There is No Honor in Honor killing

Yesterday Iftikar and Farzana Ahmed were sentenced to life imprisonment for being found guilty of killing their 17 year old daughter Shafilea in an act of ‘honor killing’ in 2003. Their reasoning was that Shafilea was seen to be leading too much of a westernized life and therefore bringing disrepute to their honor in the wider community.

Cases like this are rare in the UK but in other parts of the Middle East and Asia there is shamefully a significantly higher number of ‘honor killings’. Those who usually carry out these degenerate acts usually use the cloth of religion to justify their actions. Over the years the practice has become wrongly intertwined or accredited to Islam. This is a false dichotomy to make as honor killings historically were practiced even before any major religion came into existence. Plus for those who claim some sort of a religious bearing for this act have obviously missed out  a major sin in Islam, one which is highlighted best in this verse of the Quran:

For that cause we decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. (5:32).[27]

Another thing to note is that even when a person has a legitimate claim to any case of wrong doing, Islamically the law cannot simply be taken into your own hands as the claim needs to be judged in a court of law before a ruling of any sort can be made.

Also, there is a blatant sexist divide in the logic that guides honor killings. The main target and victims of these killings are mainly woman, which begs the question if you were to use this theoretical argument of honor, does a man not dishonor his supposed family? Why is it only the women who seem to bear the honor of their family member’s reputation on their shoulders? Can a man do as he pleases without shaming or dishonoring his family? A shameful act is a shameful act regardless of a person’s sex. Having male organs and a bit of stubble/beard doesn’t exempt you from that.

What also puzzles me is how twisted the logic behind honor killings really is. How does it make sense in Shafilea’s parents mind? So their daughter has apparently brought shame on their family for being too westernized. The solution in their mind to this problem of shame was murder? Does the conviction, prison sentence and airing of their torrid affairs in public not merit any shame? Pop on a mini-skirt? No no. Murder someone? Go right ahead; just make sure you’re back for breakfast. I’m pretty sure on a sliding scale of dishonor the taking of someone’s life trumps listening to lady gaga and visiting the cinema.

Regardless of what anyone says honor killing should be given its deserved title, murder. Whatever way you look at it, be it religiously, culturally, theoretically etc. murder is a forbidden and callous act. It’s truly saddening to see that cases like this even exist in the first place. The people who are supposed to be your guides in life end up being the adjudicators to your abrupt and brutal death. The ease in which these parents manage to switch of their paternal and maternal instincts to nurture, love and care for their child no matter what is disturbing. Unfortunately for Shafilea, as the judge Mr Justice Roderick Evans put it most succinctly whilst addressing her parents:

“Your concern about being shamed in your community was greater than the love of your child.”

And that is where the true dishonor and shame lies.

Follow @WellApparently

 

To Fly or not to Fly? That is the Question

This is topic on Libya is a controversial one which has elicited passionate responses. But I think that the question asked in the title is a potent question which is on everyone’s lips. The reason why I have decided to post on this topic is because I am finding that this has become a very decisive issue between people who are ardently for or pro the imposition of a no fly zone. So I’m going to try my best to address some of the points on both sides of the debate as best I can. Though I know many people might disagree with my opinion I hope that this post might make you question or think harder about this subject. Because regardless what people say, this decision is not a clear cut one and is a hard one to address.

I know this post is long and I apologies. But please if you can read it all before you judge my position on the intervention.

First thing I want to point out on the get go is that this situation we find ourselves in is nothing like the situation we found ourselves in with Iraq. The reason why I say this is because of a lot of different aspects.

Firstly, this No fly Zone has the international approval of the UN and the Arab league *though…it is debatable how worthy their opinions are on the matter, since most of the people on the panel are themselves oppressive dictators/leaders*. The Iraq war on the other hand did not have the same kind of legitimating backing.

Secondly, unlike with Iraq, the west was not gunning for Gaddafi’s removal a-prior to this revolution. With Saddam there was a clear sign from the get go that George Bush and Even Tony Blair to an extent, where looking to find an excuse to get rid of him. This issue of Saddam being removed George Bush believed should have been resolved during the gulf crises. So hence why when the devastating events of 9/11 occurred the administration thought that it was a good enough time as any to settle old scores and tie up this loose end once and for all. Obviously there were other factors as well which came to influence their decision to go to war, but that is whole separate issue in itself.

But with Libya the situation was markedly different. Ever since the Iraq war Gaddafi had played nice and renounced all links to ‘terrorism’. This is because he feared if he didn’t he would be the next one they would decide to topple Saddam style. So with Saddam, the situation started off with him being BFFs with the west and then he went rogue. While with Gaddafi, the tables are more or less turned, he started off a rogue bandit and was then ‘rehabilated’ as a friend an ally. But let me get one thing clear here, though Britain was quick to slide into a chummy type relationship with Gaddafi, the USA on the other hand still viewed him warily and was generally more cautious. So hence the lack of similar loved-up pictures of American leaders with Gaddafi as we have seen currently being aired with regards to Tony Blair.

Thirdly, the situation of the importance of oil isn’t really as pivotal as it was with Iraq. If you look at the people who are Libya’s main dealers the USA falls way down the list. The picture below best describes who gains what from relations with Libya:

So the issue of whether or not the west is going in for SIMPLY oil isn’t really as pivotal as the people most benifiting are not the ones intervening as was with case with Iraq. Another point to note is that some people have argued that one of the desires of the west isn’t controlling their access to the oil per say, but just making sure the price of oil does not rise on the world market due to the conflict in Libya. This issue has actually been resolved by Saudi Arabia who have during this conflict stepped in and ‘gracefuly’ upped the oil it pumps out to balance and quell the rise of oil prices. So on that aspect of things, there isn’t a real urgency for the USA to go in guns blazing. Though of course we cannot deny that the sooner this conflict is resolved, the better it is for everyone as it is debatable how long Saudi Arabia can keep up this charade of stabilizing prices. So while oil is an important aspect to this intervention, it is not actually really vital to countries like the USA. It’s more important to countries like the UK & France…who funnily enough have seemed to take a keen interest in this conflict..

But overall, these factors have combined to reflect the USA’s posture on the conflict. Contrary to what people like to believe, the USA was actually not the country that was mainly thrusting for this intervention. It was instead Britain and France that where the main backers of intervention. Obama himself was actually heavily reluctant to get involved in this conflict in the first place. It was why even a day before the UN resolution was to be debated, government official’s in Britain and France where jittery and hesitant over whether or not the USA would actually support their stance. It was actually the people around Obama who greatly influenced or pushed him to back this No fly zone. One of these people was Hillary Clinton who was actually frustrated with Obama personally over his lack of leadership over this issue.

The way Obama saw it was that he didn’t need another war against a Muslim country on his hands. Add that with the current budgetary problems caused by the recession and you find yourselves in a very tricky and therefore reluctant position. The USA has of course currently been the main enforcer of the No fly zone, but it has also been quick to try and absolve its responsibility of this conflict. It want’s Nato to take full charge instead and ideally would like to pull out of the conflict at soon as possible, citing that it hoped this conflict would be resolved in a matter of days.

Another point to address is the confusion surrounding the detail of what the No Fly Zone entails. The No Fly Zone resolution explicitly forbids ANY foreign troops on the ground. It is basically a resolution which only allows artillery attacks to ground Gaddafi’s planes whilst enforcing a humanitarian protection zone over parts of rebel held Libya against attacks from Gaddafi forces.  So no military ground personal will be used in the conflict as was used in Iraq. The no Fly zone is simply making sure that Gaddafi’s forces are no longer air bombing towns whilst hampering his force from attacking rebel held areas. This means bombing their military bases and grounding their flying capabilities. So it is largely a defense situation where it is used as a tactic to try and level the ground for the rebel forces.

But there is of course an inherent interest for the west to bomb military defense targets and weaponry. As in the end, when Gaddafi is hopefully toppled, a new leadership will come into power which will have to rebuild their military and therefore buy new defense systems and weaponry. And guess who’s going to be the main supplier? Yep the west, so it’s win-win.

This is true of course that whatever is bombed will one day be rebuilt and as the main weapon suppliers are the West, they are kind of securing some future revenue for their arms trade. But at the same time, let’s not forget that war itself is very expensive. For example, for each Tomahawk missle fired it costs the USA 1.4 million dollars. Not only that, but it costs the government 13,000 dollars an hour to fly a fighter plane. Now that is a lot of money considering how many missiles have been fired and how many fighter planes have been active in enforcing the no fly zone. So for those arguing that this conflict is simply about monetary gains, the evidence shows that the monetary gains aren’t really extensively that much.

Another point to bring up would be the point brought up by Ken Livingstone during the question time debate. It was the idea that this conflict should be instead left to countries like Turkey and Egypt who are much more legitimate players. I completely agree with that notion. I feel this ‘western supremacy’ argument where the west is only ever perceived as the people to enforce military actions is laughable. But, I do think only the west in this case could have enforced the no fly zone, why? Because firstly Egypt was and still is against intervening military in the conflict. This is because it is currently embroiled in its own problems as Mubarak has only just recently been ousted. This means domestically Egypt has enough on its plate and cannot spare enough time or effort to embark on a war. While with Turkey, I do think it could play a more vital role in the intervention on a whole. But we are all kidding ourselves if we think that Turkey could unilaterally carry this No Fly Zone off on its own. Whether we like it or not, the USA has built up a much superior military force in and around the region and has the much needed technology to enforce this currently.  It is one of the reason why Britain and France needed to drag the USA into backing this and leading the No fly Zone as even Britain and France aren’t nearly as well equipped as the USA when it comes to military and GPS on Libya.

So overall, should this No fly zone be enforced? I personally think yes. I think that this is a hard question for people like us who are sat in the safety of our houses to ponder. But for those people who are sat in Libya, the answer is starkly easier to answer. They want this enforcement of a No Fly Zone because whether we like it or not, they did very much need it at the time of its enforcement. The rebel forces had been pushed to Benghazi and people on the ground were loosing real hope and starting to think that maybe it would be business as usual with Gaddafi in permanent power. I have Libyan friends who have been vocal about wanting this no fly zone enacted because they have family and friends back home who they are very worried about. Libyan people who a week or so ago, where contemplating what form Gaddafi’s revenge would take shape in…and how harsh and devastating it would be. There were also many brave rebels who had fought honorably on the battle lines who were contemplating the very real fact that they would soon be fighting, risking and possibly losing their lives in a lost battle.

But of course nothing in life is simple. The concerns voiced on the anti-intervention side are of course valid. I do not deny that the West is hypocritical in its enforcement of these interventionist policies. I understand the very real problem we have in the world were if it wasn’t for some sort of interest, the west generally wouldn’t give much of a toss about a conflict. This is highlighted in the fact that there are a plethora of conflicts in for example Africa, which have been raging on for years prior to these revolutions in the Middle East where nothing has been done. These conflicts have also become so common in some parts of the world that they at times are barely even deemed newsworthy.

But what then is the answer? Are we not saying if the USA or west wants to be truly fair they should intervene in places like Africa where none of its interests lie? But then are we still not asking the USA to intervene? Is the question we should be asking, not whether or not you should or should not intervene, but when.

When you have seen the devastating events of the Rwandan genocide and read up the facts, you are left thinking, where was the west? You are not left thankful of the west’s lack of intervention, but critical. This highlights how intervention whether we like it or not is an important aspect of foreign policy. The question that burns us most is the hypocrisy of it all. But let’s not let this blatant hypocrisy and criticism blind us to whether or not the west should act in all situations.

I do believe that this conflict is to be won by Libyans and Libyans alone. But I do see no issue with the No Fly Zone helping to level the playing field of the conflict to a more equitable level as it will save a lot of people’s lives. Let us not kids ourselves, If Gaddafi had entered Benghazi and regained control of it, there would have been a massacre and I bet you we would be sat here saying instead, why the hell did no one intervene or care?

I also realize that the reason behind the intervention is not simply one devoid of any interest for the west. This is because the sooner the conflict is resolved the better. After all oil prices would no longer be privy to fluctuation and also Libya is at the doorstep of Europe, so an influx of war immigrants would be stemmed. But just because the Libyans are sat on a reservoir of oil and are situated in the geopolitical place they are in, doesn’t make their lives any less worthy to save. If they did not sit on oil, would the questions asked be similar to those asked during the Rwandan conflict?

I think our role of course should be to criticize the people who hold power, and work slowly towards making sure this integrated nexus of interest and intervention is broken. The hypocrisy of the west denouncing Gaddafi yet courting the Saudi & Bahrani Monarchy enrages me. These are wrongs that need to be righted. And we should vocally make sure that out governments are aware of their wholly unacceptable double standards. We cannot simply agree with their dated concept of ‘look at us we are doing this cause we care’ propaganda that they like to spew.  We should not buy into their lies and their efforts to package this conflict in their favor. But at the same time, we cannot denounce all of the actions they do.

We just need to make the west more accountable to their hypocritical actions and make sure that this privileging of oppressive regimes over others is one day shattered.

So overall, we should work towards a point where the Middle East should be able to police itself and deal with intervention in its region by its own forces. Rather than having the USA intervene because of its military prowess and superiority. But till then, we have to deal with the shabby cards that we are dealt, while making sure we do not loose sight of the motives of the people dealing the cards. They should be held accountable for getting us into this situation and should be monitored closely to make sure they do not once again overstep their mandate as they have done in the past.

Till Next Time,

 

‘Statesman’, ‘Salesman’ or plain ol’ git?

So the inspiration for this post comes from David Cameron’s recent lil treck round the Middle East *I know I know.. I am so early with these posts you’re questioning if I’m actually an Arab after all*. There was controversy surrounding his trip, but before I get into those details how about we pander to the whims of the current government and describe what they would like you to think happened:

After the brave Egyptians followed the example of the Tunisian people and overthrew their corrupt dictator Mr Cameron decided to valiantly ride his metaphorical white horse and head straight to the Middle East to congratulate the recent success of the Egyptians in Tahrir Square. Being the big-hearted man that he is he didn’t restrict his visit just to Egypt, no, he made the effort to spread the love around in the region and show his support, goodwill and solidarity with the Arab people who had fought so tirelessly for justice, democracy and freedom. Also by being the first western leader to grace the shores of the Middle East since the revolutionary atmosphere had first begun, Mr. Cameron was honorably setting a high-standard precedent for other less courageous leaders to hopefully follow in his graceful footsteps.

Oh that Cameron, such a strong-willed charismatic and moral leader. *swoon*

Well…unfortunately we don’t live in the world of make-believe and fairytale. Instead we have to deal with the crass and cumbersome harsh light of reality.

In actual fact this trip to the Middle East was planned ages ago and had nothing to do initially with the revolutions we see sweeping across the Middle East. Instead it had more to do with an important Arms trade fair that was going to be occurring in Abu Dhabi…yes…girls we aren’t the only ones who are susceptible to the shopping frenzy…our grown-ass male leaders seem to have a soft spot for it to. Mr Cameron being the ‘great’ leader had planned to go to this fair and use this all-round trip to generally hawk off British arms to the so called ‘leaders’ of the Middle East with the help of his delegation of arms manufacturers.

To be honest, I just think Mr Cameron has probably watched Sex and the City 2 and seen how Carrie and the girls flew off to this exotic middle eastern region in Abu Dubai and thought ‘I want me some of that’. But of course to save face he had to bring in some ‘macho’ into the equation and so instead of the sex and the city girls of ‘Miranda, Charlotte & Samantha’ he brought along the British arms dealers. And with them in tow he could set off for the joys of sun, sand and selling-arms-to-corrupt-undemocratic-repressive-arab-leaders-to-make-a-quick-buck in the Middle East.

But on a serious note, what an utter affront and disrespect to the many brave souls who have lost their lives and are STILL loosing their lives fighting in these revolutions. The LEAST he could have done was at least to suspend and postpone the arm selling aspect of his trip considering the circumstances. Especially when you are selling them to current undemocratic dictators ….just WTH …the nerve of him to stand in Tahrir square and extoll the notions of democracy, freedom, human rights etc. and praise the virtues of the revolutionary uprising and then to simply hop-skip it to  nearby dictatorship countries and sell some more arms beggars belief.

No words can rightfully completely justify and excuse their actions..…but with them being in the profession of politics you can ALWAYS rely on them to try and give excuses to legitimate their sorry actions. So here are a few I have heard/read:

Cameron actually cancelled his appearance at the actual Arms fair: oh yes .. thank you for that Cameron…that’s really what matters…not the fact that your arm’s  dealer BFF’s have been flown in with you and are STILL selling their wares and arms .. It was the idea of you being their personal Pin-Up model at the fare that really grinded our gears. A publicity stunt at the arms fair like you are some hired Paris Hilton totty at a club we can’t stomach….the actual issue of the arms still being sold by the people you have flown in as part of your delegation is dismissible.

Only a quarter of the people who flew out with him where part of the arms group: Stop the PRESS! ONLY a quarter? My bad, My bad, and here was I thinking it was a THIRD of your delegation. If that’s the case that’s just A-OK…but it best be EXACTLY a quarter…anything above that is asking for trouble. Has no one told you that anything-above-of-a-quarter –of-whatever-delegation-you-are-taking is a crowd? Too-many-people-over-a-quarter-of-your-delegation spoil the broth? Don’t worry you haven’t heard these age old-sayings because now you are in the know.

If we don’t sell arms to them then other countries will: Wow…Really? Would you allow this choice of phrase or excuse in any other circumstance?  I.e.  Hey don’t get your panties in a twist, if WE didn’t sell Iran/Al-Qaeda/Syria/Every-Tom-Dick-and-Harry-that’s-on-the-wests-axis-of-evil-list nuclear weapons then someone else would have … *shucks*…you KNOW it’s all about the profit margin ay?

The leaders won’t actually use most of the weapons sold on their people as they are more warfare than internal repression arms: Yes so maybe for example, Saudi Arabia won’t use F-16 bombers on their people. That will mainly be because of the fact that even if they wanted to they probably can’t. .. many of the arms that are sold to the gulf states and other states in the region are to high-tech and advanced for the countries to actually operate or even maintain or sustain in workable conditions without help from the west. So why do these leaders buy these weapons? It’s mainly because the ‘politicians’ who buy these weapons for their country usually skim off or get some commission from the transaction. This therefore means the countries MONEY is being wasted in corrupt ways to benefit the pockets of the few over the mass of the countries people.

So in conclusion, Mr. Cameron is not simply a TYPICAL political git …. Cameron ‘luv’, please leave the blatant and insulting two-faced aspect of your current approach to politics to THEEEE experts…by experts I mean dam COINS and Tony Freaking lar-di-dar- Blair. Put to rest the cheap knock-off tribute act to your apparent idol Tony Blair. It’ll be not only for our own good, but yours. There is only so much ‘bastardisation’ one can handle in the world, and the quota is currently full to the brim.

Till Next Time,

P.S I didn’t make this picture myself, stumbled upon it and thought it fitted the post perfectly

Here is link if your interested:

http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news760.php

 

Blair’s ‘personal memoirs’

I just don’t get people like Blair who choose to take up the mantle of political leader and adopt this quasi-humanitarian-warrior-ghandi-esq rhetoric and who fail to grasp the complexities of what it exactly entails to be a great leader. To be a great leader one doesn’t just have to lead and make the right choices but also BARE responsibility for those actions and decisions whether they turn out to be right or wrong.  We are all human and because of this fact we are all privy to making mistakes and being flawed. A great leader is someone who accepts this fact and embraces it and works to minimise the mistakes he makes whilst also admitting and apologising when he is wrong. It’s true what they say that it takes a great man to admit that he is wrong and this should be even truer in the case of politics where it seems hardly any leader is EVER wrong.

This whole episode of rambling comes about after I read some extracts from Tony Blair’s forthcoming memoirs. The issue that interests most people surrounding his leadership is the case for the war on Iraq. It’s what many people believe to be the biggest failing in his term in office and that which helped signal his slow demise. In his memoirs Blair does take about some regrets in his time in office, like for example, the fox-hunting ban *how one can suddenly be enlightened to the fact that savage dogs bloodily hunting a lone fox to its death for the mere sport and enjoyment of the upper class echelons is actually something that shouldn’t be banned goes beyond me, he might as well legalize dog baiting, cockfighting etc. to boot and call it a full house*.

On the war on Iraq however, with all the hindsight we have Blair still professes he has no regrets and if given the chance, would make the same exact decision. The evidence that Saddam clearly did not have weapons of mass destruction, *let alone ones he could detonate in 45 minutes*, the fact that Saddam did NOT have any ties to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda and that BECAUSE of the invasion Iraq has become MORE dangerous rather than less, the fact that Iraq to say the least is in the throes of a civil conflict, the fact that Iran now is able to influence some of the political powers in Iraq which before it could not due to the animosity between Saddam and the Iranian regime, the fact that they prematurely waged war on Iraq before securing the threat and stability of Afghanistan therefore derailing and draining vital resources from Afghanistan, oh and the mere fact that Osama bin Laden himself has yet not been captured *yes we can fly to the moon, send satellites into outer space, build man-made islands etc, but finding one notorious man….we are still working on it* seems to not bother or hinder his conviction in that he was right in the least.

Lets not kid ourselves, if another war/offensive needed to be waged the place to wage it would be in the uncontrollable and ungovernable no mans land between Afghanistan and Pakistan where Osama bin Laden and his main operatives are rumoured to be seeking refuge.

But no, all these facts and details mean nothing to Blair because he BELIEVED it was his moral and god given right to invade Iraq to get rid of an evil dictator who as Blair has on countless times exclaimed, murdered his own people. Now Saddam’s brutality and blighted human rights records are by no means contested. He was an evil dictator to say the least, but what frustrates me is when Blair exclaims that now as a reason why he was toppled but back then the reason given was Saddam = Al Qaeda links + weapons of mass destruction….+ evil man. Two vital pieces where missing in the case for why we should go to war, yes one still stands but Blair has to admit that what took us to war was an inadvertent lie. So he SHOULD regret his decision because his case was and still is flawed. Military powerhouses don’t just go to war because of human rights breaches, as disheartening and as unfair as that fact is. Yes in cases of severe human rights breaches countries may go to war to ratify that, case in point being Bosnia, but that isn’t the case always, case in point the Rwandan genocide. The crimes Blair speaks of are crimes that occurred in the past i.e. gassing of his own people and the Iranians, and at a time where the west knew FULL well what was going on and STILL supplied Iraq with some of the chemicals used in creating these chemical weapons. And to just skim over the dictator part of his argument maybe Blair should look at neighbouring countries like Egypt, Syria, Saudi etc. where dictatorship seems to be an over glanced fact when it comes to their ties to the west.

My point is, if Blair is going to act like a Knight in shinning armour upholding the bastions of Human rights then he should just claim to be doing that and not pepper and season his argument to the people of the country with lies and untruths. If you believe strongly in something then that should be your argument. The least the people of Iraq who will bear the brunt of this war deserve is the truth to why they should burden this. The same goes for the soldiers who fight in this war and risks their lives for queen and country. And the same applies to the people you claim to serve who’s money through taxes goes to fund this war.

Not to mention the rising death toll of people killed in this war.

“It is the highest form of self-respect to admit our errors and mistakes and make amends for them. To make a mistake is only an error in judgment, but to adhere to it when it is discovered shows infirmity of character.”

Dale E. Turner

That is all for now,

Till next time

 

About time

Well i have finally managed to start-up this blog which I have been wanting to do for ages. Main reason why is that im the type of person who reads/sees/hears something and can’t help but give her opinion or view on it…..that being dependent on if i know a thing or two about what is being discussed…..because if i didn’t….not only would i look like an opinionated jackass….but id also look like a foolish one…and that’s just not on….

ugh I hate writing up introductions they always seem forced and in my case…clearly lacking humour. Give me a topic I’m interested in and I will go to town on that bad boy….but ask me to talk about what i want to do or type up a bit about myself…and my mind goes blank…

And i’d just like to give a heads up to the one person reading this blog right now *moi* that most of these blog entries will include sarcasm…yes its the lowest form of wit..but god dam its useful in stressing out the irony in so many newsworthy events around the world….Half the time I’m reading things and thinking…reaaaaaaallly? example, with the recent expense scandal in the UK. For those of you who don’t know what the expanse scandal was about i suggest you look it up  but in brief MPs where claiming expenses from taxpayers money to fund irrelevant things like keeping a moat intact, buying porn, buying a plug for the bathroom etc. yea, apparently some UK MPs cant function properly if their moat isn’t intact….i don’t even need to go any further….its hilarious on its own terms. Anyway, point being, the MPs expenses first came out listing the current ruling Labour parties MPs expenses only…and every Tom, Dick and Harry from the Conservatives to the Lib Dems tore into Labour party going into the usual theatrics of  ’this is a shambles’….’beyond belief’….’Irresponsible’. etc…..that was…till there MPs expenses got released…and even though they didn’t excuse themselves for there failings…it just highlights what politics has come to mean for so many people….a bunch of w****** who are all in it for what they can get and are more focused on bringing down the opposition party and improving their image than formulating policies based around the public’s interests.

It’s not all doom and gloom, but i do think that governmental politics has turned into a bit of a farce…The same can be applied to US politics..if anything the divide between Democrats and republicans is worse than it is in the UK…but I don’t even need to go into too much detail as I think the image below just say’s it all…

Well I think that’s enough rambling for today….

Until next time