Wednesday, 21 December 2011

Which of the Republican candidates is pro-war?

I watched the Republican debate on Fox News last week (on sky here in England).  I favour Ron Paul.  Not only because he is a traditional liberal. He is the only one who is anti-war and who doesn't think more military action will solve the USA's problems. 

Also, I agree with him about sound money and the federal reserve.  America is massively in debt and tries to be the world's policeman.  All the other candidates are pro-war.  Especially Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman.  I saw Romney being interviewed by Bill O Reilly last week and even he is very pro-war.  Why are American men so immature?

I like the idea of this site.  Vote for the pro-peace candidate, no matter what your political persuation is :

Tuesday, 13 December 2011

Lynne Featherstone and proposed new domestic violence legislation

Bullying husbands could face court for 'emotional abuse' as domestic violence laws are tightened, Daily Mail, 12th December 2011

If you scroll down, then press view all comments, you will see that this proposed effort is not supported by the majority of intelligent people.
Does an individual decide to vote for a party because it is making efforts to tackle domestic violence? Of course not; most men aren't violent towards women that they love so they would be put off by a party trying to interfere in their private lives; they would prefer it if each couple's problems were sorted out by themselves.  A woman is not going to stay in a relationship if she is unhappy.  Are women vulnerable in these relationships?  Without power? Trapped?  No. Why?  Because it isn't in the man's interest to live with a woman who hates him.  He is not going to get the things he wants and enjoys from a relationship if a woman hates him. 
Those women who are blaming men for their unhappiness will obviously support these new proposals.  To know that someone in authority is doing something especially for them obviously helps them feel more secure.  But is it good for women in the long run to be reliant on the state for their emotional wellbeing?  No, because the abstract state is not as good at providing support for women as an actual person that cares about the woman.  So she could become used to feeling looked after by the state and not be willing to accept a man that comes into her life who is willing to look after her and provide emotional support to her.  If the state keeps telling her that women need the support of the state to live with a man because they are in danger without state support, then she will be unwilling to accept anything good about men.  There will always be this tension and anxiety in relationships which will paradoxically lead to more domestic violence, mental abuse and rape.
There should be no domestic violence legislation at all.  Let women solve their own problems.  The more state help you provide for the woman, the more you dis-empower her and trap her.  Why?  Because you make her feel like she needs the help of the state to improve her life.  Women don't want to leave the partners that hit them and mentally abuse them in most cases; they just want them to stop doing it.  These men are only going to stop doing it if you leave the women alone to stand up for themselves.  They can only do that if there is not a social pressure created by all this legislation to reach out to someone else at the first sign of trouble.  Yet in most cases, they don't want to talk to someone else.  So they are basically trapped.  That is why if you watch Jeremy Kyle the first question is always - why did you stay with him?  'Because I love him' comes back the response.  If you really want to help women, abolish all domestic violence laws in relationships.  What you will then find is women standing up for themselves and giving ultimatums.  The men will know their boundaries and there will be more happy relationships.  Most importantly women will be happier.  Of course this will leave people like Lynne Featherstone feeling unneeded, which is why these feminist MP's are constantly trying to do something.  Not for women, but for their own emotional wellbeing.

Why don't these MPs ask police officers; they know more than most.  Here is what one said on the Daily Mail site in response to this:
I do not welcome state interference in my domestic affairs. And neither does my wife. And I especially don't want my personal relationships scrutinised by psychiatrists. But most of all, I don't want to live in this over-policed country any more.- Martin, Preston, 11/12/2011 13:08 

Martin, Im a copper and i couldnt agree more, we spend 70% of our time dealing with domestic arguments that the government have dictated require a full crime report even though no crime has been comitted and it not just partners, it ex's aunties uncles brothers sisters and anyone that you deem youve had an intimate relationship with. If this becomes law it will cripple the police overnight. Domestics are a nightmare as it is, no witnesses, both parties telling lies and he said she said. The state cannot be responsible for every facet of our lives.

Saturday, 10 December 2011

Why didn't Misha win X Factor?

Was Misha Bryan too black to win The X Factor?  Kathryn Knight, Daily Mail, 10th December 2011

I would say that being from Manchester had more to do with it.
People are used to us being unhappy, glum, and therefore inferior on Coronation Street, The Royle Family, Shameless, and various other misery dramas featuring people with accents from Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire.  People love that great feeling of superiority when watching Corrie.
They don't like people from inner city Manchester like Misha getting above her station by having effortless talent.
Also, Misha knows this is what people are thinking, so she stops herself from being too expressive, which leads to her not connecting with the audience.
If you contrast her personality with someone like Alexandra Burke, who we saw filling in as a judge for Kelly Rowland one time, you will see they are miles apart.  Alexandra is confident, ebullient, articulate and expressive (Judging,Youtube)- the total opposite of Misha who is shy, inexpressive and overly polite (HolyMoly interview, Youtube).  Alexandra won the 5th series of the show in 2008.
Misha reminds me of 90's girlband Cleopatra.  They are from the same area, Moss Side, and are of the same colour.  They also experienced a bit of backlash and a fair amount of ridicule.  Basically attempts to knock them back into their place.  If they were from Birmingham or anywhere not presented in a negative way on TV, a hostile reception would be less likely.  Imagine an all white girl group group from Moss side speaking in the same accent as Brooke Vincent, the actress who plays Rosie Webster in Coronation Street ( Brooke Vincent interview, This Morning. Youtube. ).  Can you imagine them being ridiculed or treated in a less hostile way?  I can't.  Girls like this wouldn't even try because they would know that there would be a hostile reaction.  So instead we have middle class girls like Ellie Goulding.
I am reminded of a Jonathan Ross interview in 2004 with Amy Whinehouse where Ross, half way through the interview, decides to put Amy back in her place by calling her common (at 3:29) (Amy whinehouse interview, Youtube.)  She puts a brave face on it and smiles, but I bet after the interview she would have thought about that comment and it may have plagued her.  For someone who was obviously looking for appreciation and acceptance, that comment must have really stung. You can also see how the audience spontaneously bursts into laughter as if it was something everyone was already thinking. 
This snobbishness stems from having a monarchy.  The monarchy creates a class system and social hierarchy where you are supposed to accept your station in life.  If you don't, you are made fun of as a way of putting you back in your place.  Our desire to look down on certain sections of society is illustrated by the massive success of Coronation Street and Eastenders:  4-5 episodes a week, each gaining 8-10 million viewers.  The characters are presented as unhappy and perturbed so we can look down on them and feel better about ourselves.  Now Corrie is on a commercial channel.  Why on earth is the BBC, a public service channel, allowed to screen a programme which negatively affects the self esteem of real life Eastenders?  To add insult to injury, these real life London folk are paying to be put down via a licence fee.  It also has the effect of depressing the nation and making out that our country is more broken than it is.