The LambCutlet Disorganisation

Hardly have I left London just some 24 hours ago, it appears a series of co-ordinated blasts have occured on British sovereign soil akin the Madrid train bombings and already claimed by a previously unknown Islamist group.

Currently, 33 are confirmed dead with 45 seriously injured plus a further 300-ish with minor injuries, such as lacerations and smoke inhalation. As the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone said:

This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful; it is not aimed at presidents or prime ministers; it was aimed at ordinary working class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christians, Hindu and Jew, young and old, indiscriminate attempt at slaughter irrespective of any considerations, of age, of class, of religion, whatever, that isn’t an ideology, it isn’t even a perverted faith, it’s just indiscriminate attempt at mass murder, and we know what the objective is, they seek to divide London. They seek to turn Londoners against each other and Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack.

I wish to speak through you directly, to those who came to London to claim lives, nothing you do, how many of us you kill will stop that flight to our cities where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another, whatever you do, how many you kill, you will fail.

London has had many tragedies from the sacking of Roman London by Queen Boudicca where the city was raised to the ground with woman rounded up, breats cut off and stuff into their mouths before being impaled on large skewers; to the Great Fires of 1212 and 1666 or the bombing during The Blitz of World War II. London it still here after nearly 2000 years and rises from the ashes after each trauma, this will be no different.

My greatest sympathies to those that have died, their families and friends.

As per The Register article published on the 13th of June, ‘05:

Microsoft has bowed to Beijing’s political censors and has banned the use of the words “freedom” and “democracy” on some areas of its Chinese internet portal, along with a host of other politically sensitive words such as “Taiwan independence” and “demonstration”.

According to the Financial Times, portal operators have imposed the restriction on the names users give their blogs, although the words can still be used within blog’s text. Users who try to use the offensive terminology are met with error messages informing them that they have used “forbidden speech”, which they are asked to delete from the item.

From this, I think I’ve spotted something no-one else has yet to mention. If we take the words “democracy”, “democratic”, “freedom” and “demonstration” as blocked words, then it would in fact be impossible for a mainland Chinese blogger to repost the “Constitution of The People’s Republic of China” (alternative translation). The former translation has 47 occurances of “forbidden speech” though the latter fairs better with just 30 such incursions.

Would it not be the case then that Microsoft are not just censoring mainland Chinese bloggers, but in fact the government of the People’s Republic of China itself? Whom is wearing the trousers here?

4th of June 2005 marks the 16th anniversary of the 六四天安門事件 (June 4th Tian’anmen Square Protests). Of the various new sources I’ve been looking through today, it would appear the now customary candle vigils at 維多利亞公園 (Victoria Park) were the only ones to have taken place on Chinese soil. 香港 (Hong Kong)’s twin “Special Administrative Region” 澳門 (Macau) seems to have decided to tow the line and not appear to be an unruly child.

I was pleased to see in 香港 (Hong Kong) the 中華民國 (Republic of China) flag was allowed to fly freely (image © 2005 AFP), though I would like to slap the various Western journalists whom called it the “Taiwanese flag”. It isn’t, as the Republic of Taiwan exists currently only as an extinct (25th May, 1895 to 21st October 1895) and proposed state, namely by the Pan-Green Coalition.

The People’s Republic of China still take very much a “no nonsense” view on things and indeed just this week arrested correpondant from the Straits Times in Hong Kong for spying. Turns out the papers journalist Ching Cheong (程翔) were trying to obtain were manuscripts from the purged PRC Premiere Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽) detailing his own pleas for Democracy, having in 1989 visited the protesting students, pleading with them to abandon their vigil on the square.

He apologising that he had come too late though admitted he was old and didn’t care what happened to himself, he told the students they were young and should look out for themselves. That was the last time Zhao was seen in public till his death on 17th January, 2005 and subsequent muted funeral.

China is going to have to face up to it’s outstanding issues if it wants to be percieved as a legitimate authority both at home and with the International community at large. Admitting how things went wrong in the past need not undermine authority. Indeed it could strengthen it, particularly with the people it governs as it expresses humility and able to tackle the not so illustrious things of the past. This virtue would build trust as opposed to bottling-up resentment & suspicion which will at some point rear it’s ugly head and bite you hard on the arse.

Japan is a democracy, yet it’s history of whitewashing of it’s recent WWII imperialistic past that still leaves many bitter feelings in South-East Asia. Protests in China were sparked with the approval of textbooks which still had the Nanking Massacre as a mere “incident”, though Japanese politicians do seem to be rather gaffe-prone anyway. Now those protests weren’t quickly snuffed out with force, possibly hinting at the fact China has learnt it’s mistakes and better handled them this time. However one can’t expect Japan to “come clean” when one doesn’t also do likewise.

The economic reforms China has been nothing short of a miracle, though as it develops the people will expect greater freedoms as they better see how the rest of the developed World lives. I think the greatest test of this will be the XXIX Olympiad, to be held in 2008 at 北京 (Beijing). 香港 (Hong Kong), 臺灣 (Taiwan) and Singapore show a number of ways of how predominantly Chinese populations can flourish, as shown by their growth in the last century (sounds odd saying that!) as economic freedoms were matched with Democratic freedoms. The bit of giant panda diplomacy to 臺灣 (Taiwan) post 連戰 (Lien Chan)’s visit, the first in 40 years by the 國民黨 (Kuomintang) to the mainland, is a good step and perhaps peaceful re-unification would come about some day.

Chris Lightfoot of “The Alternative Political Compass” fame (the other, original “Political Compass” was by a different group altogether) has cooked up “Political Survey 2005” using real data from the YouGov opinion polls with the help of Tom Steinberg. Chris’ analysis on his own blog makes for interesting reading plus some YouGov presentation slides with information you wouldn’t quite expect.

As ever, my little set of results are of no surprise to me whatsoever and for reference, the old survey plonks me here… namely a “Lefty” in the usual sense, though pretty pragmatic overall. So no need to abolish “The State” or anything like that… yet. ;) That is afterall where the original “Political Compass” would put me, in the midst of Libertarian-Socialists where I’d be keeping good company with Gandhi, The Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela. If such ideas sound very far fetched, Buddhist-Anarchism would also fall into that area of the political spectrum.

Still on the political spectrum, here’s a set of charts for the 2005 UK Elections. Makes it very clear the New Labour ↔ Tory are more or less the same as each other, hence why voters are now so disillusioned and looks just like the Democrats ↔ Republicans electoral battle in American during 2004. The Liberal Democrats have been sitting more or less the same place, though with a slight move to Socialism, obviously as a result of merging with the Social Democratic Party in 1990. The Greens basically sit where pre-Thatcher Labour would have sat, just with a good strong dose of Individualism.

What bugs me though is no party is willing to de-FUD nuclear power as modern reactors are probably the only viable way to curb the greenhouse gas emittions from our power hungry developed societies. Plus I want to buy Genetically Modified food as on balance they could have a lower enviromental impact, though when I go into a shop and ask for such things, all I get are just some very odd looks… :(

Then again, do we really need an election? Though Mr. Lightfoot does suggest a bit of electoral reform might just do the trick too. :D

Old Blighty gears itself up once again for another General Election for the 5th of May 2005 and if memory serves, this would be my third time where I’ll cast my vote. What concerns me however, aside from the potentially low turn-out which may leave a very sour in our mouths on the Friday, is the fact there’s this perception that this country is just a two party system… Labour or Conservative!

What the flying fuck is going on? Seriously? Given a ±3% margin of error, it’s quite clear that roughly 1 in 3 people would vote either Labour or Tory, just short of 1 in 4 would vote for the Liberal Democrats and roughly 1 in 12 that would vote for some other party, be it UK Indepenence Party, The Greens, and so on. Thusly, 11 in 12 people would vote, with pretty much even spread across Labour, Tory and the LibDems. I certainly count at least 3 parties there?

Choose “the lesser of two evils”, then that is just what you… something that’s evil, something you didn’t really agree with in the first place, plus it leaves you with two parties which aren’t really that different from each other except by party name and colours. Aunty Beeb has the 3 major and 2 runner-up parties in a side-by-side comparison of their stance.

Still stuck? Have a gander at “Who Should You Vote For?”… answer 23 statements with how much you agree or disagree with each in turn, click the old button and Bob’s you mother’s brother! A few people that have took it were rather surprised of their left-leaning and conversely others of their hidden right-leaning streak… so in my opinion though a basic quiz, is probably a pretty good guide of which way you should go vote if you’re one of the “floating voters”.

Doesn’t bother me which way you vote… could be for a party supporting Cornish independence for all I care! Just as long as you voted and it was for a party you honestly agree with, then more power to you. Afterall, a democracy only works if there is a healthy opposition to ruling party and if you can’t be bothered to involve yourself properly, then either quit complaining or expatriate yourself to some despot dictatorship. I guess in the latter case you have the luxury in not needing to have a say in anything at all! ;)

Oh and for those curious of what my questionaire results were… here they are:

• Labour: -24
• Conservative: -35
• Liberal Democrat: +68
• UK Independence Party: -14
• Green: +29

Pretty much what I expected… they have me sussed! ;)

This three-part documentary is quite probably the most thought provoking production; regardless of your political orientation, in recent years to have come from the BBC. Indeed, had it not been from “The Beeb” it would have most likely been dismissed as crazed rantings from the Tin-foil Hat Brigade™. The synopsis from the BBC Two website is quite eye opening:

This series shows dramatically how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. These two groups have changed the world but not in the way either intended. Together they created today’s nightmare vision of an organised terror network. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

The rise of the Politics of Fear begins in 1949 with two men whose radical ideas would inspire the attack of 9/11 and influence the neoconservative movement that dominates Washington. Both these men believed that modern liberal freedoms were eroding the bonds that held society together. The two movements they inspired set out, in their different ways, to rescue their societies from this decay. But in an age of growing disillusion with politics, the neoconservatives turned to fear in order to pursue their vision. They would create a hidden network of evil run by the Soviet Union that only they could see. The Islamists were faced by the refusal of the masses to follow their dream and began to turn to terror to force the people to ’see the truth’.

The films are each an hour long and constituent parts are:

• Baby It’s Cold Outside
• The Phantom Victory
• The Shadows In The Cave

Google News shows that American based news sources have yet to pick up on this though has been reviewed by The Guardian, Al-Jazeerah, The National Review Online and The Christian Science Monitor. Through the wonders of the Internet, all three parts are downloadable via that lovable rogue of a Peer-to-Peer client that is BitTorrent. The files require DivX or VideoLan for playback and unfortunately do weigh in at a rather mammoth 1300 MB (give or take a bit). As far as I’m aware, redistribution of these videos is fine as long as they are not for profit and would (if I’m correct) be protected under the BBC’s Royal Charter.

Where does it go from here if this little Pandora’s box has some thruth? Bush = Hitler? USA PATRIOT Act = Nuremberg Laws? “War on Terror” = “Mein Kampf”? Osama bin Laden = Stalin? America in the 2000’s = Germany in the early 1930’s? The “Coalition of the Willing” with the Neo-Conservatives against al-Qaida = The West’s appeasement of the Nazi Party as a balance to Stalin’s Soviet Union? Switzerland = Switzerland? Okay, okay… I’ll stop it with the satire. :P & ;)

Anyway, at least Bush finally got elected (4 years late) and we will probably get to see which way current history will goes. American political refugees still have some hope before it all goes completely pear shaped!

It’s been agreed:

On July 18, 2003, the final draft of the constitutional treaty (officially Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe) for the European Union was published by the Praesidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe. Following long negotiations, it was agreed on – with some changes – by the European Council on June 18, 2004 in Brussels and now awaits ratification by all EU member states.

The constitution itself is available as a PDF document in the 20 official languages of the European Union:

• Čeština
• Dansk
• Deutsch
• Ελληνικά
• English
• Español
• Eesti
• Suomeksi
• Français
• Magyar
• Italiano
• Lietuvių
• Latviešu
• bil-Malti
• Nederlands
• Polski
• Português
• Slovenčina
• Slovenščina
• Svenska

BBCi have just published two articles, “Q&A: EU - myths and realities” and “Excerpts: Europe’s draft constitution” for those who’ve brought into Eurospectic FUD or fearful of Legalese.