 |
|||
 |
|||
  Wednesday, April 7, 2010Ibama & Obama's BackyardI recently took a trip with my girlfriend into the area of Algaida here on the island of Mallorca. That's right: Algaida. My first instinct was to think I was going to be killed by terrorists - but I got it wrong; it wasn't Al Qaeda we were facing, but some strange characters from Algaida. Easy mistake to make. It's funny. The Spanish haven't had to worry about Al Qaeda ever since Madrid was bombed and they promptly elected a socialist government who pulled their troops from the illegal occupation of Iraq. But Mallorca's had its share of other terrorist attacks anyway, from Basque separatists. And last week I was concerned from my girlfriend's family in Moscow when that city, too, suffered terrorism from the Chechen separatists (thankfully they were okay, which is more than can be said for the dozens killed and hundreds injured). Being British, I grew up with terrorism - we were still feeling the repercussions from British conquering of Ireland and deep-rooted retention of the north there, with the stubborn Irish Republican Army still attacking us, killing numerous innocent civilians while high-ranking Conservative Party members escaped the Brighton hotel attack. The idea of being able to "prevent" terrorism was never an issue that occurred to us back then. No one mentioned CCTV cameras, DNA databases, ID cards, or even tighter border controls. As we saw with the Northern Ireland peace process and diplomatic democratic engagement with Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein, the only possible solution to the problem was - yet again - to look at the cause, not the cure that was impossible anyway. You can't stop people killing people if they're adamant about it. You just can't - not without eroding civil liberties that go way beyond mere sensible gun control. Nonetheless, after 9/11, the U.S. premise of "fighting terror" against an "Axis of Evil" gained momentum. Bush Jr deemed entire peoples "evil" as God supposedly spoke to him: North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria...y'know, the usual suspects. Wait a minute...Venezuela? Yep, interestingly, Venezuela's "Bolivarian Revolution" that used oil resources to bring in medical services and even welfare to its shanty towns was just the start of a wave of populism sweeping across South America, in Argentina with Kirchner, Brazil with Lula, and even Bolivia, whose people elected the first-ever indigenous leader in Evo Morales. Oh yeah: while oilman Bush Jr was obsessed with the Middle East and failing to "accomplish" his "mission" there, the sleeping giant in the United States' backyard had awoken and risen. With Bush and his gang gone, it would be Barack Obama inheriting the turmoil in the Middle East. Cleverly keeping his promise to pull troops from Iraq, he appeased the big-money military industrial complex by then sending thousands more of them into Afghanistan. But what of what was now Obama's backyard? Well, Obama didn't call democratically-elected Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez "evil" - he simply did what diplomats are supposed to do: he met with him, and offered his hand (into which Chavez cleverly placed the book "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" by Eduardo Galeano.) What next for South America? Well, the "Bolivarian Revolution" struggles on, with critics blasting Chavez for shutting down the private TV station criticising his regime (omitting the fact that the station called for him to be violently overthrown). And in Chile, Michelle Bachelet, a former torture victim of dictator General Pinochet that the U.S. and U.K. installed and supported, was replaced by Sebastián Piñera, who has links with Pinochet, in a tale of twisted tragic irony. The recent earthquake there has offered the neo-Pinochet regime an opportunity for what Naomi Klein calls "disaster capitalism" - corporate interests profiting from tragedy and devastation. Meanwhile, with our own political landscape in turmoil, how do we British treat Obama's Backyard? Well, we treat it like we treat any friend's backyard: like a garbage dump. Yep, the Brazilian environment agency Ibama found that over 1,400 tonnes of trash from the U.K. was dumped all the way over at their coast. As the people of South America try and fight their way through the lies, corruption, and even the garbage, they at least enjoy the few fruits brought to them by the advance of progressive politics in the region the last several years. Let's hope this revolution doesn't end like all the other revolutions seem to have: with another set of elite interests in power. - Jay Baker; Mallorca, Spain Jay Baker's brand-new book is Pissing in the Mainstream. You can read a compilation of his best blogs from the past several years, and a few exclusives, in the book Soon To Be Banned: Musings of a Media Activist, available here. Labels: Barack Obama, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Kirchner, Lula, Michelle Bachelet, Naomi Klein
posted by Jay Baker at
8:43 AM
0 Comments
Sunday, December 6, 2009Asian is the New Black"White folks ain't trying to keep you down. White folks just don't like to be pushed into a corner. They'll come around. You just got to make it look like it was their idea, like they're the ones that thought of it. They need to feel like they're the great emancipators. Like it was theirs to give in the first place. Let them have it. I mean, if that's all it takes, let them have it." - Laurence Fishburne as Edward Robinson, to a Mexican in the movie Bobby. Is there a racial hierarchy? The African-Americans have seemingly always suffered racism, a part of U.S. society unchanged by the token election of a right-wing capitalist President who just happens to be black. Then - as if nothing had been learned from Ireland or Palestine - Barack Obama's predecessors began the building of a wall to prevent more Mexicans crossing the border. "Now," I heard one African-American tell a Mexican, "you are the niggers." It was a concept represented by that character, Edward Robinson, in Emilio Estevez's film about Robert Kennedy's last hours. There always has to be an "enemy within" for our true enemies to thrive on. It's nothing new. Immigration controls are barely more than a hundred years old, conceived initially with the motivation of restricting movement of the Jews; creating the ability to open and close borders at will, as though part of some kind of Social Darwinist selection. But due to the shortage in workforce in 1950s Britain, the "colonials" were suddenly welcomed into the country over from the Caribbean to fill the void. Later, they were met with disdain, but it soon passed as society progressed and people became enlightened. Soon enough, the soccer hooligans were fighting, but the whites and blacks were joining together in chasing Indians and Pakistanis through the streets; it was their turn, and the blacks were just glad to be able to save their asses and be on the winning team. The Southern Asians in Britain were left to endure the National Front marching through their slums...until the Anti-Nazi League came along, and - taking direct action to another level - ran into those streets and gave the fascist racists a good beating, kicking their cause to the curb. More recently, we've seen South Asia bombed repeatedly and starved through sanctions, killing millions of children and many more adults. The CIA created the Ba'ath Party led by Saddam Hussein, as well as Osama bin Laden's Taliban, all as part of its effort to control the region, resulting in reactionary terrorist attacks from extremists - among them, ironically, Osama bin Laden himself. But the bombings in London, England, on July 7th, 2005, were by lads from West Yorkshire, where racism had risen and the British National Party had gained ground. Asians in Britain are trying to counter Islamophobia rife in the mainstream media through groups like MPACUK, and the rich and powerful are galvanising the issue of immigration that only boosts the single-issue politics of the BNP when there is in fact no issue there at all. As a result, while I was making Escape from Doncatraz on this subject, I even heard British-born Asians talk about the supposed threat of refugees and those who seek asylum. Yep: they're the ones now sitting at the bottom of the barrel in a capitalist system that crushes us from the very top, and depends on divisive distraction to get away with it over and over again. You see, when you've scratched and clawed your way from the bottom of the barrel you, too, fear ever going back there. You'll stand on whoever you can through fear of losing the few things you've gained. Those at the top are so far away, so impossible to reach or even see, it's your only hope of leverage, the only way you feel you can survive. That's capitalism. And until it's gone, the elite will always keep distracting us to "kick the dog" while they continue to enjoy their power, their riches, and that very system that keep them on top at our expense. - Jay Baker; South Yorkshire. Jay Baker's brand-new book is Pissing in the Mainstream. You can read a compilation of his best blogs from the past several years, and a few exclusives, in the book Soon To Be Banned: Musings of a Media Activist, available here. Labels: Barack Obama, Escape from Doncatraz, Immigration, racism, refugees
posted by Jay Baker at
1:41 PM
0 Comments
Sunday, August 23, 2009Pity ThemThey say there's a first time for everything, and I'm here to offer sympathy for some politicians. I know what you're thinking: "Ah, Jay Baker's caught swine flu, or he'll be blogging while drunk or something - he'll come to his senses later," but I shit you not! Bear with me here. Just after that time, of course, it emerged that - after giving the issue forty years of thought - 57% of the American population did not believe the official version of President John F Kennedy's assassination. No surprise there: the evidence of a conspiracy had been fairly well documented, not just by DA Jim Garrison's case (as adapted for the screen by Oliver Stone), but by the documents released by the CIA showing that an international assassin had been captured in Dallas just 48 hours after JFK had been shot dead, only to be flown out of the country by authorities! Conspiracy "theories" were never necessary with JFK - the facts made it obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald was exactly what he screamed he was not long before he, too, was shot dead: "just a patsy."
If this sounds familiar, it may be because, after the planes hijacked by mostly Saudi Arabian men flew into the World Trade Center's Twin Towers on September 11th, 2001, planes were seemingly grounded for all but the special flights helping Saudi members of the Bin Laden family from the U.S. Sure, it's true no skyscraper in American history had ever collapsed due to fire as a result of impact from a plane, it's true the twin towers were designed specifically to withstand collapse upon being hit by jetliners, it's true there has never been an acceptable explanation for the mysterious and entire collapse of World Trade Center's huge Building 7 later that day - and those are issues worth pursuing. But that doesn't mean it's a conspiracy, and heck, if it was a demolition job, why not openly have a demolition, spare the hijack hassle, collapse the twin towers, and just blame that on the terrorists, like the attack in 1993? And even without the pursuit of such fact-finding crusades, the very fact that the Bush Administration was repeatedly warned about the threat of an attack yet did little to nothing, the fact that the Bushes and Bin Ladens were doing business together, the fact that the former helped the latter flee the country after the attacks, and the fact that this was all used as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and, remarkably, Iraq, killing thousands of innocent civilians, is enough to complain about, by sticking to the facts. The entire government - the entire administration - could be discredited based on those facts alone, facts that have even been acknowledged by both politicians and the mainstream media! And with those facts alone, the Bushes and Blairs of the world could be put on trial, convicted, and imprisoned. Anything else leaves the questioners open to questioning, and even ridicule. When asked about the subject by Alternative Radio founder David Barsamian for the book What We Say Goes, Noam Chomsky said "Of the couple hundred letters I'm getting every day, the flood that's really abusive, which says, 'It's your responsibility to set this as your highest priority and to drop everything else,' is coming from the '9/11 truth' people. It's almost a kind of religious fanaticism." Who are these people, Michael Jackson fans or something? Since Jacko's death, internet forums showing any support of Jarvis Cocker's famous 1996 Brit Awards protest, or acknowledgment of MJ's suspect interactions with children, seem to have been met with flaming abuse. Who knew Jackson fans would turn out to be such tough little bastards baying for blood of anyone with a differing opinion? The 9/11 Truthers are picking on the 80 year-old Chomsky in a similar way, and all because he won't put all his other great work on the back-burner and join their conspiracy cause? "I suspect people in positions of power like it," explained Chomsky. "It's diverting enormous amounts of energy away from the real crimes of the administration, which are far more serious. Suppose they did blow up the World Trade Center? By their standards, that's a minor crime. Increasing the threat of nuclear war and environmental disaster is a far worse crime, which might lead to extinction of the species. Take the invasions of Iraq and Lebanon. Or look at what they're doing to working people in the United States. We can go on and on."
On February 16th, 2008, I took a Greyhound bus with my colleague and friend Lenna into Toronto to attend what was advertised as a protest against the Security & Prosperity Partnership, which is an undemocratic movement amongst North American politicians to open up the continent to adopting the USA's security policies, extending their "no-fly list," and make that beautiful, pure Canadian spring water a communal resource. When we arrived, we found ourselves surrounded by not New Democratic Party activists, but 9/11 Truthers carrying signs against a supposed "North American Union" and standing beside a bus bearing the slogan "Ron Paul Revolution" - referring to the American libertarian Republican who opposes gun control and abortion, wants less public spending by scrapping taxes altogether in addition to less government interference in the market (though despite the presence of that bus, he denies being a 9/11 Truther, saying "the blame goes to bad policy," not a conspiracy). As we wondered what we'd got ourselves into on this "SPP protest," our mouths dropped, and our hearts sank. Nonetheless, Lenna made the most of our day by going up onto the stage, grabbing the microphone, and announcing the imminent arrival of our incorporated social enterprise, SilenceBreaker Media (to which one protester responded - hilariously - by shouting "No! No more corporations!") The NDP people arrived as everyone was leaving, and I asked "Where the heck were you when we needed you?" and they just smiled politely, as usual. I'm guessing they got there late because they take public transit.
The thing is, the military spending and presence around the world can still increase, as it looks set to, and health care plans can still be compromised, as they are being right now. Nothing Obama’s done has been particularly radical. And of course, they never were going to be. The Democrats are Republican Lite™ - they're still right-wing capitalists, despite the Republican cries of "socialist" at the President, which I'm sure he actually loves because it appeases the antsy lefties and progressives who helped him rise to power and now take a break from anti-war activism, while he sends more troops into Afghanistan, stalls on closing Gitmo, and goes easy on the bankers who essentially committed an act of terrorism on the country and its people. They were all so busy believing in Hope™ and Change™ before celebrating the removal of the GOP that they neglected to look at what exactly would really be changed: very little. American politics being as it is, things are not going to get that much better. But I'm not the bearer of bad news, not at all: when I say politics, I'm talking about party politics - because while the race for the White House features a choice of two parties (one more than the Soviet Union, as Jesse Ventura likes to say), Ralph Nader's raiders and the real grassroots activists can still cause real change. Change will come from the bottom-up, not the top-down. As Shami Chakrabarti told me in Escape from Doncatraz, "I don't believe people are any less political than they've ever been - they're just less party political."
As time went by, this - along with his increase of child poverty while increasing the number of billionaires, and introducing unprecedented debt for students while also attacking the health service - made Blair extremely unpopular. Even though it was damaging his party beyond repair, and his refusal to regulate the financial sector threatened to damage the economy beyond realistic recovery, Blair kept hanging on and hanging on, welching on the handshake deal he had with Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown (who refused to challenge him for leadership of the Labour Party in 1994 in return for supposed control over domestic policy and becoming his successor in around 2003). Blair in fact held on for a further four long years, by which time Britain was a mess. You can almost imagine Blair saying to Brown, "Sorry for the delay, old boy, but I've finally got this little country for you," as he holds his hands outwards and offers a clump of dirt, "And apologies for leaving it such a shit state, mate. Goodbye, now - I'm off to convert to Catholicism, write a book, get a tan, and be envoy to those rag-heads in the Middle East. Good luck, and so long, sucker!"
Brown's presided over a mess that Blair left him. As Blair's been tanning, Brown's gone pale with worry. While Blair's almost salvaged a reputation despite being a war criminal, Brown will be the one remembered for leading Britain into its darkest hour. It's not really fair and I, for one, feel sorry for the bloke! Do I agree with him on most things? Not by any stretch of the imagination - come on, I haven't taken complete leave of my senses here! But it's Blair we ought to despise most, not Brown. Blair's been the worst Prime Minister in decades, even worse than Margaret Thatcher because, while Blair was a wolf in sheep's clothing, her disguise was as transparent as the wolf in grandma's bed in front of the Little Red Flag-flying lefties. She chewed us up and spat us out - just like she said she would. No one was there to save us, and no one has been since. While Barack Obama's got some old CIA links, there was no OO7 in Britain able to rescue us from the jaws of recession.
At the end of the day, these politicians are still people. They're part of a system that's rigged to keep the right-wing capitalists in power, and in control. And in accordance with capitalism, they have to play dog-eat-dog, while getting their media mogul friends to create stories encouraging you and I to play kick-the-dog. As a result, we've blamed refugees, immigrants, Muslims, welfare recipients; you name it - anyone at the bottom of the barrel, because it's easier to kick them when they're down than reach the rich and powerful up at the top, especially when the press don't highlight what they're up to much. But of course recently, the papers have been showing what I already exposed over a year ago in my film Escape from Doncatraz: politicians fiddling their expenses to get a bit extra. And while Shami Chakrabarti was right about people being "less party political," it's not necessarily a good thing. We've all heard the conversations in the pub: "Ah, they're all the same, them politicians; they all piss in the same pot." That cynicism was never stronger than in the recent European elections where - just as we did in the 1970s and 80s, allowing Thatcher to take hold of power - the working classes stayed at home, and didn't vote. The percentage of votes for the racist BNP rose as a result, giving the impression that people were, in fact, turning to them (they weren't; the BNP’s votes actually dropped). But this is the danger that comes with cynicism and apathy. We can't afford to sit at home and disconnect from it all - the thing with democracy is, you either use it or lose it. Just vote - even if you have to vote for the "evil of two lessers." When hearing I was writing this, my friend and talented playwright Gary, brilliant as ever, suggested I play the Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil in the background, it might help." It did make me think: choosing the evil of the lessers is better than nothing. I mean, the Devil got cast out, and it doesn't look like things improved much around here as a result, did it?
As Neil Young sang, "keep on rockin' in the free world..." - Jay Baker; South Yorkshire You can read a compilation of Jay Baker's best blogs from the past several years, and a few exclusives, in his brand-new book "Soon To Be Banned: Musings of a Media Activist," available here. Labels: Barack Obama, Escape from Doncatraz, Gordon Brown, Iraq, JFK, Tony Blair, War on Terror
posted by Jay Baker at
11:07 AM
0 Comments
Wednesday, June 17, 2009Barack, Iraq and Iran: The One That Got AwayHilarious news today, as Barack Obama speaks out on the election results and aftermath in Iran, the country known - in the War on Terror™ - as The One That Got Away. The irony is incredible. Back when the United States were friends with The Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein (while he was gassing thousands of Kurds, but going along with Western policy), the government helped Iraq fight Iran - but also sold the Iranians some weapons on the side too, to make an extra buck financing their own military campaigns elsewhere.  The Iraqis suddenly stopped playing ball with the Yanks, and then after 9/11, when mostly Saudi terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center (and Building 7 just fell all by itself!), not only was blame placed on the Afghans, who were bombed mercilessly, but then also on Iraq, and Iran, as well as Syria, and even North Korea, which wasn't even in the Middle East! But North Korea had about as much to do with 9/11 as any of its counterparts in the Axis of Evil™! It was good guys against bad guys, with sides chosen seemingly at random like a game of Unreal Tournament (man, I love that frag-fest!) And the likes of NBC - owned by General Electric, who make Tomahawk missiles - made sure that the "war reporting" looked more like a harmless video game than anything horrific.Where Ronald Reagan, and his own father failed, George W Bush Jr succeeded having risen to power in one of the biggest cases of voter fraud in Western history. "You are either with us, or against us," Bush said. Iraq was destroyed, but Iran remained an annoyance. Well sure enough, contrary to Richard Nixon's claim that the president can bomb anybody he likes, millions protested his bombing campaign, and his popularity level plummeted to the second lowest in recorded presidential history, behind only Harry Truman. Then came the supposed alternative, offering slogans like Hope™ and Change™ which sure sounded good, didn't they? The Democrats were on course for an electoral onslaught even millions of lost votes wouldn't affect; it was only ever a choice between Democrat #1, Barack Obama, or Democrat #2, Hillary Clinton. Well, the more things change, the more they stay the same, and when it came to the Middle East, we were only offered reminders that the Democrats were not about to piss off the military industrial complex, as John F Kennedy did (bang, bang!) When asked about a potential Iranian threat on the biggest invader of its neighbours in the Middle East - Israel (America's mean ol' nasty kid sister) - Hillary Clinton said that, as president, she would "totally obliterate" Iran. As independent politician Jesse Ventura said, "our two-party system gives us one more choice than (the Soviet Union)." And it's a choice between red and blue, Coke and Pepsi, corporations and corporations, capitalism and capitalism, right-wing and right-wing.  Despite more election discrepancies and lost votes, Barack Obama became president, and rewarded Hillary Clinton for her, um, diplomatic comments by making her his Secretary of State! He then went on to the summit of G20 as its apparent self-appointed head of twenty nations whose leaders dealt with the global economic crisis by enjoying expensive fine meals and talking amongst themselves, ignoring the thousands of protesters outside the venue in London who wanted their opinions heard, as the Metropolitan Police viciously and mercilessly attacked them, killing one man and injuring hundreds, in one of the worst cases of police brutality in recent history. Now Iran's had their election, but seemingly chosen the same leader again: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iranians have been protesting about the validity of the voting results, with challenger Hossein Musavi still campaigning. Today, it was reported that Barack Obama responded to these events by saying "The difference between Ahmadinejad and Musavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised," presumably to reinforce Iran's position as an enemy of the United States, no matter what happens there. He also said, "When I see violence directed at peaceful protesters, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed...it is of concern to me and it is of concern to the American people."  Even more ironically, his Republican rival John McCain followed up with the comment, "He should speak out that this is a corrupt, fraud, sham of an election." Oh, yes. It's a brand-new word: Irany.  - Jay Baker; South Yorkshire, England You can read a compilation of Jay Baker's best blogs from the past several years, and a few exclusives, in his brand-new book "Soon To Be Banned: Musings of a Media Activist," available here. Labels: Barack Obama, George HW Bush, George W Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, War on Terror
posted by Jay Baker at
4:49 AM
0 Comments
Friday, March 13, 2009An End to Brown-Nosing"(Milton) Friedman created this crisis! He is dead and, really, it's too bad. I'd like to see him arraigned before the International Court of Justice for crimes against humanity. With his idea that market operation is perfect, he let all greed, all human voracity, express itself openly." - Michel Rocard, former Prime Minister of France Let's go back in time eighty years, before it all began...  The Wall Street crash of 1929 was economically devastating for the United States, and its knock-on effect was felt across the Atlantic, in my homeland of Britain; the reverberations of which would affect my grandfather (and, therefore, my father) to forever fear the "rainy day" and hold onto as much cash as possible at all costs (when my grandfather died - after successfully resisting ever opening a bank account - literally thousands of pounds was found, in cold crisp cash, in hiding places all over his house).On top of the Great Depression, Britain had even greater financial difficulties following the Second World War of 1939-1945, which drained much of its remaining resources in the fight against fascism. By this time, economist John Maynard Keynes had arrived to identify the solutions to these problems, and put in place a series of proposals for measures that were adopted by the British government. While U.S. President Franklin D Roosevelt was enjoying the realisation of his "New Deal" economic stimulus programmes, post-war Prime Minister Clement Attlee (now considered to be the best British premier of the 20th century) utilised the Beveridge Report that nationalised many industries, funded education, provided welfare, and created the National Health Service - all of which were accepted as backbones of British society for decades...until the Conservative Party's Margaret Thatcher came along, breaking its back, and brandishing her own Ridley Report that recommended smashing the strongest unions by brute force in order to reduce workers' rights, which she did by defeating the National Union of Mineworkers in 1985. Along with Republican Ronald Reagan, she then embraced economist Milton Friedman's ideas of privatisation and deregulation and essentially everything that led to our current troubles. On May 6th, 2005, I wrote a blog about the British election titled "The End is the Beginning is the End," in which I predicted Gordon Brown would, indeed, replace Tony Blair as Prime Minister. In that blog, I also called Brown "a darling of the big business Brown-nosing lobbyists." Also predicting that Brown's lack of charisma would lead to Labour's eventual defeat, I suggested this might create an opportunity for the socialist back-benchers and trade unionists to take back control of the party. That's how it unfolded. That's how it began. Blair, discredited largely by his decision to illegally invade Iraq on top of his continuation (and, arguably, extension) of Thatcherism, resigned as Prime Minister, and Gordon Brown, who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer forced to fund such decisions, finally took his place. Brown's since inherited financial shockwaves strong enough to send an economic tsunami across the ocean; the biggest since the original crash, today a "crunch." Hilariously, it's the Tories who are claiming they're the ones to do something different! And while Brown's not totally to blame for this mess, nor is he the Keynesian problem-solver he'd like to believe, and he has to recognise that his lack of popularity is indeed precisely because there's not enough difference between the major parties. Next you'll be telling me that the Liberal Democrats are for tuition fees and war in the Middle East! Wait, they are? Oh, well, there you go. There has to be investment in welfare, in education, in health-care, in transport, in training, and in the cultural sector, which will benefit other sectors, too. Capitalism has failed, and socialism is no longer a dirty word. It's the only option left now, logically. But do Labour have the guts to re-embrace it at this hour? Last night here in the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire I attended a meeting called "Re-engaging Citizens in Democratic Politics" with Prof Gerry Stoker (who wrote Why Politics Matters) and Sheffield University's very own Prof Colin Hay (author of Why We Hate Politics). It was an interesting event seeking to look at why people are turned-off by politics, with topics ranging from election reform to the importance of politicians interacting with people more. I think it goes much further, much deeper, and much darker than that. If you're still awake and reading this, I'll tell you what I took from the findings... According to statistics pointed-out by the professors, the working class are less likely to vote than anyone else, and voter turn-out plummeted as soon as New Labour rose to power. Now, these things seem to state something very obvious: once Labour allowed itself to be guided by the twice-disgraced Peter Mandelson, away from social democracy and towards embracing big business, the mass majority of working class people, feeling betrayed, simply stayed at home, or decided to protest. Anyone with a memory not affected by two hundred satellite channels of (un)reality shows and eMpTyV editing knows the Tories won't do better if they get into power; they themselves are at the root cause of the whole situation. But even if Gordon Brown is booted and - as I've been predicting - David Miliband becomes Labour leader, it won't make much difference because the party itself isn't much different so long as it's New Labour. Milliband's ready to receive the Obama treatment, giving the perception of ChangeTM and HopeTM with no tangible substance to go with the style. Sure, his father was a Marxist, but both Blair and Brown were considered to be socialists once, too. He may be referred to as a social democrat, but his voting record is absolutely appalling. No wonder we don't vote, then. Like Obama, Miliband is a slippery fish, only likely to offer very light relief. No, the party needs fundamental across-the-board changes. Here in Britain today, we have all three major political parties on the right. This means that not a single one of them reflects the interests of the mass majority; the working class population. There is no representation whatsoever of any sense of spectrum in politics, of anything other than their own greed and corporate friends.  That is why fewer and fewer people are engaged in the democratic process - it's like going to a supermarket and having a choice between Coke and Pepsi: sure, they're constantly engaged in fierce competition with each other, but both are bad for you; it's just that one is red and the other is blue. That's pretty much it. When we go into a bar and ask for a "Jack Daniels and Coke" and the bartender replies "Is Pepsi okay?" we tell them of course it is, because most sane people really couldn't give a shit - there's no significant difference! It's the same with the major political parties: there's no difference, so we don't give a shit. Thus, low turnout.Labour has to turn back now. They have to stop the foreign policy of aggression, they have to stop privatisation, they have to stop ignoring the unions, they have to stop selling off public housing, they have to stop eroding civil liberties; all of it. They must stop now and turn back, because it's the only way they can save themselves long-term, and save us. Like the anti-heroes of The Italian Job, they're finding themselves in a money-filled bus that's on the edge of a cliff, but with Michael Caine nowhere in sight to offer "a great idea." Sometimes we find ourselves back where we began. But it's inevitable when we go around in circles, in the same place. Now is the time to stick it to New Labour. And the Tories. Heck, the Liberal Democrats, too. Their warmongering corporate interests and their ilk from elsewhere must be held accountable. That's why, on April Fools Day, people are heading to London as the G20 arrive for their little conference. The bailed-out bankers and Brown-nosing lobbyists will be subjected to the wrath of the commoner. This common man, for one, will be there to play the fool. I hope you will, too. - Jay Baker; Doncaster, England Labels: Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Margaret Thatcher, New Labour, Tony Blair
posted by Jay Baker at
3:27 PM
0 Comments
Thursday, February 26, 2009Angel of the Public Interest"The night after I was sworn in, I waited for a visit from the angel of the public interest. I waited all night, but she did not come." - Federal Communications Commission chief Michael Powell, an avid deregulation advocate and son of Colin Powell. Does media matter? That's what I'm asked a lot. Well, ask yourself how many of your opinions have been formed by something you heard, something you saw; a television show, a magazine, a song, a movie, a newspaper, or even a conversation - which, in turn, was likely largely based on opinions formed from...media! Sorry, but there's really no way around it, honey. Media controls the world. That's just how it is. The more we're informed, the more our opinions are formed. But who controls the media? I guess that's pretty important, then, eh? Well, unfortunately, it's being left to rich, greedy, white, right-wing men in suits who - funnily enough - have the tendency to tell twisted tales to the people consuming their media, so that they keep hating each other and voting the right-wing political parties into power. That's pretty much how the whole thing works, right there.  In Britain, after boom-and-bust Conservative strategies left the incoming Labour government in economic turmoil - subjected to the (first) Winter of Discontent - Margaret Thatcher led the Tories back to power in 1979 with help from not just the clever, cynical, fake and now-infamous billboard poster designed by advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi, but also Rupert Murdoch's tabloid newspaper The Sun encouraging the population to vote for the Tories, like an evil nanny feeding a starving child arsenic and telling them "It's good for you," and it being trustingly gulped back. No doubt many working class people - feeling that Labour had already significantly compromised their socialist approach moulded three decades earlier by the great Clement Attlee - felt less enthusiastic about voting for Labour again. That's to be expected. But it was predominantly the less industrial, more middle class, more suburban south of England that provided the push needed to solidify the support necessary to put in - and keep in - a Conservative government, all the way to 1997. The Tories didn't simply fall from favour in 1997. No, it's no coincidence that Rupert Murdoch had become impressed by Tony Blair's "Third Way" route for New Labour that promised to continue the media deregulation started by Thatcherism - so much so that he had his News Corporation, and indeed The Sun, support them...resulting, of course, in their rise to power. And also resulting in deregulation and near-monopolisation of the media for Mr Murdoch. Sure enough, Blair's Britain continued along that path, as did Bush's United States. In 2003, Murdoch claimed Bush "will either go down in history as a very great president or he'll crash and burn...I'm optimistic it will be the former." He put his Fox News Network to work on making his hopes a reality, almost always portraying Bush in a good light, discrediting his critics, and - most crucially - omitting certain facts about him and his party, only increasing the role of the channel as being, in actuality, Faux News, while Murdoch bought MySpace two years later, and continued his quest for his right-wing domination of the media world, and the people of the planet showed the propaganda wasn't completely succeeding as millions marched in streets across the globe in opposition to the UK-US led illegal invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration, of course, didn't let these deeds go without reward. In the spring of that same year, Colin Powell's son, Michael Powell, in his role as chief of the Federal Communications Commission, set about dismissing thirty year-old rules while further loosening restrictions on just how much media could be controlled by a single company like News Corp. These changes threatened to allow a single network to buy stations that, combined, reached as much as a staggering 45% of the American people. Think about that for a moment: one ideology, one message, one slant - bombarding as many as almost a half of all Americans. Murdoch could control the information of entire cities in the world's most powerful nation. Yep, deregulation was still being attempted in return for propaganda and campaign funds donated to the bigwigs by the media moguls. It was becoming a tired old sick joke. Speaking of sick jokes, Powell simply stated, "The night after I was sworn in, I waited for a visit from the angel of the public interest...I waited all night, but she did not come." This pissed off a lot of people, with leading media activist Aliza Dichter responding, "Since he had trouble seeing one angel that dreadful night on March 22nd, we shall descend upon him in droves!" and Indy Media announcing "We encourage all Angels such as yourself to come to the gathering dressed in your best Angel garb - halo, wings, glitter, the whole nine yards. (If no angel gear, come anyway!)" They're still waiting for the droves of angels to descend on the FCC, and I'm very tempted to come to Washington, D.C. myself. There are all kinds of media activist opportunities there, because it's the seat of power, and if I'm allowed there, I'll be helping to kick the legs from under it along with the rest of the people wanting change through responsible, fair media. Barack Obama's great. The media has pleasantly focused on the fact that, for the first time ever, an African-American now resides in the White House. Why trivialise it? Why reduce it to tokenism? He got where he is today because he wasn't Colin Powell; he represented the wishes and hopes and dreams of America. He made promises he is already struggling to keep while under pressure from the same old system - be it by appeasing the military industrial complex by pulling forces from Iraq and simply putting them into Afghanistan, or by using the economy as an excuse to put progressive policies on the back-burner. Yes, his achievement is historic, yes it's important - but we must not forget the real reason he was put into power, because a black man means nothing unless he represents the people, and nor does a woman. Deregulation was pushed to unprecedented places by Margaret Thatcher, one of the most devastating Prime Ministers in British history. That's something worth remembering. And with that in mind, it's time to take back control of the airwaves and the printing presses, because once Murdoch and his ilk have had their way, we'll only get their side of the story. When the media lie, they get sued. So what do they do instead? Omit. It's lies through omission. If someone threatens you and your loved ones, and provokes you into threatening them in return, to then accuse you of threatening behaviour would only be part of the story, and, some might say, as bad as lying. That's what the mainstream media do: they lie through omission. Omitted details about immigration, about Iraq, about Palestine, about Ireland, about everything. There are certain things they'd rather you didn't know about or focus on. Because if you did? You'd be ripping their papers and brand-new asses for their bosses; you'd be organising and forcing change. Ever noticed how everyone complains about how hard life is, and how much they work, yet things just largely stay the same? Ever wondered how that's even possible? They filter the information; they tell you that the arsenic is good for you! Everything's okay; just blame the immigrants. Everything's alright; blame the benefit frauds. Everything's fine; blame the poor who went into debt. Whatever you do, don't even consider questioning capitalism's free market or why there are just a few privileged people with eight-bedroom mansions, limousines and lear jets, while the mass majority in the world are struggling, and 1.4 billion live in official poverty. What the media clues you in on is nowhere near as important as what they've left out. It can be quotes, statistics, editorials, and the screaming headlines themselves - overpowering or even replacing a few extra crucial details to the story. Given the fact that more and more of the media is being controlled by fewer and fewer people - with right-wing interests in contrast to the interests of the mass majority - our information is being controlled more and more, as well. It's being filtered. But heck, information is too important to our lives to be left in the hands of the right who are doing us wrong. We have to do something. Get involved. Be an angel.  - Jay Baker; Doncaster, England Labels: Aliza Dichter, Barack Obama, Conservative Party, FCC, Fox News, George W Bush, Iraq, Margaret Thatcher, New Labour, Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair
posted by Jay Baker at
7:50 AM
0 Comments
Sunday, February 22, 2009Wrestling with EthicsIt's Oscar time! Yeah, tonight's the night when the Academy push whatever agenda is at the top of their list whilst making sure to either deny awards to actors who've already received one (Sean Penn) or present them to directors who didn't necessarily make the best film, but have been long overdue for one (Martin Scorsese). Of course, their agenda can often override these principles, so much so that even Tom Hanks can get an Oscar for playing a gay part! And who can forget Michael Moore's infamous 2002 Oscar acceptance speech in which he talked about American violence both domestic and abroad? It was considered so controversial at the time. How dare he draw parallels between the international perception of Americans and their tendency for violence due to being home to a massive armed underclass! Clearly, he was a few years too early, because it's now pretty much accepted that the world reputation of the United States has been needing a little improvement (hence Barack Obama's election victory). Many hopes are hanging on Barack Obama, just as they were on Bill Clinton and Tony Blair in the 90s (and, yeah, we know what happened there). Back then, I was a student writing as co-editor for the college magazine under the guidance of our brilliant media teacher Becky Parry, who even garnered us some local media attention - but, whilst congratulating me on an editorial piece on the recently deceased Lady Di, didn't understand my choice of two other subjects: animal rights, and professional wrestling. Mickey Rourke may very well receive a (deserved) Oscar for Best Actor at tonight's Academy Awards for his performance in The Wrestler, portraying past-his-prime professional wrestler Randy "The Ram" Robinson, and demonstrating the art form of soap opera stuntwork and storytelling through simulated violence. And that's the crux: far from the real-life hazards of barbaric boxing (which Rourke's also participated in), pro wrestling is a kind of theatre that reflects the attitudes of America today, and whilst without the presence of a union and thus rendering many retired wrestlers broke and broken-down, it at least affords them the opportunity to pick and choose how intense and painful their performances are to be in the name of entertainment.  No surprise, then, that one of PETA's recent campaigns features Mickey Rourke himself holding his precious pooch in an attempt to raise awareness about "animal birth control." So, years after my choice of subjects for the college magazine, it's also now becoming accepted that, far from being a circus, pro wrestling is not inherently in direct opposition to peaceful lifestyles or even animal rights. It does, however, require a little more work when it comes to the treatment of the humans involved.In the film Brassed Off, about coal miners fighting for their unionised livelihoods in Northern England, Pete Postlethwaite, portraying colliery brass band leader Danny, states "I thought that music mattered. But does it bollocks! Not compared to how people matter," adding that "the point is - if this lot were seals or whales, you'd all be up in bloody arms. But they're not, are they? No, no they're not. They're just ordinary common-or-garden honest, decent human beings. And not one of them with an ounce of bloody hope left. Oh aye, they can knock out a bloody good tune. But what the f*** does that matter?" And that's what's strange about the world we live in. When we see a violent act committed on masses of people - usually in the name of "foreign policy" - we rarely react as emotionally as we do when we see beached whales, or seals clubbed, or birds covered in oil after a tanker disaster, or even a news story of pet neglect. Even in movies, we react differently to a human being killed than we do to an animal being killed. Animal rights are important, of course, but human rights are the priority, and they're completely connected anyway: it's no coincidence that animal abuse rose in South Yorkshire after the strongly-unionised coal pits had been closed in such a draconian way, weakening the British unions and decimating entire communities. When workers lose their rights, it's a loss of human rights as well, and when that happens, humans get desperate; they start to abuse drugs, spouses, children, and animals, as well. The unionised industries that built communities and provided us with essential resources can't be compared to the retail-driven, low-paid, short-term, part-time, temporary jobs that replaced them, peddling rubbish wanted but not needed, driving people into debt to make ends meet, surrounded by advertising - thus the "economic crisis." There needs to be a true value of human rights, but we can't even begin to do that until we value workers. - Jay Baker; Doncaster, England Labels: Barack Obama
posted by Jay Baker at
1:52 PM
0 Comments
Monday, October 13, 2008Crapping on the Canadian FlagWhite, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant Pansexual Male WLTM Canadian to shack up with me and sponsor me so I can get my visa faster. Clean. Tidy. Vegan. Uncut. D&D-free. No money left, but have good SOH. I can't even get a visa let alone vote, but I'm still excited for Canada's 40th federal election that's already upon us. 40th! Wow. It doesn't sound like many, but you have to consider that it feels like they've had about twenty of those things in the last few years alone. Heck, Canadians really love elections, eh? It's probably because they get to show off to their drunken, rowdy next-door neighbours that they can actually do one properly - y'know, the kind where the one who actually wins ends up in power. The Canadians recently participated in a much-publicized Greatest Canadian vote via CBC. They chose as the Greatest Canadian of all-time none other than Tommy Douglas, the "Father of Medicare" and staunch socialist who spearheaded the New Democratic Party. 1.2 million votes were cast. This is a staggering amount, considering that - as the rest of the world will tell you - the majority of the remaining population probably live in mountain shacks or something, surrounded by snow with no access to media. So, with all that in mind, you'd think it's a given that Canadians today would put the NDP into power by a landslide. Nope.  Across the border, in the United States, they like to show off their "democracy" by offering two Presidential candidates to choose from. That's right: two - hey, it's one more than Cuba! Two.You'd think it was the same in Canada, though, because it's Liberal/Tory, Same Old Story, even though there are several parties to choose from - from such characters as the Christian Heritage Party, to the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party, to the Bloc Quebecois, to the Marijuana Party (wow, that sounds like a real party to me!) Sadly, though, when the Conservatives mess up, the people put the Liberals in power; then, the Liberals get caught doing dirty tricks, so they put the Conservatives in for a while - and then the Tories start wrecking the country. Personally, given the nature of the House of Commons in Canada, and the popular sport of ice hockey, if they're going to play with two parties only, I don't know why they don't just put them both into teams, on the ice, and have them smack the crap out of each other; the winning team becomes the government! Why not? They might as well, if you think about it.  So, why aren't the Canadians practicing what they preach? Have they perhaps forgotten that the NDP is Tommy Douglas's party, thanks to a media that shortens their memories as well as their attention spans? In fact, that may be part of the reason too: the NDP don't get much coverage in the press! It makes sense, really, considering the media is for the most part owned by the same gang that needs capitalism - not socialism - perpetuated. And only the Liberal/Tory, Same Old Story will do just that.With the NDP, you have a party that's all for protecting human beings in the workplace through strong trade unions, in favour of ecosocialist alternatives for the environment, against having Canadian troops doing Anglo-American bidding in the Middle East, totally for the rights of First Nations people, and wants to stop the bloodletting of industry all the way down to Mexico through the North American Free Trade Agreement. All Canadian values, we're told. Right? Maybe, but the Canadians aren't voting for them - in fact many of them, when they're not voting for one of the two hockey teams there, are voting for the Green Party, that bunch of wishy-washy middle class ethical consumers and capitalists who don't care whether you've got a good job or not, as long as you're buying the more expensive and "environmentally-friendly" light-bulbs. And they're not likely to even win a single seat in the Commons, so, Green-voters, "Green" might sound nice and politically correct, but a vote for them from you and your mates will only increase the chance of a Conservative majority, giving the Tories the green light - no pun intended - to show their own true colours. Scary thought, eh? So, with all this confusion - this blindness to the only party that actually has any interest in Canadian values at all - we're left back with Liberal/Tory, Same Old Story. But that's a game far more dangerous than hockey, my seal-clubbing friends, because if the Tories get their majority, that'll be their permission to complete their campaign to wreck the entire country.  Remember the good old days, you Canucks? It wasn't so long ago when you had Bush steal another election across the border, and you all had to deal with all these bloody apologetic Americans showing up on your doorstep all looking like some sorry bastard who just left their partner and needed somewhere to stay for a while. Heck, how do you think you got Naomi Klein? Her folks even made that move back in the day, back when Tommy Douglas was leading the NDP. Well, that's all over now, if you vote the wrong way. Because now, if Barack Obama can somehow steal back the votes for his party, and becomes President of the United States while Prime Minister Stephen Harper enjoys a majority in Canada, you will all become the ones looking for somewhere to stay, and you'll be hoping the Americans finally return the favour. Because you can forget about everything you hold dear. Yep, if Mr Roboto gets full control, he's going to start rampaging across the country, province to province, and wreck it - you know, kind of like that evil robot from RoboCop 2. Maybe that mass majority who didn't vote in CBC's Greatest Canadian poll - being stuck in their log cabins, and all - will play a part in it. But, when you're dealing with a party that makes it harder for refugees to come into the country, wants to send their troops overseas to get killed for no clear reason, thinks it's against God for people to marry if they happen to be of the same gender, cuts $45 million from the arts, pulls from the Kyoto treaty, tries to bribe people, and cut-and-paste speeches from Mike Harris and even the Prime Minister of Australia (yep, you read it right), you can't afford to be as ignorant.A vote for the Tories is like following the ignorant voters not into log cabins, but instead, an outhouse, which is what might as well replace the voting booth for all those intending to vote Conservative. Because instead of marking a voting card for the Tories, you might as well drop your britches, squat, and take a nice, big fat shit all over the Maple Leaf flag - as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's what a Conservative vote is: bye, bye, Canada - and all the values that your Greatest Canadian had. I already showed the Canadians what happens when you vote the wrong way - by showing them Blair's Britain in my film Escape from Doncatraz. And they loved it, giving it a standing ovation in their hundreds. I was blown away - they totally got it! What happened there, though, could happen to Canada, too. The Tories are just waiting to do it. So, what will it be? A wise decision in the voting booth as you do your dirty yet dutiful business? Or a trip to the outhouse? Because if it's the latter, and you thought the United States was shaped like a giant toilet, you'll be surprised to find that, suddenly, it's your country that's full of shit. It's up to you. - Jay Baker; Doncaster, England Labels: Barack Obama, Naomi Klein, NDP, Stephen Harper, Tony Blair
posted by Jay Baker at
9:22 AM
0 Comments
Tuesday, April 22, 2008Does It Matter Who's President?So Pennsylvania today has a key deciding factor in the Democratic Party's choice of a leader in the hopes of breaking the eight-year Republican hold on the White House. There are two reasons this race is so important. Firstly, in spite of millions of Democratic votes that will go uncounted in 2008 (just as they had in 2000, and on a larger scale in 2004), the Republicans, as I've said before, are doomed; they never had any realistic candidates, and now the fully face-lifted John McCain is not only seeing through his nostrils these days, he's also already been discredited mere hours after becoming his party's leader. Secondly, whether we like to admit it or not, the fact is that the decisions made in the United States will affect the whole world in some way. They refer to themselves as the "world's policeman," but it's much more than that. Britain's economy has been affected by America's even more than next-door neighbours, Canada. How messed up is that? But it's something we have to accept. They're the big shots. Once again, the whole world is watching, but this time the Republican elephant is old and tired and ready to be put out of its misery, while the Democratic donkey never had a chance like this before, because when people joke about one-sided elections by saying "a donkey could run, and still win," this time it's true! Except neither candidate is a donkey; this is the best crop of candidates in decades. Though I realize that's not saying much. Morrissey once sang that in America, "the President is never black, female, or gay," but two out of three ain't bad, because with the election now the Democrats' for the taking, they have guaranteed us that the brand-new President of the United States will, in fact, be either black or female (let's hope Pee-Wee Herman runs next time!) Barack Obama hasn't quite taken my previous suggestions that he cut interviews like wrestler-turned-actor The Rock, Dwayne Johnson, but he has, nonetheless, been impressive and charismatic. Sure, there are links to Antoin Rezko and the mob in Chicago. Sure, contrary to popular belief, his campaign has had an abundance of support from the corporations he'll thus become indebted to. And sure, he's still a capitalist. But just like the man himself says, this is about a different kind of politics, a kind of diplomatic politics, one that has no place for trigger-happy Texans or emphasis on religious faith. Unfortunately, his opponent seems to have a short memory from her days inspiring the book and film Primary Colors, when the Clintons were agonizingly choosing to take the moral high ground against a mud-slinging Republican Party. She's been pretty low throughout the campaign, using tactics you'd expect more from John McCain, who's now lying low himself. It's all about the Democrats, baby. Even when some of them are acting like Republicans. Hillary Clinton gave up her fight to provide Americans with good health care, which she's now hoping to make up for. But she also supported the attack on Iraq, and whilst, yes, it's an international issue, and it sure is sexy, it's still a pretty important factor, one that has an enormous effect on the world, and also gives us an idea of what kind of people certain politicians are. But hoping for a Barack Obama win isn't just about Iraq. Do you realise that the alternative option will plunge America into a monarchy? The Presidential list of the last twenty years would be: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. That's right: George HW Bush Sr (1988-1992), Bill Clinton (1992-2000), George W Bush Jr (2000-2008), and Hillary Clinton (2008-2012). Is that what America really wants? Because in that case, let's just repeal its independence and put it under the rule of the Queen. Barack Hussein Obama is a symbol that all is not lost in the United States of America. Choosing him would be proving that it doesn't matter if you have dark skin or even have a name that sounds similar to America's greatest two manufactured enemies from the last twenty years, and it'd also suggest that they're not just going to shoot and ask questions later. What America needs now is a statesman, who will act rational - whether you agree with him or disagree with him. "Barack says he's going to lay the smack down on some roody-poo candy-asses...but only after debating and deliberating first, because war sucks, jabronies." Wouldn't that be nice to hear for a change? The cycle can be broken. The last time I was in the United States, I took my feet from the ground of Pennsylvania onto a plane across the Atlantic, and never looked back, as the Twin Towers collapsed behind me and with them any sense of rationality, reason, or restraint. That was the last place I set foot. If they make the right choice today, it may well be the first place in the United States I want to set foot next. - Jay Baker; Kitchener, Canada Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, George HW Bush, George W Bush, Hillary Clinton, John McCain
posted by Jay Baker at
1:11 PM
0 Comments
Thursday, February 15, 2007Not a Good Time To Be a Bad GuyI recently attended the Creative Clusters conference in Gateshead/Newcastle, England, a three-day event in which people from the creative industries gather in seminars where speakers generally make very interesting subjects seem boring. I think it's a symptom of wearing a suit and tie - as evidenced by the people in power, right? It takes more than a thumping theme tune to maintain our interest - or, for that matter, playing Swallow the Leader with an intern. Boring! We can see far more sensationalism on soap operas and in loser- I mean, Closer magazine. Anyway, whilst attending the conference during those three days, as I went downstairs for breakfast in the hotel, the News on the TV was reporting on the Republicans' loss of control of Congress, and Tony Blair becoming the first-ever Prime Minister to be questioned by police. When I headed across the street to The Sage building and sat in my seat for the first seminar, a woman and I started discussing the day's current affairs. I said "I guess it's not a good time to be a bad guy, eh?" and people around us laughed and agreed. Sure, this was the arty-farty cultured folk of the creative industries, but the fact is, the feeling reflected that of most of the people on both sides of the Atlantic. The times, they are a-changin'. In the United States, George W Bush can't run for President again, and even if he could, he'd lose due to a Nixon-level lack of popularity, so there will be a brand-new leader chosen at the next American election. In Britain, Tony Blair has finally acknowledged that he'll be resigning this year (before members of his own party are forced to lynch him by his blue tie), so there'll also be a brand-new leader chosen in the next British election. And in Canada, although Stephen Harper could still run at the next election there, he'd be wise not to, as his chances of winning are the same as seeing a three-legged cat bury a turd on one of Canada's frozen lakes. So, let's look at the situation in these three big English-speaking nations of the Western world... The United States will be the first to choose their leader - at least, if they're allowed to choose this time around! This time next year, we'll already have the first votes through, in Iowa, home of Slipknot and, funnily enough, Tom Vilsack, the state's Governor. It's doubtful he'd ever become President, but he may make a good running mate for someone. Barack Obama will certainly be needing one; he's hoping America is finally ready to elect a black President, but the people may go for it just because Obama versus Osama would be an even better grudge match than Hulk Hogan and the Ultimate Warrior. And he already resembles the pro wrestler-turned-actor, The Rock, and I can just see him speaking of himself in the third person already; "Barack says he'll lay the smack-down on the Republican's roody-poo candy-ass. If you smell what Barack is cookin'!" And I don't mean laying smack down in the same way Anna Nicole Smith did - Barack may smoke cigarettes, but I ain't fakin': Barack ain't bakin'. At least the late, former Ms Hogan was a decent role model in the sense that she was just about the only full-figured supermodel of the stick-insect-obsessed 1990s. Speaking of role model women, if Americans aren't ready to elect a black President, are they ready to choose a female one? Hillary Clinton is so populist she'd sign up for Big Brother if she thought she'd win votes on it (nah, as if a politician would be crazy enough to go on that show, ha ha!) But maybe if she does get ahead, she'll get her own back on Bill by getting head herself, under the table in the Oral Office of the White House. John Edwards is a safe bet, but nobody knows who the heck he is. Even so, he could still beat the pathetic Republican shower of candidates, even if he had the hopeless John Kerry as his running mate. Just so long as they don't choose Al Gore; as much as I like the thought of commentators shouting "Gore! Gore! Gore!" on TV on election night, this guy couldn't even win when his opponent had actually lost! So, the above-mentioned shower of Republicans consists of Mitt Romney (Mormon; Americans are probably even more suspicious of Mormons than they are of blacks and women), John McCain (Americans may hate the elderly much more judging by the way they take care of them and the sick, so he's out of the question), Rudolph Guiliani (still trying to play the martyred Mayor of New York, but too dirty for a lot of the good, God-fearing folk), Sam Brownback (makes Dubyuh seem like a wishy-washy liberal, so no chance), and Chuck Hagel (one of the few Republicans to oppose the invasion of Iraq, but also a Vietnam veteran, he is probably the only chance in hell the GOP has). So, given that Anybody But Gore could beat any one of this shower (including the Democratic Party donkey mascot - that's right, an ass), the future looks very bright indeed in the cradle of the best and the worst. Tony Blair's dream of becoming the next Margaret Thatcher was surely realized. But be careful what you wish for, Tony, because what you forgot about whilst you were sat beside the bed with Dubyuh making your prayers to God was the fact that though Maggie, too, won three elections, her party ultimately forced her to go, because nobody wanted to work on Maggie's Farm no more. History has repeated itself, with Blair's poodle alter ego and its puppy dog eyes at America costing him votes at the last election as well as cash-for-honours scandals meaning he has become a significant liability for the Labour Party. Already, as predicted, his expected successor, Gordon Brown, has tried to save his own time as Prime Minister, in jeopardy before it's even begun, by emphasizing to the people that he will not go along with everything America says, and will respect international law. The Liberal Democrats, even led by old Sir Menzies Campbell, are still looking like the only attractive alternative - with their leader, known as Ming the Merciless, being a cancer-beating former Olympic sprinter, in for the long haul, and likely to instigate a 1974-style hung Parliament in which he'd be depended on. On the opposing side, the Tories have done the unthinkable, by shifting to the left of Labour, although to be fair that's not saying much since Labour have become a party so far right these days that even the Nazi BNP are struggling to hold their ground over there. We have a party obsessed by civilian surveillance, DNA databases, trial without jury, and ASBOs, but Gordon Brown's only opinions on the subject of this Big Brother business has been the TV show - telling interviewers in India that Britain isn't a racist nation like the program may have us believe. Who knows, maybe he'll try telling that to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot dead by police on the London Underground for little more than having dark skin, the offending officers never brought to trial, Scotland Yard's Ian Blair being constantly defended by his namesake, who has paid the price at the polls. Yep, with voters willing to give Anyone But Labour a go, and a hung Parliament just waiting to happen, Gordo may have to think twice before following such draconian Blairite laws as the one created to get rid of Westminster-based protester Brian Haw - instead a loophole allowing him to continue demonstrating while all the rest of us were still banned! Meanwhile, on Canada's Parliament Hill, a different kind of demonstrator can be seen, in a country where those generally complaining have for decades been the right-wingers who rarely got a look-in. Reverend Tony Van Hee has been busy holding placards against abortion and even gay marriages, which is funny, seeing as he neither has the ability to become pregnant himself nor, presumably, has same-sex attractions (ones towards children don't count, people - stop that talk!) Stephen Harper, aside from resembling Mr Roboto complete with plastic hair and a grand total of two (count them: two!) pre-programmed facial expressions including ArroganceTM and DisgustTM, has already had Canadians slapping their foreheads and wondering why they ever voted him in, but the truth is, they weren't so much voting anyone in as voting out those before him. Now, they're preparing to bring in the Liberals led by Stephane Dion as a reaction to such shocking incidents as Roboto's relationship with Dubyuh leading to a dark-skinned Canadian by the name of Maher Arar being gifted from the Mounties to the Yanks, who then sent him to the Middle East, where he was tortured. Oops! However, so fragile is the Tory's control that unlike his British counterpart, Steve distanced himself from the law enforcement officials responsible for the over-reaction, and RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli was forced to resign. Yet still people wonder, "Can Halliburton make androids?" I mean, sure, Arnold Schwarzenegger may not be American enough to be leader in the States, but is Stephen Harper human enough to be leader in Canada? Let's check this guy for "Made in the USA" marks on the back of his neck. But then, his pal Tony Blair'd probably prefer it to be a bar-code, since that's what he wants his people to bear. Elsewhere in the Americas, Chile, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and others have got together to create an intercontinental network of socialist governments proving that it can - and does - work (what a shocker!) Together they are the sleeping giant. And across the planet, China's economy grows fast, and Russia remind their old Cold War Game friends that they're seemingly starting a nuclear arms race again, except this time it's countries in the Middle East wanting to tool-up to the teeth. And given the state of Iraq at the moment, looking at that mess, and America's blatant disregard for international law, wouldn't you be doing the same if you were situated just across the street? I bet even countries like Monaco and Belize are trying to buy nuclear weapons now too! Four years ago this week, millions of us marched, all around the world, to express our opposition to a proposed illegal attack on Iraq. The politicians dismissed us, and yet everything we said at the time - lack of legality, lack of WMDs, lack of common sense or decency - has come to be realized as true, and the politicians who supported the attack have suffered, whilst those who condemned it have gained. This latter group, comprised of the likes of Barack Obama, Sir Menzies Campbell, Stephane Dion, and many more, just also happen to be the ones with momentum, and the ones who declare their desire for a world less dependent on oil and more about investment on public services through taxing those who can afford to pay for it. The tables have turned, the tide has changed, and now it is our turn, at last, to put in power people who really reflect our feelings and wishes, and then make sure they know their expendability if they, too, dare to disappoint us. People are no longer going to be afraid of their governments; governments will be afraid of their people. This is our time now. Oh, indeed, it's not a good time at all to be a bad guy! - Jay Baker; Newcastle, England Labels: Barack Obama, George W Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Margaret Thatcher, Stephen Harper, Tony Blair
posted by Jay Baker at
7:44 PM
0 Comments
Subscribe to  |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
