Planned Parenthood can't win

The Texan branch of Planned Parenthood recently gained notoriety in the press for denying a massive 500,000 dollar donation from "comedian" Tucker Max. Why would the fact that a private organization denied a source of funding get into the news? It does when the organization in question recently had it's portion of state medicare funding cut by the Texan State Legislature and the organization recently made a statement announcing that it was looking for alternative sources of investment so it would not have to reduce it's services in Texas. So then if Planned Parenthood is in need of finance and the state organization would have to enforce cutbacks if they don't find investment why did they refuse this massive donation?

Simple answer? Tucker Max is one of the most sexist, selfish individuals in the world at the moment and certainly a toxic source of funding for any organization let alone Planned Parenthood. Simply looking at the career and humour of Tucker can bring up multiple reasons why his money was denied, the guy has made a living and a fortune of an idiotic style of comedy called "fratire" which seems to me like an idiotic excuse for morons like Tucker to get drunk and behave like bigoted and sexist caveman audience, his jokes seem to centre around calling women second-rate citizens and sluts "who will doing anything for money". It's not surprising to learn that people have accused him multiple times of adding to the rape culture especially with jokes like "blind girls never see it coming

It is becoming increasingly difficult to see why anyone can criticize Planned Parenthood for denying the donation from Max Tucker especially when Tucker has attacked the organization in the past, using twitter to post offensive comments about Planned Parenthood a now infamous tweet about "slutty whores" and waiting rooms gaining attention before Tucker deleted it. In another offensive tweet he tweeted that it would be cooler if Planned Parenthood was just a giant staircase with someone pushing pregnant women down them, apparently like a giant "water park slide".

The infamous tweet.

Tucker's offensive attitude to women and feelings towards Planned Parenthood are not just the only reason for denying the donation. Tucker complained about his "excessive tax burden" to his publicist and wished to do something about it that would also give him press attention for his latest book, of course the Publicist suggested that Tucker donate a large sum of money to Planned Parenthood and in return they name on of the centres in his honour, something that would certainly give him a lot of press attention and be free advertising for his new book at the same time, so Planned Parenthood was perfectly within the right to deny this donation from an individual that has been offensive to women, the organization and only wishes to donate to lessen his tax burden.

I wonder what the reaction from the right-wing would of been if Planned Parenthood actually accepted the donation from Tucker Max, would they of congratulated the Texas branch of PP for making some headway on securing it's financial future? I don't think so. They would of attacked the organization for gaining it's source of finance from such an immoral source basically they would of used the entire argument for Planned Parenthood's refusal of the donation to attack them. It's part of the continued attempt by conservatives to destroy Planned Parenthood an organization that benefits millions of American's.

Let's hope that the democrats and progressives in and outside government actually actively defend Planned Parenthood and don't let it suffer the same fate as A.C.O.R.N.

Failure of Anarchy

I've come across quite a growing number of anarchists on the internet and i've always been left confused after conversing with them. According to the dictionary (www.dictionary.reference.com) anarchy is defined as a "state of society without government or law".  

Debating/Conversing with an anarchist is fairly simple especially over the internet. When encountering one a key tool in your arsenal is to ask them to provide an example of an anarchist society that has ever functioned on a regional or local level, of course I have been provided with numerous examples in fact today several people defending the principles of anarchy have given me around three examples of an apparent anarchist state but of course when delving into these examples you often find issues with their defence.


The Icelandic Commonwealth was handed to me as an example of an apparent anarchist state yet the very second this country was scrutinized the example was blown out of the water for being completely and utterly false. The Icelandic Commonwealth was divided into numerous communities called goðorð and whilst this may be similar to certain anarchists principles of a voluntary communities these communities could only be created by certain land owners or people that had gained their title ancestrally these Chieftains would them meet in the Althing (early national assembly) when a dispute rose between different communities or if someone wanted to appeal a decision made by a Chieftain, something that would be decided by the collective leadership. These examples of regional and state-wide leadership and even collective leadership turn the notion that the Icelandic Commonwealth was an anarchy or even close to once to be pure fantasy.


Examples aside the very idea of a functioning anarchist state is pure fantasy to me. Any region without basic laws and governance would collapse into a state of complete destitution, an example of the failure of this system is fairly easy to find and will provide you with a wealth of ammunition to use against any anarchist you stumble upon the internet or in real life.


Your communities drinking supply is being heavily polluted by several large industrial factories that have no qualms with dumping their highly toxic chemicals down stream, the result of the dumping is having an horrific impact on the health and economy of your anarchic community as current filtration techniques cannot filter the vast amount of chemicals in the water and local wildlife has either left the region entirely or completely been killed off by the toxic sludge, attempts to peacefully negotiate with the owners of the factory have completely failed and they posses enough weapons to make any attack against them completely fruitless and once that would most likely end up in the complete destruction of your community. What is the solution? Move into another area? What if the same problem is repeated across the state or even the entire country? Where will you be forced to move then? Could you even move such a large swathe of supplies across such a large distance without being victim to raiders and other criminal elements within the non-functioning society?


It's the problem that most anarchists face, in this situation their is no solution to the problem and the only winners are those with the financial and military clout to do as they wish whilst in a system with a functioning system of governance and regulation, a member of the town could make a simple complaint to the necessary regulatory authority, the Environmental Agency (in the UK) and the Environmental Protection Agency (in the US) etc etc.  


So now we see what a true anarchist system would be like, those with sufficient monetary and military capital would rule over those communities who lack the financial or military power to ensure their own quality of living (river pollution example). The entire idea reminds me of Feudalism when the powerful land-owners controlled the entire life of the less powerful (although more numerous) plebs and serfs.

Iran, Israel and propaganda

As the United States and various more extreme elements in Europe called for military action against Iran in an attempt to stop it's alleged nuclear weapons program it has become clear that the apparent "free" press has become involved in this increasing movement towards military action.

Glenn Greenwald, a journalist for Salon.com published an excellent article that exposed the use of former high-ranking US servicemen to provide objective analysis on issues on national defence on NBC something that would be of non-issue if the same "experts" were not hired by various defence contracts and have a clear conflict of interest with providing the public with information that could damage their employees healthy war profits.

Former General Barry McCaffrey is one of those so called "experts" that has come to notoriety, as it has become public knowledge that he presented a presentation to the top editors of NBC entitled Iran & the Gulf: Creeping towards war" a blatant propaganda piece meant to incite conflict which we can now see thanks to the presentation slides being leaked

"It is in my opinion that we are now in a high-risk situation in the Gulf with a significant probability of Iranian escalation within the next ninety days" - General McCraffrey

This news seems pretty alarming until you read the sentence just below the paragraph which states that the United States Navy is moving three carrier groups into the region. Three Carrier Groups? One Carrier group is enough to cause serious damage to Iran, how do you expect the Iranian regime to react when the most powerful navy in the world is flexing it's muscles right outside your front door? The American media and government went crazy over the Iranian Navy sending a singular frigate into the Mediterranean to meet up with it's Syrian counterparts on a training exercise so why can't the Iranian regime show a similar reaction over a much large task force arriving near to it's sovereign territory for no explicit reason.

A single carrier group (USS Ronald Reagan)

The report also claims the conclusion from an intelligence assessment that claims that the Iranian Navy lack the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz, according to this presentation the Iranian Military could not just close the Strait of Hormuz but also strike GSC economic targets with "highly advanced aircraft" and it's a "high probability" that the Iranians could sink a US aircraft carrier, pretty hilarious if you read other sections of the report on the Iranian military as it views the capability of the Iranian military, calling the aircraft of the Iranian air-force "obsolete" and the command structure of the Iranian air-defence network "weak and vulnerable to electronic warfare"

Strait of Hormuz

Why would the Iranian Navy even consider closing the Strait of Hormuz? Due to the large amount of economic sanctions placed on the country the Iranian economy has become increasingly dependent on the sale of oil and natural gas to a small amount of countries that are still willing to trade with Iran, closing the route this oil travels down with sea-mines and submarines would kill the Iranian economy and lead to de-stabilization that could even topple the Iranian regime, closing the strait would also result in direct military intervention from the oil rich countries which also depend on the strait for economic survival and the United States and i'm guessing that the Iranian regime don't wish to see a large part of their military destroyed.

Stopping the spread of nuclear proliferation seems to be a common trend with those supporting military intervention with Iran, something taken from the build-up to the Iraq war when so called "experts" claimed that the Iraqi regime had the capability to launch nuclear missiles at Israel and other American strategic assets in the region. This report adds to the propaganda claiming that the Iranian regime has the capability to construct nuclear weapons in "60 months" and "strike against targets in Israel, GCC States and US regional US forces" so Iran is going to have the capability to strike with a nuclear weapon in five years? Even if this fact is true why would it matter? Israel has it's own nuclear weapons and any strike against Israel would result in direct nuclear relation against the Iranian state that would result in complete and utter destruction and the loss of tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives. The presentation also fails to include the opinion of the Supreme Leader of Iran who says on his official website

"We believe that using nuclear weapons is haraam and prohibited and that it is everybody’s duty to make efforts to protect humanity against this great disaster." - Supreme Leader of Iran Khameni

Israeli Mossad Chief Tamir Pado has even been heard by Israeli ambassadors and envoys claiming that even a nuclear Iran would not threaten the continued existence of the Israeli state and Former Mossad Chief Effaim Halevy has been quoted saying the same thing and believes that Israel and Iran can return to peaceful relations enjoyed before the Iranian revolution

"What is the significance of the term existential threat?" the ambassadors quoted Pardo as asking. "Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That's not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely."

I think Israel is strong enough to protect itself, to take care of itself. I think ultimately it is not in the power of Iran to destroy the state of Israel,” - Efraim Halevy

It appears then this report is another piece of propaganda made be employees of the defence contractor to bait the United States and it's allies into another middle eastern conflict to bolster their already massive profits with the blood of soldiers and innocent civilians.

Leaked presentation source: http://media.salon.com/2012/02/Scan0011.pdf

UK's failed foreign policy - Syria

Over the years I have found myself growing further to the stance of non-interventionism, researching civil wars and regional conflicts across history has taught me that often interfering in another countries internal or regional affairs often ends up to be a wasted effort and can also cause major problems further down the line, examples of Afghanistan, Iran and Nicaragua spring to mind.

This policy of non-interventionism puts me at odds with the increasingly aggressive foreign policy of the United Kingdom, of course the UK has always been partially aggressive but during the Cold War it kept within it's own sphere of influence (Former Empire) only interfering in places like Yemen and Oman when they were facing a clear danger from extremist insurgents or acting in self-defence in the case of Argentine aggression over the Falkland Islands. The United States were the one playing diplomatic and military chess with the Soviet Union with United Kingdom and other powers on both sides playing a minor supporting role, sadly this policy has changed

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent political, social and economic collapse in Russia created a tsunami of change not just in Europe but across the wider world, although Russia maintained it's seat on the security council it's leadership was Pro-Western and was facing more pressing internal issues to deal with then the  UNSC. The Chinese were also facing issues around economic reform and the return of Hong Kong province and could easily be persuaded to abstain on certain issues especially without the support of their former Soviet comrades.

Although the resolution permitting military action in Libya was allowed to pass through the UNSC, the passage of any similar bill aimed towards foreign intervention in Syria is practically impossible. United Russia (the ruling party in Russia) was severely damaged in the recent State Duma elections partially for it's inaction over Libya. Syria is also a key Russian ally in the region and on top of purchasing billions of Russian weapons and provides a key naval base for Russian naval patrols in the region the Syrian regime is also a key stabilizer of the Iranian regime and keep a relative close eye on various insurgent groups that if unwatched could not just threaten the region but also support Russian insurgents in the troubled Russian provinces of Dagestan and Chechnya

Tartus Naval Base

In my opinion the United Kingdom's policy on Syria seems to have been effected by emotions rather then logic, although the Syrian regimes use of the military to crack down on protesters has been excessive and criminal the United Kingdom acted too rapidly to close it's embassy and cut off all diplomatic ties with the Syrian regime even as far as calling it illegitimate. International pressure from countries like Russia and China have led to the Syrian regime writing and allowing the people to vote on a new constitution and although the constitution fails on several key areas it's a step in the right direction. International organizations like the Red Cross and it's local affiliation the Syrian Red Crescent have also been negotiating with the Syrian regime in order to bring humanitarian supplies into Homs and allow seriously wounded civilians to leave the city for more complicated medical treatment another step in the right direction for a diplomatic solution to this crisis.

Syrian Arab Red Crescent ambulances

People and government officials from various nations have been calling for various governments to arm the Free Syrian Army so it can fight against the Syrian regime however those that know even recent history would know that option is fraught with danger. The Syrian Military has surrounded the city with armour, artillery and heavy mortars in a siege formation, arming the Free Syrian people even with the most advanced light weapons and mortars would not provide them with the adequate fire-power to break the siege. The situation reminds me of the siege of Sarajevo when the Bosnian Defence Force was completely surrounded in a siege by forces of the Republic of Srpska and unable to break out because they lacked heavy weaponry of any kind, the siege of Sarjevo lasted for four years and cost the lives of 10,000 civilians and was only stopped after direct military intervention from NATO under the allowance of the United Nations, arming the rebels could create this scenario which would spell disaster for the people of Homs especially with no United Nations resolution allowing the use of military assets to alleviate the siege.

In my opinion only a concerted diplomatic effort with China, Russia, the Arab League and even Iran can create an environment for democratic and constitutional reform that will end the violent crackdown in Syria. The United Kingdom and NATO/EU powers however seem to have completely forgotten that diplomacy is even an option and considering any movement towards UN sanctioned military intervention will be blocked by Russia and China unless some Hama scale massacre is carried out that shifts public opinion towards allowing intervention. It seems likely then that the Syrian people will continue to suffer for many months if not years as the Syrian security services continue to attempt to quell the unrest and the impact of the economic sanctions is felt on the economy.

UK's failed foreign policy - Iran

In my opinion the foreign policy of the United Kingdom has been a massive and long-standing failure that has declined the UK's standing in the international community, wasted billions of dollars in both trade and military spending and cost the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people.

The reasons for this failure is quite clear to me, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and other Western NATO countries have had nothing to stop them in the UN security council, China could be easily bribed and were building up their regional strength and Russia were suffering from contempt leadership in the form of Yeltsin and a ruined economy, underfunded infrastructure and a dangerously unstable region in the form of Dagestan and Chechnya and so had very little political interest in the United Nations.

Unchecked by other powers a dangerous environment was created that led to the military intervention in the Former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan but led to the failure of the international community to act in crisis spots like Rwanda. Iran has also suffered from this unchecked action in the form of economic sanctions designed to target it's apparent nuclear weapons program, all which have failed miserably in their actual intent unless they sought to drive the Islamic Republic further into isolation and give larger support to the current status quo (hybrid/flawed democracy)

Just at the start of this war Leon Panetta made a startling revelation (most likely by accident) and went off the propaganda line by remarking that the Islamic Republic of Iran was not actively seeking to research a nuclear weapon, something which the Iranian Government have been claiming for years a claim which had been blasted as false propaganda turns out to be completely true. If Leon Panetta and the intelligence agencies he controls can state that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapons program then what is all the fuss and sanctions about? Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979 the West was actively assisting Iran in it's nuclear energy program as it meant they would have access to a greater supply of oil from the country.

Leon Panetta

The answer to that question lies in the country that has been assisting the Iranian Republic in restarting it's nuclear energy program and the country that seeks to benefit from a stronger Iran. It seems that the efforts to cease Iran's nuclear energy stems from both American pettiness at the Government that kicked it's second largest ally in the region and a wish to see Russian influence in the region dwindled to zero (especially with Pro-Russian and Iranian ally Syria seeming to be next to go)

Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant

That's what angers me. Instead of formulating our own foreign policy that actually stems around international law in which case all sanctions from the United Kingdom would be dropped in return for greater transparency in it's nuclear energy program the United Kingdom lazily steals the same aggressive and war-mongering stance from the American Government and refuses to listen to diplomacy and reason, a key tool which could actually solve this crisis to the advantage of the the United Kingdom both in trade deals, cheaper oil and regional security. 

War with Iran coming soon?

Upon looking at the mainstream media it seems that the American Government is looking towards starting a future conflict with Iran, although not actually directly calling for open conflict it seems that they are controlling the situation in the same way before the Iraq War.

A while ago the IAEA published a report stating that the Iranian Government and Military were still actively working towards creating a nuclear weapons program in direct opposition to the international treaty it is still a member of that prohibits the development of nuclear weapons unless permission has been given for purposes of national defence. Politicians and media outlets in the United States immediately jumped upon this report as reasoning to begin talk of heavier sanctions against the Iranian economy with some in that group calling for military action to be undertaken against select targets that are apparently aiding Iran with it's nuclear weapons program.

The thing is that the IAEA report has come under attack for being filled with misinformation and taking information from one unchecked source much like how the intelligence for the illegal weapons in program was discovered. The current head of the IAEA Yukiya Amano credibility has also been questioned with the recent revelation from wikileaks that he was hand-picked from Washington in return for his loyalty

Yukiya Amano

In a meeting with Ambassador on the eve of the two-week Board of Governors (BoG) and General Conference (GC) marathon of mid-September, IAEA Director General-designate Yukiya Amano thanked the U.S. for having supported his candidacy and took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency.  Amano reminded the Ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. - Diplomatic cable 

It seems that an organization once credited with criticizing the United States for it's poor intelligence gathering in regards to Iraq and for invading Iraq on this poor evidence has been corrupted to follow the neo-conservative path to further conflict in return for a few concessions in the G-77.

The war drum also continued upon the uncovering of news that the Iranian Government attempted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. According to the American Government and Iranian-American Mannsor Arbabsiar attempted to hire an informant inside a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador by planting a bomb outside a popular restaurant in Washington DC. Obvious questions arise when the matter is looked into properly, why would the Qud force Iran's most elite division of it's military responsible for several hundred successful operations across the world resort to a 56 year old Iranian-American used car salesman from Texas to hire a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to America whilst he is in Washington DC? How does the death of a Saudi Ambassador benefit the Iranian Government and if they wanted the ambassador dead why did they give such an important task to an unknown and untrusted individual when they could of given the task to a trusted individual within the organization or someone from their trusted proxies and allies in Hezbollah, Hamas and other Pro-Iranian organizations across the Middle East, such an incident reminds me of the build-up to the war in Iraq when officials of the American Government claimed that Saddam had the ability to launch a biological assault against the United States using drone weapons when in reality all Iraq had was old Soviet targeting drones that could barely function let alone carry out any sort of attack against any nation.

Mannsor  Arbabsiar

Lawyers representing some of the families effected by 9/11 are now calling for a federal judge to rule that Iran was culpable in the terrorist attacks committed those days claiming that the Iranian Government had knowlledge of the attacks and helped train fighters that took part in them. This completely flies in the face of all logic and reason when considering that Al-Qaeda and the Shi'ite regime of Iran are natural enemies. Iran have despised Al-Qaeda especially since 1998 when the terrorist group murdered a large group of Iranian officials and even co-operated with American forces during the invasion of Afghanistan and forced one of Osama Bin Laden's son to leave the country in 2002. It appears that misinformation and scaremongering is driving the United States closer to a conflict with Iran.

- http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/10/09UNVIEVIENNA478.html#
- http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/11/iran-and-the-iaea.html
- http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/lawyers_ask_nyc_judge_to_find_iran_Eu0cgc8KhaQaxvSILr10rJ

Libya after Gaddafi

Previously in the Libyan conflict it was the overwhelming urge to either kill or capture Colonel Gaddafi that kept the differing ethnicities and factions in Libya together, they had a united front that they all agreed on and could co-operate together to achieve however the death of Gaddafi could now mean disaster for the region as it did for another country after the death of their dictator.

The differing ethnic divisions of Libya are reminiscent of the ethnic divisions once present in the Former Yugoslavia and similarities continue to exist between the two countries. Gaddafi and Tito both ruled and maintained the unity of their country with an ion fist using security forces to ruthlessly crush any dissent and although Tito was not assassinated his death still effected the once unbreakable bond between the different ethnicities in the Former Yugoslavia and the region erupted in flames, a period of time known for horrific ethnic cleansing and the NATO bombing campaign of Serbia.

Bombing of Belgrade. NATO could find itself getting involved  in another ethnically driven civil war.

Libya could easily slip into a full blown nationalist civil war promoted by the ethnic divides in the country, reports have already circulated that bickering has erupted from within the ranks of the rebels with the rebels from cities in the East like Benghazi claiming that they deserve a major role in the shaping of the country as they were the first to rise up against the Gaddafi regime while the Berber's in the Nafusa Mountains are saying that they are being repressed once again and they held a key role in the taking of Tripoli and the rebels that fought in Misratah are claiming that they deserve a large role in the future politics in the country as the fought in some of the toughest street fighting in the country that tipped the balance of the conflict against Gaddafi. 

Rebels celebrate Gaddafi s death

It's just not the tribes that are causing rising tensions in the country, in the civil war over a dozen militia units, some existing before the revolution and some formed during the revolution pledged their support to over-turn Gaddafi, the major stepping stone to avoiding another bloody ethnically driven civil war is for the National Transitional Council to be able to peacefully merge the existing Militia units into one organized new Libyan Military a goal that seems highly unlikely given the fact that current weapon stores liberated from the forces of Gaddafi has been taken back to regional militia strongholds instead of being given to the NTC.

Only time will tell if the National Transitional Council can over-come these ethnic challenges in time to create an interim government and organize the countries first democratic elections in as little as eight months.