Europeans and their hypocritical attitude towards Hamas

Nothing irritates me more than self-righteous Westerners urging Israel to negotiate with Hamas. The argument commonly made is that Hamas have popular support and therefore can't be pushed aside. (Although it's not even clear they do have popular support).

I wonder..... if a Christian far right fascist party came to power in Europe, one that was theocratic, viciously anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist and wanted to wage war on its neighbours, would Europeans argue that fighting the fascists will only give them more support? Yet, that is exactly the argument they are making here.

When political dogma is put before children's welfare

Two young children are to be adopted by a gay couple, because the grandparents (46 and 59) are considered too old. The mother of the children is a heroin addict.

The grandparents were told the children were going to a gay household, even though several heterosexual couples wanted them.When the grandfather protested, he was told: 'You can either accept it, and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again.'

The grandfather said: 'It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother figure. We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests.'

Social workers themselves have admitted that the little girl is 'more wary' of men than women.

It tells you everything you need to know about social services, and how rotten to the core they are. It's far more important to advance their own political agenda than to worry about anything so trivial as the children's welfare.

Lessons NOT to be learnt from Northern Ireland

Every other week, a journalist or a government official pens a column about how Israel can learn lessons from Northern Ireland. Well the recently unveiled compensation plan isn't one of them.

The plan is to help reconciliation by giving £12,000 compensation to every family who have lost someone to the troubles, whether they were terrorists or innocent bystanders. It tells you a lot about Britain's amoral attitude to terrorism.

There is a world of difference between reconciliation and reward. Finding the courage to forgive murderers is one thing, but that doesn't mean you have to reward them. Today's Times editorial sums up the argument well....

"..The perpetrators of violence and their innocent targets do not inhabit the same place on the moral spectrum. In the pursuit of peace, the British Government, rightly, made morally uncomfortable compromises once it felt the IRA was ready to make the switch from bombs to the ballot box. But that has not left us blind to the moral gulf between villains and victims. Mercy should not be constrained. Compensation should..."

Money can't buy reconciliation.

Gordon Brown is Toast

The news just gets worse and worse, yet Gordon Brown is still in denial, or he thinks were all fools.

1. Unemployment is soaring
2. House prices continue to fall
   
3. The value of the pound continues to decline against the dollar.
4. And the IMF warns that the world downturn will hit the UK worse than any other economy.

Doesn't Gordon Brown remember the 1990s? Norman Lamont's infamous "Je ne regrette rien" comment? The arrogance of the Tories in denying any responsibility for the recession? Or the revenge of voters in 1997 who were fed up with the lies and the sleaze?

Well history seems to be repeating itself.

If I was Gordon Brown, I would spend less time talking about saving the world, and worry a little more about saving my job.

The ulterior motives behind those campaigning for Gaza

The storm surrounding the BBC's refusal to air the DEC's Gaza appeal continues, with the BBC arguing that its impartiality will be compromised if it goes ahead and airs the appeal.

The BBC's position is entirely understandable when you consider how politicised charities have become in general (and not only when it concerns Israel). Just a few examples of politicised charities:

1. Amnesty International not only campaigns for human rights but has now extended its campaign into social, economic and cultural rights. It has reversed its previous neutrality on abortion and now actively campaigns for access to it.
2. The NSPCC opposes more openness in the family courts, and wants to criminalise parents who smack their children.
3. Environmental charities are completely divided on nuclear power. Some support it because it results in less reliance on fossil fuels, but others oppose it because they think nuclear power is dangerous.
   

In other words, just because you give money to a charity doesn't mean that your money goes to a "good cause", it merely goes towards supporting what the charity considers to be a good cause.

It is only right and fair that charities should aid the Palestinian people, but I can't help but feel that those involved have ulterior motives. I can't recall such a high profile appeal during all the years that hundreds of thousands died in Darfur, the Congolese war and in Zimbabwe. Which leads me to the question... what is motivating these charities? Is it Palestinian suffering? Or is it their political world-view? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

The history books give Bush a fairer hearing than the newspaper columnists

It's heretical to say such a thing in the UK, but I don't think the Bush presidency was an unmitigated disaster.

1. The former president beefed up homeland security, and there has not been a successful terror attack on the US since 9/11.
2. Although the initial military campaign in Iraq was a disaster, the country has stabilised dramatically since the Surge and the Sunni awakening. The country now has the genuine chance of a future.
   
3. Bush took a zero tolerance attitude towards terrorism during his presidency. None of the "good terrorists - bad terrorists" attitude that the Clinton administration displayed towards the IRA. Unlike his European counterparts, Bush understood that you cannot and should not negotiate negotiate with the likes of Hamas and others like them.
   
4. And despite all the accusations of racism, he was responsible for giving more aid to Africa than any other US administration (including billions towards aids prevention).
   
5. Despite opposition within his own party, he tried (but failed) to reform immigration so that millions of illegal immigrants could be naturalised.
6. He was an unapologetic defender of free enterprise and globalisation, despite the outight hostility from much of the country towards NAFTA.
   

The European media have been at times hysterical in their loathing of Bush. Channel Four News reported on Obama's inauguration as though it was ushering in the end of a dictatorship. Bush has variously been described as the toxic texan, a war criminal, a fool, and a retard. He has been portrayed by the Guardian's cartoonist as chimpanzee.

But the reality is that despite all of Obama's gestures (such as the closure of Gitmo) he will not be rushing to pull troops out of Iraq. Neither will he be calling off the war on terror or abolishing NAFTA.

Bush was no genius. That was obvious when he chose to hire the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, but he understood the Islamist terror threat and so does Obama. In that respect, George W Bush has history on his side.

Living in Soviet Britain

There is a report in Today's Times that the Government now controls more than 70% of the economy in some parts of Britain. That wouldn't be an unusual figure for a communist country but for the UK?!!!

We seem to be entering a vicious circle, where rising unemployment is forcing the public sector to create ever more jobs. Meanwhile the brightest and best are fleeing abroad, leaving an ever shrinking private sector. This country seems to be stuck in a downward spiral. To echo the Sun's famous headline, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights.