So, we now have some interesting ruts in the garden where the lawnmower dragged itself along.

keep to the Fen Causeway

Rio Ferdinand has denied being racist towards Ashley Cole on Twitter, but claimed that instead he was calling him a fake. Ferdinand defended his response to a tweet which referred to Cole as a "choc ice", claiming that rather than being a racist term it is used in reference to "someone who is being fake".

Ferdinand's latest comments threaten to further ignite the controversy caused by John Terry's court case, in which the Chelsea captain was accused of racially abusing the Manchester United defender's brother, Anton.

Oh my.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

La Razon: Rajoy resistió la presión de Bruselas para limitar el ajuste (15 Julio 12)

Las subidas de impuestos y el recorte del gasto que el viernes pasado aprobó el Consejo de Ministros llevaban semanas en proceso de preparación y «mucho más tiempo» en la cabeza del presidente del Gobierno. Mariano Rajoy ha seguido jugando sus cartas en La Moncloa de manera muy parecida a como lo hacía en la oposición: la estrategia del resistir y aguantar, esta vez ante Bruselas y ante Berlín. Las cumbres europeas y la firma del memorándum del rescate financiero han determinado los plazos de esa resistencia. Desde su entorno sostienen que Rajoy sabía «desde hace meses» que las circunstancias no le dejaban más margen que subir el IVA y meter otro tijeretazo en el gasto público, posiblemente antes del verano. Pero explican que se ha resistido hasta ahora para limitar el alcance del recorte.

«Si les hubiéramos dado el IVA al principio de la legislatura, como nos exigían, ahora estaríamos hablando  de un recorte de pensiones», añaden fuentes muy cercanas al presidente del Gobierno. Desde fuera, a Rajoy se le ha reprochado falta de reflejos en el manejo de los tiempos e incluso en la valoración de la mala herencia recibida. Todavía se le recuerda aquella descripción del proceso de traspaso de poderes como «ejemplar». Desde Moncloa, lo que dicen es que tenían la obligación de «aguantar el pulso» a Bruselas y esperar a que ellos se movieran, con la ayuda a los bancos y con la prórroga para cumplir con el déficit, antes de empezar a pasar a limpio sus últimas «recomendaciones».  

The tax rises and expenditure cuts approved by the Council of Ministers last Friday had been in preparation for eks, and "much longer" in the mind of the Prime Minister. Mariano Rajoy has continued to play his hand at La Moncloa very similarly to how he has been doing it in opposition: the strategy of hanging tough, this time facing Brussels and Berlin. The European Summits and the signing of the Memorandum of the financial rescue have determined the timing of the resistance. From his entourage it is held that Rajoy knew «months ago» that the circumstances did not give him room for anything else than a VAT raise and another coup of scissors in public spending, possibly before the Summer. But they explain that he has resisted until now to limit the scope of the cuts.

«If we had given them the VAT [rise] at the start of the term, as they demanded, now we would be speaking of a pension cut», add sources close to the Prime Minister. From outside, Rajoy has been reproached his lack of reflexes in handling the timing and even the valuation of the situation inherited [from ZP]. He's still reminded of that descriptionof the transfer of powers as "exemplary". From Moncloa, they say that they had the obligation to "hold fast in the armwrestling" with Brussels and wait until they made a move, with the aid to the banks and the extension of the time to reduce the deficit, before proceeding to putting their «recommendations» in final form.  

Last fall, I argued that the violent reaction to Occupy and other protests around the world had to do with the 1%ers' fear of the rank and file exposing massive fraud if they ever managed get their hands on the books. At that time, I had no evidence of this motivation beyond the fact that financial system reform and increased transparency were at the top of many protesters' list of demands.

But this week presents a sick-making trove of new data that abundantly fills in this hypothesis and confirms this picture. The notion that the entire global financial system is riddled with systemic fraud - and that key players in the gatekeeper roles, both in finance and in government, including regulatory bodies, know it and choose to quietly sustain this reality - is one that would have only recently seemed like the frenzied hypothesis of tinhat-wearers, but this week's headlines make such a conclusion, sadly, inevitable.

The New York Times business section on 12 July shows multiple exposes of systemic fraud throughout banks: banks colluding with other banks in manipulation of interest rates, regulators aware of systemic fraud, and key government officials (at least one banker who became the most key government official) aware of it and colluding as well. Fraud in banks has been understood conventionally and, I would say, messaged as a glitch. As in London Mayor Boris Johnson's full-throated defense of Barclay's leadership last week, bank fraud is portrayed as a case, when it surfaces, of a few "bad apples" gone astray.

What does conservatism stand for? What is its core, motivating commitment? In the light of the various divisions within conservative thought today - between, for example, one nation and new right conservatives - some political theorists have concluded that the doctrine is simply incoherent. Others argue that conservatism has only ever been a rag-tag bundle of beliefs, prejudices and vague sentimental attachments rather than an organised, unified philosophy. Nevertheless, the fact that parties and movements thinking of and calling themselves conservative, for all their factiousness, have been such a prominent and permanent feature of the modern political landscape suggests that they're bound together by some sort of shared, deeply rooted rationale.

We can certainly identify several central themes running through conservative thought. The most obvious is the desire to conserve, and a general suspicion of social change. Closely connected with this is the importance of tradition which reflects, for the conservative, the accumulated wisdom of the past. Long-established institutions and practices have evolved over many generations and are thus, say conservatives, "tried and tested". Change, if it must come, should be cautious and pragmatic. Society, for the conservative, is best understood as a complex, organic whole which must be allowed to evolve at its own pace. Other central themes include the idea of human imperfection and the importance of authority for social cohesion. Further, conservatives often claim to value freedom over other political principles.

The trouble, as Ted Honderich argues, is....

you are the media you consume.

A powerful US lobbying group that bankrolls climate change sceptics and leading members of the Tea Party is mobilising British opposition against plans to sell cigarettes in plain packs.

As the UK government considers the proposals, it has emerged the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), an organisation sponsored by big tobacco and other corporate interests, is playing a key role in trying to scupper them.

So I've already contacted the reporter on this, but there's even more to the story.  ALEC adopted a model resolution calling on the Obama administration to coerce other countries that try to adopt plain labeling for tobacco products with TRIPs complaints in 2010.  The agenda for this meeting shows that the resolution was offered by a representative of Phillip Morris, one of America's largest tobacco companies.  Not only this, minutes (see pg. 11) from that meeting show that 2 MEPs were in attendance. Martin Callanan, a Conservative MEP representing Northeast England, and Michal Kaminski, a Polish MEP with what I would label "interesting" views on the Holocaust.

This is back during the period in which Atlantic Bridge was active.  ALEC did, and still does, bring in foreign legislators in order to lobby them, as in this case. These ALEC meetings are always top of the line affairs.  All expenses paid.  Luxury hotels. Free food, drink, and entertainment at various mixers held by corporate sponsors that allow lobbyists to be put into a social situation with legislators.

After being wined and dined, these legislators go home parroting the company line. And it isn't just Americans  anymore.  The cover of "education" through ALEC allows companies to evade normal lobbying guidelines.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg