Friday, 3 September 2010

Afghan President Karsi seeks to fleece US tax payers by demanding they bankroll his brothers 'failed' bank.

 Karzai urges Afghans not to panic as bank withdrawals accelerate

 By Washington Post staff writers.
As depositors thronged branches of Afghanistan's biggest bank, President Hamid Karzai told Afghans on Thursday not to panic shortly after his brother, a major shareholder in the beleaguered Kabul Bank, called for intervention by the United States to head off a financial meltdown.
"Kabul Bank is safe," Karzai said at a joint news conference at the presidential palace in Kabul with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. "People need not panic, need not be worried."

Earlier in the day, Mahmoud Karzai voiced concern over Kabul Bank's ability to withstand an onslaught of depositors demanding their money back. "America should do something," he said in a telephone interview. He suggested that the Treasury Department guarantee the funds of Kabul Bank's clients, who number about 1 million and have more than $1 billion on deposit with the bank.
The rush to withdraw funds from Kabul Bank, which handles salary payments for soldiers, police and teachers, began Wednesday, a day after news that Afghanistan's Central Bank had removed the bank's top two executives and installed a Central Bank official as chief executive.

Depositors withdrew $85 million Wednesday and $109 million Thursday, leaving Kabul Bank with about $300 million in liquid cash, said the bank's ousted chairman, Sherkhan Farnood.
Speaking in his first interview since his ouster Monday, Farnood, who remains a substantial shareholder, said he hoped the bank could weather the storm without U.S. help. "If we survive Saturday and Sunday, we will be okay," said Farnood, who spoke at his luxury waterfront villa in Dubai shortly after his return to the Persian Gulf emirate from Kabul. Friday is a holiday, and all Afghan banks are closed.

"If Kabul Bank collapses," he added, "it will be a disaster."
Farnood has pledged to hand over to Kabul Bank the titles of real estate purchased with bank money but registered until now in his name and that of his wife. The property, he said, is worth about $160 million.

The Treasury Department has sent a team of experts to help the Afghan Central Bank handle the crisis, but it has so far ruled out any injection of U.S. money to revive Kabul Bank. "While we are providing technical assistance to the Afghan government, we are taking no steps to recapitalize Kabul Bank," said an administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

But Mahmoud Karzai, who owns 7 percent of Kabul Bank, warned that while the bank "is stable and has money," it might take U.S. intervention to beat back panic. "If the Treasury Department will guarantee that everyone will get their money, maybe that will work," said the president's brother, who rushed to Kabul on Wednesday from Dubai, where he spends most of his time in a Palm Jumeirah villa purchased with Kabul Bank money.

Kabul Bank has scores of branches across Afghanistan and holds the accounts of key Afghan government agencies. It was also a big contributor to President Karzai's fraud-tainted election campaign last year.

The collapse of the bank would probably spread panic throughout the country's fledgling financial sector and wipe out nine years of effort by the United States to establish a sound Afghan banking system, seen as essential to the establishment of a functioning economy. This would give a big boost to a mostly unregulated "hawala" system, a network of informal money exchanges that, in addition to serving ordinary customers, also provides a secure and opaque channel through which drug traffickers and terrorists are believed to move their funds.
More here.
Enhanced by Zemanta

David Miliband is last years model; if elected leader, Labour party members would get more of the same.


After recently watching them on a Channel Four News debate, I was surprised at the caliber of two of the candidates for the Labour Party leadership. Out of the five, David Miliband and Andy Burnham have clearly modeled their political persona on Tony Blair, having said this, each of the other three, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Diane Abbott would fit comfortable into a pre Blair Labour Party.

What surprised me somewhat was despite years within the heart of the new labour machine, both Balls and Ed Miliband did seem to have a grasp of traditional labour politics. This does not place either on the left, but it does place them in the tradition of old labour, solid in its support for the welfare state, and with a clear belief in the State being a force for the good, which can be an instrument of progressive change and which can do things the private sector cannot even contemplate.

Ed Miliband supported making the 50% tax rate permanent for those earning £150,000, and was firm about the need to increase the tax rate for the more economically advantaged, whereas David Miliband used weasel words and refused to commit permanently to a 50% tax rate, instead he prattled about equality of opportunity. As James Maker wrote on the Liberal Conspiracy blog. “If he [D. Miliband) had had taken the time to read the National Equalities Panel’s report earlier this year he would have seen the stark conclusion on the success of this distinctly New Labour concept. Professor John Hills concluded that with wealth and income so unevenly distributed throughout the country “there is no equality of opportunity, however defined.”

Ed Milband also defined the need for a more vigorous industrial policy led by state intervention and placed at the fore of his campaign a living wage. He pointed out welfare dependency is not a critical problem facing Britain, whereas a lack of affordable homes is, thus to cut housing benefit is simply inflicting more pain on the victims of UK social policy, what is needed is an equitable and truly mixed housing market, where homes are not a quick-fire way to wealth accumulation.

Ed Balls supported this and was especially strong when condemning the coalition government’s decision to reduce the deficit in a single parliament, as all evidence points to these cuts not only advancing the dangers of a double dip recession, but they also place the main burden of the cuts on those who are least able to afford them.

Diane Abbott was her usual competent self, but it has become increasingly clear she was only placed on the ballot paper, thanks to the largess of David Miliband, to save the LP from the embarrassment of an all male list of candidates.

It seem's to me as a non party member, were the Labour Party to elect David Miliband as leader, it would prove a disaster and end all hope of Labour returning to the Centre left of British politics. Miliband like Cameron and Clegg has based his whole political career on aping Tony Blair. Beyond gaining power he has few actual political beliefs. He views politics as a vehicle for personal advancement and beyond his own career his guiding doctrine seems to be never buck the flow of the powerful, he seems to be as hypnotized by great wealth, power and celebrity as his puppet master Tony Blair.

Throughout the Blair years D. Miliband was able to tac his own values to his master’s, like Blair he suffered no moral dilemma over his support for the Iraq war and occupation, and refuses to admit he made a mistake, his only qualification seems to be the invasion of Iraq did not turn out as Bush and Blair planned. This alone makes him unfit for the office of prime minister, as even a cursory reading of Karl von Clausewitz would have told him war rarely if ever does war go to plan and no one in his senses ought to start a war without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.

Times have changed since the Blair years; and I doubt many people now yearn for a political leader who is suave, sophisticated, energetic, telegenic, yet who acts as a gofer for the media and financial elites and the military industrial complex, as this model has been found to be wanting, not least because it was hard wired in Wall Street and fault checked in the City of London. Making David Miliband, last years model and were Labour to elect him leader the party would get more of the same New Labour crap, but without an easy listening electorate.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 2 September 2010

BILLIE HOLIDAY : TRAGEDY AND DEFIANCE

BILLIE HOLIDAY : TRAGEDY AND DEFIANCE
By Terry Liddle

Ask the man on the street to name a famous woman jazz singer and it’s a fair chance he would name Billie Holiday. Even my 16 year old neighbour, who is into ear-grinding noise of the worst sort, has heard of her. And I’ve just been seen by a nurse in her thirties who loves Billie Holiday’s songs.

Looking at Billie Holiday’s early life it is hard to separate fact from fiction. Her birth certificate says she was born Elinore Harris in Philadelphia General Hospital on April 15, 1915. Her mother was Sarah Harris, who later changed her name to Sadie Fagan and the certificate named Frank Deviese as her father. Billie always regarded Clarence Holiday as her real father. Gassed in World War One, he later became a successful jazz musician with Fletcher Henderson.

In 1920 Sadie married Philip Gough and Billie enjoyed a short period of stability. When the marriage broke down, Billie’s behaviour degenerated. For truancy, she was placed in the House of the Good Shepherd, a Catholic reformatory for Afro-American girls. At the age of 10 she was raped and returned to the reformatory for allegedly seducing the rapist.

Sadie went to New York to find work and Billie was left in the hands of relatives who she alleged physically, emotionally and sexually abused her. She scrubbed floors for fifteen cents and ran errands for a local brothel, anything to survive.

She followed her mother to New York and worked in a brothel. She was imprisoned, being framed by a client she rejected. It came to a point where she and her mother were threatened with eviction. Billie went in search of money. She badly failed an audition as a dancer, but then the pianist asked her to sing. The audience was so moved by her singing they showered her with dollar bills.

By 1930 she was singing in a small club in Brooklyn and in 1933 she was discovered by John Hammond who secured prestigious bookings for her such as the one at the Apollo Theatre, Harlem’s showcase for black talent. She made her first recordings with Benny Goodman and went on to do some of her best work making recordings for the growing juke box scene. She was backed by small bands led by pianist Teddy Wilson.

Among those who backed her, was Lester Young whose mellow saxophone perfectly complimented her voice. He nicknamed her Lady Day, she had already adopted the forename Billie from a popular film actress of the day, and she nicknamed him Pres from president of the saxophone. For twenty-five years she had a platonic relationship with Pres, at one time he even lived with her and her mother.

In 1935 she appeared with Duke Ellington in the film Symphony In Black.

At Hammond’s instigation, she joined Count Basie’s band but she was unreliable and undisciplined and Basie sacked. She was immediately signed up by Artie Shaw. Shaw tried to buck the colour bar, but often Billie would have to hide in the band’s bus eating a sandwich while the white musicians used segregated diners. They parted on bad terms. She felt he had not done enough for her, he felt he had done all he could.

Hammond next introduced her to Barney Josephson who had opened a night club in Greenwich Village called Café Society. It welcomed black people both as patrons and performers. Among her repertoire was Strange Fruit. This was not a love song but a poem by Lewis Allen which vividly described the lynching of Afro-Americans by white racist mobs.

The success of this song moved Billie away from blues and pop songs (she had the marvellous ability to make even banal pop songs into something wonderful, almost magical) to becoming a torch singer. Torch songs such as those of Ruth Etting deal with love betrayed and the subjugation of women by men to the point of morbidity. But with Billie there remained an air of defiance. “I’ll put on my best gown and go painting the town. Baby I won’t cry over you.”, she sang.

Her own affairs were far from successful and her lovers abused her fame and her money, sometimes beat her and dragged her deeper into the nightmare world of opiate abuse.

By the 1950s her voice although still powerful was starting to go and her health break down. Club owners were put off engaging her by her temperament.  Sometimes she appeared on stage so drunk she could hardly finish her song.

She continued to perform almost to the end. Her last album was Lady In Satin where she is backed by the forty-strong orchestra of Ray Ellis. Her last public performance was in New York City on May 25, 1959. That month she was rushed into hospital, even there she was charged with drugs possession. She lingered for a while and then died on July 17, 1959 from heart and liver failure. Three thousand people attended her funeral. That year Lester Young also died.

In 1972 the film Lady Sings The Blues appeared with Diana Ross in the title role. However she sounds far more like Diana Ross singing Billie Holiday than Billie herself.

Even revolutionaries fall in love and given the pressures of bourgeois society on relationships sometimes end up broken hearted. But we can take comfort and solace from Billie’s music much of which defied the alienated society which ill used her and finally destroyed her.
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 31 August 2010

The workers united: The strike that change the world.

Thirty years ago, the leadership of the independent Polish trade union Solidarity, signed an agreement with the Stalinist government of Poland, the impact of which eventually played an important role in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Any democratic socialist who lived through those days, can only have been inspired by the men and women who made up the membership of Solidarity. For they proved openness and solidarity is the only way to engage in political struggle.

 It was a master stroke of the Solidarity leadership to broadcast live, to the entire workforce, the negotiations which were taking place in the Lenin Shipyard at Gdansk, between the striking workers and Polish government officials. The Stalinist government bureaucrats were knocked off their feet by this, as it denied them the type of wriggle room only those with power have access too. These men, past masters at deceit and skulduggery, had no weapon in their bureaucratic armoury to combat the type of open democratic negotiations Walesa and his comrades demanded. Having spent a large part of their lives getting their own way by offering bullshit, bluster, enticements or threats, they were found wanting when they were forced by the collective pressure of working class people to enter into negotiations openly. Any hint of a compromise on the part of the solidarity leadership, which would be to the detriment of its members, became impossible for the Stalinists to manoeuvre. They were quite literally lost at sea, bewildered by people like Anna Walentynowicz, Lech Walesa and others, who actually commanded the support and respect of millions of workers. Unlike themselves, who for all their talk of the dictatorship of the proletariat, were regarded with absolute contempt by the overwhelming majority of the Polish working classes.  This is displayed well in Andrzej Wajda film Man of Iron.

By broadcasting the negotiations live, it also showed the Solidarity leadership had absolute confidence in their membership and vice versa. I hope this anniversary will remind people it was not zoot suited capitalist businessmen, western politicians, or NATO arms who knocked the first bricks out of the cold war wall, but boiler suited, working class men and women with dirt under their fingernails, their brothers and sisters throughout Poland; and a small number of middle class, leftwing intellectuals who worked alongside them; with the trade union Solidarity providing the glue.
-------------------------------------------------------
Thirty years ago, ordinary people challenged an armed dictatorship, and won.
By Neal Ascherson

On 31 August 1980, the strikers in the Lenin Shipyard at Gdansk forced the Communist authorities in Poland to sign an agreement. It promised them – among many other lesser things – a free and independent trade union, the liberation of political prisoners, plural and uncensored media and the right to strike.

Within days, other strike committees all over Poland were winning the same sort of terms from their Party bosses. Soon all the local agreements ran together into a single movement covering the whole nation, which recruited 9 million members by the end of the year. Its leader was a fast- talking, pious, slightly rascally electrician called Lech Walesa. The name of the movement was "the Independent Self-Managing Trade Union Solidarity".

Everyone who was in that shipyard during the strike came out changed: wiser and perhaps with more faith in humanity. This was an occupation strike, asking strikers to forsake their homes and families for the sake of the common cause. The yard gates, almost hidden behind well- wishers' flowers and pictures of the Pope, were locked, and the workers forbade themselves to come out until they had won.

Inside, thousands of men in grey denim overalls lay on the grass listening to the Tannoy, as it broadcast the interminable negotiations in the Health and Safety hall. Outside the gate, women and children waited through long, hot August days. Sometimes they threw bread, salami and apples over the fence to their husbands, fathers and sons. There was paper and duplicator ink for smudgy bulletins in the yard, but not much to eat. Vodka was banned. In one of Europe's most cigarette-addicted nations, they banned indoor smoking too.

The stakes were very high. The workers inside and the families outside thought about the ZOMO riot police, itching to batter them with clubs. The foreign journalists in the yard thought more about the Soviet armoured divisions that had moved up to the Polish frontier. If they invaded, we assumed that the Poles would fight and there would be what the regime's euphemism called "a national tragedy". But that was a possibility the strikers refused to discuss. It was an extra fear they did not need.

The strikes spread and the government, riven by panicky arguments, finally gave way. On 31 August, Lech Walesa – enjoying every moment of it – took a silly monster pen, a souvenir from the Pope's visit the year before, and signed the Gdansk Accord. Deputy Prime Minister Mieczyslaw Jagielski, equally clearly hating every moment, signed too.

That was not the end of the story. In the months that followed, the regime tried to block, delay or otherwise cheat on all the main points of the agreements, repeatedly driving Solidarity into confrontation. Sometimes Poland seemed close to civil war. The disastrous economy fell apart; people slept on the pavements to keep their places in food queues. Solidarity itself grew divided, some blaming Walesa for not using the ultimate weapon of an all-out general strike. Finally, in December 1981, General Jaruzelski carried out a military coup, dissolving Solidarity, arresting thousands of its leading members and imposing martial law. But that wasn't the end of the story either. Solidarity became an underground resistance movement.

The Communist regime, now discredited and despised by everyone, lay on top of Poland like a dying tyrannosaurus. In 1988, a fresh wave of strikes forced the regime to convene a Round Table to discuss radical reform with Solidarity and other opposition groups. A compromise arranged for a "free" election in June 1989, gerrymandered to ensure that the Communists and their allies kept a parliamentary majority.

But the voters found a loophole – the requirement that all candidates must gain the backing of 50 per cent of the votes cast – and the regime list was wiped out. Four months later, the first government in "Soviet Europe" led by non-Communists took power. In 1990, Lech Walesa was elected President of the free Republic of Poland.

That first year of Solidarity, which had begun in summer and ended on a freezing December night, was a carnival which became a sustaining myth. Yet many of the things that made it special have been forgotten. One was the part played by women in those first weeks. The Gdansk strike began because of the sacking of Anna Walentynowicz, a small, bespectacled crane driver who became one of its toughest leaders. The Gdansk Agreement grew into a social manifesto because of a nurse called Alina Pienkowska, who made the negotiators include a long list of reforms to the health services.

And the strike would have been no more than a strike without Henryka Krzywonos, a tram driver. A few days after the stoppage began, Lech Walesa announced that it was over: he was ready to settle with the yard management for a pay rise, reinstatement of sacked workers and a promise of no victimisation. Henryka, shop steward of the city transport staff, stood up and shouted him down. Fifty thousand workers in other enterprises were on strike, she said, and it would be sheer treachery if the Lenin Shipyard left them in the lurch and made its own deal. "If you abandon us, we'll be lost; buses can't face tanks."

There were roars of approval. Walesa changed his mind and raced round the yard countermanding his own orders: the strike would continue and take on demands from other workplaces along the Baltic coast. Because of Henryka, an industrial dispute broadened into a revolution.

Forgotten, too, is the simple fact that Solidarity was a trade union. It relied on a formidable "adviser" team of opposition intellectuals. It was theatrically Catholic, and the strikers knelt at daily Masses in the yard. Deep down, it was powered by old-fashioned revolutionary nationalism: the longing to restore a genuinely independent Poland. But Solidarity, the form this uprising took, was essentially a working-class rebellion.

It was a colossal syndical upsurge based on the industrial proletariat, but a proletariat for whom "socialism" had become a dirty word. It had nothing but contempt for the Communist authorities, but hoped at first to co-exist with them rather than overthrow them. The "political" triumphs in the Solidarity agreements – relaxation of censorship, the freeing of political prisoners – were almost secondary achievements for the strike committees. Freedom of speech and the media were the best way of ensuring that the bread-and-butter elements of the agreement – the independence of the new union, better wages, no sackings on political grounds, getting supplies into the shops – would not be undermined.

Poles today find it hard to remember that Solidarity stood for what used to be called "anarcho-syndicalism". In other words, an extreme form of socialist democracy in which workers took charge of their own enterprises, elected their managements and voted on production plans. That was what the "self-managing" in Solidarity's title meant. This usually went with wage-levelling, to ensure equality in the work-place.

This was the programme of "workers' self-management" that Solidarity committees set up throughout Poland. But only parts of the programme could be carried out. Employees were delighted to fire their useless Party managers, and to take part in long, turbulent meetings about working conditions. But transforming the Polish economy into a decentralised "workers' control" democracy was hopeless. There was no economy left to transform. Industry was running down for lack of spare parts and a huge foreign debt choked off imports, while ordinary Poles spent much of their day standing in line outside barren shops.

For patriotic Poles today, Solidarity's glory is that it gave a mortal wound to the whole Soviet empire. The revolutions of 1989, which brought down Communism and united Europe, "began at Gdansk". Others disagree. The late Tony Judt, in his great book Postwar, wrote that "Communism was about power, and power lay not in Warsaw but in Moscow. The developments in Poland were a stirring prologue to the narrative of Communism's collapse, but they remained a sideshow. The real story was elsewhere" (i.e. in the actions of Mikhail Gorbachev).

But that is only half-true. Polish Communism began to die in August 1980; sooner or later, the Poles would have rolled its corpse aside and – if only to save the nation from chaos – established something like a democratic state. Moscow and Poland's Communist neighbours would then have faced a choice between risking a European war over Poland and allowing the disruption of the whole Soviet imperium. Gorbachev's greatness is that he ensured that the disruption would take place without bloodshed.

But even if Solidarity blew open the gates to the future, it belonged in many ways to the past. It was the end of many things, rather than a beginning.

To start with, it was the last grand uprising of the producers – of the men and women whose labour made wealth, and who claimed a right to control in their own workplaces how that wealth was produced and shared. Ten years before, the late Jimmy Reid and the workers of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders had occupied their yard and taken charge of production. But almost nobody remembers "workers' control" today. The producer is ignored or far off in China, while the consumer is supposedly king.

And the Gdansk events belong to another vanished age: the era of vast industrial plants employing many thousands of workers. The Communist regimes had encouraged giant factories, assuming that they would breed a disciplined working class to carry forward the building of socialism. In the event, these places became fortresses of rebellion, able through their very size to pour armies of angry workers onto the streets and bring a government to its knees. But new technology and the transfer of production to Asia means that few such megafactories – once the bastions of trade union power – survive in Europe today. The organised working class, that human torrent in cloth caps or berets pouring in and out of the factory gates as the whistle blew, has almost passed into history.

What remains from that August spirit, in a Poland committed to neoliberal free markets and individualism, in which enormous wealth gaps separate rich and poor?

Solidarity went through several shape-changes after 1980. It became a resistance movement devoted more to national independence than to workers' rights. Then, after 1989, it became one unsuccessful right-wing political movement among several others. Today it is once more a trade union, with a mighty name but limited influence.

Under the surface, Polish hopes changed too. In the bleak years under martial law, young people lost interest in the workers' control vision. In western Europe, they thought they saw a better system which worked: capitalism under a liberal democracy.

The "Solidarity generation" looks back with mixed feelings. But regret is not among them. If Solidarity had not given millions of people the confidence that by sticking together they could change everything, Poland in 2010 would look more like Ukraine – a dismal mess of failed hopes and dirty power-politics. Instead, it is a stable European democracy whose citizens are often fed up and furious but never passive.

The children of those who fought and suffered 30 years ago have been brought up with the Solidarity "myth". It doesn't seem to have much to do with the world they live in. And yet they have inherited a protesting, contradicting instinct which goes back to that 1980 revelation of what people can do together.

The journalist Jacek Zakowski writes: "That myth, for many of us, is the proof that it was worth being born. We contributed something to this world. Thanks to Solidarity, several million people in Poland can reflect that they did something tremendous, and not just for themselves. In all history, there are not many generations like that."

First published here.

Monday, 30 August 2010

Pass the sick bag: David Cameron's holiday in Cornwall extravaganza.





Far from it being for me to rain on Samantha Cameron parade, as every new birth should be celebrated, but there are real questions the MSM have failed to ask after the UK prime ministers wife gave birth last week to a daughter whilst on ‘holiday’ in Cornwall.
Had the Cameron's pre-booked a private room at the Royal Cornwall hospital and if not were there medical reasons for placing her in a single bed, side ward? Cameron told the media the baby ‘popped out’ and came as a surprise to the whole family. Mmmm, maybe, but this newborn could not have popped quickly out as Cameron claimed, as it was delivered by Caesarean section, so gently lifted out would be more appropriate, this being the case, it is hardly likely this baby came as a surprise. 
Some might say so what, this is a private matter for the Cameron’s, but given the massive cuts backs the UK coalition government is inflicting across the public sector, including the NHS, I do not believe it is unfair to inquire whether the PM used rank, wealth or privilege to ensure a level of treatment which was over and above what the average expectant mother would receive at the Royal Cornwall Hospital.
These are perfectly reasonable questions when one adds in the fact the Downing Street, PR department has been in overdrive since the Cameron entourage arrived in Cornwall. Organizing a series of photo opportunities of the Cameron’s ‘holiday’ and its interruption,  and it later went to great lengths to ensure the MSM gained a photo of the new born and the ‘doting’ father. The absence of the child’s mother in these photographs, who actually did the hard graft in bringing young Florence into the world, hints there may be some truth in those who claim the PM used his daughters birth as a propaganda vehicle
Whilst the MSM supped greedily on this free copy, not one of their hacks bothered to ask whether the birth in Cornwall was preplanned, to gain Cameron as much media coverage as possible. If so the plan has worked, and it certainly put the kibosh on Nick Clegg’s plan to lord it up in Downing Street while the great leader was away. Much has been made of the role the fourth estate plays in holding government to account, but if these events are anything to go by, the media not only sleepwalked through the weeks events, they become party to the Coalition’s PR job. 
The Lib-Dem and coalition supporting Guardian excelled itself, and brought more ignominy on a once proud title, when it posted photos and updates of ‘Cameron in Cornwall’ throughout the week and topped its coverage at the weekend, by placing a front page photo of Cameron in its Saturday edition and on Sunday that of its sister paper the Observer. Saturdays front page was clearly a PR job, and contained a photo of Cameron supposedly taking time out from the maternity ward with a spot of macho body board surfing, never mind the only part of his body to have touched the sea were his feet, his hair perfectly groomed, he strides along the beach, chin enhanced, tummy held in by the wet suit he is wearing, as if he had just walked out of 1950s, Rank Organization, central casting.
The Observer’s photographic offering “would melt the heart of even the prime ministers critics,” or so the ad copy alongside it drones, it goes on to tell the paper’s melting hearted readership, “David Cameron, is, in a single click, transformed from world statesman* to humble everyman: a doting father who cannot believe his good fortune.” The latter is probably the only word of truth in this whole sorry charade, for I doubt even David Cameron can believe the harvest of positive MSM coverage he has reaped by parading his new daughter, as if she were an extra in his latest extravaganza ‘Cameron in Cornwall.’
* I know, it is ridiculous to call a politician who has only been in place three months a ‘world statesman,’ but remember, this is the world of Saatchi and Saatchi, not life as most of us understand it. If Cameron is a world Statesman, he is cut from the same clothe as G. W. Bush, Tony Blair, Thabo Mbeki, Valdimir Putin, and Bertie Ahern. Then again, Putin was photographed on his holidays last year, wearing  a wet suit not dissimilar to which Cameron wore in Cornwall last week, and Barack Obama just loves body board surfing when he gets a day at the beach. As someone wrote last week, David Cameron does not have an original thought in his head.


Friday, 27 August 2010

You could not make it up: This guy needs to get another profession.


An informant called the Turkish police to report that a drug dealer will arrive in Konya on the overnight bus from Diyarbakir. The police stopped a bus near Konya and saw a man with a t-shirt, reading 'Marijuana - I'm lovin it.' They arrested the 40-year-old man and after searching his bag they found 18 kg of marijuana in it. Interestedly, the cops stopped the wrong bus and caught the criminal mastermind completely by chance due to his deep cover t-shirt. A police team also arrested the betrayed drug dealer when he arrived in Konya on a later bus.

BlogThisHere.com