China, Tibet and Olympics
6th April 2008
It's simply amazing that we condone
China's actions not just in Tibet but to even its own
population. And yet the powers that be, have elected they
deserve to hold the Olympics there. It says volumes about the
kind of people who get into positions of power to be able to
make such crass decisions. The bare facts are, that those
people who have gained the power to select where the Olympics
are held, an event which we generally look upon as an
honourable event (hence our disgust at those that cheat), have
somehow deemed it fit that a disgraceful country such as China
can take this jewel and use it to falsely promote themselves.
Undoubtedly it all comes down to
corporation. Just about everything these days comes down to
the power of money and as world wide corporations possess most
of it, it is pretty obvious then that at the end of the day,
they will be calling the shots. China is a dream to the
corporates and as they don't have a human face, it matters not
one jot to them if there are human atrocities going or not.
So long as they satisfy the accountant and shareholder, they
won't give a stuff about some faceless individual suffering.
Did the world of capitalism give so much as a sniff of support
when China invaded Tibet and chased out a peaceful nation of
people. Of course not. There was no financial gain to go help
Tibetans unless someone has a way of making a buck from gentleness.
I'm glad there were great protests
today in London as the Chinese waved their symbolistic torch
under everyones noses. It says realms too, that the Chinese
news carries no mention of such outrage at the Chinese government, merely edited newsreel of a few shots where nothing
could be seen to be happening. It shows the Chinese government
for what they truly are. Cowards of the truth.
Will any of you who read this do
anything to help. Most of you will think you'd like to but
your'll look for that bargain when next shopping and that it
happens to be made in China (that's if you look) will likely
have you buying it with the excuse, well that's the way of the
world and I can't afford the more expensive option.
Of course, you could try living
without such item,, there's always something else.
The Banks and Mortgages stitch-up
10th April 2008
First of, as things stand at this present day, the UK is
not in a depression, the industrial side of our nation is
robust (production in Feb was ahead of forecasts),
unemployment dropped 35,000 last month and the stock market is
on the up since the Bear Sterns crisis.
So what's the problem?
Predominantly it is because the banks won lend to one as
they used Those who do not have loadsa cash sitting in
their vaults have to borrow it from somewhere and to do so,
those with the cash are charging a higher rate. One could
therefore argue that it is those banks that are cash rich who
are causing the problem. It goes back to that old adage, if
you have money, you can make money.
In the world as a whole, it is a fair analogy that 90% of
the worlds wealth is held by about 10% of the worlds
population. Oddly, it seems to me that this ratio holds at all
levels of society. If you go into say a boat marina, the
overall value of all of the boats added together may come for
example to £10,000,000. But when you look around, your'll
notice it a small percentage of those boats add up to 90% of
the total value. Of course, this is just my own reckoning and
some smart statistician could prove it wrong (but then we
cynics know all about how to make stats read what ever the
person paying for the research want them to read). When we
apply the 90/10% ratio to the banks, once again, we can see
that the whole banking industry is dictated to by just the big
It comes as no surprise then that HSBC jumps in to the
market announcing it will be a white knight and 'save' those
folk with mortgages coming up for renewal. HSBC is in the top
10% of banks and has its own very deep pockets. It is able to
pick up the new customers it wants (and refuse those it
doesn't) thus making itself richer at the expense of other
I think you call it capitalism. Has anyone worked out yet
that capitalism ends with one winner which means eventually,
one person/corporate will own everything!
So what's the stitchup. Easy, the few banks with the
cash have pulled down the shutters. They were happy enough to
take everyones money, even to soak up the dodgy loans
(sub-prime) but now the market is a bit shaky, rather than
work there butts off to help out, they would rather just say
'Closed' and let the minions sort it out. In essence, they
won't open until things have settled down again and there's a
nice big juicy profit in it for doing, in effect, very little.
If you always thought banks were rotten... you were right.
Protestors damaging the world
27th April 2008
Hydro electric generation is a passion of mine. It is clean
to produce compared to other forms of energy. Nuclear has it's
obvious potential health hazards and the clean up at the end
of a nuclear plant is horrendous. Coal, gas and oil fired
generation has its obvious pollution problem as it pumps CO2
out plus a variety of other intoxicants. Biomass has some
benefits, not least that there is a plausible argument that
the amount of carbon produced when using biomass as a fuel is
in balance with nature.
Wind and solar are great! Free power and the only pollution
as such is what goes into making the structures required to
generate the electric (but then that counts for any generating
structure). And then there is water - hydro.
I like logic. So I am both perplexed and frustrated when
individuals start campaigning against green forms of energy.
These protests are things like 'unsightly', 'visual impact'
and 'environmental disturbance'. Things such as windmills
spoiling the landscape are beyond my comprehension. Do these
sort of protestors not stop and think for one second that the
visual impact of a 100mtr tall wind turbine is absolutely
nothing compared to a landscape blackened by pollution. It
staggers belief that someone could be that thick to think a
revolving structure which does nothing than interrupt ones
vista is going to be as harmful as a place to live where the
land could be decimated to nothing more than a barren desert.
Maybe these folk don't mind if the human race is wiped out.
But then what are they protesting for if that isn't their
point? The wildlife? That will go to if the lands become
uninhabitable save for a few resilient species. Or there is
the protestor who jumps and shouts that the amount of energy
produced is insubstantial. Ho-hum, well if there is any valid
substance behind that then please explain. ANY amount of green
energy produced, no matter how insignificant is worthwhile.
The only time there is a point to insignificant power
production is where the environmental impact in producing the
structure to make the green power produces more pollution than
Usually, I am 100% for people being vocal and making their
views known and even on this point I believe people should
stand up and spout off. However, when doing so, they should
consider the cost to the environment they are causing by
delaying the implementation of green energy production, thus
allowing extra production of deathly emissions by existing
Basically, put brain into gear before engaging mouth!
Put a crap chicken in your tank
28th June 2008
TV good living guru, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall has
managed after considerable effort, (not to mention £30,000 of
his own money and another £50,000 from others) to force the
supermarket chain at it's 2008 AGM to take a vote on to stop
selling poor quality chicken on the cheap. Tesco infamously
pushed it's campaign to sell a chicken for £1.99 which is
possible because the chickens are so intensively bred and fed
on cheap soya bean produce, imported from Brazil.
The AGM vote on whether to stop selling crap chicken
managed to raise 10% of the shareholders support. Sadly, it
would have needed 75% to make the Tesco's board change
direction to say buying chicken that at least met the RSPCC's
recomended levels of chicken rearing.
Tesco were bitterly opposed to having to stop selling a
crap quality chicken as it would have affected it's profits
and they made every effort to promote that their cheap
chickens were affordable to all. They were gifted with the
line that 'in these economic times', inciting we are in some
kind of recession or poverty struck, here in the UK. We are in
neither! However, I do recognise that there are low paid
people who need to be able to afford to eat and more
importantly, eat healthily.
Every one on the planet deserves to get access to food of
decent quality at a realistic price. But there's a harsh
reality to that. It doesn't give everyone the right to be able
to eat what they want or that there should be a lot of
suffering on some other animals part or indeed the workers
used, to create cheaper food. I will happily take a gun and
shoot a bird for the pot but on the same hand, I will not
shoot more than is needed and I do not believe any animal
should have anything but a quality life. The Tesco crap but
cheap chicken (and other supermarkets are equally as guilty,
it's just Tesco's are the biggest inflictor's of suffering )
has anything but quality. It is forced to put on weight at as
faster rate is possible and the nutritional value is a waste
Now here's an analogy I often ask people to consider and
fits the Tesco crap chicken ideally.
If I tell you this chicken is poor quality as it has no
health benefit and by eating it you are damaging your body. It
is full of fat, over 1000% more fat than a chicken produced in
the early 70's, has a minimal fraction of Omega oils compared
to those organically reared and the nutrient levels one may
expect to find in meat are virtually extinct - BUT IT IS
£1.99,,,, would you still buy it?
Sadly, the answer is probably yes, especially if you are a
bit tight for cash this week and you have hungry mouths at
home to feed.
Now here's another question. Petrol prices are now over
£1.20 a litre (which equates to £5.40 a gallon in 'old
money,, or for any of our Yank friends passing by here, about
$9 a US gallon). If I offer you, legitimately, a litre of fuel
for 40 pence a litre but inform you it has impurities in it,
is not very good for your car's engine and will cause it
harm,,,, even at 40 pence a litre, will you buy it?
No. Of course you wouldn't because we know putting poor
quality fuel in our vehicles is going to end up costing us
more. Repair bills would be bad enough but there's also the
loss of use that comes with having the car in the workshop for
So why don't we see our selves in the same way. Why are
people more readily acceptable to putting crap fuel in
themselves as opposed to their vehicles. I think it is because
humans see themselves as kind of indestructible, yet we know
all to well from government figures, that those on low incomes
do not live as long or enjoy as good health as those on better
incomes. Tesco's and the like are directly to blame for
helping this situation.
By providing cheap crap food, it entices the consumer to
purchase it. But if the food was proper quality, be it a bit
more pricey, the consumer would have to buy other foods. Plant
foods can provide just as healthy a diet as animal foods and
cost a lot less. Taking away cheap crap meat will not deprive
the consumer of anything other than eating a better diet.
Sure, some will bemoan missing their bit of meat (and one
doesn't have to go without completely, just cut back) but in
the process you achieve two things,, a better you and less
infliction of pain on others.
Tesco's - you are a disgrace !!