Boomering Boomers

Fuck old people. Baby-boomers in particular. I exclude from this critique those of the Greatest Generation (1900-1940) they killed Hitler – good work. Boomers have had custodianship over the planet for some 40-50 years now and they have done nothing but squander and fuck things up for the rest of us. It’s time for a radical redistribution of priorities. We need to be prioritizing giving these shitheads the middle finger.

Look at the state of the planet. It’s disastrous. Big thanks to the boomers on that one. We knew of climate change as far back as the 1970’s, just as the baby boomers were stepping into the halls of office and taking over the reins of control from their predecessors. With warnings as far back as the 1970’s the boomers decided to kick the can down the road for future generations, and they have continued to do so decade after decade leaving us to pick up the tab. Saying that ExxonMobil lied to you is not an excuse. Stop playing dumb. And if you are that dumb, then, well sorry, you are not fit to be in control and it’s time to move on.

Which brings me to my next point. Boomers like Joe Biden and Donald Trump. People who just won’t fuck off and retire. Guys, you are old. I bet you can’t go a day without partially pissing your pants.

Everyone gives shit to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker for pissing himself on stage but at least he saw the writing on the wall is not seeking reelection.

It’s time for a reality check for these boomers, and a radical redistribution of priorities. In line with giving these fuckfaces the middle finger lets hit them where it hurts – pensions. Pensions have become a gigantic hole in the budget for almost every country. I propose we take these bludgers pensions and put that towards fixing the planet.

It seems only fair, I mean in practical terms they have taken ours. So fuck them, fair is fair. The intergenerational theft of wealth by the boomers is disgusting and is a problem that governments willfully ignore. It’s staring them in the face. As the boomers get older the situation is only going to get worse as well. The sooner we act the better.

Let’s take the boomers’ pensions and put it to good use – fixing and protecting the environment. This kills two birds with one stone. We distribute the wealth the boomers have stolen from younger generations, and we finally pick up the can the boomers insisted on kicking on down the road.

If boomers want to complain, they can sell one of their ten houses which they have accumulated over the years and leveraged against the futures of younger generations.

Boom, third problem caused by the boomers solved since it would also fix the housing crisis. A flood of houses released onto the market will drive down prices or at least keep them stable for a while so that first home buyers have a fighting chance.

Boomers, for all your complaining to younger generations needing to “make it themselves”, it’s time we apply this principle to you. And since you guys were handed an ideal situation by your parents, which you squandered and kept the benefits of for yourselves, it’s time for younger generations to wrest control away from the boomer class.

Have you noticed how the most climate skeptical generation are the boomers? They also the most homophobic and racist. Yikes! Not a good a good look there chief. I fucking guarantee you the recalcitrance of governments to act on climate change is due to the large boomer voting population who just don’t believe it’s real because they like the good weather at their summer vacation houses on the beach. “Oh, climate change disproportionality affects people in other regions of world? Na, fuck that, I enjoy my five bedroom holiday home too much to care.”

So, to redress the democratic imbalances I propose we rebalance the voting power of boomers by reducing the vote of boomers to 0.75. In other words, a boomer’s vote is worth only 0.75, whereas those between 30-50 are worth 1. And to be equitable to the young who have their vote suppressed, their votes shall be worth 1.25. This will reallocate the power distribution in our representative democracies so that the young get a fair voice. Politicians will finally be forced to tailor policies for the electorate of the future and not pander to the has-beens.

As young people it’s time we collectively raise the middle finger to the boomer class. These are the people that ask you how to send a WhatsApp message even though you just explained and showed them how to send a Facebook message (it’s the same fucking principle!). We don’t owe them shit, because they already took everything for themselves.

In sum, boomers as a group are like people who rip a silent but violent fart in the elevator, step out level two, and press the emergency button so that that the elevator is stuck, with the rest of us left to die in a makeshift gas-chamber they wish they could put migrants in. Talk about a bad aftertaste.

(for the record all of my grandparents have passed away, so I feel no remorse in writing this article)

Trumping Common European Policies

I recently wore a Trump “Make America Great Again” hat to a regular political gathering in the capital of the European Union. Now, for the record I am not a Trump supporter. I wore the hat specifically to be provocative, and it worked. Throughout the course of 3-4 hours I received many comments from people.

Two things horrified me. First, the amount of people who supported Trump. Some jokingly of course, thinking it’s pretty funny to wear a hat like that. Then there was the guy who was really too serious and referred to the recent ‘great’ victory in the provincial elections in the Netherlands.

The second thing that horrified me though was the response for those who were clearly against Trump. One girl was shouting at me (in a friendly bantering kind of way) to take it off and saying that Trump is a dick. Good banter – to me that’s fine. What really horrified me though were the two Irish who thought they could steal the hat and proceed to give me a lecture about how much of a piece of shit I am.

People clearly do not understand when someone is being deliberately provocative. I’m not wearing the hat at a white supremist rally against the rights of minorities. I’m not even wearing the thing to push for Trump policies.

I’m wearing that hat in the centre of the white European middle-class liberal establishment – THAT’S WHY IT’S FUNNY!

Some have opined that people do not understand humour. I am increasingly convinced of this. I’d also like to hit on the fact that I am not even American, nor in the United States. I can’t vote for the guy and I have literally zero effect on the outcome of the US presidential election.

it is clearly lost on these sanctimonious patronizing shitheads that they themselves actively support a racist liberal political establishment in the European Union.

Bold claim on my part, but my main exhibit is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), perhaps one of the most racist (and expensive) policies the European political establishment continues to perpetuate despite all of the evidence against it.

The Common Agricultural Policy was established in the post-war era of the European Community. The idea was to ensure that Europe would never again face food shortages like they had in the immediate years following World War II. The program established subsidies for farmers and measures to encourage production of foodstuffs.

Today, farm subsidies account for 38% of the EU budget and 80% of the subsidies go to just 20% of farmers via “basic payments”. Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU is set to blow a gaping hole in the EU budget, and it’s still unclear how that will be filled. Some have suggested the CAP could be on the chopping block, but we know that the farmers lobby is strong and will challenge any attempt to touch their free money.

The CAP is racist because it has perverse effects on people living in Africa, an area still recovering from years of European colonisation. First, the CAP creates distortions in global commodities prices making it impossible for African farmers to compete with European farmers, even in their home territories.

On average, 20% of the EU milk surplus travels 7000 kms in form of milk-powder to Africa. There, it replaces local dairy products in the supermarkets. In Cameroon, a local farmer can sell his for 37 cents, while a German farmer sells it for just 22 cents per litre.

The CAP is subsidising European farmers and systematically destroying local African industries.

The CAP is a policy that supports inefficient and unprofitable European farmers despite the fact that African farmers on average earn $2,989 per year against EU farmer households who earn on average €14,000 (across the EU-28).

This is combined with European trade policy which encourages African farmers to continue growing colonial-era cash crops like coffee and cocoa, and not finished or refined goods like chocolate (it would be shame if Belgian chocolate had to compete on the merits!).

To hammer home the moral superiority, the EU has the gall to throw development aid into the mix when African farmers are unable to compete with European farmers. In 2012, the European Union opened programs to construct dairy companies in West and Central Africa. Hundreds of thousands of euros were dedicated to support small dairy farms and cooperatives. But these dairy farms were constructed without ever being put into operation.

At the same time, highly subsided milk is exported to this region. When confronted to this problematic Phil Hogan (Irish), Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, argued that, apparently, the problem doesn’t lay within European agricultural policy and that therefore no action is required. Instead, he suggested to send Europeans to train local people to use the machines – a 21st century equivalent to the White Man’s burden.

Second, the CAP has devastating effects on the environment. Unfortunately, the CAP is among the most powerful drivers of environmental destruction in the world. Payments are made only for land that is in “agricultural condition,” so in order to get more free money the system creates a perverse incentive to clear wildlife habitats, even in places unsuitable for farming, Hundreds of thousands of hectares of magnificent wild places across Europe have been destroyed.

As we already know, it’s developed countries who disproportionately contribute to global greenhouse gas emissions but its developing nations who will suffer the worst effects. The EU is the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter, with agricultural making up 10% of those emissions. 94% of ammonia emissions, for example, stem from agriculture.

In closing I want to just say, fuck you to the Irish bastards who gave me a lecture on being racist, and I implore people to question who in fact the real racists are. A kid with a Trump hat, or a liberal establishment that proliferates agricultural, trade and development policies which impoverish millions of the world’s poorest people by inhibiting their nations’ ability to compete on the merits and stop their economies from developing.

Not only this, but these same policies perpetuate the disproportionate contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. And when challenged by all this, the best they can muster is, well, maybe we just need to send some white people to ‘teach’ Africans how to do things – sanctimonious, self-righteous and overall, racist!


Same Old Politics

In June of last year I wrote on this blog that I think Trump would win the election. Talk about calling it! But since his election people have been parroting that same line that he is shaping up to be the worst president in US history. Many comparisons are made to presidents in recent history, most notably, George Bush Jr. The truth is that this line of thinking is erroneous and stupid.

I think we often wonder what it was like to live in the past. It gives us a nice sense of nostalgia, the same sort of childish nostalgia we feel when we think back to our childhoods. One of my favourite authors, Leon Trotsky, wrote in the opening pages of his autobiography that this kind of nostalgia was mostly bullshit – for most children, childhood is an oppressive impoverishing experience. We benefit in the West from high living standards and so we can feel complacent about the realities of the world around us. So, when we think of politics in the past we should be mindful that there has never been a time when politics was seemingly ‘better’ than it is today.

We face many problems in contemporary society. The list of problems is long, and the solutions to them complicated. People want to be involved and lament that things were never this bad. They are right in the sense that, for example, the environment is turning to shit and society is doing little to fix that. But let’s not kid ourselves thinking that the outcome would be any different if we lived in another era of human history – afterall it was our predecessors who put us in this predicament. Politics is messy, it has always been messy, and it always will be messy. If you think politicians are bad now, they were just as bad before – at least we are not stabbing our politicians to death in the forum.

It might seem like our politicians are lacking a certain moral compass. When did they ever have one? George Bush invaded a country, killing thousands or civilians based on faulty, if not false, evidence. This is grotesquely more disgusting than Trump sending an incomprehensible mean tweet. All this talk of better times only means that shit politicians of the past look better than they really were.

Everyone needs a large dose of cynicism washed down with a tall glass of reality. Politicians are shit, and they always have been – stop pretending they were ever in any way good.

Let’s put some things into perspective. Last week the glorious leader emperor Trump declared via Twitter that transgender people would no longer be able to serve in the US army. That is to say, he banned 0.03% of the population from working in an institution whose goal is to kill and murder people. Now, I don’t agree with the policy at all, transgender people should be able to bear arms and kill as indiscriminately as their cis-gendered counterparts. Since the beginning of the US-led war in Iraq an estimated 500,000 people have been killed. Not all of these deaths were by Americans, but even so, trans people should be able to get in on the fun.

Let me be clear, I’m being facetious to make a point. People, including Trump, are concerning themselves with such minute problems that no one is even stopping to question and address issues that will affect everyone. So yeah, fuck Trump and his shitty policy, but fuck you all for thinking that its even okay to work for an organisation that specialises in art of death.

Here, ladies and gentlemen. is where we come to the heart of the matter. Unlike many among the elite I actually think society, in general, is very political. People want to have a say. The problem is that we are told repeatedly that they things that matter to us are not negotiable. It’s a President’s decision (with Congress) to go to war, not the people’s – except that it’s the people who bear the greatest brunt of its consequences.

So stop thinking we are living in a time of politics unlike any other. It has always been shit, and in many cases a lot worse. Trump tweets pale in comparison to the actions of other American presidents like James Buchanen or Andrew Johnson who were pro-slavery. Even FDR, one of the greatest American presidents, set up internment camps for American citizens of Japanese birth. The list of horrible politicians is far longer than the list of ‘good’ ones, and even the good ones weren’t even that good. Trump is a piece of shit, but maybe he will be so incompetent that nothing catastrphic will happen under his watch. Time will tell I guess.

Who Is Really in the Centre?

This primary election season has seen the rise of fanatical supporters of some candidates. Paul Thomas is completely inaccurate to subscribe a cult of personality to Bernie Sanders supporters as he does so inelegantly in his latest column in the New Zealand.[1] He accuses Sanders of describing America’s problems in “simplistic terms and promising to fix them in short order through sheer force of will and personality and purity of intention.” It seems that Paul hasn’t actually listened to a speech or interview from Sanders, who, contrary to any other candidate in either race, actually has policy substance dripping with every policy proposal.

 On Wall Street reform he wants to implement a transaction tax and reinstate the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act which will break up investment banking and main street banking. His point in doing so is that another financial crash will decimate the American economy and lurch, not only America, but the rest of the world, into an economic depression the likes of which has never been experienced before in modern history. He shares the opinions of both Democrats and Republicans that Main Street should not have to bail out Wall Street. Clinton does even think there is a problem and proudly takes money from Wall Street anf gives speeches, the transcripts of which she still refuses to release.

Sanders, although labelled a leftist, is spectacularly in the centre. Consider that in New Zealand and in almost every other developed nation, healthcare is in some form or another provided free by the state. Even Cuba, the poor neighbour to the south has a better healthcare system than America in many aspects. Sanders’ healthcare reform is therefore a centrist policy that is desired by the overwhelming majority of Americans on both political spectrums. Over 2000 doctors have come out in support of Sanders saying that he has the right policy towards Healthcare.[2] 58% of the American public in a recent Gallup pole support a healthcare system similar to that proposed by Bernie.[11]

His policy for free college education is not revolutionary either. Many European countries also give free or heavily subsidised college education to their countries’ young people. Critics claim that such policies are a socialist pipe dream and are unaffordable. Sanders has already explained he will pay for this policy through his tax on Wall Street speculation. Regardless, it just a matter of priorities. By 2025, the war in Iraq, a war that should never have been waged, will have cost the United States Treasury $5 trillion. The United States is the richest country in the history of human civilisation. To claim there is not enough money in the face of clear facts that say otherwise is just plain ignorance.

On the issue of the minimum wage Sanders is also dead in the centre of the American public’s opinions. A new poll from public policy[3] found that:

“78% of voters nationally support increasing the minimum wage to at least $10 an hour, and 49% support going to at least $12 an hour. Only 10% think the current minimum wage is fine, and another 10% think there should be no minimum wage at all. 95% of Democrats, 69% of independents, and 61% of Republicans support a hike at least to $10 an hour.”

These are pretty compelling polling results in favour of a minimum wage increase. The fact that politicians in Washington refuse to do so explains the damning approval rating of Congress of just 4%. Sanders is characterized as the crazy leftist for having policies that the American people actually want and make sense by international standards. Issue after issue, Sanders’ policies actually reflect the majority of opinions in America. If he was elected to office and implemented his policies, he might be the first American president since Roosevelt that reflected the will of the American public.

There is this fake illusion that Clinton is the favoured candidate across the board. Pundits like Paul Thomas need to get their head out of the sand and actually consult polling data. The scary thing he will find is that Trump is surging at the moment and drawing close to Clinton’s lead.[4] In a general election the result is almost a coin flip. Clinton can so easily lose this election (to read why click here). What Paul will find more surprising perhaps is that in a head to head race Sanders has a lead over Trump by almost 14 points.[6] Thomas’ account of events cannot account for this.

It is hardly inaccurate either for Sanders to characterise the system as corrupt. It quite clearly is. In so many of the primary races this year Bernie supporters have had their vote’s suppressed. In the critical New York primary, for example, two counties which were likely going to vote Bernie, had their polling station hours changed literally the day before from 6am to 9pm to 12pm to 9pm.[7] This gave Clinton supports in the other counties 6 extra hours to get out and vote. Moreover, independents, a vital part of Sanders’ campaign were not allowed to vote in the primary.[8] There are countless other examples of political corruption in the system. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is not corrupt. For example, former tax lobbyists are now drafting the new laws on tax avoidance. It is not hard to figure who they are going to favour.[9]

Sanders isn’t running a personality cult, his positions are supported by the polling data and actually the consensus in America. The problem is precisely as Sanders has described so many times, the corruption in Washington is such that the lawmakers do not represent the positions of the American people at all.[10] Sanders doesn’t have to pay online trolls $1 million to spread lies and misinformation as the Clinton campaign has been doing over the last couple of months. Sanders actually stands with the majority of the American people. Clinton stands squarely within the Washington establishment bubble of special interests and lobbyists. Who then really is the outsider?

Paul Thomas, like so many of the other pundits out there are just plain wrong when they write these fluff pieces to make Clinton look like the sane person in the room, when she clearly isn’t. Her policies are vacuous and at times she is more like Trump when we don’t actually know what her policy positions are because she flip flops so often. When she is elected we can be sure she will continue to destabilise the Middle East, screw over the middle class bringing in only incremental change while keeping Wall Street deregulated so that when the next crash comes as is due, the American people will have to bail out again the excesses of the rich.

Sources (because I actually do research)











How Donald Trump Will Win The Presidency

Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States of America and I am not even sad about it. There are various reasons I think this will happen. With the Republican nomination locked up by Trump, and Clinton having clinched the important races in New York and Pennsylvania, the upcoming 2016 presidential race looks as though it will be a race between Trump and Clinton. For those of us who live on the outside of this madhouse anyone would think Clinton is a shoe in. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Consider that from the outset no one thought Trump would get as far as New Hampshire. Then he trounced his opposition there and commentators moved the goalposts to Arizona. Then New York, and as the other republican nominees have dropped out people are pinching themselves, asking what the hell is happening. Now he is the presumptive nominee after Cruz and Kasich both dropped out.

Meanwhile the rest of the world holds its breath to see who will have their hand on the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and wielding the fist of the greatest military power in human history.

Many people fear Donald Trump and don’t understand how he is so popular. It’s no surprise to some though. The vast majority of people in America are hurting, and for the first time, since perhaps the Great Depression, the people are waking up to this fact. Then they look to the political establishment and all they see are a bunch of greedy corrupt politicians which do not serve their interests. Hillary Clinton exemplifies this establishment to a ‘T’. When it comes time for America to decide I sure won’t be surprised if Trump takes it out.

Trump is a person like Bernie Sanders who sits on the outside of establishment politics. He is the quintessential Republican and is winning because he is the only person on the Republican stage who at least gives attention to the problems facing America. Foreign wars that have cost the tax payer trillions and trade deals that have shipped millions of decent paying jobs overseas are two issues that Sanders and Trump agree on.

Their solutions are completely different, but the Republican establishment has forgotten that the American people don’t actually like war, and when they say less government they mean stop spending tax dollars on expensive wars. This is an issue if pressed is an area that Trump will be able to soak up many independent votes, which in a recent Gallup poll showed make up a whopping 42% of voters.

Secondly, and perhaps more worryingly for the Democrats, is Hillary’s record on Wall Street donations. Combined, the Clintons (Bill and Hillary) have raised almost $3 billion dollars in campaign contributions in their lifetime. There is already the perception that Washington is corrupt.

$3 billion dollars would more than suggest that Clinton is corrupt.

Trump on the other hand is self-financed, utilising the immense wealth he has inherited from his father and with which he has been able to forge out a relatively small business empire. For many Americans this is a sign of virtue. We should never lose sight of the fact that many people, especially in consumerist America, see wealth as a virtue, and the wealthy virtuous.

In the debates Trump will be able to stand in front of Clinton and accuse her of corruption all day long. She has no real comeback to this and it looks as if she will lose that battle every time. Moreover, there is also the issue of the pending investigation against her that Trump will be able to take shots at all day long.

The Democratic primary has also revealed another of Hillary’s weaknesses – youth voters. While she might get the majority of older voters, almost all young voters in the age brackets 18-25 and 25-32 have come out in huge numbers for Sanders. In addition, Sanders has attracted most of the independents in the states that allow open primaries. These groups have helped him to do so well.

It is no coincidence that these groups have come out in support of a man who actually wants to serve their needs. Unfortunately for Hillary, Trump also shares some of these ideas especially on foreign policy, nor is it clear that Sanders’ supporters will come out to vote for Hillary in the general – 44% of Bernie supporters polled said they disliked Hillary so much they would rather vote for Trump. This bodes well for Trump who will need a low voter turnout to win. Along the way he could also snatch a few independent votes, and next thing you know, he will have his hand on the book being sworn into office.

Given Clinton’s track record so far this election season, and the mainstream media’s complete and utter incompetence in dealing with reality it is a real possibility that Trump will win the next election. Those who think that Clinton will easily defeat Trump need to wake up and smell the coffee beans on this one.

Another possibility is the unlikely chance that Mitt Romney runs on a third party ticket in an attempt to stop Trump. If this happens the door is then left open for Sanders to run on fourth ticket, thereby splitting both the left and the right’s votes. This scenario is unlikely however. I’m not sad that Trump might win either, it just brings the world one step closer to a revolution.

 A good source:

Journalists Unable To Get Basic Facts Correct

Larry Williams is perhaps the most incompetent journalist in the New Zealand media. He can’t even read a news article from a US source to check whether his facts and analysis of Super Tuesday were correct. This casts serious doubt over Larry’s ability to give an accurate information which is a pretty vital job for a journalist.

The most glaring inaccuracy was reporting Rubio didn’t win any states. Wrong, he won Minnesota. Did Williams even bother to check the results of the caucus elections before he wrote his article piece? It’s your job as a journalist to report the news accurately and from there base your analysis. It isn’t to just repeat what other media outlets are saying (which conveniently have all anointed Clinton the nominee on the Democratic side).

He also states:

“If I was a betting guy, I’d be punting the house on a Trump v Clinton Presidential race.”

While this is perhaps almost certain for the Republican nominee, the same can’t be said for the Democrats. In the build up to Super Tuesday, Hillary was already a sure bet to sweep the south, as was Sanders in his home state of Vermont. The toss up states is where the real battle went down. Sanders ended up taking out three of the four: Oklahoma, Colorado and Minnesota. Hillary won in a close race in Massachusetts beating Bernie by just won percentage point.

From there the election for the Democratic nominee is still a close race. The race is only going to get easier for Bernie here on out as the campaign trail leaves behind the south where Clinton’s base of support is. Sanders still has a long way to win the nomination however, but his polling with young voters and whites trounces Clinton who is currently still polling well with blacks, women, and the middle aged and elderly. Since the beginning of this race Bernie has been closing the lead, and the longer he stays in the narrower the gap will become. Some polls nationally even have him beating Clinton.

Williams has also failed to take into consideration that caucus elections are not done on a first past the post system. Instead the proportional system means that even though Sanders lost Massachusetts by one percentage point, it means Clinton only beat him by one or two delegates. This means Sanders’ loss was not a giant one. He still took something away from it.

The problem with Williams’ article is the sum of its parts. Bad reporting of basic facts and lazy analysis of the race itself without giving any real detail or substance to ground his opinion. It’s difficult to see if Williams has actually had an original thought in this article. At university almost all essays are vetted before they are marked to check for plagiarism. I don’t think Williams knows what that word is. It looks as though Williams just read two or three articles from mainstream outlets and based his opinions on them, essentially copying them for substance whilst throwing some New Zealand mannerisms into the mix. Reading mainstream outlets is okay, but a real journalist offering his opinion would also look at the data himself and check a wider range of sources before putting pen to paper.

Larry Williams, in sum, is simply a lazy incompetent reporter. He doesn’t deserve to work as a journalist or commentator at a supposedly respectable news agent if all he produces are plagiarised ideas from a narrow band of sources while also misreporting the facts. How can anyone trust the word of Larry Williams if he can’t even get basic facts correct which would have taken thirty seconds to verify. Nor does he offer any substantial analysis of the issue at hand. Shouldn’t we expect more from our news sources, especially in New Zealand where we are restricted to just a handful? Larry is not alone. I fear there are a great many shallow, incompetent journalists and commentators out there in the world of New Zealand media that haven’t a clue what their job is actually meant to be.

The caucus races have been serious entertainment this year. No one expected either Sanders of Trump to be doing this well. Larry is likely correct though. Clinton will most likely be the Democratic candidate for President on the Democratic side. However, his article gives no real reason to believe that. I am only asserting this because I am well informed on the issue. Reading Williams’ article, the average reader has no real reason to believe that either Clinton or Trump will win the nomination. Therein lays the problem. Larry Williams’ article is just rubbish.