The Force Is No Longer With You!

Disney is about to start producing Star Wars films. It's bad enough that George Lucas remade some elements of the original trilogy (and invariably made them worse!) just because special effects technology had moved on (he seemed to forget nostalgia value), but now he's basically sold Lucasfilm to a Mickey Mouse company - get it?! I understand that money talks, but this is just too far - check out the picture of what they did to R2-D2 for a publicity stunt. It seems the dark side may have won after all.

Random Coincidences

In 1955, a book was published that contained one million numbers. It was a statistical exercise; all of the numbers were selected at random, yet patterns still emerged. There were sequences such as 12345 and 6666666. If you randomise enough numbers, then you are statistically bound to get seemingly determined combinations like these. But regardless of how neat they may appear, they are still random.
Life is like this. You may sometimes experience coincidences which make you think: ‘Wow, that must mean something. A sequence of events like that could never occur by chance. Maybe some higher entity is trying to tell me something?’ But, unfortunately, this is not the case. It is just coincidence, because coincidences happen within randomness. There is a much, much lower chance of you progressing through life without ever having experienced any extreme coincidences.
Dwell on this concept, it is needed to fight against superstitious demagogues.

 

Freedom Vs Criminality

A man from Manchester (who I’m not going to name because he’s a dickhead!) has been jailed for four months for a public order offence. The crime committed was going out hours after the horrendous murders of police officers Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes while wearing a t-shirt with some offensive words written on it. These words were: ‘one less pig perfect justice’. As I’ve already stated, this man was a dickhead; in fact, that’s putting it far too politely, he was a horrible bastard of a poor excuse for a human being. BUT … that should not be a criminal offence. In my life I have known many imbeciles with disturbing opinions, but I’ve always tried to re-educate them about the immorality of their idiotic / objectionable viewpoints (largely unsuccessfully, but at least I tried!), I never thought that locking them up would be a good idea; if you lock them all up together they’ll probably entrench their opinions even further through socialisation with other dickheads! Freedom of speech is bandied around like a cliche nowadays, but it is a fundamental core of civilised society. Locking up this man from Manchester sends out the wrong signals that people may be criminalised for simply disagreeing with the majority.

 

Ideological Conflations

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan as U.S. President and Margaret Thatcher as British Prime Minister were able to work together to introduce a far-right capitalist ideology of widespread proportions. Wealth creation became paramount to the extent where being rich was more important than being decent. That legacy still stands today when customers are allowed to treat workers like dirt, and the worker simply has to grin while eating shit so that the business doesn’t lose any profit!
Most political analysts have said that in yesterday’s Presidential debate, Mitt Romney was more successful in putting his viewpoints across than Barack Obama. This is making an unnerving prospect a little more likely: that Romney could become President while David Cameron is Prime Minister. They’re both right-wingers and could do untold damages to global economics. Cameron has already tripled tuition fees (regardless of what his Lib Dem coalition partners wanted), and if Romney were President then perhaps we’d have more situations like a recent one in California:
Community colleges in California provide access to higher education for low-income students. But as budget cuts have recently reduced the number of classes on offer, some students were not getting placements. So one college came up with the bizarre plan of charging up to 400% more for a guaranteed seat in class! The idea was that the extra revenue earned by the extortionate charges would then be used to subsidise poorer students, but in fact the less well-off were only gaining access to the cheapest classes; the more expensive lessons were mainly going to the richer kids. I think that Republicans would love that idea! Thankfully the programme has now been put on hold after a protest against it resulted in students being pepper-sprayed! But there is little doubt in my mind that policies like these could easily become more widespread (and not just in America) if a right-wing capitalist ideology were once again to hold all the power.
So please support Barack Obama. Don’t let money rule the world.

Pints Are Better In Pubs

As a regular pub-goer, I value local boozers. I don’t consider myself an alcoholic, but I also have no objection to the occasional binge. So it concerns me when I hear that minimum pricing for alcohol is going to unfairly hit pub finances. You see, supermarkets pay no V.A.T. on food but pubs have to pay 20%! Not sure what the logic is in that other than perhaps governments have a vendetta against pubs. So supermarkets will compensate for any alcohol tax rises (e.g. minimum prices per unit) by cross-subsidising, i.e. dropping prices on food and soft drinks. This means that an even greater disparity will be created between supermarket prices for alcohol and corresponding pub prices. As much as governments want to reduce alcohol-related crime, disorder and health problems (and I do appreciate the well-meaning intentions of alcohol tax), I can’t help thinking that minimum pricing won’t affect supermarkets nearly as much as intended, meaning that people will probably stock up on booze at home, then get pissed before leaving the house for a night out where they may have less to drink at the pub but still be just as disorderly as before. So pubs will suffer and there will be little to show for it. If alcohol must be so heavily taxed, governments have to ensure that supermarkets do not cross-subsidise; that way booze prices will be competitive wherever you buy from.

 

Way Too Late

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has finally apologised for reversing his manifesto pledge of not raising tuition fees; he hasn’t said that the current policy of charging the extortionate amount of £9,000 per year is a bad policy, just that he originally made a promise that couldn’t be kept. So that’s okay then; he says he won’t break any pledges again and we’ll just take him at his word … I think not. As far as I’m concerned, Clegg lost all credibility as soon as did a deal with the devil, i.e. formed a coalition with the Conservatives. After that it was no surprise that other moral principles fell by the wayside. Former leaders Charles Kennedy and Menzies Campbell were able to vote against the fee rise along with 21 other Lib Dem M.P.s, but Clegg just couldn’t manage to honour his word because the power of government was too important to him. This apology is a waste of time: the Lib Dems will get trounced in the next general election and will only stand a chance of recovering once they’ve got rid of Clegg as their leader and put a great deal of distance between themselves and the Conservative Party. And students, I fear, will have to suffer long-term debt for many years to come.

 

Privatisation And Tax

In 2013 the government is making it compulsory for companies to provide private pensions to everyone; individuals will be automatically subscribed (thereby receiving monthly deductions from their wages) unless they opt out. This has the long-term intention of phasing out state pensions, allowing the government to save money. But will people who take up the offer of a private company pension - or rather, don’t make the effort to opt out - therefore pay less tax as it will no longer be required to pay for the state pension scheme? … Doubtful. The Tories tend to only cut taxes for rich people and businesses. The extra money saved will probably be re-invested into ‘infrastructure’ projects that affect national and international trade rather than local communities. Rather than saving hard-working people a bit more cash, we will instead see further developments of a third runway at Heathrow and high-speed rail that will demolish a great deal of countryside. Don’t be deceived by David Cameron saying that he will stick to his manifesto pledge of no third runway; the two year consultation period would allow him to reconsider his position by the time the next election (and new manifesto) comes around. There is a chance that I’m being overly cynical, I do have bouts of that! But I don’t like the way that pensions are being forcibly privatised, it smacks too much of Thatcherism.