(soft waltz)

There once was a group by the name ISO,
wherever they went, constipation would go
‚Please comrades, no fighting, the fash might get hurt,
and that sounds far too much like that ghastly R word‘
said the I…I…ISO.

When the fash came to Berkeley, the fight they declined,
And abandoned the campus to Nazis each time,
When Antifa gallantly fought the fash back,
‘they’re probably cops, all those hoodlums in black’
Said the I…I…ISO

The ISO are preaching the pacifist fight,
For it might work this time where before it’s been shite,
‘We’ll sell them our papers to take home and keep;
Without throwing a punch that will put them to sleep’
Said the I…I…ISO

They love to quote Lenin and dear Trotsky, too,
Except what he said with the fascists to do,
‘A fighting force led by a strong working class,
Would have us all out on our petit-bourge ass,’
Said the I…I…ISO

Even after that dark day in old Charlottesville,
The ISO don’t care how many are killed,
‘Our Central Committee has laid down the line,
And miles behind it is where you will find’
The I…I…ISO

Each day, we see more workers joining the fight,
Whilst Nazis are turning a new shade of white.
And if ISO can’t catch up to join us and win,
Then with Jaco they’ll find themselves chucked in the bin,
Good-bye I…I…ISO.

Melody

[chorus:] Oh, my PM’s a Womble, with an orange sash and a flute,
And when I’ve seen her lately, she’s sticking in the boot.
You’d think that she’d be finished, with no majority,
But such things are mere trifles in bourgeois democracy.

Throughout the campaign season she was nowhere to be seen,
You’d think Theresa’s on the run from the good old RUC.
the plebs can be so nasty, they won’t leave her alone,
but she’s so strong and so stable that she just campaigned by phone.

[chorus]

The press were in agreement that Corbyn was an ass,
Who simply couldn’t comprehend the British working class,
Everybody knows the workers are turned on by punishment
So behold the shock and horror when they hung the Parliament.

[chorus]

Theresa looked well finished as everyone would note;
Her own party debated: In the back or in the throat?
But our Ms May, she knew how to recover from the flop,
And so she found salvation in the Shankill butcher shop.

[chorus]

But over in old England the folks were really cruel,
It surely is a thankless job maintaining British rule.
‘Don’t call us Irish ISIS, we ought to break your legs;
There’s nothing wrong with ISIS, but how dare you call us Taigs?’

[chorus]

Well, Downing Street’s been done up now, the kerbstones have fresh paint
And everywhere the murals read ‘Theresa we’ll maintain’
There’ll be no more line dancing, and dinosaurs are banned.
Each day will bring excitement from Theresa’s red right hand.

[chorus]

The DUP in government is sure to be a blast,
But still you have to wonder: Can this marriage really last?
True, an hour with the Orangemen feels like an eternity,
But premature explosions are their speciality.

[chorus]

Mr Speaker, these are frightening times. Everywhere I go, I see ordinary people going about their lives gripped by a profound sense of insecurity, even foreboding. As Members of this House, it is our duty, indeed our honour to do something about that. I’d go so far as to say that the desire to improve people’s lives is why we went into politics in the first place. I know that’s why I did.

All my life, both before and since I came to Parliament, I have been guided by my belief that there are no trivial problems. No problem is trivial for those who suffer it. All people want and deserve solutions to the problems that plague their lives, no matter how small those problems may seem to those of us who can claim tens of thousands of pounds in expenses every month.

And just as there is no such thing as a trivial problem, I believe there is no such thing as a drastic solution. Solutions either solve the problem, or they are no solutions at all. All anyone wants, and all anyone can ask for, is a solution that does what it says on the tin.

That is why I, as a member of the opposition, am proud to stand in solidarity with our Government in their bold and innovative proposals to deal with the problem of young criminals nicking things out of shops. Trivial, you say? Then you must not be a shopkeeper.

I have disagreed with the Government on many things, and I am sure I will disagree with them on many more in the future, but when someone gets something right, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge that. The Government recognise that the only way to deal with this problem is to strike at the root. The Government seek to cure the disease rather than just treating the symptoms by asking the obvious questions: Where do these criminals congregate? Where do they plan their attacks on our nation’s economy? Where do they find a safe haven when the deed is done?

I have in my hands the Government’s White Paper, which summarises the findings of their extraordinarily exhaustive review of the available evidence. I hope that everyone in this House, including those who disagree with the Government’s plan, has at least taken the time to read it, because it deserves to be read.

After months of investigation, the Government’s researchers came to the conclusion that these criminals hide and conspire in the very symbol of innocence itself: Our nation’s playgrounds. It is from these cradles of our children’s dreams that they launch their daily attacks on our economy and on the brave men and women on duty every day at our nation’s off-licences. Greater cynicism than this is hard to imagine.

I have yet to hear any opponent of the Government’s proposal deny any of what I have just said, and so I believe I am entirely justified in taking it as common ground. We are all in agreement that there is a problem. We are in agreement about what it is. We are all in agreement that it is serious and that something must be done. Am I mistaken?

I would like it noted in Hansard that not even the left wing of our party disagrees with the Government’s and my analysis of the issue.

Ah. I’ve just been informed that he’s popped out to the lav. Well, we can’t deny him that, can we?

So all of us – supporters and opponents of the Government’s plan alike – agree about the nature of the problem, with one possible exception. One cannot help but notice, however, the gulf between the well-reasoned, thoroughly researched proposals offered by the Government and the simplistic response offered by the opponents of the plan.

Do they offer any alternatives? No, at least they offer no alternatives that are worthy of the name. All they say is that it’s ‚wrong‘ to put landmines in children’s playgrounds. They question whether it’s ‚moral‘. They claim it goes against their ‚principles‘.

‚Principled objections‘ are what separates the pontificating moralist from the statesman. We should always be suspicious of these appeals to principle, because they eliminate options. Moralists may have no problem eliminating potential solutions from consideration based on their ‚principles‘, but statesmen have no such luxury.

Imagine where we would be if statesmen were guided by a politics of principles rather than one of pragmatism and possibility. It hardly bears thinking about, for it is a world where the Spanish royal family might even today be denied their rightful place on the throne, a world where the arts would forever be impoverished because Picasso would never have been inspired to paint his masterpiece Guernica, Shostakovich might never have composed his Leningrad symphony, and Churchill might never have had the good fortune to be Prime Minister in what might never have had the chance to be Britain’s finest hour.

Where moralists can see nothing but maimed bodies and ruined lives, statesmen see the enrichment of history.

And whilst there are no trivial problems, there are always trivial obstacles, and statesmen do not allow trivial obstacles to deter them from great solutions. Great solutions like the Government’s Safe Playgrounds Initiative.

I do not wish to seem heartless here. The opponents of the Safe Playgrounds Initiative do not hold a monopoly on humanity. I, too, feel strongly that innocent lives must be protected, and I would not support the Initiative if the Government had not gone to such great lengths to craft safeguards in order to do just that.

Because I trust that everyone here has read the proposal, I note merely for the record the scientifically tested fail-safe mechanism that is built in to the proposal. According to the proposal’s safeguards, the mines will be used according to a strict formula, and will be laid in playgrounds in direct proportion to their proximity to council estates and comprehensive schools. But it does not stop there. The proposal further provides that not a single mine will be laid in playgrounds belonging to estates in  a council tax band higher than F.

This is how statesmen show humanity, not by closing doors, but by opening the window to opportunity.

The opponents of the Safe Playgrounds Initiative, or, to put the matter more bluntly, the proponents of inaction in the face of the plight of our great British shopkeepers, seek to terrify us with spectres of limbs and lives lost, and have even soared to heights of alliterative wizardry to deem the Safe Playgrounds Initiative the ‚charnel house of childhood‘. This pathetically pornographic, petty pusillanimity, Mr Speaker, is synonymous with siding with those who are sullying the sanctity of our stores. They have decided to take up the cause of our enemies. Shame on all of them.

It is time that we all came together and did our bit to make Britain once again safe for shopkeepers, and that, Mr Speaker, is why I urge this House to support the Government’s motion and implement the Safe Playgrounds Initiative.

A sombre mood descended over Manchester today in the shadow of this year’s Labour Party conference. Faded reddish hoardings, apparently pre-distressed, adorned the area around the conference site of Manchester Central bearing the Labour Party emblem and the laconic message: SORRY. Continue reading →

Adapted from Phil Ochs, Love me I’m a Liberal

Oh, I cried at Sabra and Shatila,
The tears ran down my spine,
And I cried when Rabin was gunned down,
As though I’d lost a father of mine.
Continue reading →

It’s traditional around this time of year to nominate “words of the year“, whether they’re particularly incisive ways of expressing nettlesome concepts or particularly hideous ways of obfuscating bloody realities. I would like to contribute to this fine custom by nominating a candidate for the most inane phrase of the last twenty years:

GETTING THINGS DONE

These three words, in their various permutations, are a mainstay of what passes for a political discourse in the US. Politicians tell us that it’s time to put aside “partisanship” so that we can roll up our sleeves and “get things done”. The media praise those sleeve-rolling politicians as “pragmatists who get things done”. Any time someone raises a principled objection to a policy – say, a multibillion-dollar giveaway to insurance companies – they’re lectured for letting “ideology” get in the way of “getting things done”. There is now even a “movement”, known as No Labels, that presents itself as being about getting things done. “Getting things done”, it seems, is the political class’ equivalent of nirvana, a sublime state of being to which many aspire, but few attain.

Now, politicians wouldn’t say this, speechwriters wouldn’t write it, and pundits wouldn’t praise it unless there was some indication that a significant number of people are inspired by the very notion of “getting things done”.

At this point, a rather obvious question comes up: Do these people really exist? Has our moribund society actually gone so far around the bend that people can be whipped into ecstasy by the mere notion of “doing stuff”? Apparently, there must be. Focus groups are there for a reason.

This raises some even more disturbing questions, such as why? What exactly is the mindset that allows a person to be impressed by this? To me, it brings to mind a condemned man whose executioners are arguing about whether to use the guillotine or the gas chamber: “Enough! Just get it over with!” Judging from the population’s inert response to a government that promised “change” intensifying the most criminal policies of the government they’d just overwhelmingly rejected at the polls, I think this image is probably pretty close to the truth: “Look, guys, I know you’re going to stuff me, and I don’t care anymore. I’m used to it. I’ll even stuff myself. Anything! Just so long as you shut the hell up about it!”

Personally, I seem to be immune to the “getting things done” fever. Call it a mental defect, but my first response when I hear something talk about “getting things done” is: “What things?” and “To whom?”

“Things” is a rather broad category, after all. It applies, essentially, to everything in the universe. There are things that I’d like to see get done, and things I think we should probably give a miss. You wouldn’t, I fancy, be willing to eat a “soup with things in it” (at least not without ascertaining the whereabouts and wellbeing of the neighbours’ pets, and the neighbours themselves).

The maddening non-specificity of “getting things done” raises another question as well: Why not just tell us what things they’re talking about? Why be vague rather than painting a picture? Why not just say, for instance:

‘I’m going to roll up my sleeves and give more of your money to the top 0.5%, and then I’m going to sign an executive order that says I can execute any one of you on a whim if I believe that you’re harming US interests. And then I’m going to make you a captive market for the health insurance companies that 4% of you consider “generally honest and trustworthy”, spend hundreds of billions of dollars destroying other people’s countries, and cut what’s left of your social safety net because we can’t afford it if we’re also going to spend your great grandchildren’s money on a trillion-dollar gift to the banks that kicked you out of your home and raised your credit card interest rate to 90%. And wait till I tell you what I’m going to do after lunch…’

On second thought, I suppose “getting things done” is not without its merits.

Mit Parolen wie „Wir tun’s auch nie wieder“, „Verlogenheit: nicht mehr im Angebot“ und dem schlichten „Sorry!“ will die Paralleluniversen-SPD heuer in den Wahlkampf ziehen. „Sie sind pleite, wir sind schuld, bitte haben Sie Geduld!“ ertönte das Sprechchor der versammelten SPD-Mitgliedschaft gestern auf der Eröffnungskundgebung zum sogenannten „Reueparteitag“ in Berlin-Marzahn.

„Meine Regierung“, meinte Altkanzler Gerhard Schröder, „hat leider sehr, sehr viele von Ihnen, ich sach ma, in voller Absicht an den Rand des Abgrunds, ähm, getrieben. Wir fanden das halt, also, gut. Wie ich den Umfragen der letzten 10 Jahre entnehme, waren wir da, ich sach mal, eindeutig in der Minderheit.“ Daß seine Regierung auch noch den ersten deutschen Angriffskrieg seit 1939 zu verantworten habe, stimme ihn angesichts derlei Umfrageergebnisse außerdem „sehr traurig“.

„Als Zeichen meiner zwar nachträglich zustandegekommenen, ich sach jetzt mal, Einsicht“, fuhr der heutige Gaspromgenosse fort, „bin ich bereit, mir vor Ihnen allen jetzt das Leben zu nehmen.“ Welche Reaktion er auf diese Ankündigung wohl erwartet haben mag, ist unklar. Widersprochen hat ihm jedenfalls niemand. Telefonische Hilfsmittelzusagen gingen jedoch laut SPD-Vorstand sofort zu Tausenden ein.

„Euer Vertrauen, liebe, ähm, Genossinnen und Genossen, wenn ich das noch so sagen darf,“ deklamierte Altvorsitzender Franz Müntefering, der schon immer gern ein offenes Wort von sich gibt, „war und ist fehl am Platze. Wir haben euch alle jahrelang nach Strich und Faden verarscht und geschröpft. Ich frag mich wirklich noch, wie bescheuert ihr eigentlich seid, daß ihr das alles so lange

Parallel-Müntefering an SPD-Wähler: "Sagt mal, tut ihr nur so?"

erduldet habt!“ Natürlich gebe es Schichten in Deutschland, „und welche wir hier vertreten haben, war und ist sonnenklar – hätte ich jedenfalls gemeint.“

„Wir haben eine Partei geschaffen,“ hieß es im Diskussionsbeitrag von Kurt Beck, „in der sich ein Thilo Sarrazin, nicht aber ein Oskar Lafontaine zu Hause fühlen kann.“ Es sei, so der neuerdings gewaschene und rasierte Beck, von Anfang an klar gewesen, daß mit einer enormen strukturellen Dauerarbeitslosigkeit zu rechnen sei. „Wir haben euch die Leistungen, für die ihr jahre-, mitunter auch jahrzehntelang in die Kassen eingezahlt hattet, genau dann weggenommen, als eindeutig war, daß ihr die benötigen würdet.“ Das „Gerede“ von Verrat und Verlogenheit halte er jedoch auch für falsch: „Die Sache ist die: In Wirklichkeit hat kein einziger von uns auch nur den blassesten Schimmer, was Sozialdemokratie überhaupt heißt. Wir dachten immer, es hätte irgendwie mit Kriegskrediten und dem Schießen auf streikende Arbeiter zu tun – so Traditionssachen halt.“

Abschließend ergriff Parteivorsitzender Sigmar Gabriel das Wort: „Und deshalb sagen wir alle geschossen: WÄHLT UNS NICHT! Wer mit unserem Kurs der letzten 20 Jahre zufrieden ist, ist bei der FDP viel besser aufgehoben. Die machen das wenigstens offen und ehrlich. Wer sich aber für eine sozialdemokratische Politik einsetzt, sollte doch lieber die Linkspartei wählen.“ Brötchen suche man schließlich auch nicht im Baumarkt.

Terrenos tomaos,
Momios enojaos,
dicen: ‘los mapuche son re malcriaos,
que aunque tanto plomo ya les hemos dao,
(¡miren que fue caro porque importao!)
y celdas bonitas les hemos prestao,
¡ni nos dan las gracias por nuestra bondad!’

Mi vida, ¡qué maleducados
se portan los mapuchones!
¡Mi vida, no respetan
a nuestras instituciones!

¡Ay, miren que se niegan
los malcriados
a aceptar el manjar de nuestro
hermoso Estado!

¡Malcriados, ay sí!
Que los ignorantes
adopten nuestras costumbres
más elegantes:

¡A los que detestamos
Los derrocamos!

Das Szenenblog Politiski Njeprawy ("Politisch unrichtig")

BUDYŠIN, 19.08.2010 – Auf der Hauptseite des Szenenblogs Politiski Njeprawy wurde heute der Start der neuen Bürgerbewegung Pro Łužyca angekündigt. Die Bewegung, so Pressesprecher Czesław Šimanski, diene „dem Schutz der Kultur und der Werte unserer sorbischen Heimat“.

„Man sieht es, und will es doch nicht wahrhaben“, heißt es in der auf PN veröffentlichten Presserklärung, „zusehends wird unsere Heimat unterwandert und überfremdet. Man kann jede Stadt, jedes Dorf unseres schönen Landes besuchen, ohne ein einziges Mal unsere Landessprache zu hören.“

Schuld an diesen laut Presserklärung „verheerenden Zuständen“ sei eine „schleichende Germanisierung“ durch integrationsunwillige, bildungsferne Deutsche.

Unter der Überschrift Wissen Sie, was das kostet? schimpft der Verband über die „Millionen und Abermillionen“, die angeblich für zweisprachige Straßenschilder ausgegeben werden müssen. Es sei schon so weit, daß selbst Gemeinden umbenannt werden müssen:

Unsere Hauptstadt Choćebuz mußte neulich in Cottbus umbenannt werden, weil unsere ‚deutschen Mitbürger’ (wie sie von den politisch korrekten Gutmenschen immerzu genannt werden) nicht einmal in der Lage sind, einen derart einfachen Ortsnamen auszusprechen. Dabei heißt ‚Cott-Bus’ nach Auskunft unserer Sprachexperten soviel wie ‚Wagen zum Transport von Exkrementen’.

Auch Přibor, Budyšin und Křišow sind „dem politisch korrekten Umbenennungswahn zum Opfer gefallen“. Heute heißen sie Finsterwalde, Bautzen und Buchholz.

Die Bürgerbewegung Pro Łužyca (Pro Lausitz) engagiert sich laut Satzung für "mehr Freiräume für Germanenkritik"

Anlaß der Gründung der Bürgerinitiative war eine Protestveranstaltung gegen den Bau einer Currywurstbude in der Bohata hasa in Budyšin. „Wir können angesichts dieser Provokation nicht mehr schweigen“, hieß es in einem der auf der Kundgebung verteilten Flugblätter. „Es gibt in unserem Land inzwischen mehrere Tausend Currywurstbuden. Sie überfremden unsere Landschaft und verschmutzen unsere Luft mit merkwürdigen Gerüchen.“ Die Errichtung möglichst vieler Currywurstbuden gehöre zu einer festen Vorgehensweise: „Erst bauen die eine Currywurstbude. Dann dauert es nicht mehr lange, bis sie auch noch den Bau eines Einwohnermeldeamtes beantragen, den sie nach ständiger Rechtsprechung auch genehmigt kriegen müssen.“

Dies entspreche den strategischen Zielen der Germanisierer, die nach Angaben zahlreicher Demonstranten im „Komplotthandbuch“ Battis/Krautzberger/ Löhr BauGB enthalten seien. „BauGB ist ein Codewort von denen. Das heißt ‚Baut zur Germanisierung von Budyšin!‘“

„Der Deutsche liebt Karteien über alles. Er will möglichst alles erfassen, aber wenn du in der Kartei schon drin bist, kommst du nicht mal als Leiche wieder raus!“

Dem Zuzug der Deutschen nach Łužyca seien auch fragwürdige Organisationen gefolgt, meint Pressesprecher Šimanski. Besonders schlimm sei die „angeblich friedliche politische Vereinigung CDU“:

Diese Organisation nennt sich in der Öffentlichkeit ‚Christlich-demokratische Union’. Das klingt ja total unbedenklich – wer wird schon was gegen demokratische Christen haben? Aber wir wissen inzwischen ganz genau, daß diese Organisation in nicht unerheblichem Ausmaß mit Schwarzgeld finanziert wird. Und sie können sich hierzulande noch so friedliebend und demokratisch geben – unsere Forscher haben dokumentieren können, daß die CDU an mehreren Bombenanschlägen und Attentaten in Afghanistan beteiligt gewesen ist, und daß sie dort heute noch Tausende schwerbewaffnete Kämpfer bereithält. Für uns steht jedenfalls fest, daß CDU in Wirklichkeit ‚Choćebuz droht der Untergang‘ heißt!

Der Pressesprecher wollte jedoch klarstellen, daß er nichts gegen Deutsche an sich habe:

Die Sorben sind ein gastfreundliches Volk, das sich über jeden Besuch freut. Aber beim Besuch soll es dann gefälligst bleiben. Wir werden nicht mehr tatenlos zusehen, während unsere Städte mit Currywurstbuden verunstaltet werden und man die Vorgärten unserer Bürger vollkotzt ‚weil Rosenmontag is’.