End of poverty? Think again.

This is an awesome movie everyone should watch. It looks at how illogical this obsession with growth is, looking at historical and current situations from Bolivia to Kenya. Featuring top grade economists. Watch it!

London's Burning, Police Found Guilty.

On Saturday in Hackney an individual was stopped and searched by police, on the same day as a peaceful vigil was held commemorating the fatal shooting of a civilian again by the police. Later, police in riot gear were attacked.

What connections do we see? Police, Pigs, PoPo. Though titles on the BBC read: 'Police Attacked', 'Mobs in London', 'Violence hits new parts of London'; they should read 'Police behind it'. Can we actually believe the sensationalist reports saying it's 'an absolute war-zone'? or misleading ideas saying shop-owners are losing their livelihoods? were police just walking around, casually on a weekend stroll, in their riot gear when they were attacked?

I've been following the reporting by the BBC. It says who: criminals/youths; when: Saturday, yesterday, today; where: London; what: rioting; how: through violence... But why? Journalism follows a series of conventions, as a to-be journalist I will not follow them. Objectivity benefits the right, the status quo and authority. Moreover it is a myth. Foucault would say it is part of a media discourse, itself a product of the discourses of capitalism and government. Reality is subjective, I see things personally, I project my experiences and ideas to every news story I read. The events in London are done by people.. angry at the way they are constantly mishandled by police.

The Met Deputy Assistant Comissioner says: "When we have large numbers of criminals intent on that type of violence [i.e. burning, looting, protesting], we can only do that, get lots of officers there quickly and try to protect local businesses and local people."

A misconstrued reality, the people are on the street. Business will be payed back by insurers.

We have to look at the reasons why the police are being attacked. Last week an individual was shot, this week someone was being searched. What authority do they have? I have often seen police speed, I have been stopped and photos have been taken of me. I never did anything wrong but go to protests. London has been protesting for much more than just three days. Last year there were 50.000 on the street, the year before as well. It's always youth. What are they unhappy about? Is generation Z anarchic and ungrateful? Or are we having to push the boundaries to express a systematic reality. Climate change, education and the economy are all constructed in a certain way. Neo-liberalism runs wilder and burns faster than and doubledecker bus in London. It's in our food, we spoon it for breakfast, at school, on the couch watching TV. 

The markets are currently crashing, this double-dip has been predicted but the brunt of the hit will again go to beneficiaries and workers, while corporations will receive yet another budget bail-out like the one recently approved by "Left-wing" Obama.

I don't agree with attacking the police, there should be a clear differentiation between attacking property and people. Property is inanimate, it represents the state's authority. People act knowing these institutions exist. I don't think the police should have as much power as they do, but this is not their fault as individuals, the police body stands in front of the government in its protection. Any individual policeman is innocent of the way the system works, so they should not become targets. What if they attack Tottenham blacks and jews? London has not fully integrated these populations, nor has the rest of Europe. From here we see the violence these groups of the population suffer from, like in Sweden. Jews were once scapegoats, now Islam is.

Attacking property though only gives the state an excuse to repress and create culprits. On the other hand it brings the point across. The media love a class-based conflict with burning stores.

Refugees are the future. Ours or theirs?

I have written in a fair while, I've been way too busy. It'd be more correct, actually, to say I haven't blogged in a fair while. I have been doing a lot of work for Critic and a lot of planning tends to go in to the political Radio shows -I could fit two or three entries worth a week- you can listen to it on Radio1 from 10 to 12 on Fridays, internationally if you want! Last but definetly not least, the set-up of our political organisation, OGNA, is going well. Although we are all busy, we now have a magazine, to which I contributed many articles. All the mag articles are on the blog linked above.

Right, that out of the way, is it any wonder I have lately been looking into space unintentionally, much more often than usual. Thoughts blank, I stare until I notice my eyes are getting dry. In other words, I'm exhausted! A word I argue is quite onomatopeic. Uni, work, Critic, Radio, seeing people... 15+15+6+6+20=no sleep. Enough of that though, though I'd love to rant, I only have so much time before I'm hungry!


What I really want to talk about is the New Zealand respose to refugees. A couple of weeks ago, the media, which tends to be rather story-less in NZ, reported that Sri Lankans were planning on coming to New Zealand. Normally this wouldn't be a problem. As long as they spend money, they can take over the country for all John Key cares. However these were refugees, economic migrants. There are clear distinctions between the two words, but both imply they will need the support of the New Zealand welfare system. May I add, at one point enviable, now deplorable. John Key is already on a crusade to steal the gold off the Afghanis poorer kiwis. The burden of education, necessary to keep democracy running and society efficient is every day more obviously being thrown onto the backs of parents or students. Medical services are being cut, the dole isn't rising, sometimes I wonder why my taxes increase. What do I get from paying them but an increase in debt and a reduction in pay? I digress. These Sri Lankans, first may not have been coming to New Zealand at all. For all we know, they were escaping their country and we have to ask why... Is it because the Tamil population has been subject to a government aided campaign of ethnic cleansing? Aimed at destroying language, culture and race? This is the treatment the Tamil population has received in the last almost 30 years. Is it then irrational that they want to leave in the most insecure of boats, often paying years-worth of salaries, in search of a better education and a better future?
I think not.

John Key, calling on metaphores of war and behind a wall clearly saying 'fuck off you foreigners' is saying this not just to Sri Lankans or any other group of refugees, he is saying it to anyone foreign to his own mansion. It is a lie to say Sri Lankans would divide society, it already is: rich and poor. I'm part pf the poor, you reading this blog are too. We are part of an economic class that keeps this country afloat. Meanwhile we are forced to agree with the media's portrayal of refugees. It's an us vs. them situation.

In terms of media analysis, at my disposal only TV news, John Key was presented as an individual, standing before the Kiwi flag- holding all our opinions. No Sri Lankan was interviewed. Instead TV3 showed images of an unrelated refugee boat crashing into the rocks years ago (2006, Christmas Island FYI). We see all the refugees crammed, an intent to make a metaphor for the future of the country? Maybe, they are certainly portayed in a negative light. Crowded, loud, crying, different. We are not given insights into the situation, we are abstracted from any possible feelings of sympathy. John Key on the other hand is smiling, he looks honest, he is well-dressed. We are certainly two worlds apart.

The future will only bring us more threatening invasions of refugees. Dhaka's floods, swelling already; or Somailia's future wars. But remember their cries, their hunger, their desperation. They desire a future too. I believe future is based on past experiences. The past is what makes us hopeful. What do they have to hope for if we shut off our sympathy. Are we not all human? Or is it better to ask, are we all not human? Not all no.