The Budget '06

Another year, another budget speech...

I'm so glad I don't have to listen to the rubbish spouted by Gordon Brown.

I was recently told by the taxman that he wanted another £1,000 from me. Fortunately it was a mistake, and I only owe him about £30 according to his calculations, but I'll see what I can do to get that down...

Apparently this year it's a 'green budget'. Gas-guzzling chelsea tractors are going to be charged more road tax, with the most fuel-efficient cars paying nothing. I don't really understand the concept of road tax. Why bother making people pay road tax, when they can just be charged tax on the fuel they fill it up with? That way the most fuel efficient cars pay the least per mile, while also discouraging pointless journeys. Although I do agree that people should be checked that their car is safe to drive and that they have insurance, but if they don't have either why would they bother with road tax?

Oh, and in addition to charging more road tax, some more houses are going to get insulation. Why not provide double glazing? I could do with some, my house is freezing with the heating off.

That said, Brown's missed the point of a green budget. It doesn't charge any tax on aviation fuel, or discourage people from taking flights to whereever they want. (It can be cheaper to fly within the UK than to take the train. What's up with that? Stupid DfT.)
There's no big scheme to encourage people to recycle, or reduce their energy consumption. How about having some kind of competition... whoever can reduce their household energy consumption the most wins a Toyota Prius or whatever car is the most environmentally friendly on the date? Can you imagine the number of people who'd stop using electricity and gas from the mains? They'd be buying canisters of gas, campstoves, and starting fires in their houses, ideally not fuelled by their houses, but hey stupidity deserves to die.

Anyway, I don't like the big lug, nor his mates - not even his non-mates like Blair.

Wafty

Israel

Israel was created at the end of the Second World War following the revelation of the atrocities committed against Jews by the Nazis. This is not to say that the Nazis did not commit the same atrocities against the disabled or gypsies, but that the Jews were claiming that they needed a country of their own in which they would no longer be persecuted by reason of their race.

The UN felt sorry for the Jews and took pity on them. Britain withdrew their mandate of Palestine, and the UN split the area up into Arab and Jewish states. This arrangement was rejected by the Arabs. Unsurprisingly, they wanted the land that they lived on to remain their country.

Now I cannot see any reason why rational person would have supported the creation of a Jewish state in the middle of a bunch of Arab states… In fact, all the land in the world had already been claimed as part of countries, including Antarctica. What right did the UN have to dissolve a state to create more? Surely the people living there should have had some say in the matter?

It seems to me that the main problem with the creation of Israel is that it was effectively an invasion supported and paid for by the UN. This is why the Arab world dislikes Israel, and why their hatred is justified. The UN needs to accept that it made a mistake in imposing the Jews on the Arabs.

To rectify this misguided action the UN must do what it can to create a free state – neither Jewish nor Arab, but with appropriate democratic representation for all. The UN has the power and the mandate to solve the problem. They should have stepped in before 1967 to prevent the wars that followed. I hope they will soon.

Of course the response to this will be that I’m anti-semitic. Unfortunately for my critics, I don’t care what religion or race anyone is. I’ll happily say all races / religions / governments and organisations have all and will all be wrong at some point. The true test of them is whether they can admit to their mistakes and try to rectify them, instead of glossing over them, or passing new laws that make it illegal to point them out – Mr Bush.

Iraq

The stated reasons for going to war *before* the war were that Iraq had WMD and could have launched them in 45 minutes.

In the aftermath, the public have since found out that the 45 minutes referred to battlefield weapons like mortars, which various members of the Cabinet have said they did know, while Blair claims that he didn't. Hmm.. Not called B*liar* for nothing.

No WMD have been found. The UN inspectors don't think there were any to start with.

So the 'reason' for going to war has become 'to liberate the Iraqi people.' To be cynical, but, since when has the US ever tried to 'liberate' people? They didn't even want to get involved in World War II...

I could go on and on and on and on.... but I might get overly worked up about the lying, cheating, dishonest, money-grabbing governments...

The actual reason for the Iraq war part II will never be disclosed to the public. I think it was all an excuse to go into Iraqi oil fields and steal all of the oil. If I had any say in their government I'd tell any and all companies given contracts in Iraq, post-, pre- and during the war, to sling their hook and pay compensation to the Iraqi people for violating their homeland. Unfortunately for the Iraqi's, I don't and the government will be another american puppet, until the USA realise that their behaviour in situations like this is what leads to the entire world hating them, and consequently to the terrorism committed against them.

I don't think terrorism is an acceptable response to any situation. Similarly, I don't think war is a great response either. Might does not make right, but neither does forcing people to be blown up by suicide bombers.

America if you want to stop the terrorists, give Palestine the same amount of money as you give to Israel. Stop killing democratic leaders, encourage democracy - not governments who give your companies the best deals or even any deals... Perhaps even try to be a democratic country yourself?

In fact, make it easy on the world, get out of international politics. You only behave like a spoilt child when you can't have what you want.

Wafty

What is Drug Abuse?

Touching drugs in inappropriate places? Beating them up? Forcing them to react with other drugs?

I just don't get the concept. How can you abuse a drug? It's a drug for fuck's sake. People take copious pharmacopia daily and don't consider it to be drug use - let alone abuse.

Caffeine, Nicotine, Alcohol, Taurine, Ibuprofen, Paracetamol, Aspirin. Why do people care so much about some drugs and not at all about others? It's just an arbitrary point chosen by the leaders of your particular society.

Drug addiction I can understand. The words, at least, make sense. You can be addicted to any drug if you try hard enough. I'm addicted to oxygen myself. Gives me a pleasant feeling - as though I'm still alive almost...

People should learn to be more accurate in their use of language...

Anyway, drugs can be fun, useful, dangerous, lethal, debilitating, rehabilitating, life-saving, pain-killing, or pain-causing. It all depends on what drug you use and when. None of it counts as abuse when a doctor prescribes the drug for you (legally.)

Why should anyone be able to tell you that you're not allowed to take a drug that will make you high for a few hours, at the expense of side-effects that you already don't care about?

Can you imagine the kinds of psychedelic shit that drugs companies would produce if it didn't have to have any medical use? The sheer volume of recreational drugs would be overwhelming.
"Forget alcohol, try Relaxatone - the newest inhibition release drug, guaranteed you'll be able to walk in a straight line at the end of the night, even if you're naked and wearing a traffic cone on your head."

Ah well. It's not up to me you'll be glad to know, likewise with the naming of new drugs... which you'll be even more grateful to hear.

Wafty