Queen's English

The political hunting season is soon to commence with the general election just around the corner. So what will this mean for those who are, like myself, newly arrived into politics.

I shall start with a breif introduction into why I havce newly arrived at the realisation that I need to take an interest in politics. It feels like it was only mere months ago that myself and my older brother were sitting around the kitchen table at a family supper asking a simple question which shows our terrifying ignorance of how important an interest in politics is. That question simply

"What do politicians actually DO for us?"

We did concede that once in a while they did make very large and influential decisions, but failed to see that it is the little things that matter. The "Salami Tactics" of the current government to steal our liberties and our money was slow and as one barely reasonable proposal followed anotherattempting to control our lives, actions and thoughts.
I was finally outraged enought to start paying attention when news of the CRB check got to the papers. In its original design it would prevent parents from watching their own children playing in sports matches (this may have just been excessive reaction from The Times, Telegraph or BBC that was saying this). This was a step too much for me and I started paying attention.

I now return to what this post is about. I have spent the past couple of days visiting political party websites in an attempt to decide which party speaks for me best. It is said that politicians think in sound bites, it seems to me that they do the vast majority of their communication in this method too. Whilst reading through their shortened online manifestos and policies I struggled to comprehend what they were saying. These abbreviated manifestos talked of their plans in long and eloquent sentences but, as I'm sure the promises they were hinting, were rather empty of specific content. I was beginning to be irritated by this wilfil lack of content and so turned to their full manifestos. Upon opening the manifestos I was frustrated again, not by the specific content but by thee sheer volume of the material. What would be wrong with a simple statement saying that "We would support Britain's farmers." followed by two parts with short bullet points to answer, "What we would do." and "Why the measures we would take would be beneficial.". This, though, I do believe would be beyond them. Their long and flowery speeches that fail to say anything and their sound bite attitude to the rest of communications have failed them.

Nay, I tell a lie. This language, in which I write, speak and think, can be meaningful, sharp and emphatic. It is not the Queen's English which fails them, but they whom fail the Queen's.

Legalising Mass Murder

I am sitting at a desk in the offices of BBC worldwide, getting paid to watch Blue Peter and generally feeling very bored. Out of the corner of my eye I can see the Iraq inquiry going on, which I can't watch as I have to pay attention to Blue Peter, or hear, I am in an office. The whole concept of the Iraq war got me thinking, how can one legalise such a terrifying act as war and in whom should the power to make this decision be placed?

On the first point I just suffer severe bouts of confusion. How is it possible to concieve that war, which in essence is murder, GBH and extreme vandalism on a grand scale, be legalised? This is not a case saying that war should always be illegal or legal, but that the principle of allowing war to be legal is a fallacy of huge consequence.

Saying that nothing good comes of war is incorrect. The positive effect of war is seen only in terms of scientific and engineering advances. It seems that mankind is at its most inventive when trying to kill itself, the guns and machines that take part in the war do not realise the benefits of the new advances for the masses. The transition into the rest of the world happens during peace at the end of the war, although it may wait until the technology has become obsolete before doing so.

The above paragraph is not an advocation for war, as most of the advances would happen in the course of events anyway, merely a fact. This though is part of the reason that you cannot and should not try to define a legal set of requirements for war. If war can be legal, then this argument could be placed as a reason why any war should be legal. It is the same as murdering some person, and claiming that it was for the good of humanity for that corpse, if still living, would have gon on to cause the deaths of billions. This can not be proven. In the same way, you cannot prove that any technological advancement would actually derive from your war.

The next part of this argument is in the idea that war can be legal as a defensive measure, if the coutry has been invaded. Again, I find plenty to laugh hystericaly at as it could only be a joke. Here I am not saying that one should not defend oneself by waging war on the invading force, but that say it is legal is not valid. How does one define a defensive war? One where you are defending your homeland? With that Great Britain could declare war on France to reclaim Normandy and Brittany, though I am not saying that would be a bad thing, or Great Britain could declare war to reclaim the New Territories. These cases would all have a valid claim for legality. Normandy and Brittany became English with Norman the Conqueror. The New Territories in America were not taken by force initially, we settled and in some places the natives let us. These cases are farcical, intentioanlly so, as I wish to point out that boundary disputes will always cause war do not dignify it by saying that it can be legal.

Next comes the pre-emptive strike, most notably used by the USA. This is what would be defnined as one of the best forms of self defense. Yes your fists might get bloodied as you knock your attacker down before he can start but the parts not designed for fighting remain blissfully whole and intact. Again, I shall produce a metaphor to aid my argument. In the street you see a man running towrds you with a cricket bat over his head, screaming, ruby faced and eyes wild with rage. It is not legal in this position to produce a gun and shoot him before he reaches you, nor a taser. In each case it is you who would end up in the dock. The screaming man may well have been after someone behind you whom you could not see, in which case you are in the wrong. Equally possible is that he was in fact about to attck you, in which case this would be a fair cop (though I do believe you would have a hard time getting the angry man to say this). This is not to say that nobody should be punished in this instance, you and the attacker should both be punished, you for taking the law into your own hands where it may well not have been neccessary, and him for extremely aggressive behaviour and gross stupidity. In this case there is a higher power, the Police. Their vices and virtues are not being argued here, but that there is a single body with the specific aim to stop such events as these.

In the city of nations though, this is not the case. I hear people cry "There are!" some say the UN, some say NATO and some few cry the name of USA or China. None of these are the same as the Bobby on the beat, the police force. USA and China would turn up as a masked avenger fighting a solo battle against crime for the better of the world (we will come back to this), NATO is the Neighbourhood Watch of the fair and beauteous side area of city, and the UN amount to a security company hired by the City Council. If the Earth were a single nation, and the UN the governing body, then maybe the UN forces would be the police force. This can never happen though whilst the UN armed forces operate under the laws of engagement of their own nation. What about the NATO forces? These troops are entirely partisan in their deployment. They orginated as a gang, an area of wealthy inhabitatns scared by their jingoistic neighbours. They are of an individual class and do not subscribe to the overall whole. Nato as the police force would be like the Chicago Police under Al Capone. Then what of China? What of the USA? They are individual, alone, above the law they would claim to uphold. How on earth could they be considered police?!

I realise that I have digressed from the original point of pre-emptive strike somewhat, but this I believe is the crux of the argument. How can law be uphelp without an impartial force to maintain it? Before London had a police force there were the thief takers. Fine at first, but corrupted quickly with power. The answer is that you cannot. So, until this is addressed, countenancing the idea of legal parameters for war is absurd.

Now to the second question I made at the start. In whom should we bestow such powers that they can decide when mass murder is legal? You would be correct in deducing that I am saying that the powers would be with one man. If you choose a committee, one must lead. If there comes a time when the cast of votes is locked at certain place, there will be one vote left to determine the result. So in whom could you put your trust to a completely unbiased decision to be made? It could not be one from this planet.

So there are my reasons behind finding the idea of a legal war farcical. Do you argue my logic?

Facial Fur

What is it about facial hair that everyone hates? In past ages the greatest warriors wore them, the greatest minds could almost hide behind theirs. Why then this irrational hate of beards and other facial fungi?

Perhaps that is part of the problem, 'facial fungi'. How can something that is referred to as a growth commonly associated with rotting material, poison and disease be seen as good? The growth of facial hair is a physical demonstration of the maturing of a child's body into adulthood, yet as soon as this downy fur starts appearing they are ridiculed for it and forced to hack it off. With the severe lack of experience that these children have they are forced to cut it away with razor blades, which are extremely dangerous, with an unsteady hand and no knowledge of how to shave. When they eventually emerge, with the inevitable scratches bleeding down thier chin and neck, they are again mocked, this time for their inability to shave.

There is also a significant lack of people in high places wearing such fur to keep their face warm. Politicians do not wear them, celebrity actors just forget to shave regularly, and who listens to scientists these days? Public perception of the beard has changed, rather than making old men look distinguished or revered it now makes them look like perverts and paedophiles. It makes men in middle age look worn and destitute rather than rugged and world wise, and the young look like Jesus or bums rather than the warriors and men that once the beard would have signified.

In the military there is need for conformity in the ranks to aid in discipline and unit cohesion, in the airforce for pilots as an essential safety measure, and in the navy it is something flammable near your chin in case of fire on the ship.

In general though a beard should not be viewed with such disapproval. A beard is not the sign of an untidy mind.

Here we are on day two of this blogging discovery, don't worry I shan't keep this day counting for too much longer, the day dawned brilliant and white. Too bright in fact, why does illness make things so much worse? This is the 3rd day that the glands in my throat have been inflamed and the drugs just don't work! Drug companies spend millions if not thousands of millions, I am British therefore 1 billion is a million million not a paltry 1,000 million, and half the time I can never notice the drugs actually taking effect. Have I been part of some ludicrous experiment where the drugs I buy or am prescribed have been replaced with flour or sugar? "Stop moaning!" I hear you cry, "Go and see a doctor!" The last thing that one really wants to do is have to go anywhere when one is sick. If any women happen to be reading this, I don't have man flu, I don't have a cold or a cough so I am allowed to have my little episode on this.
I also remember reading some years ago, in the times (unfortunately only a breif paragraph), that when men contract the flu it does infact afflict them more than the creatures from venus or those strange creatures known as wimmin.

Here we go...

I've never really understood the blogging sensation that the internet has created. A lot of highly opinionated and, so I'm led to believe, ill-informed hermits, living in the cavern of their creation that is the room in which their computer resides, telling us that scientists are wrong and politicians are wrong... well... they might have it right there.
So here I am to muddy the waters a little more with ignorance in places and expertise in none, for now. Though I shall pledge here and now in this first blog to atleast allow myself to be corrected if proper evidence is produced to the contrary in the best traditions of science. I shall not pledge, as a politician might, to research fully my topic before comment. If I did succumb to such a promise I would never have anything to be whimsically irate about or giggle myself silly to.

Here starts the dawn of a new blog, nothing terribly impressive is it.