Autobiography of Tony Blair
Some of us blame Tony Blair for the part he played in bringing so much destruction and turmoil to the Middle East.
Nevertheless, I have to say his book Tony Blair A Journey an Autobiography is very well written.
Tony Blair, during his tenure as leader of the Labour Party, moved it from its working class base to become a neoliberal party which cast a lot of influence over the British people and changed the country. New-Labour was remade as a party of the middle-class. As is the case in most social democratic parties, the politicians have only governed to assure power and wealth for themselves. As a mentor and a transformer of society, Thatcher had an enormous impact on him.
What will history make of Tony Blair, and the crimes in the Middle East? Some may question the accusation that he was involved in Middle East war crimes. Some will not concur that the actions of Tony Blair and other Western entities were responsible for the outcome of terrible turmoil, but when Saddam ruled Iraqi there was no Al-Qaeda. That has changed, for sure.
Labour is not the party it once was. It is no longer the party of the workers. In the book, he covers the situation at the time he joined the party, and he discusses how he wanted it to became a party of the middle class and the progressive left. Most people who were working aspired to move up and vote Tory, but had no means to do so. Who knows where society was heading at that time?
Before Iraq, Tony Blair was very popular with the people. This changed when he sided with George Bush and U.S. objectives in the so-called “war on terror.” A superb achievement on his part was the signing of the Good Friday Agreement to bring peace to Northern Ireland. The Blair government gave the Bank of England independence to set interest rates. Blair’s agenda was to transform the United Kingdom into a modern neoliberal progressive state and, further, to spread neoliberal democracy all over the world.
People were losing their liberties under Blair’s government and would never get them back. He tried to bring in identity cards, meaning in the eyes of some people, he was an authoritarian narcissist who was remaking Britain into a police state with the diminution of economic and social rights and who was taking the country to war for the sake of oil. How will Blair be remembered? Will he seen as having changed Britain for the better, or the worse?
His book is an excellent read and worth the time regardless of what you feel about his actions in respect of the Middle East and in respect of his selling out British sovereignty to Brussels and signing every treaty with the United Nations, not to forget the continued borrowing of massive amounts of money which future generations will have to repay.
How the Democratic Revolution in Egypt will Affect the Middle East
The events in Egypt have spread all over the Middle East, beginning when a young Tunisian graduate set himself on fire because he felt blocked from earning a living. And it was not only the Middle East. Even in Beijing, protesters were out on the streets wanting better housing and more work. The list is growing everyday as more and more countries are affected by the Egyptian revolution.
The young Tunisian’s actions sparked popular rebellion in neighbouring Egypt, which had been the center of the Arab world. It had been made into an economically and militarily powerful Arab state and its primacy reasserted after Gamal Abdel Nasser [1918-70], who promoted pan Arabism, took control via a military coup. Mubarak’s accession brought Egypt’s preeminence to an end. Revolt in Egypt was soon followed by similar uprisings in Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Oman. These revolts were essentially secular.
The challenge facing secular governments in the Middle East are lslamist, mainly spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood that wants to establish a Caliphate in the region. When Hosni Mubarak dissolved the Egyptian Parliament, the military took over the country to keep the lslamists from getting into power. The monarchies comprising Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have accumulated a lot of oil wealth over the years. There has been a marked rise of Militant lslam that will not go way any time soon.
There will be the struggle between autocrats and lslamists about what role Islam plays in policies in the region, and the struggle is getting bigger all the time throughout the region. The majority of these countries have oil or gas. Even lraq, which has been at war for about 8 years, has done deals with foreign firms and tripled its production to 2.5 million barrels a day. The monarchies are doing well at the moment, but how long it will last and what will happen is anyone’s guess.
In Algeria, President Abdelaziz Boutefilka won a five-year term when he got 90 percent of the vote. However, the election was rigged while many supporters of Islamist parties boycotted the election, and called on their leaders to do the same. One group, Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism, decided to withdraw from electoral politics. Back in 1962, Algeria won its independence from France. There were a lot of communists in the country at that time who wanted a socialist revolution. Algeria had a military coup in 1965. Then in 1991 the lslamists won elections and this brought the military in again and there was a civil war that cost a lot of lives. There are groups still fighting to Islamize the country.
President George W. Bush wanted to democratize the Middle East and to bring down the autocratic regimes in the region. There is, however, some danger that the Muslim Brotherhood will get into power in Egypt and bring in Sharia law throughout the country. The lslamists will use multiparty democracy to install their agenda through the system and establish an Islamic republic in the region. That will be just like 7th century Arabian society. That would mean that the experiment to bring democracy to the Middle East has failed.
The Battle of Gallipoli and its Bearing on Present-day Perceptions
My great-grandfather landed at Gallipoli on the night of April 25, 1915 as a member of the Australian Light Horse. Anzac day is the anniversary of the campaign to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war. It is now commemorated as the Anzac legend. There were some 8,709 troops from Australia and 2,721 from New Zealand, who were sent over to fight the Turks. A French-mounted operation to take Constantinople, now known as lsanbul, turned out be a disaster. There were heavy casualties on both sides. Gallipoli is one campaign the Turks won over the Allies. The British lost 73,485 men, the French 27,000, Australians 26,111, and New Zealanders 473. The total Allied loss amounted to 141,029. Turkey had won the battle, but with the Ottoman Empire of old nevertheless declining and ultimately collapsing. Turkey itself was set up as the Republic of Turkey in 1923 under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who was the Turkish Commander at Gallipoli. Now, 99 years after the event, Australians celebrate the Anzac spirit which emerged at Gallipoli and, it is commonly believed, did much to forge the national character of Australia and New Zealand.
As Charles Bean, a journalist of the day, wrote:
“But when all is said the fact that will go down in history is that first Sunday’s fighting when three Australian brigades stormed in the face of heavy fire tier after tier of cliffs and mountains apparently as impregnable as Govett’s leap.”
It is held that the unsuccessful landing at Gallipoli is the story of the young nation which took up the cause of country and empire, but which was betrayed by the British high command. The Allies believed that Turkey would be an easier target than Germany. Britain’s ally Russia was having difficulty so, if the Ottoman Empire were to fall, it would make it possible for supplies to go north to help Russia to weaken Germany.
The landing at Gallipoli became a battle of attrition. The Australia-New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) were to be sent to the Western front, and first landed in Egypt where they underwent some training. The British high command decided to divert the troops to Turkey, which was an ally of Germany. Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, conceived the idea of seizing the Gallipoli Peninsula from the Turks. A French force of 60,00 troops made the first attempt, but failed. When the ANZAC forces, originally intended to land at Gaba Tepe, landed somewhat further north at a place that has become known as Anzac Cove, it quickly became a disaster, a situation that was to continue for over eight months (25 April 1915 to 9 January 1916). During that time, Winston Churchill was recorded as saying, “Four calendar months since we landed on Gallipoli … not much progress made yet.”
‘Anzac’ today stands variously for recklessness, valour, enterprise, fidelity, comradeship, and endurance. It has come to be seen in Australia as the birth of the nation.
[Charles Bean, the Sydney Morning Herald. May 15, 1915]
Proverb: “freedom is in the eye of the beholder”.
At Moscow’s Donskoi Monastery on Wednesday, Alexander Solzhenitsyn was laid to rest. He was one of the best writer’s Russia has had in the 20th century.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn was a captain in the artillery when he was arrested by counterintelligence, because he sent a letter to a friend criticizing Stalin in 1945. He was a dissident most of his life in the Soviet Union, but he was a Communist in the 1930s when war broke out between the Soviet Union and Germany. Solzhenitsyn and his wife were working as teachers in a Cossack settlement at Morozovsk north of Rostov when Solzhenitsyn volunteered for the Red Army. At that time he fought across Ukraine, Byelorussia, Poland and East Prussia. Solzhenitsyn was a good soldier in the Red Army.
Solzhenitsyn was a young idealist Marxist when he was sent to Siberia to work in a Soviet labour camp. They give him eight years at that time; purges were at their height. Solzhenitsyn almost died of cancer in the labour camp and was not released until Stalin’s death on March 3, 1953. Solzhenitsyn wrote his first book on his experience in a Soviet labour camp entitled “A Day in the Life of Lvan Denisovich”  and then Solzhenitsyn published two more books which were “Gulag Archipelago”, and “First Circle”. Solzhenitsyn had a lot of documentation on the Soviet system, a police state that used terror to control the people. The socialist system used these methods from 1918 to 1956, as shown by research Solzhenitsyn did during his 11 years when he was in labour camps and exile.
Solzhenitsyn was a patriot who loved his country and despised the Soviet regime. He was similar to Fyodor Dostoevsky, who wrote “Crime and Punishment”. Dostoevsky had been sentenced to four years hard labor to Siberia because he joined a revolutionary group. Fyodor was born in 1821 to lower-class parents and had a meagre education and was an outsider. He was persecuted by the authorities in autocrat Russia. Solzhenitsyn was a Conservative. He was silent when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. There was a coup by headliners when Boris Yeltsion got in 1994 and reformed the Soviet system changing perestroika to a democrat system with a free market. Solzhenitsyn rejected socialism, but he did not like what he saw when he came back from exile from the west. Solzhenitsyn said when you’re in hell you write. He sent a manuscript of the Day in the Life of Lvan Denisovich to a literary magazine Novi Mir the. The book is based on his experiences in labour camps in Siberia. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a prophet of his times.
Van Doren, C. 2008. “The Joy of Reading”, Crown Publishing Inc.
Is race a factor in the current US immigration debate?
The immigration debate is not based on race, but on economics with 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. who have come for a better standard of living people from other countries can earn more money here than where they come from. [President Bush said that he wanted a guest worker program to have illegal aliens doing the jobs that Americans will not do.] Sensitive issue of race and security in America over citizenship it is how impossible to raise the issue of security without been called a racist.By 2010 a quarter will be foreign-born or children of immigrants. Arizona is the first state to have a law that will try to stop illegal aliens been smuggled over the border there is about 1.5 million legal migrants who come to U.S. each year it has not changed since 1990 with 140,000 on employment based visas while another lot are on reunion visas and 50,000 migrants getting green card. The immigration system is broken and is in need of reform. Angela Kelley is vice-president for immigration policy say that the laws do meet nation’s economic needs]. She belongs with the [Centre for American progress] which is an progressive Left institution.
New Deal coalition of Roman Catholics blue-collar labour unions and conservative Republicans do not want higher immigration based on economic or on racial grounds coming into the country. It has racially polarized the Republicans over amnesty for illegal aliens who base is predominantly white while the Democrats have the support of three-quarters of the nonwhite population also are sizable minority of white voters.The GOP want harsher laws on illegals coming over the border like more fences and tougher border controls where there are penalties on companies that employ undocumented workers.They oppose amnesty for the illegals who have low education or are low skilled. With the economic climate not getting any better in the U.S. And birth rate declining to 1.5 which is below replacement level. Deportation of illegals would damage an economy that is already reeling. You have the Democratic liberal Progressive business and Cultural elite who want economic migrants to take cheaper jobs in the U.S. economy so it is not based on race, but on economics.
Majority of immigrants come from Mexico which has been an issue in the United States for a long time it has creating controversy about redistribution of wealth from the unskilled U.S. workers to employers. Bush wanted an temporary guest-worker program, but did not support amnesty for illegal immigrants. Where 60% of the public are opposed to more immigration coming into the country. Whether it racial or economic.
Lions for Lambs
“Lions for Lambs” is a drama that looks at the Afghanistan and Iraq wars to see if they have any credibility left. What is happening in the Middle East is that they are losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because they have to spend $12 billion a Month. “Lions for Lambs” is a drama that is critical of the war’s agenda. It wants to tell people the other side of story so they get an idealistic picture of what is going on in the Middle East. It is based on ideology which includes democratizing the Middle East.
Tom Cruise plays a Senator Jasper Lrring who supports the war on terror and Meryl Streep who plays a journalist who is critical of the war in lraq. She is critical because of the US governments incompetent mismanagement of the war. There is also Robert Redford, who plays Professor Stephen Malley, who is idealistic about society. His attitude inspires Todd Hayes to make something out of his own life. Two of the professor’s other students are in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban because they think it is a right thing to do for their country. The students Ernest Rodriguez and Arian Finch are also idealistic about the work they are doing to spread Democracy in Afghanistan.
The movie is corporate and pro-government propaganda telling a story that is fiction because the US government sent the troops to Afghanistan to meet the agenda of protecting US interests in the Middle East. Janine Roth, the journalist who is writing a story critical of the war for U S A Today, New York post, Boston Globe, and Guardian, gave Lions for Lambs a bad review because it is liberal propaganda, that is saying there are good wars and bad wars, she makes comparisons between the current war and the one in Vietnam. Michael Pena and Ernest Rodriguez volunteered and were sent to Afghanistan, but Professor Malley was in Vietnam due to conscription. Vietnam was a different kind of war being fought in a different time, as was the first world war.
Professor Malley has strong ideals and thinks he can change society. Senator Jasper Lrring also wants to change the world by fighting for plutocracy in the US and over who controls the world. The mainstream media was critical of Lions for Lambs for being honest about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I would give Lions for Lambs three stars. Lions for Lambs is based on liberal ideologies and asks the viewer to question the motives for America’s war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also think that Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, and Robert Redford are good actors.
The legacy of George W. Bush
What will be the legacy of George Bush? will he be remembered for Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, or Iraq?
George W. Bush was the 43rd president of the United States from 2001 to 2009. Bush had lost the popular vote to Al Gore although won the Electoral College which is constitutional majority. Bush ran for office in 2000 on domestic policy, but foreign policy come to dominate Bush’s presidency. After terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 when he invaded Afghanistan to fight the Taliban insurgency in that country. Bush had a new policy of preemptive action against terrorist states which was the Bush Doctrine. He sent 30,000 troops into Iraq to repel al-Qaida in that region and control the oil. After nearly seven years of military action, Bush said Now, our commitment to democracy is being tested in the Middle East.” The Neo Jacobinism of the Bush administration to carry out the democratization of region cost Americans $ 600 billion and another $81.5 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush called Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Syria collectively the Axis of evil. There was a threat of Islamists which had been growing for last thirty years United States is at war with radical islamism.
Because the economy was in critical state in Bush’s second term, With the collapse of credit in the nation Bush signed into law a $170 billion economic stimulus by giving tax breaks to businesses and cheques to Americans try to save the economy.There were fears that the crash would be like 1929 all over again, but Bush bailout the banks to nearly the tune of $1 trillion stimulus of TARP money. Bush administration increased spending by $1.789 trillion and want higher at $2.983 trillion. in 2001, the national debt was $5.6 trillion, but by 2008, debt went up to $11.3 trillion. Bush had a financial rescue plan to buy back some of U.S. mortgage market in order to save it. Unemployment went up from 4.2 percent in 2001 to 6.3 percent in 2003. Although there was a loss of jobs in old manufacturing industries and also, due to the $2 trillion deficit in the economy with accompanying lay-offs of large numbers of employees.
Bush was a big government neoconservative. There were more programs under his government bigger than a social democrat one. Like homeland security, for instance-but he ended some programs so he could privatize social security. His first priority was to give $1.6 trillion tax cut to his base which was the Christian right in line with Reagan succession.
Bush’s policies were more than helping big business, but was backed by substance and were neoliberal in nature. Bush supported immigration reform and did not support amnesty for illegals which failed. So could bring down wages and keep the cost low for employers by bringing in cheaper workforce from overseas. And green card was to control who was coming in the country.The green card was to stop them being exploited by employers. So it is a document that is given to prove whether they have illegal or legal status in the US. Bush did the thing by sending more troops into Iraq to keep Qaida from expanding in that region. Qaeda wanted the troops to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan.Because democratization world not work in the Middle East. Bush also sent Aids relief of $1.5 billion a year to Africa. What he most likely will be remembered for is that he started two wars and put the country into deficit. It looks like Obama will be the same with the flood of money into the economy that he is proposing. Having projects which run into trillions will put U.S. in deficit.
Capitalism a Love Story by Michael Moore
Capitalism, a Love Story is a documentary about the global financial crisis in it the writer, producer and director, Michael Moore takes on Goldman’s Sachs to claim back funds, but the bank had by that point already repaid the stimulus money that it received from the Troubled Asset program[TARP]. Michael Moore said he was not talking about majority of people who took the money, but return most of it by the large financial intuitions which included Goldman Sachs, AIG, Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citibank, etc ,, despite their having profited from the financial crisis. They were bailout by the government with $700 billion of taxpayers money.
In this movie Michael Moore is making a case against Capitalism, which he is claiming has failed. However does not make him a hypocrite? As a movie making entrepreneur, is he not as Capitalist as they come? Capitalism has not failed him at least. He criticizes the capitalist system where free market overrule everything while he is profiting from it. Moore looks to government to provide the resources where everyone get free education and job for life, free health care where is guaranteed. He goes after the banks to get money back for what happened to them when their homes were foreclosed on by the banks, Furthermore also at fault, asserted were lenders who were making a profit from it and those estate agents were making a killing on foreclosures.
Michael Moore is a supporter of Occupy movement which is on U.S.Populist left he does think the blame belongs to large corporations. A document from Citigroup is displayed that purport to show that the is U. S a plutonomy. Economic growth in areas where the richest 1% have more financial wealth than 95% of the population are at the bottom of the pyramid.
Michael Moore interviews Stephen Moore who thinks Capitalism works wall. on the other hand the Catholic Church believes in social justice for the poor. Michael Moore interviews two Catholic priests who say Capitalism is the root of all evil. Moore is using his faith to justify his morality on the Capitalist system. He blame wealthy bankers, George Bush, US health system and lraq war for the financial crisis. Obama has been bailing out banks and car companies, but when Bush did it was Capitalism and Obama does it is democracy. He claims the current political system is corporatism where lobbyist, bureaucrats and politicians also unions use the political system to get favours from Washington for private goals which is fascism.
The Economic Policies of Ron Paul
Paul has supported Austrian School economics and has written six books on the free market system. Being for small government, he always votes against more government spending or higher taxes. Paul believes in personal liberty and measures which would limit government power to regulate the lives of people and how they spend their money. Paul says he would never raise taxes. Moreover, he would abolish the individual income tax and cut back on federal spending to 2000 levels. He endorses the abolition of most of federal government agencies, which he sees as unnecessary bureaucracies. An inflation hawk, Paul has warned of hyperinflation since way back in 1981. With the decline of U.S. dollar since 1999, he has tried to get bills through to eliminate the Federal Reserve System. He does not endorse the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] or the World Trade Organization. Paul has voted against all initiatives by government to bring in more programs or taxes. He ran for the Libertarian Party in the election of 1988 to get into Congress under Reagan. At that time, there was an illusion of limited government with Keynesian economics at its highest.
Ron Paul has taken positions in opposition to his party on the North American Trade Agreement. He has an old-fashioned work ethic which is more in line with 19th American values than those of today, but there is nothing radical about Dr. Paul. He received a medical degree while serving as a medical officer in U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. He first served in Congress from 1976 to 1984 and, again, from have become a party of big government. Paul wants to reduce all Federal programs and to save money. On the matter of trade, he takes the side of protectionists in the traditional conservative movement.
In opposition to social conservatives, he argues that the so-called ‘war on drugs’ has been a failure and argued for their decriminalisation at the federal level, although he believes states should determine their positions and enact their laws and that, under the Constitution, the Federal government has no authority on the issue. If nothing else, Paul has been consistent in his espousal of values and in standing up for the issues in which he believes. Libertarians are on the outer in the GOP, but perhaps they should join with that party to take on the establishment.
Paul’s position on the role of government in America is to have a national defense, the court system for civil disputes, and justice system, in a time of big Government Ascendent.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8662421
The Australian Moment How We Were Made for These Times
The Australian Moment How We Were Made for These Times? by George Megalogenis is an Australian journalist that who has a sound understanding of economics and is interested in what was been
happening in Australia between the mid 80s to the early 90s when economy was opened up to the marketplace with reforms that Neoliberal’s in both major parties promoted He always right about political history
Megalogenis interviewed two of former prime ministers, from Gough Whitlam to and John Howard. While Whitlam cut, cut tariffs by 25 percents that effectively ended manufacturing in this country. Manufacturing is still declining. now One result is that the half of the workforce is casual.while Further, unemployment rose higher with following deregulation of the economy offered as promoted by Neoliberals under Hawke Keating and Howard. Megalogenis argues that Australia has come out of the Great Recession a lot better than Europe or US that hand is part right that it did he said in his book he Howard also brought in the (Goods and Services Tax) at the 1998 election that was this being the culmination of a referendum on tax reform Also had industrial reforms known as WorkChoices, so the economy has experienced growth throughout Howard’s term in office that Megalogenis is right on the money about us as a developed nation was saying that we were the last one still standing
George Megalogenis is spot about our economy. He believes in getting facts on the last 40 years. Whitlam had lost control of the economy.by By the early 1980s, there was a recession and then more severe recession in the 1990s. He Whitlam was the first prime minister to go China and ended conscription; he abolished the White Australia policy Policy and made health care universal with MediBank. Bob Hawke, with Paul Keating as Treasurer, floated the Australian Dollar in 1983 despite cutting back on tariffs. He reformed the taxation system brought in economic reform sold off many of Labour’s traditional public state assets and opened the economy up to competition. Whereas Megalogenis states that, for many traditional Labor supporters, it was Keating who ripped the heart out the Labor party and were sold out by embracing the free market. Keating was reshaping Australia. Selling off most of the public assets. With the deregulation of the labour market and privatisation of Telstra, he transformed the Labor party into an economic rationalist party. With the deregulation of the labour market with privatisation of Telstra. Although he had brought macroeconomic reform to the country, His his economic credentials were undermined by the recession of 1990-1991, the deepest since the Great Depression. though, he had brought in macroeconomic reform into the country.
Barns, Greg. “Why Keating Makes Kevin Look Bad.” Review – Institute of Public Affairs Nov. 2008: 10+. Questia. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.
Suter, Keith. “Australia’s New Government.” Contemporary Review Winter 2010: 463+.Questia. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.
Marks, Kathy. “Australian Election Is Set to Be Closest in Decades.” The Christian Science Monitor 2 Aug. 2010. Questia. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.
Marks, Kathy. “Profile: John Howard – the Dispiriting Face of Middle Australia.” The Independent (London, England) 19 Oct. 2002: 25. Questia. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.
hempsavetheworld.wordpress.com /2008/02/03/ obamas
Wikileaks release of classified U.S. Military and diplomatic or public service Documents a crime?
Julian Assange founder of Wikileaks did the right thing by releasing 93,000 documents on the war in Afghanistan. When Obama was about to send another 30,000 troops to the Afghan war it was a new ‘Surge’ strategy used by Obama to get people to support the war because less than half the people supported the war in Afghanistan. There has been no new information to indicate secrecy on the government’s part over the war. The New York Times said that it could not verify the authenticity of the Wikileaks documents and government officials did not dispute the veracity of the information.
The Defense department does not release material that is classified. The case Wikileaks make is that some materials need to be in the public interest-like ciminality, or an abuse of power higher up. Furthermore, it is not guaranteed that leaked information would get to the audience because it has been based, case by case, on merit. If the government is of the view that certain information should be classified, then they can find who leaked it and then further tighten up protocols for protecting important classified documents. The pentagon sent messages that it was illegal for Defense personnel to visit the Wikileaks website which had posted 77.000 classified diplomatic and military documents on the war in Afghanistan. The release of 90,000 military documents put on the internet was damaging to President Obama’s reputation on lraq and Afghanistan. The US government will decide whether to have a criminal investigation into Wikileaks for using material downloaded from the Defense Department. Diplomatic and Defense officials are not happy that many files that cast a bleak view of the war in Afghanistan had been released. This could risk the lives of the soldiers in those areas of operation, but the material was seven months old and of no use to the enemy.
Mr. Assange said that he was exposing what was going on in Middle East. He believes Wikileaks should help to provide an open book on the world and keep citizens informed about what is going on in their area. The internet has made broad exposure of things some politicians would prefer to keep secret and demands more accountability from governments. In this writer’s opinion Julian Assange was performing important public service in exposing crime, rather than committing a crime.
Liberalism as a political philosophy
Liberalism is based on the Individual and favours civil liberties and political rights as well. It favours social progress via reform, bringing in laws and then revolutionary means to do it. It started in the 19th Century with the Protestant movement that believed in the free market for selling goods and providing services. It was an elementary form of Christianity that believed in the free intellectual inquiry. Also, one of its highest ideals was the dignity and worth of humanity. This is the doctrine of Progressivism. Liberalism promulgated the progress and transformation of society in order to improve the upper and lower middle-class standard of living. Its four fundamental aspects are egalitarianism, universalism, individualism, and amelioration.
Classical liberal beliefs in the late 19th-century advanced Social Darwinism and Libertarianism in Modern ideology, the supremacy of the Individual and Small government. The ideas from Classical liberals of society as one big family with an unfettered market where people fight over spoils out of hunger. Ambition will drive Man higher up the spectrum of success. Thomas Hobbes said the purpose of the state, therefore, was to protect individuals from one another. Classical liberals also believed in freedom.
Classical liberalism is a British tradition, but democracy is not high on the classical liberal agenda. Majority rule is held to be better than none at all. Majorities always respect property and Law and Order. In Britain, Whig reform was a new political ideology that became dominant after the Glorious Revolution. One of the Whigs ‘philosophies was based on repealing the Corn Laws and the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. They did except some state intervention by bringing the Factory Acts during the period 1840 to 1860. The Classical Liberals had won early victories, but the tide was turning against them. When Benjamin Disraeli became Prime Minister, he rejected Classic Liberalism and brought in Tory democracy. By that time, the British Liberal Party had abandoned Classic Liberalism.
Now let’s take a look at Social Liberalism as a belief system. The social liberal believes Government has a bigger role to play in society by having programs such as Social Security, Healthcare, and Education provided for everyone who could not pay for them. The state, it was held, needed to address poverty and social issues for the good of the community, promoting policies that were centralist or centre-left. They believed in a good society. A reaction occurred in the late 20th Century against Reforms brought in under social liberalism. This reaction led to what has been called Neoliberalism.
In the United Kingdom at the end of the 19th Century, Classical Liberalism was losing its dominance. And being challenged due to the declining economic growth in the economy, increasing unemployment and poverty spending as Britain was becoming more industrialised. John Stuart Mill wrote many books on Liberalism. Retaining some elements of Classic Liberalism, the liberalism he put forward became known as New Liberalism. Thanks to the Liberal governments of Henry Campbell-Bannerman, H.H Asquith, and subsequently David Lloyd George, the first welfare state was set up before First World War.
In mid-nineteenth century Germany, the Left-Liberals created trade unions and better-working conditions for workers. Left-Liberal parties were established where free speech and freedom of assembly were promoted along with representative government. Meanwhile, in France, Social Liberal theory was built up in the Third Republic by radicals like Leon Bourgeois. It was said that people owed a debt to society, which should be repaid by means of a progressive taxation regime to support public works schemes. Their agenda was to remove upward mobility.
What gave rise to the various ideas of progress toward a betterment of the human condition that began to emerge around the time of the Enlightenment during the 18th Century. Some scholars believe that the idea of progress as the secular religion that developed from early Christianity had its roots in ancient Greece. The Founding Fathers of the American Revolution believed they could create a political system that would benefit all mankind with a republic and liberty.
The Classical Liberals wanted to modernize society in the 19th and 20th Centuries in the name of progress and change it for the better. There was a critic, the British historian John Gray, who said that ideas of progress were no more than a myth, an illusion that, through science, humans could remake the world in their Image.Today there are two dominant ideologies, one that is deep green, concerned with global warming, and another that is big business and NGOs all about making more profit and that is Neoliberalism. Small ‘l’ Liberalism is dead.
Politics and the part they play in Modern Britain
Politics and the part they play in modern Britain. Britain is an oligarchy that is ruled by two parties, but has ten political parties in House-Commons, but also has first past the post system. In the House of Lords, Members are made Lords or Dams for their services. Despite having Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly, who can be voted in their constituencies. Every four years are elections for European Parliament that take place once by proportional representation.
Political Parties. The Conservative party known as the Tories is one of the largest parties that have been an around since World War two. Both parties Labour and conservative for lower tax base and decrease the cost to save money also reduce the welfare state. Although the traditional conservative party and is opposed to joining the European Union. It’s Members who have said.
The Labour party that started as a socialist party that brought in National Health Service and Welfare state. Which has moved to the centre of politics in United Kingdom and becoming more centrist than The Conservatives who are moving to the right on the lot of issues. While Labour is heading toward the centre.
The Liberal Democrats are the third force in British politics. The Liberal party formed in 1859 when it split from Whig party and lasted until 1890s up till 1906 election and declined in the 20s was replaced by Labour Party. In 1988 Liberals joining SDP, but most Lib-Dems are Liberals, but Liberal party dissolved.
UK Independence party known as UKIP, that is a Populist Party. That support nationalism and social conservatism and is also eurosceptic. Got the lot of votes which was about [27.5%] in the election. Does not believe in global warming. In its manifesto, UKIP wants more spending on defence with same-sex marriage it supports civil unions favour of traditional Marriage. The party is putting in measures to reduce immigration to the UK.
The Green party have been known to be as the Global Greens because Environmentalism is a new religion. In global warming. Party’s philosophically wants zero growth and is left-wing. And the commitment to social justice and radical transformation of society that is sustainable.
The British National party started in 1982 because the split within National Front, which decline in the early 1990s and went into European elections and won two seats in 2009. The National party put 338 candidates but did not win any seats in 2010. BNP manifesto is to have immigration only on a limited basis and controlled. Has a policy of economic nationalism. Also is opposed to homosexuality because it think is unnatural and wants a returned to family values.
Britain has a constitution that is ruled by Plutocracy, so democracy has been decreasing over the years. Only a few families can obtain an education from Oxford and Cambridge. The Conservative party represented very wealthy that belonged to exclusive clubs that controlled big business and big banks own the country. It is a monopoly of power over everyone else two parties do not represent ordinary people.
History of the Occupy Movement
The protesters are left-leaning liberals and Communists. Most have supported Obama while some say they are Republicans. There a lot of retirees, labour unionists, and students in the Occupy Movement that want to transform the system. The movement began in Spain and went around the world. This was known as lndignados and was spearheaded by adjusters who funded it and wanted an occupation of Wall Street. It was a global movement that spurred protests in every country against corporate greed, welfare cuts and 20 percent unemployment. Occupy Wall Street did not have a clear set of demands. Some started to embrace ideas like End the Fed while others wanted to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.The Occupy movement’s political slogan states: “[We are the 99%] true examples of so-called democracy at work for the people who have collective responsibility for everyone the system. Students have been protesting about budget cuts and higher debt to pay of tuition. Furthermore, there are about twenty-five million unemployed or underemployed who have given up looking for work. Workers have had their hours or pay cut back to save money for corporations. Retirees have lost their pension funds in the global depression. Thus, the Occupy Wall Street Movement is here to stay.
This is the Occupy Movement’s manifesto for change:
1 Everyone is obligated to build a better understanding across lines of race, color, sex, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation and class.
2 End the Bush tax cuts for the rich and enact new taxes for Wall Street.
3 Everyone has the responsibility to work and improve the condition of the less fortunate.
4 The government is going to subsidize the banks and enforce regulations.
5 Elimination of the corporate state.
6 Reduce carbon emissions.
7 Free health care and education for all.
8 End all foreign wars costing $2 billion a week. Establish our nation’s spending priorities.
9 Fair tax code.
10 Immigration reform.
There are disaffected traditional liberals in the Occupy Movement who promote their views on how to change the capitalist system so everyone can benefit from it. An end to slavery and the right to free speech has been accomplished, but the movement is stalled. The progressive Left wants to collapse the system and claims to represent the 99 percent who are communists and anarchists. They want their university loans written off as well as the state-funded minimum wage increased for workers with an income lower than $25,000 a year because redistribution of wealth has been happening for decades now in the middle class, which grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007 to the top 1 percent of higher income earners that are earning a lot more. They are also trying to pay less taxes.
Now, I can agree or disagree with the progressive left establishment about the redistribution of wealth and the environment. The Occupy Movement wants to bring jobs back which have been outsourced overseas. They will not be coming back anytime soon because corporations save on labor cost. As a result, the working class and middle class has seen their standard of living drop significantly. They have been sold out and some advocate for the Tea Party Movement.
Bob Katter’s “An Incredible Race of People: A Passionate History of Australia
Bob Katter’s “An Incredible Race of People: A Passionate History of Australia,” published by Sydney Pier 9 in 2012.
Bob Katter is one of those people who loves their country. His book is an excellent and worthwhile read. Bob Katter has been a member of the House of Representatives since 1993 for the seat of Kennedy as a member of the National Party where his career began in Parliament. As a member of the National Party from 1974 to 1992, he represented the seat of Flinders, a member of the National Party in Queensland. He was the minister of Joh’s government holdings portfolio from 1983 to 1989. Katter was born in Queensland, the son of Bob Katter, Sr., who was a member of Kennedy from 1966 to 1990 and then migrated to Australia. He was born in Lebanon and set up a clothing store and picture theatre in Cloncurry. Bob Katter, Sr. had an interest in cattle and mining before he went into politics.
Katter went to the University of Queensland to continue his studies but dropped out, which later on turned out to be a good thing. He did not have to “prostitute” himself to anyone, he said. Katter’s father was also the member of the Labour Party and Liberal Party until 1957. He then joined the Country Party and went into politics. Bob Katter was a National Party member of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland from 1974 to 1992 and Minister for the Northern Development of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. Katter was a strong supporter of Bjelke-Petersen’s Country Party. Fast forward to 1996. A large swing vote got him re-elected multiple times.
In 1998, he moved into federal politics and got 70 percent of the vote from 2001 to 2010. He had a falling out with the Liberal and National Parties. Katter then resigned from the National Party.
In June, Bob Katter started a new political party called Katter’s Australian Party. His constituency was largely based in agriculture. He was angered about the preferences of the Labour Party, but he was nevertheless re-elected despite Labour preferences with a two-party swing vote to the Liberal National Party.
Katter was an agrarian socialist who was a romantic about the past and about the ideals of returning to developmentalism in Queensland. You can’t put his book down because it’s a great read about his life and times, though one may not agree with everything he says in the book, “An Incredible Race of People: A Passionate History of Australia.”
Japanese protesting for peace are opposed to militarization of their country
Japanese protesting for peace are opposed to militarization of their country. Not since World War Two has Japan militarized for war or sent its soldiers overseas to fight in other people’s wars. The Liberal Democrats under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his Defence Ministry and Foreign Affairs Department have just passed a national security bill allowing Japan to fight overseas. This has divided the country between the Liberal Democrats in government and the Peace movement, who are opposed to the changes. Abe says the bill should get approval to prevent China on the rise throughout South East Asia from expanding into Japanese territory.
You have to look back at the history of Japan to understand why this is happening in the 21st century, decades after it surrendered to the Allies. Japan’s pacifist constitution was written by America when it was an occupied country, following the Pacific war. Ultra-nationalism began to rise in the mid-30s, with the Imperial expansion into Asia that led to the second Sino-Japanese war and continued to the Pacific war. America did not want a repeat of this.
Since then, Japan’s spending on the military has only been one per cent of its GDP. However, with the recent passing of the security bill, it has just had a boost of sixty billion dollars. Japan keeps an independent foreign policy, whether the international community agrees with it or not.
The Antinuclear movement aligned itself with the Peace group opposed to changing the Constitution for self-defence. However, Abe had the majority needed to pass Article 9 of the new security bill. The opposition to the bill don’t want the Japanese people to be drawn into another conflict.