Over the last few days, with the Iceland bank adventure and Gordon Brown flinging around taxpayers money with abandon, a few questions have been brought to the fore that don't seem to be being asked, although they certainly should be.
Firstly, where did the Government suddenly magic the £81 billion it used to buy out banks from?
All we have heard these last couple of years is how we can't have this hospital or that school because of belt tightening with pay rises in the public sector pegged at 2%, half of the inflation rate, while all the time Gordon Brown had £81 billion set aside for a rainy day. If he had that much just idly sitting around why are the hospitals understaffed, prisons at breaking point and overcrowded schools having to make do with children sharing text books because they haven't got enough to go around?
Secondly, when the Iceland banks fell over, they took with them £858m of council money which works out at approximately £7m per council.
Did your council tax bill get hiked by a crazy amount this year? The average person's council tax bill soared by 5% this year, taking it past £1300 per household, but still council services are being cut, libraries and community centres closed and projects cancelled. The reason cited on every occasion is lack of finances but now we find out that amongst others, Kent Council had £50m stashed away, Nottingham £42m and Haringey £37m. All squirrelled away in a high interest account in an Icelandic bank while the pensioners meals-on-wheels were cut back, adults sent to prison for failure to pay their council tax bill, parks sold off and fortnightly rubbish collections introduced as ways to save money.
If the Government and councils have this kind of money just slopping around, why are we constantly being squeezed for more rather than spending what they have on facilities and services that we are crying out for?
Obviously saving bankers necks and having a healthy surplus to show off at the next Council meeting is more important than spending our money on some of the things that would make our lives that little bit more pleasant.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Happy Birthday Mr Vanunu
Israel have hired a British PR firm to brush up its image around a World which doesn't place Israel that high on it's list of favourite nations. The story of Mordechai Vanunu, 58 today, doesn't help present Israel in a good light.
Depending on your viewpoint, Vanunu is either a hero or a traitor for blowing the whistle on his country's covert atomic weapons programme.
Vanunu starting to suffer a crisis of conscience while working at the secret Dimona plant which was clandestinely producing nuclear weapons and during a trip to London, divulged to a journalist Israel's deadly secret. Targeted by a Mossad honey-trap, he was drugged, gagged, bound and returned to Israel, tried in secret and convicted of treason and espionage and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment, twelve of them served in solitary confinement.
As his story emerged, he become a symbol for the international peace movement, was nominated for a Nobel peace prize and was finally released in 1994, re-arrested months later, then again in 2007 and is currently banned from travelling beyond Israel's borders
After being heckled by a hostile crowd of CND and Vanunu supporters in London in 1997, Israeli President Ezer Weizman said at a press conference: "He was a spy who gave away secrets, and the fact that he did so for conviction rather than for money makes no difference. He was a traitor to his country."
On his release a defiant Vanunu said: "I was right to reveal the madness of the Israeli nuclear secrets. I am not a spy, but a man who helped all the world to end the madness of the nuclear race."
Depending on your viewpoint, Vanunu is either a hero or a traitor for blowing the whistle on his country's covert atomic weapons programme.
Vanunu starting to suffer a crisis of conscience while working at the secret Dimona plant which was clandestinely producing nuclear weapons and during a trip to London, divulged to a journalist Israel's deadly secret. Targeted by a Mossad honey-trap, he was drugged, gagged, bound and returned to Israel, tried in secret and convicted of treason and espionage and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment, twelve of them served in solitary confinement.
As his story emerged, he become a symbol for the international peace movement, was nominated for a Nobel peace prize and was finally released in 1994, re-arrested months later, then again in 2007 and is currently banned from travelling beyond Israel's borders
After being heckled by a hostile crowd of CND and Vanunu supporters in London in 1997, Israeli President Ezer Weizman said at a press conference: "He was a spy who gave away secrets, and the fact that he did so for conviction rather than for money makes no difference. He was a traitor to his country."
On his release a defiant Vanunu said: "I was right to reveal the madness of the Israeli nuclear secrets. I am not a spy, but a man who helped all the world to end the madness of the nuclear race."
Blair Lied Shock
It was 1997 and the dreaded Conservatives were out on their ear and in came a fresh faced Tony Blair to brush away the stench of sleaze left lingering by 18 years of Maggie Thatcher and John Major.
Because it came in his honeymoon period, the Formula 1 business that has come back to bite Blair with such relish, went swiftly by and we all bought the 'i'm a straight kind of guy' speech that he made. Little did we know that later we would discover that he was as straight as a circle when it came to telling the truth.
The Government were about to bring in a ban on tobacco advertising but Formula 1 were granted an exemption, suspiciously just after Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone had met the Prime Minister and donated £1m to the Labour Party.
At the time, Mr Blair insisted that the meeting, and donation, had nothing to do with the decision and gave a emotional plea on television that he was innocent of anything shady or suspect. Handed the benefit of the doubt, Blair was 'let off the hook' and allowed to merrily go on his way to bigger, better and more murderous lies later on down the line.
Now the Formula 1 scandal has resurfaced from documents released under the Freedom of Information Act that show Blair personally ordered Ministers to exempt Formula 1 from a tobacco advertising ban just hours after meeting the motorsport's boss.
Blair lied shock?
Don't act so surprised. The guy's lies are directly responsible for over a million deaths in Iraq, he isn't going to think twice about lying over his party's immoral funding.
Because it came in his honeymoon period, the Formula 1 business that has come back to bite Blair with such relish, went swiftly by and we all bought the 'i'm a straight kind of guy' speech that he made. Little did we know that later we would discover that he was as straight as a circle when it came to telling the truth.
The Government were about to bring in a ban on tobacco advertising but Formula 1 were granted an exemption, suspiciously just after Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone had met the Prime Minister and donated £1m to the Labour Party.
At the time, Mr Blair insisted that the meeting, and donation, had nothing to do with the decision and gave a emotional plea on television that he was innocent of anything shady or suspect. Handed the benefit of the doubt, Blair was 'let off the hook' and allowed to merrily go on his way to bigger, better and more murderous lies later on down the line.
Now the Formula 1 scandal has resurfaced from documents released under the Freedom of Information Act that show Blair personally ordered Ministers to exempt Formula 1 from a tobacco advertising ban just hours after meeting the motorsport's boss.
Blair lied shock?
Don't act so surprised. The guy's lies are directly responsible for over a million deaths in Iraq, he isn't going to think twice about lying over his party's immoral funding.
Friday, 10 October 2008
Burning Down The Stjórnarráðið
This latest recession is America's doing. It 'got drunk' as someone said and the chill is being felt everywhere else with the UK taking a battering but of course Gordy Brown can't wag his finger at his good pals across the Atlantic. Too big and too powerful so he has to make sympathetic cooing noises and help his pals dig themselves out of a multi-billion pound hole of their own making.
The British solution to American's playing up used to be sending over a British force to burn down the White House but as that option is off the table, what we could do with is a small, weak nation to kick about instead. Hello Iceland.
The tiny island's banking sector has collapsed and taken with it a billion of local councils cash as well as billions more from small investors which Iceland is saying it hasn't got the funds to pay back even a percentage of our loses.
Step forward fearless Gordon to puff out his chest and show that nation of ice bound fisherman that they can't cost us Brits money and not feel our wrath. America can, and have, but we are bigger than Iceland so it's sleeves up and someone fetch Gordon his best arse kicking shoes.
The Icelandic banks froze our accounts and the British government retaliated by using anti-terror laws to seize Icelandic assets, adding Iceland to the axis of evil on our changable terrorist countries list.
Mr Brown says Iceland has acted 'illegally' his Icelandic counterpart Geir Haarde accuses Britain of 'an unfriendly act' and an awkward stalemate has been reached. They have our dough and we have them by their assets. Treasury officials have travelled to Iceland for crisis talks before we send Her Majesty's Royal Navy steaming northwards intent on crushing plucky little Iceland and its 301,931 inhabitants.
Unbelievable we would do such a thing? We did it in the 1970s over fish and NATO had to step in to negotiate the end of the 'Cod Wars' so we have precedence of not taking any nonsense from tiny countries we could safely slap around a bit.
Iceland, and anyone else smaller and weaker than us, you have been warned. Don't mess with us.
The British solution to American's playing up used to be sending over a British force to burn down the White House but as that option is off the table, what we could do with is a small, weak nation to kick about instead. Hello Iceland.
The tiny island's banking sector has collapsed and taken with it a billion of local councils cash as well as billions more from small investors which Iceland is saying it hasn't got the funds to pay back even a percentage of our loses.
Step forward fearless Gordon to puff out his chest and show that nation of ice bound fisherman that they can't cost us Brits money and not feel our wrath. America can, and have, but we are bigger than Iceland so it's sleeves up and someone fetch Gordon his best arse kicking shoes.
The Icelandic banks froze our accounts and the British government retaliated by using anti-terror laws to seize Icelandic assets, adding Iceland to the axis of evil on our changable terrorist countries list.
Mr Brown says Iceland has acted 'illegally' his Icelandic counterpart Geir Haarde accuses Britain of 'an unfriendly act' and an awkward stalemate has been reached. They have our dough and we have them by their assets. Treasury officials have travelled to Iceland for crisis talks before we send Her Majesty's Royal Navy steaming northwards intent on crushing plucky little Iceland and its 301,931 inhabitants.
Unbelievable we would do such a thing? We did it in the 1970s over fish and NATO had to step in to negotiate the end of the 'Cod Wars' so we have precedence of not taking any nonsense from tiny countries we could safely slap around a bit.
Iceland, and anyone else smaller and weaker than us, you have been warned. Don't mess with us.
Thursday, 9 October 2008
Why Nuclear?
BP's Statistical Review of World Energy appears to show that the world still has enough oil reserves to provide 40 more years of consumption at current rates.
With this resource rapidly depleting, the move is away from fossil fuels with nuclear energy being hailed as the saviour but as the worlds resources are finite, how much Uranium is there for us to mine? The World Nuclear Association put the amount, at current usage levels, at 80 years worth of Uranium but with countries planning to build multiple new Nuclear reactors at huge expense all over the globe, that 80 years will quickly fall. Within two or three generations at the most, we will be back in the same position searching for new forms of energy only this time we will have to contend with millions of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel that poses a serious health threat for the next 10,000 years.
Seems we can use nuclear fuel to stop polluting the atmosphere but the kicker is that we have to poison the ground and make large swathes of our planet uninhabitable for 10 millenniums to achieve it.
A 2003 Spanish report by the Guadalajara University Hospital into the cancer risk to citizens living around the Trillo nuclear power plant concluded: 'There is an association between proximity of residence to Trillo and cancer risk'. A German report into childhood leukaemia found that there was a 'statistically significant odds ratio for residential proximity compared to residence outside this area'. Still want one of these things in your neighbourhood?
Australia (23%), Kazakhstan (15%) and Russia (10%) hold almost half of the Worlds Uranium supplies so they would be the main beneficiaries from a nuclear era as the Middle East was from the last oil century and would face the same consequences as the supply begins to falter.
The question is why, with a limited supply and the massive financial cost of building and disposing of the fuel not to mention the environmental and safety risks involved, is Nuclear the answer when there are other cheaper, safer and never-ending resources available?
Approximately 71% of the Earths surface is covered by Oceans and as long as the Earth continues to turn, there will be waves that could be used to generate power. As long as we have a Sun heating the planet, we will have wind. Wave and wind power used in tandem would create an endless and safe supply of energy so why are we focusing on Nuclear and not plowing our money into these renewable sources instead?
With this resource rapidly depleting, the move is away from fossil fuels with nuclear energy being hailed as the saviour but as the worlds resources are finite, how much Uranium is there for us to mine? The World Nuclear Association put the amount, at current usage levels, at 80 years worth of Uranium but with countries planning to build multiple new Nuclear reactors at huge expense all over the globe, that 80 years will quickly fall. Within two or three generations at the most, we will be back in the same position searching for new forms of energy only this time we will have to contend with millions of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel that poses a serious health threat for the next 10,000 years.
Seems we can use nuclear fuel to stop polluting the atmosphere but the kicker is that we have to poison the ground and make large swathes of our planet uninhabitable for 10 millenniums to achieve it.
A 2003 Spanish report by the Guadalajara University Hospital into the cancer risk to citizens living around the Trillo nuclear power plant concluded: 'There is an association between proximity of residence to Trillo and cancer risk'. A German report into childhood leukaemia found that there was a 'statistically significant odds ratio for residential proximity compared to residence outside this area'. Still want one of these things in your neighbourhood?
Australia (23%), Kazakhstan (15%) and Russia (10%) hold almost half of the Worlds Uranium supplies so they would be the main beneficiaries from a nuclear era as the Middle East was from the last oil century and would face the same consequences as the supply begins to falter.
The question is why, with a limited supply and the massive financial cost of building and disposing of the fuel not to mention the environmental and safety risks involved, is Nuclear the answer when there are other cheaper, safer and never-ending resources available?
Approximately 71% of the Earths surface is covered by Oceans and as long as the Earth continues to turn, there will be waves that could be used to generate power. As long as we have a Sun heating the planet, we will have wind. Wave and wind power used in tandem would create an endless and safe supply of energy so why are we focusing on Nuclear and not plowing our money into these renewable sources instead?
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
My Idea Of Revolution
We have been talking Revolution over at David's blog and I'm always up for a bit of usurping but who to usurp and what system of Government will be imposed instead? Rather than a large scale revolution with tanks on the streets and guillotines, i propose a bastardised version of what we have now and laughably call Democracy.
The debate over the $700b to the financial markets is as good as an example as there will ever be of what's wrong with the system we have. We elect a person to represent us and they go off to do our business, or at least that's the idea.
What actually happens is they do what they want until approximately six months before they are up for nomination again and then they pay attention, don't want to upset the plebs that put him in that privileged position.
The House of Representatives that initially turned down the billion dollar hand-out
did it apparently because they had been receiving communications from their electorate telling them that they were against the idea. Very thoughtful although they wouldn't have given a second thought to their electorate a year ago.
And there is the nub of my revolution, to keep the people who we elect to do what's best for us in that perpetual state of having to do our bidding in order to stay in power. The simple answer is referendums and plenty of them coupled with a maximum of two years between elections.
We have a situation in the US and in the UK with two leaders with the lowest ratings in our lifetimes, a simple system where ratings below 35% would trigger an election would keep our leaders mind focused.
So there we have my back-of-a-cigarette-packet idea for a system of Government. Two year terms, referendums on the big decisions and a mechanism to remove unpopular leaders to stop them clinging to power at the detriment of the country they are charged with representing.
All i need now is to get elected so i can implement it.
The debate over the $700b to the financial markets is as good as an example as there will ever be of what's wrong with the system we have. We elect a person to represent us and they go off to do our business, or at least that's the idea.
What actually happens is they do what they want until approximately six months before they are up for nomination again and then they pay attention, don't want to upset the plebs that put him in that privileged position.
The House of Representatives that initially turned down the billion dollar hand-out
did it apparently because they had been receiving communications from their electorate telling them that they were against the idea. Very thoughtful although they wouldn't have given a second thought to their electorate a year ago.
And there is the nub of my revolution, to keep the people who we elect to do what's best for us in that perpetual state of having to do our bidding in order to stay in power. The simple answer is referendums and plenty of them coupled with a maximum of two years between elections.
We have a situation in the US and in the UK with two leaders with the lowest ratings in our lifetimes, a simple system where ratings below 35% would trigger an election would keep our leaders mind focused.
So there we have my back-of-a-cigarette-packet idea for a system of Government. Two year terms, referendums on the big decisions and a mechanism to remove unpopular leaders to stop them clinging to power at the detriment of the country they are charged with representing.
All i need now is to get elected so i can implement it.
Sunday, 5 October 2008
The Lefty The Right Revere
I'm not sure why but it seems that most religious folk, especially the Evangelists, are right leaning.
A Reverend was on TV this morning urging his followers to vote Republican in the upcoming US election and the general consensus seems to be that they will. As America has a very high proportion of those that believe in a creator, the church seems to speak to a large base but why has the Church grabbed Jesus as one of their own when the writings of the Bible seem to point that he represented the polar opposite of what the right believe?
With the help of a good friend with a wide knowledge of all things biblical, we have come to the conclusion that actually, if the son of God was knocking about today, he would be be on the left side of politics.
The most obvious example in the bible is the line: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God' which clearly states the financial views of the creator.
His Leftist position is further enhanced by tales of Jesus running a Commune where 'There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need'. He even told his followers: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor".
Seems obvious enough to me, God doesn't much care for home ownership, what stocks and shares you possess or how big your pension is.
Without doubt Jesus was a hippy, the long hair, the beard and the sandals give that away and his anti-war slogan 'Do not murder, anyone who murders will be subject to judgement.' and his catchy 'Blessed are the peacemakers' show his unerring slant towards pacifism.
So we have the evidence that God is anti-war, anti-capitalist and strongly believes in the equal distribution of wealth.
Of course the left widely poo-poo the idea of God so we wouldn't want him anyway but just nice to know that the man the right revere with such passion was probably the Worlds first Socialist.
Amen Comrade.
A Reverend was on TV this morning urging his followers to vote Republican in the upcoming US election and the general consensus seems to be that they will. As America has a very high proportion of those that believe in a creator, the church seems to speak to a large base but why has the Church grabbed Jesus as one of their own when the writings of the Bible seem to point that he represented the polar opposite of what the right believe?
With the help of a good friend with a wide knowledge of all things biblical, we have come to the conclusion that actually, if the son of God was knocking about today, he would be be on the left side of politics.
The most obvious example in the bible is the line: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God' which clearly states the financial views of the creator.
His Leftist position is further enhanced by tales of Jesus running a Commune where 'There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need'. He even told his followers: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor".
Seems obvious enough to me, God doesn't much care for home ownership, what stocks and shares you possess or how big your pension is.
Without doubt Jesus was a hippy, the long hair, the beard and the sandals give that away and his anti-war slogan 'Do not murder, anyone who murders will be subject to judgement.' and his catchy 'Blessed are the peacemakers' show his unerring slant towards pacifism.
So we have the evidence that God is anti-war, anti-capitalist and strongly believes in the equal distribution of wealth.
Of course the left widely poo-poo the idea of God so we wouldn't want him anyway but just nice to know that the man the right revere with such passion was probably the Worlds first Socialist.
Amen Comrade.
Differing With The Left Over Iraq & Afghanistan
Much to my own surprise, my feelings on Iraq are much more in alignment with the Bush and McCain regimes rather than Obama's and most of the lefts. While the left are demonstrating and making loud noises about pulling the troops out of Iraq, my view is that we took a country that, albeit run by a murderous dictator, was a working model and smashed it to smithereens. Five years on and although there have been small advances, nobody can honestly say that if we go now we would be leaving Iraq in a better position than how we found it. I maintain the view that we broke it, we have a moral and ethical duty to stay until such a time that it IS a better place than when we shock and awed it in 2003. To just up an leave would expose the Iraq civilians to the terrorists that we filled the country with and sadly, if the choice is between an innocent Iraqi being blown apart as they go about their everyday business or the UK/US military bearing the brunt, the unprotected civilian should come top every time.
Strangely, the reverse is true in Afghanistan where the left seem to be advocating a surge of troops to combat a resurgent Al-Qeada & Taliban combination. With NATO now seemingly intent on spreading the conflict to Pakistan with its cross border incursions, resulting in gunfire exchanges between NATO and Pakistan troops, we have to rethink our whole strategy in the country.
Rather than picking up an even bigger stick to hit with, we have to swallow our pride and sit down with our enemies. The truth is we are not going to win a military victory in either country, all we can do is arrange to leave both countries with a manageable level of insurgency that can be managed by the relative countries armies as Britain's most senior military commander in the country is proposing.
Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said: "If the insurgents were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this."
We shouldn't be in either country but the situation is that we are and to continue along the same path that we have been following since the invasions is folly and will only mean more deaths and a widening arena of conflict.
Certainly we should be working towards pulling the troops out but not until we have made sure that both countries are secure and our leaders learn the painful lesson from our very recent history which is don't be so eager to start wars in the first place because nobody has ever died through sitting around a table talking.
Strangely, the reverse is true in Afghanistan where the left seem to be advocating a surge of troops to combat a resurgent Al-Qeada & Taliban combination. With NATO now seemingly intent on spreading the conflict to Pakistan with its cross border incursions, resulting in gunfire exchanges between NATO and Pakistan troops, we have to rethink our whole strategy in the country.
Rather than picking up an even bigger stick to hit with, we have to swallow our pride and sit down with our enemies. The truth is we are not going to win a military victory in either country, all we can do is arrange to leave both countries with a manageable level of insurgency that can be managed by the relative countries armies as Britain's most senior military commander in the country is proposing.
Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said: "If the insurgents were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this."
We shouldn't be in either country but the situation is that we are and to continue along the same path that we have been following since the invasions is folly and will only mean more deaths and a widening arena of conflict.
Certainly we should be working towards pulling the troops out but not until we have made sure that both countries are secure and our leaders learn the painful lesson from our very recent history which is don't be so eager to start wars in the first place because nobody has ever died through sitting around a table talking.
Saturday, 4 October 2008
Nailin' Paylin
It isn't unusual for American Presidents to have a movie made about them. Oliver Stone has made just such a film about the present man in the big seat but I don't recall a film ever being made about a Vice President and certainly not before they have their buttocks in the chair but then Sarah Palin's film isn't going to be some big budget blockbuster.
Larry Flynt, owner of Hustler and purveyor of 'men's material', has been busily producing a hard core skin flick about the Alaskan presidential candidate, self-proclaimed lipstick wearing pitbull and mother of five.
Titled 'Nailin' Paylin', it stars 36-year-old porn actress Lisa Ann in the title role who is a certified dental assistant but gave it all up for, well, another kind of filling altogether in fims such as Big Rack Attack 2 and You've Got a Mother Thing Cumming 2.
As yet nobody is making a film about the Democrats so that's one in the eye for Obama, or possibly for the actress playing Palin if she isn't concentrating.
Larry Flynt, owner of Hustler and purveyor of 'men's material', has been busily producing a hard core skin flick about the Alaskan presidential candidate, self-proclaimed lipstick wearing pitbull and mother of five.
Titled 'Nailin' Paylin', it stars 36-year-old porn actress Lisa Ann in the title role who is a certified dental assistant but gave it all up for, well, another kind of filling altogether in fims such as Big Rack Attack 2 and You've Got a Mother Thing Cumming 2.
As yet nobody is making a film about the Democrats so that's one in the eye for Obama, or possibly for the actress playing Palin if she isn't concentrating.
What Did I MIss?
Blimey, dip out of things for a week and everything changes. The top Policeman, the odious Ian Blair, has been ordered to pack up his truncheon and sod off by the equally odious Boris Johnson while Peter Mandelson is once again back in the Cabinet for a third time after twice previously being sacked for abusing his position.
The obscene law that stopped Gurkha's from moving to the UK has finally been overturned and there are protests over a bunch of students dressing up in Nazi style uniforms and making another group of drunk students walk about with carrier bags over there heads in an initiation ceremony. TK Maxx are doing there bit for knife crime by selling jackets with knives attached and Bradford & Bingley are the latest bank to feel the cold chill of the mismanaged financial markets.
Internationally, American taxpayers were finally stiffed good and proper over the $700b handout to the financial markets and Biden failed to knock Palin out of the running despite having enough material to kick her backside so hard she would literally have been talking out of her arse.
A hard right political party have picked up the reins in Austria and North Korea have started building their Nuclear weapons again.
Tottenham are still super-glued to the bottom of the league so somethings haven't changed.
The obscene law that stopped Gurkha's from moving to the UK has finally been overturned and there are protests over a bunch of students dressing up in Nazi style uniforms and making another group of drunk students walk about with carrier bags over there heads in an initiation ceremony. TK Maxx are doing there bit for knife crime by selling jackets with knives attached and Bradford & Bingley are the latest bank to feel the cold chill of the mismanaged financial markets.
Internationally, American taxpayers were finally stiffed good and proper over the $700b handout to the financial markets and Biden failed to knock Palin out of the running despite having enough material to kick her backside so hard she would literally have been talking out of her arse.
A hard right political party have picked up the reins in Austria and North Korea have started building their Nuclear weapons again.
Tottenham are still super-glued to the bottom of the league so somethings haven't changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)