Archive for March, 2009
I often think that perhaps Robin Cook was one of the very few politicians who actually deserved to have the word “honourable” in his title. Here he is giving his ministerial resignation speech to parliament. Although not shown here, I have been reliably informed that he actually received an “unheard of” standing ovation after the speech.
There have been questions asked about his death, two years after his resignation; someone has made a fair, if not conclusive appraisal, on this website.
One of the most interesting comment that Robin Cook has made is as follows:
“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.” -Robin Cook
The above quote and the above YouTube video were taken from an excellent article on Fred Face’s blog and is well worth the read.
Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party is a nice enough chap, but he has a king size ego like so many other leaders of political parties. However, here he is laying in, like Daniel Hannan, to the UK Prime Mentalist. Good for you Nigel!
I am approaching seventy at the speed of the Japanese Bullet train! And it has taken that long to label myself religiously speaking.
I was torn between being an Atheist, but I do believe in God, and an Agnostic but I am convinced that a God exists. It is organised religion I disbelieve. I do not believe in any of the religious teachings, including both testaments of the Bible and the Q’uran. I do believe that religion was “invented” to enslave the population. Isn’t the Catholic ritual of confessing to a priest a form of slavery? And look at the hold Islam has on its followers.
On a recent visit to the Canadian “Religious Tolerance” website, I discovered the following explanation of a group I had only actually heard of this very morning.
The word “Deism” is derived from the Latin word for God: “Deus.”
Deism is a natural religion. Deists believe in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority. Because of this, Deism is quite different from religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The latter are based on revelations from God to prophet(s) who then taught it to humans. We like to call natural religions as “bottom-up” faiths and revealed religions as “top-down.”
The opposite of Deism is Atheism — the lack of a belief in god(s).
Do not accept the belief of most religions that God revealed himself to humanity through the writings of the Bible, the Qur’an or other religious texts.
Disagree with strong Atheists who assert that there is no evidence of the existence of God.
Many Deists reason that since everything that exists has had a creator, then the universe itself must have been created by God. Thomas Paine concluded a speech shortly after the French Revolution with: “God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon.”
Hey! Hey! I have a label! Not terribly important in the grand scheme of things, but it helps when filling out NHS forms and other government busybody type forms. Let’s see what they make of that.
According to a list of Deists in Wikipedia, I am in illustrious company. Here are just a few Deists listed on that website…
Frederick the Great
So, at least, I am no longer alone. I have always known what I believe in, but today is the first day I know that others share the same believe. I am feeling pretty good and it seems irrational that this can do that.
Another Wikipedia site has full information on what a Deist is and it makes fascinating reading – for me!
I received the following in an email this morning and it actually got me thinking.
Anyway, here is a cut down version (I am trying not to bore you) and, although it is American, parts of it could also apply in Britain. For example, the Metropolitan police have an association for only black officers but they do not have an association for only white officers. That alone proves that the Met are institutionally racist doesn’t it?
There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc. And then there are just Americans. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me ‘White boy,’ ‘Cracker,’ ‘Honkey,’ ‘Whitey,’ ‘Caveman’… and that’s OK. But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink .. You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you… so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma’uled Al-Nabi.
You have the NAACP. You have BET… If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we’d be racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists. If we had White History Month, we’d be racists. If we had any organization for only whites to ‘advance’ OUR lives, we’d be racists.
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships… You know we’d be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US . Yet if there were ‘White colleges’, that would be a racist college.
In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists. You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you’re not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.
Now I fully believe this email was penned for purely white racist reasons, however, it has got me thinking, and I came up with the following conclusions. Most of these minority organisations were initially set up because the minorities had a tough time in, what is basically, a white environment. Yes, they needed to stick together and help each other with their own advancement.
But then, has the clock now come full circle and isn’t it time for whites to be allowed to have their own separate organisations as well? My own thought is, having black organisations and white organisations is not a good thing and what I would prefer is to have no separate white organisations, and no separate black organisations either. There are good and bad in all races.
But if fairness is to prevail, we must either ban separate white and black separate associations totally, or allow separate white and black associations without reservation. We should not tolerate the unfairness of having one for one set of people and nothing for another set of people.
Comments to my thoughts and reasoning here would be welcome.
I met someone recently who would be labelled a racist by many as he was ranting about people coming to this country, swelling the numbers to an extent which is intolerable in this tiny island, taking our jobs and homes, living on social security and suchlike. I am sure you all know what I mean as more and more English people are voicing these concerns.
But you know, we can’t really blame these people. They come to this country to find a better life. They see how easy it is to get a home from the government, money to live by, and after a lifetime of bare existence, who really can blame them for their new life on easy street?
To take it out on someone who is black, or Chinese or Indian or, perhaps a Pole, or Kosovon, is wrong But, help is at hand. Someone is to blame. In the past you have heard me ask the question cui bono or “who benefits”. Over the last ten years I read somewhere that the huge amount of people on social security has risen by around 30%. These people, because they believe what Labour tell them, fear the Conservatives getting in, so will no doubt vote Labour at the next election. So in this case Labour benefits. Who else benefits? I cannot think of anyone else but am open to have you add to the comments if you can think of any other group.
So do we, as the above seems to imply, blame Labour for the situation, rather than the immigrants who think every day is Christmas? (To an African, the benefit payment represents a fortune.) I suppose, up to a point, yes, we can blame Labour. But if you delve a little deeper you may find the real person at fault is just a little closer to home.
We have a two party system in this country. I am not including the Liberal Democrats as they don’t, and I feel may never, play that important a part – come election time. Who did you vote for at the last election? If you didn’t vote you are definitely to blame. If you voted for any party at all, but haven’t got further involved in the political system, then – once more – you are definitely to blame!
Labour isn’t working, and the Conservatives have no satisfactory answer to our problems. Neither do the Liberal Democrats or any of the smaller parties. And life will continue down this road until you decide enough is enough and stand up to be counted.
People get the government they deserve. The people deserve Labour, they deserve everything that is happening to them, and they will continue to deserve all this heartache until they stand up and do something. And, I don’t mean just voting.
And don’t shoot me, I’m only the pianist.
Wow! This man deserves a knighthood. Not because he is a Tory and Brown is a Labourite, but just for his sheer bravery for going up against a man who will hold a grudge. Well done that man, even though I despise his party, or any party that wealds the “party whip” system.
Quite often, travelling on the London Underground, and I suspect on many other forms of public transport, one hears some “person” playing their music on MP3 players. Unfortunately, they use rather cheap ear-pieces which allow part of the music to escape. All we hear is the repetitive beat which gives the user the appearance of being a moron or Neanderthal.
Yes, these people are morons, but not for the reason of the beat others hear. The actual music may be quite tuneful. All we are subjected to is the background beat which, in all types of music, if you could isolate it, would be pretty monotonous.
No, these people are morons because they don’t give a damn about others and aren’t willing, for a small amount of money, to buy a decent ear-piece thus keeping their music to themselves. I think, personally, that the kindest thing to do to these people would be to gently “put them to sleep”. However, this may result in being arrested and spending a few years in prison.
I hear some of you saying that it might be a small price to pay, but I urge you, think of your families and friends.
PS. The other day I witnessed a young businessman get up to offer a much older woman his seat. She replied; “I don’t want no favours from no bleeding toff!” His put-down was perfect and I mentally applauded him. He smiled at her and said “Oh thank you, it’s been a wicked day and I am awfully tired.”