouts.

Erm, well, now it seems that in the UK (and elsewhere, including here), we seem to be proceeding towards a Victorian era again. Social security benefits are often referred to as Benefit handouts (with no sense of irony) by the DailyHateMail. Food banks exist. I mean to say, food banks EXIST! How is that possible? How, some centuries after Oliver Twist asked for a little more tasteless gruel, did people become unable to feed themselves but instead have to go to places to be handed food just to stop themselves from starving?

People like Tiny Tim are again alive and, erm, not well. In fact, once they get to working age they are, more often than not, considered to be “fit to work” and so get their “benefit handouts” stopped to “encourage them” to find work.

There will always be people who will “crack” the system to gain more at the expense of others. People who will cheat the system. The focus, for some, is the so-called “benefit scroungers” but, surely, the tax avoiders/dodgers are the ones from which the most money will come, if you’re really serious about improving the lot of the country in general?

Dickens was a great political commentator allowing people to read his stories and find within them the necessary moral statements. Of course, not everyone would read his stories. After all they made uncomfortable reading. I mean, children starving – not a nice thing to read about, is it?

What we need now is another Charles Dickens. A Charles Dickens of our time. Instead of the White Knight or Robin Hood, where is our Charles Dickens when you need him?

Gay Marriage is IN but not in IT

Posted on by
Reply

Just so you know, this afternoon the Equal Marriage Law in the UK got it’s Royal Assent.

This means it’s now the law.

I’m in Italy. We’re still waiting but, on the basis that a member of Parliament here can liken a Minister of Government to an Orang-utan because she is black and still not lose his job, I’m guessing we’ll be waiting here for some time yet.

Put it this way, I’m not holding my breath.

Why isn’t there a LOT of shouting about it?

Posted on by
4

We’re bored with the Snowden thing now, aren’t we? I mean the chase has, kind of, stalled. So nothing to see here – let’s all move along.

Except, of course, it really shouldn’t be like this. From what I understand, the UK Government has issued a Section D (I might have this wrong) notice to the British Media – effectively stifling what they can report about it.

Hence, it’s no longer really headlines. Of course, the headlines SHOULD be asking difficult questions of the Government. Asking how come GCHQ (and NSA) are collecting all our data. Asking them when it’s going to stop, etc.

But, don’t worry at all. After all they’re not collecting ALL data. Only the metadata which, by all accounts, doesn’t actually tell you anything much.

Except that’s not even true.

If you have a Gmail account, you can, actually try it (partially) for yourself using Immersion.

And you should. See how your connections are made. Who you email most – how they connect. Of course, you’ve nothing to hide, have you? So it’s not really important, is it?

Well, no, of course not.

But, follow the logic and think about the fact that they’re not just collecting the metadata from Gmail but from all your email accounts (people often have more than one – e.g. a work and a private account).

But that’s OK because if you have something to hide you will just use the telephone.

But, they collect the metadata for that too!

And for the web browsing history you do.

And anything else you do on-line.

It’s a much fuller picture they have of you now, isn’t it?

Are you comfortable with that, ‘cos I’m not?

To see how someone has analysed the Immersion program, go to this rather good piece, here.

Also see the original article, from where all this came, in the Guardian.

But, of course, this is all being done by the “good guys”, isn’t it?

Well, watch the following video:

And now tell me that you’re not just a little scared?

Becoming a hermit has never seemed such a great idea until now, eh?

I wonder when (or even if) Governments will be hounded to do something about it?

Smoke and Mirrors. Are you sure The Matrix isn’t true?

Posted on by
Reply

If you’re following the Edward Snowden story then you’re seeing something that’s almost exciting as a film – but without the pictures – unless you count the one of aircraft on the ground, empty aircraft seats and people standing around at airports.

Except,of course, that shouldn’t be the “story” that everyone is following at all. Since the current whereabouts of the man who told us all about what secret government agencies REALLY do is unknown (currently, on Twitter, he is said to be in Iceland, in Russia, in Hong Kong, in Ecuador and, in one extreme case, not actually to have ever been in Hong Kong at all!) and whereas the story of his flight and the reactions of the US government and the Russians, etc. is great fun, it shouldn’t really be what all the respectable journalists are covering.

Instead, surely, the focus should be on the enormous amount of data that GCHQ and the NSA have been (and almost certainly, still are) collecting on innocent people.

Being in Italy I can assure you that many of the ways that the Fascists collected and reviewed data on the common person are still in place, even if a little more relaxed now (I’m sure if I’m wrong on this, I will be corrected). The Fascists wanted to know everything about everybody because knowledge is power and, more importantly, the power to control (the masses).

WWII was all about defeating Fascists and the Fascist idea.

It seems that the whole thing was a waste of time because what we have now is the collecting of all this data and the controlling of the people.

And, yet, the main focus is on one man. Not even a very powerful man (since he’s given away the secrets).

Instead of very hard questions being asked of Obama and Cameron – the very hard questions are being asked of a man who is somewhere that only a few know. All the while, the destruction of his credibility goes unchecked and unquestioned.

To be honest, it’s not really important WHY he went to work for a particular company nor HOW he was able to take the information nor, even, WHERE he is.

What IS important is the WHAT he has exposed.

I would like for it to be stopped, this collecting of data. I would like the real freedom that was promised by the fighters of WWII. I don’t vote any more (because what’s the point) – but I say now that should anyone come up with a plan for ridding us of these Fascist principles of governing, I would go back out there and vote.

Spying – for the masses or, rather, on the masses.

Posted on by
6

Police spy on innocent people to try and find some dirt to discredit them.

Someone tells us that British and American secret agencies are spying on us all.

The whistle blower above is “chased” across the world by the very people who did the spying.

And those are just the very latest. We could add Bradley Manning, Undercover British Cops having affairs and babies under false names to find information and then “disappearing”, those same cops planting bombs and writing leaflets, and so on and so on.

It’s nothing new and nothing entirely unexpected.

But, for God’s sake, don’t buy into this “If you’re innocent, you have nothing to fear” crap. You have everything to fear. You don’t know when, at some point in the future, for some reason you can’t now foresee, that information about you will be twisted and turned against you. No one is safe.

And we aren’t really in a democracy unless, by that you mean that everyone gets a vote. They used to get a vote in the USSR too, you know?

What makes me laugh is the discreditation of Snowden. Apparently, people are castigating him for going to a country with less “freedom” than the USA. Whereas, of course, if he were to go to a country that was “friendly” and as “democratic” as the USA, he would, undoubtedly be sent back to the USA and suffer much the same fate as Manning or the others.

So, when Hilary Clinton said:

“countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century”.

Maybe she didn’t quite mean what she said. This was back in 2010 which I wrote up in this post.

I guess it’s OK if you’re letting them do what they want but just recording everything they do. Eh, Hilary?

Should’ve, would’ve, could’ve? Yeah, right!

Posted on by
Reply

The problem with violence depicted on film and TV is that it desensitises us to real violence and death.

The killing of Lee Rigby was a case in point. The advent of mobile phone cameras allows us to see the aftermath and not be particularly shocked by the footage on the basis that we’ve seen much worse in films. Don’t get me wrong, it was a terrible thing – but the video itself was hardly shocking in itself. It could have been the scene of a badly shot film.

So, too, we seem to become desensitised to the runnings of those in power. We’ve all seen the Matrix, haven’t we? The Net. James Bond, etc. We know how the Governments and their spying agencies work. After all, it makes for exciting films.

And so we come to Prism. Sounds like title for a film anyway, doesn’t it?

We understand that the US Government, by way of it’s spying agencies such as the FBI, have been collecting a load of data on almost everyone. Instead of being horrified we are saying “Well, what did you expect?”.

Let’s not get this out of perspective. Governments and powerful individuals and organisations have been doing this for centuries. Those of you from the UK will have seen the Tudors and read the books of the Tudor period when it was well known that letters were intercepted and read and eavesdropping was commonplace.

And, of course, if the letters and conversations were innocent, then there was nothing to fear. Was there?

Well, yes and no. History, it is said, is written by the victors. WWII has the Germans as the bad guys. But, of course, had Germany won the war, history would be different.

And now, you will notice that all the whistle blowers of recent times have, within days, been portrayed as bad, mad or just plain vicious. It has always been so. Mary I was portrayed as either a wicked woman or a bit stupid. But, I’m guessing that, had she had a successful marriage and had children, history would show her in a different light.

But, the justification by the FBI for the Prism stuff is amazing.

I read this:

[They claim] such programs could have foiled the 9-11 terrorist attacks and would prevent “another Boston”.

Erm, excuse me. The Prism thing has been happening for a number of years. One has to ask, why didn’t it prevent the Boston thing in the first place? The argument that it “would prevent” just doesn’t hold water. And, in any event, if someone wanted to do something, there will be a way to do it.

But, of course, we are all compliant in this thing now. We’ve read the books and seen the films. We aren’t up in arms because we already knew all about it. We say “Tut tut” and carry on with our lives in a society that seems to become more Fascist/Communist by the day.

But, Mr FBI man, please don’t think that we are all as stupid as you like to think. “Would prevent another Boston”? Well, maybe. But let’s see when the next atrocity happens, shall we? I’m sure you’ll be explaining why, in that particular case, all this data didn’t actually help.

Sometimes, I’m grateful that I’m old now.

Anyway, the title of the post made me think of this great song. One of my all time favourites. Enjoy but remember that they know you’re watching ;-)


Beverley Knight – Shoulda Woulda Coulda