Recently in pol·i·tics Category

Note to self: Watch out for misspelling racist as raciest to not loosing losing impact of letter.

In response to these letters. Lets see if they print it ....

TO: Mail at UKMETRO

I love the way racists always defend their arguments by calling the opposing argument PC and the opposing arguers do gooders. I’m sure the letter today must have known his arguments were raciest, otherwise why withhold your name instead of standing by your statement.

Of course the arguments are totally false. All racial profiling does it make it easier for the terrorist. In fact if I was a terrorist mastermind I would be rubbing my hands at glee at the panic and knee jerk idiotic reactions going on. Racial profiling does two things. (1) It makes reciting recruiting new terrorists much easier, as who likes being singled out when innocent. Easier then to recruit terrorists by pointing towards the obvious oppression. (2) It makes it easier to bomb planes. I mean if you know they are singling out Muslim looking Asians, you use a non Asian looking Muslim. The more you tighten down one aspect of security the easier it is to avoid. The only profiling that will protect us at airports is fully random checks that distinguishes no one by anything more than a random number.

Of course once you make airports too secure, it’s easier to bomb busses, or trains, or buildings or anything else you haven’t devoted money to. Solve the problem at source not at target. You could start by not singling out a group of people and treating them worse.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - Hermann Goering 1946

Tell me again that these people are not terrorists.

A claim of responsibility for an arson attack on a car, posted anonymously on an animal rights website, is being investigated by Sussex Police.... protesters planted two incendiary devices under the four-wheel drive, destroying it ... "People who sign contracts with or deal with Huntingdon need to realise that your decisions will come back to haunt you forever, even when you have gone." Animal rights probe over car fire

Let's see

1. Threats to commit violence


2. Use of bombs


3. Self belief in righteousness of a cause justifying any means

Try tell me this isn't terrorism (or a Bush led negotiating policy). Tell me it's just animal lovers who care about animals, not fundamentalists as bad as any other terrorist. Go on.

Mark my words, it's only a matter of time before some innocent dies.

I find it fairly curious, in an self observational sort of way, that most people view my political stance as fairly liberal leftish or fairly conservative rightish. No one really considers me to have the same viewpoint as them or to be centerish. I don't consider myself to be either.

I try view politics like I view architecture of engineering or something. I try break things down and view them based on what I perceive the particle solutions to be. Obviously this my self perception might be largely out of wack, but I can't really tell. I came into the UK a year after Labour did. I have no baggage about Labour or the Tories based on the past. Where most people here seem to have quite passionate emotional responses to both the parties and their officials. A lot of voting seems based on how much people LIKE the party leader or the party. Less so on how much they agree with or like the party policies.

Again my perception might be incorrect. Their might be scores of people voting based on real issues rather than one issue and how much they like the political leader. But the general trend seems to be everyone votes on

1. The War or Taxes


2. How much they like/dislike Tony Blair

I think I'm probably the one person in the country, who thinks Tony Blair is actually doing a fairly good job, trying hard and genuinely wants to do good. Yeah he's made mistake, but who hasn't. However he has half the people running around trying to "give Blair a bloody nose" (which is about the most idiotic and immature way to go about voting I can think of), and half the government voting against his policies regardless of whether they agree or not in the policies themselves.

I do find it very hard to defend my position. Against a Tory voter, I get given a list of all the things Labour and Blair have done wrong (and a lot about how much taxes have gone up), and I simply can't explain away each of these issues. I try to point out, that I don't see what a Tory government would have done any better to resolve these issue, and I think real change is both more difficult and takes much longer than anyone thinks. But I can't explain away any of the issues I get listed, and so look a bit foolish.

Against a Labour voter (now normally voting Lib Dem) I get a list of all the things Labour and Blair have done wrong (a lot about the war, and how Blair has let them down) and again, I simply cannot explain away each of these individual issues that gets listed. Again really change is difficult and takes a long time. And I think the broad direction of the government is good and in the right direction. But the list of this and that, I can't argue against and again I look foolish.

I guess I'm politically naive. Or a fool.

Reading every other day about some new aspect of the debate in the this whole "shoot to kill" policy the police do or don't have (depending on who is being asked), I realised it's a lot of fuss about the wrong thing. "Shoot to kill" makes for great headline material and is bound to get the greater unwashed up in arms (ha ha pun), but it's really meaningless. Coming from a country where guns are prevalent, you learn two facts pretty early on

1. You don't draw a gun, unless you are willing to use it.
2. Guns are used to kill people

That's a lot to do with why I never want to own one. So a shoot to kill policy, is irrelevant if you have armed offices. Either you arm your officers or you don't. But if you do, arm them, then their is a reasonable expectation that when used in the line of duty, people will be killed. What other policy could their really be? "Shoot to maim", "Shoot to threaten", "Shoot wildly in the air", "Wave the gun around threateningly?". Even the concept of "Shoot to incapacitate" is more an nicer sounding way of getting on with the same thing. But tell me an officer who thinks he or members of the public's lives may be in danger, is going to do anything but "Shooting to kill". That's cause, that's what guns are for.

I'm all for armed officers being well trained, and having detailed instructions on what situations to draw a weapon in. I'm all for officers not pulling the trigger unless they feel they have no other choice. However once that gun is drawn, the officer must be authorised to be able to fire it, and firing it means trying to kill someone.

Debate if you want armed officers or not all you want (I'm in favour of them, UK style, not USA style). But talking about "Shoot to kill" is completely off target.