Why would an event where police officers showing they are unhappy at taking a pay cut be called a coup?
Has someone else declared themself in charge or even tried to?
http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/ecuador-attempted-coup/4743
So far it looks like the police were behaving like a bunch of pissed off workers. Is it really more than that?
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Workers Working!
Lively, and determined those Argentinians, aren't they!
Democracy Now! always gives decent journalism from around the world.
Well done everyone
Democracy Now! always gives decent journalism from around the world.
Well done everyone
I'm Being Sincere, honest!
So the US are applying more sanctions on Iran, or at least on Iranians are they? This time they are citing human rights and '[Clinton] She noted that this week alone, two reformist political parties and two newspapers were shut down' as reported by Al Jazeera
That's a bit odd.
Are we not supposed to notice?
A US politician getting on a high horse about human rights and the media?
On mainland America it seems to be OK to have press censorship, just as long as it is the corporate world doing it rather than a government. Just ask Phil. Is that some kind of WTO deregulation thingy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think the Americans are confused. They must be.
I wonder when they'll get round to sorting out all those countries that seem to have made a bit of a problem by blowing up buildings full of journalists or killing them in other ways.
Well, just who are the Americans to be talking about human rights when they go and do this Protests Continue Against FBI Raids, Subpoenas of Antiwar Activists or the report the US produced on their own human rights record in the same week!
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Dubbya and Iraq
So they planned it from the first day!
I've no words for this.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jry7qEOA-VOa8dJRWVJaJDGUU1yg
I've no words for this.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jry7qEOA-VOa8dJRWVJaJDGUU1yg
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Lib Dem Paul Burstow
Imagine a government minister telling members of the party what newspaper they should read and which papers they shouldn't!
Apparently Lib Dem Minister Paul Burstow did just that this week at his party's conference. Alan Arusbridger, Editor in Chief of Guardian Newspapers informed us all from his twitter account. Seems our minister a little bit upset with something the Guardian has been publishing.
Excuse me, but didn't the Guardian come out for the LibDems at the last General Election?
So what is this minister playing at?
Has the Guardian found the policies of this government just as revolting, unjust and destructive as the voters?
Newspapers are often the tools of propaganda aimed at influencing the way in which people think about the world they live in. Radio and TV can and are used for the same purposes.
You know, when anyone, particularly a government minister tells me not to read something, then like everyone else in a democracy I behave as I should. I go and read it. There is no government minister who can tell me what to read and what not to read and then expect the privilege of being judged fit to lick the soles of my shoes! You may have been judged fit to lick them before you saw fit to tell me not to read something, or you may not have been. With one simple speech that minister is in the category of 'not fit' forever more.
You can't kill ideas by telling us not to read them.
You can't kill information by telling us not to read it.
Or perhaps this minister is aware that as soon as we are told not to read or listen to something, then the British immediately do it? When I was a teenager, ever manager of every music band knew the way to guarantee, not only a hit, but a fast hit, straight to No1 on the charts was to have the song banned by BBC Radio 1. If this is his idea, then he is being, well no more than a wimp. Stand up and say you do not agree with this government's policies. Resign your cabinet seat vote against the cuts. Losing the whip is a lot less severe than what is about to be done to too many people of this country.
If the newspapers are providing inaccurate data or immoral opinion, then the minds of the people will grasp that. We will understand. We can assess data, and we can detect good ideas and bad ideas, poor reasoning and good reasoning. We are adults, after all, not little children in need of protection. So let's not have anymore Kim Il-sung fatherly love.
For as long as we have a free press in this country we will make use of it, without advice from any government worker, elected or not.
What we read is our concern, not yours Mr Burstow.
Your business is to ensure you administer a country based on the principles of social justice, not on robbing the poor and working class to enrich the elites, to ensure a good living standard for all rather than pushing the poor further into poverty, to ensure a world-class education system is freely available to all even at university level, that healthcare is not only world class but free to all, to ensure all criminals such as those involved in international conspiracies to cover up the rape of young children freely enter this country with no attempt made at prosecution, to ensure all war criminals are prosecuted, to ensure all genocidal mass murders are prosecuted, to ensure our environment is protected for our benefit and the benefit of future generations and to ensure that this country withdraws ties with states judged to behave as terrorists whilst also ensuring this nation and our armed services work towards the security of us all, rather than continuing to behave no better than a global terrorist ourselves.
In short, while we read our free press, you should be busy ensuring we who elected you, who pay your salary have physical, mental and economic security each and every day or our lives.
Apparently Lib Dem Minister Paul Burstow did just that this week at his party's conference. Alan Arusbridger, Editor in Chief of Guardian Newspapers informed us all from his twitter account. Seems our minister a little bit upset with something the Guardian has been publishing.
Excuse me, but didn't the Guardian come out for the LibDems at the last General Election?
So what is this minister playing at?
Has the Guardian found the policies of this government just as revolting, unjust and destructive as the voters?
Newspapers are often the tools of propaganda aimed at influencing the way in which people think about the world they live in. Radio and TV can and are used for the same purposes.
You know, when anyone, particularly a government minister tells me not to read something, then like everyone else in a democracy I behave as I should. I go and read it. There is no government minister who can tell me what to read and what not to read and then expect the privilege of being judged fit to lick the soles of my shoes! You may have been judged fit to lick them before you saw fit to tell me not to read something, or you may not have been. With one simple speech that minister is in the category of 'not fit' forever more.
You can't kill ideas by telling us not to read them.
You can't kill information by telling us not to read it.
Or perhaps this minister is aware that as soon as we are told not to read or listen to something, then the British immediately do it? When I was a teenager, ever manager of every music band knew the way to guarantee, not only a hit, but a fast hit, straight to No1 on the charts was to have the song banned by BBC Radio 1. If this is his idea, then he is being, well no more than a wimp. Stand up and say you do not agree with this government's policies. Resign your cabinet seat vote against the cuts. Losing the whip is a lot less severe than what is about to be done to too many people of this country.
If the newspapers are providing inaccurate data or immoral opinion, then the minds of the people will grasp that. We will understand. We can assess data, and we can detect good ideas and bad ideas, poor reasoning and good reasoning. We are adults, after all, not little children in need of protection. So let's not have anymore Kim Il-sung fatherly love.
For as long as we have a free press in this country we will make use of it, without advice from any government worker, elected or not.
What we read is our concern, not yours Mr Burstow.
Your business is to ensure you administer a country based on the principles of social justice, not on robbing the poor and working class to enrich the elites, to ensure a good living standard for all rather than pushing the poor further into poverty, to ensure a world-class education system is freely available to all even at university level, that healthcare is not only world class but free to all, to ensure all criminals such as those involved in international conspiracies to cover up the rape of young children freely enter this country with no attempt made at prosecution, to ensure all war criminals are prosecuted, to ensure all genocidal mass murders are prosecuted, to ensure our environment is protected for our benefit and the benefit of future generations and to ensure that this country withdraws ties with states judged to behave as terrorists whilst also ensuring this nation and our armed services work towards the security of us all, rather than continuing to behave no better than a global terrorist ourselves.
In short, while we read our free press, you should be busy ensuring we who elected you, who pay your salary have physical, mental and economic security each and every day or our lives.
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
Something Good for A Change
Sometimes the failures at the UN astound me. And sometimes, just sometimes, they manage to do the right thing, even when the rich and powerful try to block good people.
In typical fashion, the US wasn't happy
Since when have the Millennium Goals been a priority?
The United Kingdom has a reputation to maintain and they did, too
Now, access to water? What good is access to water if that access is understood to mean a human being having the right to enter a shop to purchase the water? I think we can safely assume the United Kingdom representative was concerned about a UK-based industry that wanted to sell water!
On the 28th July 2010 the UN passed an important resolution. Water is now officially a human right. Clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right. Surprising that it wasn't already, isn't it given we can't survive without it. It's a step. Too many resolutions are ignored. However, it is an important principle and those who led the demands, and who fought to have the demand for water to be officially acknowledged as a human right, in particlar the Bolivians are to be congratulated.
122 countries voted in favour of the resolution while 41 abstained. There were no votes against the resolution, so we can assume no country had the brass neck to have a vote against this on their record. Still, the number of abstenntions should have been zero. The leaders of those 122 countries are decent people and should be congratulated.
I wonder when we will start discussing and pushing for food to be recognised as a human right. You will die pretty quickly from dehydration. You will also die from hunger, just more slowly than you would from dehydration.
If you think it is ridiculous that food should be a human right. As yourself why you do? Do you have access to land to grow your own? Can you afford to buy food and see no need. Well, what about all those denied the ability to buy food? And just because you can buy food today doesn't mean you will be able to buy food tomorrow. You may find yourself out of work. And with the attack on social welfare programmes in the countries that have them, you could very well find yourself in trouble. Imagine a world when a single large corporation, or government owns all the food and wants to chage you a super-premium price for it? Those are purely selfish reasons. They may appeal to those who feel no impulse to reach out and help their fellow human beings, to those who are unable to comprehend what a good life really is.
In typical fashion, the US wasn't happy
The representative of the United States expressed his Government’s deep commitment to finding solutions to global water challenges, noting that water and sanitation would be an important focus at the upcoming Millennium Development Goal Summit.
Since when have the Millennium Goals been a priority?
The United Kingdom has a reputation to maintain and they did, too
The representative of the United Kingdom said her delegation had abstained for reasons of substance and procedure. Concerning substance, there was no sufficient legal basis for declaring or recognizing water or sanitation as freestanding human rights, nor was there evidence that they existed in customary law. As for procedure, it was disappointing that the text pre-empted the work going on in the Human Rights Council, she said, noting that the United Kingdom had supported the resolution establishing the independent expert, as well as the text on human rights and access to safe water and sanitation, adopted in 2009.
Now, access to water? What good is access to water if that access is understood to mean a human being having the right to enter a shop to purchase the water? I think we can safely assume the United Kingdom representative was concerned about a UK-based industry that wanted to sell water!
On the 28th July 2010 the UN passed an important resolution. Water is now officially a human right. Clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right. Surprising that it wasn't already, isn't it given we can't survive without it. It's a step. Too many resolutions are ignored. However, it is an important principle and those who led the demands, and who fought to have the demand for water to be officially acknowledged as a human right, in particlar the Bolivians are to be congratulated.
122 countries voted in favour of the resolution while 41 abstained. There were no votes against the resolution, so we can assume no country had the brass neck to have a vote against this on their record. Still, the number of abstenntions should have been zero. The leaders of those 122 countries are decent people and should be congratulated.
I wonder when we will start discussing and pushing for food to be recognised as a human right. You will die pretty quickly from dehydration. You will also die from hunger, just more slowly than you would from dehydration.
If you think it is ridiculous that food should be a human right. As yourself why you do? Do you have access to land to grow your own? Can you afford to buy food and see no need. Well, what about all those denied the ability to buy food? And just because you can buy food today doesn't mean you will be able to buy food tomorrow. You may find yourself out of work. And with the attack on social welfare programmes in the countries that have them, you could very well find yourself in trouble. Imagine a world when a single large corporation, or government owns all the food and wants to chage you a super-premium price for it? Those are purely selfish reasons. They may appeal to those who feel no impulse to reach out and help their fellow human beings, to those who are unable to comprehend what a good life really is.
Monday, 20 September 2010
Supply-Side Economics and The Laffer Curve
There seems to be a bit of talk going on about the Laffer Curve. For anyone interested, wiki describes it as:
"In economics, the Laffer curve is a theoretical representation of the relationship between government revenue raised by taxation and all possible rates of taxation. It is used to illustrate the concept of Taxable Income Elasticity (that taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
It's part of the arguments for supply side economic theory.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics).
In the description of supply side economics we find this:
"On January 3, 2007, George W. Bush wrote an article claiming "It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues."
Andrew Samwick, who was Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2004 responded.
Here is that response:
"To anyone in the Administration who may read this blog, I have one small wish for the new year. Please stop your boss from writing or saying the following:
http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-years-plea.html
Remember, a theory isn't a fact.
In science, a scientific theory is a tested and expanded hypothesis that explains observations and fits ideas together in a framework. If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
So how scientific is the study of economics?
Well, this is interesting http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes
And so is this:
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/Flash/afa2290d-2a19-46b8-8dcf-c2fbc86a0a17/viewer.html
"In economics, the Laffer curve is a theoretical representation of the relationship between government revenue raised by taxation and all possible rates of taxation. It is used to illustrate the concept of Taxable Income Elasticity (that taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
It's part of the arguments for supply side economic theory.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics).
In the description of supply side economics we find this:
"On January 3, 2007, George W. Bush wrote an article claiming "It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues."
Andrew Samwick, who was Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2004 responded.
Here is that response:
"To anyone in the Administration who may read this blog, I have one small wish for the new year. Please stop your boss from writing or saying the following:
It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues.If I'm wrong, show me the evidence ... and tell me why the tax cuts were so small given their effects on revenues."
You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.
http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-years-plea.html
Remember, a theory isn't a fact.
In science, a scientific theory is a tested and expanded hypothesis that explains observations and fits ideas together in a framework. If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
So how scientific is the study of economics?
Well, this is interesting http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes
And so is this:
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/Flash/afa2290d-2a19-46b8-8dcf-c2fbc86a0a17/viewer.html
US Continues as a Civilisation, Does it?
It is now the back end of 2010 and the economic nightmare created by the monkeys in charge of the global economy are presumably lucky enough to have avoided the effects.
Unlike these people living a nightmare they never created:
Shame on the banker monkeys and the government for not dealing with this in a civilised, decent way.
Unlike these people living a nightmare they never created:
Shame on the banker monkeys and the government for not dealing with this in a civilised, decent way.
Free Press?
Why do we put up with this kind of Free Press in the world? Surely, it is as morally corrupt as Radio Rwanda and Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM). were in the time prior to the genocide in 1994.
I wonder what the Founding Father of America would make of it all.
This TV programme is providing information, and the information provided is clearly mis-represented. Surely if a police officer were to behave is such a shoddy manner towards anyone they would be disciplined? A scientist, too, would be professionally damaged, their career probably destroyed for life for such a deliberate mis-representation of information. It's a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Don't media people understand the difference between truth and fiction, right and wrong? Why aren't journalists, TV crews walking off the set? Do any of them have integrity? Self-respect?
Whether you like Obama or not, or any other any public figure, deliberate mis-representation is no way for the media within a civilised society to proceed.
And shame of the viewers for returning to watch any more of the channel where this fantastical show was aired.
I wonder what the Founding Father of America would make of it all.
This TV programme is providing information, and the information provided is clearly mis-represented. Surely if a police officer were to behave is such a shoddy manner towards anyone they would be disciplined? A scientist, too, would be professionally damaged, their career probably destroyed for life for such a deliberate mis-representation of information. It's a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Don't media people understand the difference between truth and fiction, right and wrong? Why aren't journalists, TV crews walking off the set? Do any of them have integrity? Self-respect?
Whether you like Obama or not, or any other any public figure, deliberate mis-representation is no way for the media within a civilised society to proceed.
And shame of the viewers for returning to watch any more of the channel where this fantastical show was aired.
Friday, 17 September 2010
Krugman: wise man on Ireland, Spain and Austerity
I'm putting this here to remind myself there at least some economists on the earth capable of thought and who prefer that to hysterical fashions. Some of these economists are like teenage girls who have not yet developed the ability to withstand any sort of peer pressure. Seriously!
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/irelandspain-update/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/irelandspain-update/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman
Mercenary
One more announcement from our government this week gave me yet more to fear. Our highly educated government ministers have the good sense to sack SAS soldiers. For financial reasons. These men form an exceptional fighting force. The SAS soldiers are elite involved in everything from wars, to releasing hostages held during the Iranian Embassy Siege and that at Peterhead Prison within the UK. We've all grown up with the idea of the SAS soldiers being the most capable, tough, invincible humans on the face of the earth able to achieve anything. Soldiers, let's be frank, have killing as their primary skill; we train them to fight and to win.
For perhaps twenty years, a small handful of ex-SAS have made a very good living by publishing their stories in one form or another, some true accounts, some fictional although always focusing on their unique skills and amazing experiences. How many books can the general public read? Our economy is in dire straits as the government takes the axe to every part of the country, so that won't improve prospects for any of the redundant soldiers to earn a banker's bonus from publishing.
What other opportunities are available to them? Well, we know a fair number of soldiers struggle when they leave the army and many eventually find themselves behind bars, as they struggle with adapting to the nightmare of their past and the nightmare of being unwanted by employers.
One employer may find the unique skills of the SAS valuable. Very valuable. That should be a terrifying prospect for each and everyone of us. Soldiers and soldiering skills should only ever be used in the defence of a nation from aggressors, not some trumped up businessman who thinks those farmers who refuse to pay a fine 'because mother nature' blew some seeds from one farm to the next must be dealt with. Soldiers and soldiering skills should only ever be used in the protection and the perhaps rare rescue of citizens not as a tool for some silly little spoilt kid finding it difficult to operate his business because the elected leaders of the country where he wants to operate insist on fair taxation, fair license fees for natural resources and laws to protect the human rights and dignity of citizens. Will we have newspaper magnates attempting to hire our soon-to-be redundant elite troops conduct political coups?
We need laws to ensure no British, and no ex British forces are ever involved in incidents such as the attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea that involved Mark Thatcher reported in Bolivia in April 2009 on the BBC for example.
Mercenary armies undermine democracy because a government can fight a war without the support of the electorate. The government can simply hire people from other countries.
Are we to have wars played out before our eyes as businesses battle over fertile farmland, using hired soldiers to do the fighting, soldiers that we have educated, and trained in the art of warfare. At taxpayers expense? With no accountability? With no democratic means of the population stopping the fighting?
If Machiavelli grasped the problems with mercenaries, then why not us?
While investigative journalists beaver away, studying organisations such as Blackwater, I can't help but feel a terrible chill running through me. Who will hold mercenary armies or groups to account? Is this yet another nightmare that has crept up on us while students studied and worked, some of us worked too hard with no time for anything else, and others had their minds numbed with Big Brother?
This week we have further revelations, revelations that are nightmarish, but hardly surprising. There is evidence to suggest mercenary groups have been travelling to the African continent on business. Large corporations in the US and the EU have been paying for the services of mercenary organisations. Why? http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/16/the_nation__docs_reveals_blackwater
They aren't covered by the Geneva Conventions; no business or corporation has signed it. Indeed they should never sign it - they aren't sovereign quite yet.
These mercenary organisations simply should not be allowed to operate anywhere on the face of the earth. Will my government, a government determined to wipe out at least 40% of the public sector while it kneels and prays to their gods that the supreme god of the private sector for showers and bounty act to inhibit any form of business?
For now, we hope that each of our soldiers has a stronger backbone, and a greater sense of democracy, of decency than the likes of Michael Mann & company or anyone employed at the American Empire agencies using mercenaries.
Let's hope that any soldier made redundant, whether from the SAS or any other regiment, that their values are far healthier than the motives of vast wealth we've seen with too many politicians. Decent jobs would be more reliable than hope.
For perhaps twenty years, a small handful of ex-SAS have made a very good living by publishing their stories in one form or another, some true accounts, some fictional although always focusing on their unique skills and amazing experiences. How many books can the general public read? Our economy is in dire straits as the government takes the axe to every part of the country, so that won't improve prospects for any of the redundant soldiers to earn a banker's bonus from publishing.
What other opportunities are available to them? Well, we know a fair number of soldiers struggle when they leave the army and many eventually find themselves behind bars, as they struggle with adapting to the nightmare of their past and the nightmare of being unwanted by employers.
One employer may find the unique skills of the SAS valuable. Very valuable. That should be a terrifying prospect for each and everyone of us. Soldiers and soldiering skills should only ever be used in the defence of a nation from aggressors, not some trumped up businessman who thinks those farmers who refuse to pay a fine 'because mother nature' blew some seeds from one farm to the next must be dealt with. Soldiers and soldiering skills should only ever be used in the protection and the perhaps rare rescue of citizens not as a tool for some silly little spoilt kid finding it difficult to operate his business because the elected leaders of the country where he wants to operate insist on fair taxation, fair license fees for natural resources and laws to protect the human rights and dignity of citizens. Will we have newspaper magnates attempting to hire our soon-to-be redundant elite troops conduct political coups?
We need laws to ensure no British, and no ex British forces are ever involved in incidents such as the attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea that involved Mark Thatcher reported in Bolivia in April 2009 on the BBC for example.
Mercenary armies undermine democracy because a government can fight a war without the support of the electorate. The government can simply hire people from other countries.
'In October 2007, the United Nations released a two-year study that stated, that although hired as "security guards", private contractors were performing military duties. The report found that the use of contractors such as Blackwater was a "new form of mercenary activity" and illegal under International law. Many countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, are not signatories to the 1989 United Nations Mercenary Convention banning the use of mercenaries. (see wiki)Security guards are doing the same job as soldiers in occupied countries. Now why aren't we signatories to this UN Convention? What problem could my government have with the Convention? Do we really want to have our forces facing down former colleagues one day? Can you imagine, two groups of soldiers, both groups trained at our expense facing one another, one group armed and financed by the tax payer and the other armed and financed by another nation or even a global soldier agency?
Are we to have wars played out before our eyes as businesses battle over fertile farmland, using hired soldiers to do the fighting, soldiers that we have educated, and trained in the art of warfare. At taxpayers expense? With no accountability? With no democratic means of the population stopping the fighting?
If Machiavelli grasped the problems with mercenaries, then why not us?
While investigative journalists beaver away, studying organisations such as Blackwater, I can't help but feel a terrible chill running through me. Who will hold mercenary armies or groups to account? Is this yet another nightmare that has crept up on us while students studied and worked, some of us worked too hard with no time for anything else, and others had their minds numbed with Big Brother?
This week we have further revelations, revelations that are nightmarish, but hardly surprising. There is evidence to suggest mercenary groups have been travelling to the African continent on business. Large corporations in the US and the EU have been paying for the services of mercenary organisations. Why? http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/16/the_nation__docs_reveals_blackwater
They aren't covered by the Geneva Conventions; no business or corporation has signed it. Indeed they should never sign it - they aren't sovereign quite yet.
These mercenary organisations simply should not be allowed to operate anywhere on the face of the earth. Will my government, a government determined to wipe out at least 40% of the public sector while it kneels and prays to their gods that the supreme god of the private sector for showers and bounty act to inhibit any form of business?
For now, we hope that each of our soldiers has a stronger backbone, and a greater sense of democracy, of decency than the likes of Michael Mann & company or anyone employed at the American Empire agencies using mercenaries.
Let's hope that any soldier made redundant, whether from the SAS or any other regiment, that their values are far healthier than the motives of vast wealth we've seen with too many politicians. Decent jobs would be more reliable than hope.
Saturday, 11 September 2010
Wiki leaks
The governments of the world wouldn't allow this removal of free speech would they?
http://tiny.cc/ipw8o
Wiki leaks is taking the place of an utter failure of global media. There should be uproar if it does happen. people need to be clearly informed. The instant wiki leaks is shut down, then the global population will have entered a new period, a new Dark Age.
http://tiny.cc/ipw8o
Wiki leaks is taking the place of an utter failure of global media. There should be uproar if it does happen. people need to be clearly informed. The instant wiki leaks is shut down, then the global population will have entered a new period, a new Dark Age.
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
Modern History
Some people really find it difficult to remember events in the not so distant past.
This guy doesn't and he can use his knowledge to great effect!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/09/has_the_casino_swallowed_barcl.html#P100446858
Well done Mr Writings On the Wall, whoever you are.
This guy doesn't and he can use his knowledge to great effect!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/09/has_the_casino_swallowed_barcl.html#P100446858
Well done Mr Writings On the Wall, whoever you are.
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
