Hamas & The Israeli Government: A Plague On Both Your Houses

 General, Politics  No Responses »
Jan 032009
 

Never has an overused phrase been more deserved as in the case of the Israeli government and the Hamas group in the latest chapter in the long running sorry story of violence between Palestinians and Israelis. Both sides should be mortally ashamed of their actions. Both sides are more interested in political posturing than in concern over the people they supposedly represent.

It also demonstrates that governments at best are only interested in paying lip service to serving “the people” and will spend far more resources looking after their own interests – retaining power. It is just that you rarely see governments lusting after power quite this much.

What does Hamas think it is doing with those pathetic rocket attacks against Israel ? They seem to serve little purpose other than to annoy Israel, and provide an ego boost to the Hamas militants. It is not as if they are very effective at killing innocent civilians.

And as for the Israeli response, you have tried this same thing before … over and over again for around 60 years. You have not managed to stop Palestinians military or terrorist actions in the past with this (over the long term), so why do you think it will work this time? All this indiscriminate killing will achieve is further evidence that Israel does not give two hoots for international law or for the lives of innocent (in many cases) Palestinians.

It is interesting to note that Israel does not permit journalists to enter Gaza. Almost as if they know what they are doing is wrong and just do not care. And of course as their ground offensive has started, perhaps they are trying to hide something ?

Israeli actions will drive Palestinians into being more accepting of extremists and will in the long term increase the amount of violence against Israeli civilians. Does that mean Israel should not respond to Hamas missile attacks ? No of course not, but the response must be proportionate (to be legal), and must go out of the way to avoid “collateral damage”. It may well be right that Hamas uses civilians as a shield for military purposes, but Hamas will not be blamed for those collateral casualities no matter what Israel claims.

Personally I do not really believe that those who govern Israel are so stupid as to believe these miltary attacks will accomplish anything. They are pandering to the Israeli fanatics frothing at the mouth who insist that something must be done, and the only reason they are doing it is to keep popularity so that they keep power when the next elections occur.

No More Opt-Out On The EU Working Time Directive

 General, Politics  No Responses »
Dec 212008
 

So apparently the EU parliament has said that the UK opt-out on the EU working time directive has got to go, meaning no more than a 48 hour working week (averaged out over 17 weeks I believe). Of course this has UK business representatives whinging that this is unacceptable interference with business and it should be the choice of workers whether they work longer or not.

Yeah right. Tough!

Businesses all too often get things their own way, and I suspect (backed by some inside knowledge) that many workers do not in fact have much of a choice in the matter. After all we still have a higher average working week than most other European countries. In fact many British workers are in fact unaware of the EU Working Time directive.

Why is there a demand for long working hours? It is just is not very effective; tired workers are unlikely to be as productive as well rested ones, and in some jobs are more likely to have accidents. Entrepreneurs usually think their workers should work as hard as they do …

But often their workers are in fact working harder even if they are not working as long. And why should the workers work as hard as the entrepreneur ? They certainly will not get as greater reward; it is a rare worker who gets rich when his or her boss does.

And to those who say they cannot afford to live on what they would earn in a 48-hour week, well you need to get another job as you’re being ripped off. And to the apprentice mechanic who was interviewed on the BBC News, the right word for a “girlfriend” who needs money to stay interested is “prostitute”.

Strictly speaking it is not a final decision as the EU Parliament decision needs to go through various stages to be finally decided upon by the European Council. So much for democracy! But here’s hoping that the politicians finally have the courage to stick a finger up at businesses … going without all those expensive meals bought for you by business owners will be good for you and your waistline 🙂

Karen Matthews Is Pure Evil?

 General, Media, Politics  1 Response »
Dec 052008
 

Now that we officially know that Karen Matthews is guilty of kidnapping her child in the interests of sharing the reward for finding a missing child, the floodgates have opened to headlines accusing her of being an evil mother. Personally I think it is a bit of a stretch to call her ‘evil’ given other examples of true evil in the world today … the mother of Baby P for example, or that Austrian gent who imprisoned his family underground and repeatedly raped them (or the English equivalent for that matter).

Let us have a look at what she did. She asked (or forced) her boyfriend’s uncle to pick up her daughter from school and imprison her inside his flat until they could arrange for him to ‘find’ Shannon and collect the reward for the both of them. The words for this that come to mind are ‘cruel’, ‘greedy’, ‘uncaring’, ‘malicious’, and ‘deceitful’, but not exactly evil.  The words of Shannon when she was rescued by the police (“Stop it, you’re frightening me!”) don’t indicate a child who was in chronic distress … it sounds like she was more distressed by the police barging into the flat!

That doesn’t mean to say that Karen doesn’t deserve a lengthy prison sentence for what she has done, and the uncle (Michael Donovan) too, but labelling her ‘evil’ is putting her crimes on the same levels as those monsters who deliberately go out of their way to torture and/or kill children.

The tabloid press are obviously having a field day with this, often blaming the welfare state and the ‘scrounging underclass’ for producing a Karen Matthews. Firstly the crimes of Karen are not a product of her class, but a product of her greed. If she was a middle-class accountant, she would be fiddling the books; if she were a stockbroker she would be guilty of insider-trading. If she were a banker, she’d be running off to some nice warm place with stolen money.

Secondly the existence of people whose lifestyle could classify them as ‘scroungers’ is just as irritating to me as anyone else, but removing the safety net of the welfare state does not seem to be a good idea. I might not like funding the lifestyle of the other Karens out there, but I would rather do that than risk harming the other Shannons out there.

Film Review: PierrePont/The Death Sentence

 Film, Politics  No Responses »
Nov 292008
 

Format: DVD

IMDB entry: here

(although they insist on calling it “The Last Hangman” (which is completely wrong of course))

This is the story of one of the last hangmen in Britain and his journey through learning his trade to becoming the top man in his profession. And his increasing doubt about the morality of his work. It is an oddly fascinating story, with Albert’s home life being so mundane that you wouldn’t have been able to pick him out in the street.

A film that anyone in favour of the death sentence should watch.

When we think of reasons why the death sentence is wrong we normally concentrate on those who are executed. But perhaps we should also look at the executioner and the dehumanising effect of perhaps decades of executions with hundreds of official killings

Not only should we question whether the state should descend to the level of murderers in carrying out executions, but whether the state has the right to ask another human being to kill. Because in the end there is always a killer carrying out the execution.

Film Review: Bad Boys 2/Gungho US Foreign Policy

 Film, Politics  No Responses »
Nov 242008
 

Format: TV broadcast with an ugly as hell station logo

IMDB entry: here.

This is your usual hollywood action movie; there isn’t enough plot to say anything about it. It is just a vehicle for a lot of special effects, explosions, car chases, and the like. If you want a film to make you think, then this would be a bad choice, but there is nothing wrong with a bit of mindless entertainment. And this is mindless entertainment in spades … which may sound like a criticism, but it is a fine film of its kind.

But it did make me think (so perhaps it wasn’t perfect). The storyline (without trying to give too much away) includes a whole bunch of policemen making a trip to a foreign country to “kick some ass” (or more correctly some arse). It occurred to me that this is a rather common theme in certain US films of the action variety – the evil villains are lurking in some foreign country and the heros just go after them without considering that what they are doing is effectively an act of war.

I am sure that US foreign policy is not controlled by US action films in any way, but the genre may lead the US population to be more accepting of more extreme forms of foreign policy and the belief that the US government is entitled to use practically any form of action against targets in foreign countries. This also implies a disrespect for international laws which leads to very little opposition when the US government ignores those laws.

The US is known (outside the US at least) as being more than a little gungho in certain foreign policy matters. Does the propoganda of actions fims let the US get away with this without as much criticism as it perhaps deserve ? Or even worse does being brainwashed by action films lead those who set US foreign policy act a little more gungho than is wise ?

There is nothing wrong with “carrying a big stick”, but those who do should remember the first part of the phrase “speak softly”. In the right circumstances, the more extreme forms of foreign policy are perfectly justified, but they also alienate the residents of those foreign parts. If you do not need to annoy people, why do so ?

 Older Entries  Newer Entries