Monday, October 31, 2011
"the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity". (Paine, common sense)
Thomas Paine, scribe of common sense, one of the most, if not, the most scathing critique of hereditary rule and all the ugly justifications that come with it, must be dizzy from all the rolling he has done in his grave when met with the news of Prince 'drats!, still a prince at 62' Charles having veto rights over certain legislation deemed to conflict with his interests.
In the two years between 2007 and 2009, ministers consulted with the prince over legislation within policy areas "coroners (?!, this must be a typo), economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, housing and regeneration, energy and planning".
This has major implications as Prince Charles, being a royal of course, has many interests that effect not only those in his constituency but the wider public what with his pet projects concerning the envioroment among others and his property holdings that runs into the hundreds of millions in the year past earning the prince the measly, paltry, and let not forget downright unfair income of 18 million .
News like this make the average republican go red with rage, take to their blog, favorite/most scathing (usually one and the same) Tom Paine quotes at ready, and blow off steam and rightly so as politicians, as if they weren't already subject to bend to the will of the powerful, have to consider whether given legislation should be considered at all as it affects a man who would be in line to rule divine (oh it rhymes!) if it wasn't for that little squabble over who rules that took place in the 17th century.
When one man has a big say whether given legislation can enter parliament never mind amend it based on its ability to affect his interests and the ear of any minister of his choosing just because mummy dearest just happened to be Queen Elizabeth II a.k.a 'the lady on the money' is a spit in the already phlegmy face of British democracy
In sum this not real surprise given that the monarchy, to quote paine ' in a constitutional sense, contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state'.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), an organization that actively works in favor for animal rights, has effectively cheapened the constitutional laws made to protect humans from the horrors of slavery by filing a lawsuit against SeaWorld
PETA'S lawsuit against SeaWorld centers around freeing five orcas named Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Katsatka, Ulises into an 'suitable habitat' (presumably into the open sea) using the 13th amendment (yeah, the one outlawing slavery) as the basis of their case. this case has been critiqued for being 'frivolous' and 'deeply offensive' given that the 13th amendment is reserved for humans and demeans the pain and suffering endured leading up to the ratification of the law in 1865.
The law suit, though well intentioned, is ridiculous as in discussing whether the whales should taken out of 'bondage' it eggs on a debate about the nationality of whales, whether they can be enslaved and what is a suitable habitat for a whale (I would have thought it was water, Seaworld has plenty).
The law suit seems to come across as a publicity stunt from a advocacy group which as a penchant for the wetting, staining and pieing (is that a word?) of any public figure who the gall to wear anything of animal descent or sees hunting as nothing of man's original sin against the animal kingdom. There is no way lawyers arguing for the release of the whales can win the case in their minds never mind in court.
This case has (quite effectively) brought up the issue of animal rights back into the news cycle which gives PETA the argument which goes along the lines as 'if such a statue existed suits like these wouldn't happen in the first place'.However it's another skinned feather in the cap for an organization with famous friends but powerful enemies
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Liam Fox, now former defence secretary, resigned from his position amidst a wave of media attention scrutinising the nature of his working relationship with Adam Werrity, a close friend and best man at his wedding. Concerns about their working relationship raised flags behind closed doors in government and in the media as Werrity's role as adviser to fox despite him not being on the government's payroll and his presence at meetings between Fox and foreign dignitaries . This scrutiny was the straw that broke the camel's back as reports in the media revealed details not only of Werrity's past involvement in the defence industry but him receiving donations from players within it.
This story for many reasons is not unusual for conservatives as friends of conservative politicans seem to be career kryptonite.Even the Prime Minister still has some mud to wipe off his armani suit after the News of the World scandal with his hiring of former NOTW editor Andy Coulson, who under questioning from a parliamentary committe revealed he was prepared to break the law as long as he stayed within it, his ultra close association with Rebekah brooks, who lives just down the road from the Prime Minister, and his attendance to parties held by her.
The conservative party do scandal better than it's competitors not only because it is still, despite recent attempts to play it down, a party of the rich, and by default, powerful. it still represents the interests of elites run by elites, funded by a large margin by elites and it's scandals are about elites. this not to say that conservatives are only supported by elites, after all, you cant win an election with 1 percent of adults of voting age.
This scandal is only a scandal because Werrity honorable in the sense he gamed the system without taking the system's money because straight-shooters like Werrity like to live on teat of industry not the state's, because , of course, it wouldn't be right. In sum, what should be heeded from this whole affair is... erm.... politicians should hire those low down dirty crooks who work for corporations on the teat of the state rather than who cares PLC rather than people like Werrity who set a shining example we all should follow