redearedrabbit.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
192.0.78.25
Public Scan
URL:
https://redearedrabbit.com/
Submission: On October 24 via api from US — Scanned from US
Submission: On October 24 via api from US — Scanned from US
Form analysis 5 forms found in the DOM
GET https://redearedrabbit.com/
<form method="get" id="searchform" action="https://redearedrabbit.com/">
<div><label class="hidden" for="s">Search:</label>
<input type="text" value="" name="s" id="s">
<input type="submit" id="searchsubmit" value="Go">
</div>
</form>POST https://subscribe.wordpress.com
<form action="https://subscribe.wordpress.com" method="post" accept-charset="utf-8" data-blog="13424536" data-post_access_level="everybody" id="subscribe-blog">
<p id="subscribe-email">
<label id="subscribe-field-label" for="subscribe-field" class="screen-reader-text"> Email Address: </label>
<input type="email" name="email" style="width: 95%; padding: 1px 10px" placeholder="Email Address" value="" id="subscribe-field" required="">
</p>
<p id="subscribe-submit">
<input type="hidden" name="action" value="subscribe">
<input type="hidden" name="blog_id" value="13424536">
<input type="hidden" name="source" value="https://redearedrabbit.com/">
<input type="hidden" name="sub-type" value="widget">
<input type="hidden" name="redirect_fragment" value="subscribe-blog">
<input type="hidden" id="_wpnonce" name="_wpnonce" value="c2c0c9b52e"> <button type="submit" class="wp-block-button__link"> Subscribe </button>
</p>
</form>POST https://subscribe.wordpress.com
<form method="post" action="https://subscribe.wordpress.com" accept-charset="utf-8" style="display: none;">
<div class="actnbr-follow-count">Join 1,753 other followers</div>
<div>
<input type="email" name="email" placeholder="Enter your email address" class="actnbr-email-field" aria-label="Enter your email address">
</div>
<input type="hidden" name="action" value="subscribe">
<input type="hidden" name="blog_id" value="13424536">
<input type="hidden" name="source" value="https://redearedrabbit.com/">
<input type="hidden" name="sub-type" value="actionbar-follow">
<input type="hidden" id="_wpnonce" name="_wpnonce" value="c2c0c9b52e">
<div class="actnbr-button-wrap">
<button type="submit" value="Sign me up"> Sign me up </button>
</div>
</form><form id="jp-carousel-comment-form">
<label for="jp-carousel-comment-form-comment-field" class="screen-reader-text">Write a Comment...</label>
<textarea name="comment" class="jp-carousel-comment-form-field jp-carousel-comment-form-textarea" id="jp-carousel-comment-form-comment-field" placeholder="Write a Comment..."></textarea>
<div id="jp-carousel-comment-form-submit-and-info-wrapper">
<div id="jp-carousel-comment-form-commenting-as">
<fieldset>
<label for="jp-carousel-comment-form-email-field">Email (Required)</label>
<input type="text" name="email" class="jp-carousel-comment-form-field jp-carousel-comment-form-text-field" id="jp-carousel-comment-form-email-field">
</fieldset>
<fieldset>
<label for="jp-carousel-comment-form-author-field">Name (Required)</label>
<input type="text" name="author" class="jp-carousel-comment-form-field jp-carousel-comment-form-text-field" id="jp-carousel-comment-form-author-field">
</fieldset>
<fieldset>
<label for="jp-carousel-comment-form-url-field">Website</label>
<input type="text" name="url" class="jp-carousel-comment-form-field jp-carousel-comment-form-text-field" id="jp-carousel-comment-form-url-field">
</fieldset>
</div>
<input type="submit" name="submit" class="jp-carousel-comment-form-button" id="jp-carousel-comment-form-button-submit" value="Post Comment">
</div>
</form>POST
<form method="post">
<input type="submit" value="Close and accept" class="accept"> Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. <br> To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: <a href="https://automattic.com/cookies/" rel="nofollow">
Cookie Policy </a>
</form>Text Content
REDEAREDRABBIT
Look on my works, ye Mighty and despair.
Search:
* Home
Posts Comments
* Politics
* Economics
* Uncategorized
* 10 Posts You Should Read
* Miscellaneous
* Twitter
* Genius
* Surveys
ONE DAY A LEMMING WILL FLY
16/10/2018 Leave a comment
I do wonder how different the world would be today if Bernie Sanders had become
President instead of Donald Trump. It would certainly be a lot better for
millions of poor American voters who, instead of voting for higher taxes on the
wealthy and more wealth distribution, voted for the complete opposite. Strangely
though, if given the opportunity again today, most of them would vote the same
way as they did in 2016.
Stuff like this gives economists a headache. It’s much easier to base economic
models on the idea that people behave in ways that make them better off, as
opposed to looking for ways to shoot themselves in the foot.
Although tricky, it’s important for us to accept that people do behave like this
and it’s also important to think about what we can do about it. So, since I have
your ear, I’ll give it a go.
Deep down, Bernie knew he wouldn’t win. Of course he believed his policies would
benefit more voters than the policies of Donald or Hillary but still, he knew he
wouldn’t win. The USA is very right-wing country and there are a huge number of
well-funded, well-organised lobby groups that exist to keep it that way. In the
context of American politics, Bernie’s policies were extreme and he would have
known that convincing a sufficient number of voters of such a radical change in
direction would likely be impossible.
So was it a waste of time? Absolutely not. Bernie ended up doing extremely well
in the circumstances and while he failed to win the nomination, he did achieve
something else – he made it a little bit easier for the next Bernie. His
achievement was to chip away marginally at the status quo. The next Bernie won’t
win either but next time around, the same policies will be a little more
mainstream. One Bernie alone won’t bring policies of equality to the United
States. You need a lot of them. The first few will fail, perhaps the first many
will fail. Eventually one will succeed.
The problem, of course, isn’t in finding people who agree with the policies –
they weren’t really that extreme. The problem is finding people who have the
guts to be the first ones over the cliff, knowing that their chances of being
the first successful Bernie are slim at best.
Anyway, the Brexit mess is still rolling down the hill, like a giant snowball of
poop, and a lot of people have been asking me if I am in favour of a People’s
Vote. It’s essentially a second referendum in which the voters, this time
around, would have the added benefit of knowing the actual alternative they
could vote for.
To be honest, I struggle to have enthusiasm for it.
What should be abundantly clear to everyone by this point, is that there is no
good alternative to EU membership. The possible outcomes if we leave the EU are
a shitty deal that leaves everyone worse off, or no deal at all, which leaves
everyone even worse off than that.
Given those options or a People’s Vote, then yes, I’d rather have the vote.
Let’s roll the dice again – it can’t be any worse. We would, however, get a few
months of Boris, Gove, Rees-Mogg, The Daily Mail, The Sun and the rest of them,
in full bullshit propaganda mode. Add into that a fallacy of the human brain –
people are very bad at admitting when they were wrong – and we will end up
having another uninformed vote.
It’s not inconceivable to think that such a campaign could result in people
voting for no deal at all and us ending up worse off than if, after the first
vote, we’d just called, “Stick”.
What’s my alternative suggestion? Thank you for asking – it’s very simple but we
will need some help from our politicians.
Our politicians have to have the guts to stand up and say something like this:
> We have taken on board the result of the referendum. We have spent two years
> working on it, trying to find out how we could make this work for the country.
> The result is, that it doesn’t. Deal or no deal, there is no way to enact
> departure from the EU without causing significant hurt to the economy and
> citizens of the country.
> We looked at it – for two years, we really did look very hard at it. But it’s
> a bad idea and we’re not doing it.
One MP doing this alone won’t make a difference – we’re going to need a bunch of
them. If they take this position in sufficient numbers then we have an
opportunity to avoid an utterly unnecessary catastrophe.
The problem, of course, isn’t in finding people who agree with remaining – the
majority of MPs were in favour of that to begin with.
The problem is finding politicians who have the guts to be the first ones over
the cliff.
RedEaredRabbit
Advertisements
Powered by wordads.co
We've received your report.
Thanks for your feedback!
Seen too often
Not relevant
Offensive
Broken
Report this ad
Filed under Economics, Politics, Uncategorized Tagged with Brexit
CHAOS
11/01/2018 Leave a comment
Come back, David Cameron, all is forgiven!
Ok, ok. Maybe not all is forgiven. For example, it would be hard to forgive
austerity, which just pushed the cost of the financial crisis onto the poor,
while delaying economic recovery by several years. Yeah, fair enough, it would
be hard to forgive that.
Also, it is pretty hard to forgive causing Brexit in order to win a general
election…
Ok, screw it. None of it is forgiven but come back anyway, if the alternative is
the chaos that is the current government.
Yesterday, the news was that David Davis was heading off to Europe to tell the
EU negotiators that if they didn’t give the UK a very beneficial, bespoke trade
agreement, we would all be plunged into another 2008-style financial crisis!
(I’m sure he achieved a very small erection when he told us all how tough he was
going to be.)
I, however was unimpressed. (Not by his erection, I was indifferent to that. I
mean I was unimpressed with his decision to use a financial crisis argument.)
The problem I have with a financial crisis argument, is that he said exactly the
opposite during the referendum campaign. Voters were continually reassured by
David and his fellow leave campaigners that talk of recession was a simple case
of scaremongering by the remain campaign. It was Project Fear and nothing more.
So.. umm.. the fear mongers were right after all? Or is David just making things
up as he goes along? Or does he just have no idea what he’s doing?
I’ll leave you to decide, but (SPOILERS) don’t assume those are mutually
exclusive.
Throughout the entire process David has publicly displayed how out of his depth
he is. In fact, every time he has anything to say about the Brexit negotiations,
I can’t feel angry, I just feel embarrassed for him.
It’s like confidently telling the press that you’ll easily beat Garry Kasparov
at chess, then sitting down to play and calling the knight a horsey and asking
which ones the prawns are.
He has history of course. In July 2016, shortly after the referendum result,
David wrote this:
So be under no doubt: we can do deals with our trading partners, and we can do
them quickly. I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to
immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most
favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of
them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months.
So within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be
complete, and before anything we can negotiate a free trade area massively
larger than the EU. Trade deals with the US and China alone will give us a trade
area almost twice the size of the EU, and of course we will also be seeking
deals with Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, the UAE, Indonesia – and
many others.
With eight months of the 24 to go, we have negotiated no new trade deals, we
have none in any advanced stage of negotiations and we have none in progress.
Should we be shocked? No. Our situation won’t come as any surprise to anyone who
knows anything about international trade agreements. They are horrendously
complicated but what’s more striking is that anyone who knows anything about
international trade agreements knows that you shouldn’t try to do them as
quickly as possible. Yes, we could do a quick deal with the USA – it would
simply be a case of agreeing to all of their terms… and then we’d quickly have a
(terrible and one-sided) trade deal with the USA!
The only time quick trade deals happen is when one side gets steamrollered by
the other and you have to worry about this happening to us, when the government
has so much face to save by getting some quick ones in.
Add in to that, the team we are trusting to do it. When you go to the USA and
ask for a trade deal, they fill the room with whiz-kid Harvard folk, who’ve
spent their lives studying international trade agreements. We send Liam Fox (a
former GP with no experience of international trade agreements) and David Davis
(still working out which one the prawn is.)
With this team in place, things look pretty stark. The only way we can now
realistically avoid disaster in international trade negotiations is if we don’t
try to do any.
It’s hard to feel confident that we are in the safest hands for that time that
Brexit actually happens, but just as worrying is the fact that it’s already
screwing us up in other ways. The entire government, it seems, is focused solely
on Brexit and although they don’t seem to realise it, there is still a country
to run. The cost of Brexit isn’t simply the crappy trade deals we might have
from April 2019. Some of the cost is already here, in the form of the complete
lack of government that is happening right now. From the government’s
non-response to Grenfell, to the crisis that is happening in our NHS, domestic
issues are simply, it seems, not a priority in comparison with Brexit.
Today, in an unprecedented move, 68 senior A&E doctors wrote to the government
to tell them that people were dying in hospital corridors because they had no
beds and no staff to treat them.
This situation, caused by the government, is simply horrendous and it is far
from what we should expect in a rich, developed country, such as the UK. We
absolutely have the wealth and ability to properly fund the NHS but because of
the government’s idealism, distraction and incompetence, it doesn’t happen.
And then people die in hospital corridors.
If Jeremy Hunt or Theresa May had any semblance of a conscience, they would read
that letter and resign immediately.
I’d ask David Davis to do so as well but he is probably still too busy working
out which one the prawn is.
We live in bad times.
RedEaredRabbit
Filed under Uncategorized
BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU’RE DEAD
10/06/2017 1 Comment
> “May you be in heaven a full half-hour before the devil knows you’re dead.”
Well, that went better than I thought it would. Never in my lifetime have the
cards been stacked so firmly in the incumbent party’s favour and yet somehow the
most remarkable reversal happened.
A couple of months ago, everything was going Theresa’s way. The Lib Dems were
nowhere and the Labour Party seemed to be more interested in arguing amongst
themselves and undermining their leader than they were about actually opposing
anything.
In such circumstances, with the opinion polls pointing to the biggest Tory
majority since the war, the temptation was too great. Before the election,
Theresa’s majority wasn’t huge but it was easily enough to get her through the
next three years without a problem. But why accept that when you could smash the
opposition out of the park for the next five?
Oops.
The media are referring to it as a failed gamble but a couple of month’s back,
when the election was called, it was nothing of the kind. It was, what Americans
would call, a slam-dunk. Or at least it should have been, but Theresa failed to
take one small point into account – she is diabolically incompetent.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that she is far and away the worst Prime
Minister in my lifetime. Dave had awful policies but at least he knew how to
make them sound good to a lot of people. Maggie did some truly horrific things,
especially to the poor, but at least she had the guts to fight her corner rather
than ducking debates.
By announcing a snap election, Theresa had the chance to catch the opposition on
the hop but what transpired seemed more like she’d caught herself on the hop. A
car crash manifesto of ill-conceived, uncosted, focus-group bullshit policies
was released and no one liked it.
In contrast, Labour released the most ambitious and progressive manifesto of our
generation. It was as brilliant as it was unexpected and if that weren’t enough,
it was costed too.
While Theresa tried to side-step criticism of her manifesto U-Turns, (Nothing
has changed!), Jeremy knew every line of his manifesto and stood firmly behind
it. (You like my manifesto? Put it to the testo.*)
While Theresa avoided debates and attended only media events that had been
carefully choreographed by her spin team, Jeremy did the complete opposite – he
seemed happy to stand behind his policies in front of the media and happy to
debate them with the public.
Let’s face it, he was never going to be one of those polished politicians,
trained in the dark arts of hand gestures and how to avoid answering questions.
He didn’t even take David Cameron’s advice of how to dress like a posh person.
What he did do was the only thing he knew – being himself and actually caring
about the people whose lives would be affected by his policies. In spite of the
daily character assassinations by The Sun and The Daily Mail… it worked.
The parliamentary Labour Party will now surely get behind him and build on the
fantastic platform he has made. Things look good.
In contrast, Theresa is now dead man walking. She took her party from stable
majority to hung parliament with a completely unnecessary election. She told
them she’d win a landslide but ended up costing a lot of them their jobs. Her
speech yesterday was the most perfect example of denial. She didn’t even
acknowledge that the result was a bit disappointing, let alone the reality that
it was catastrophic.
And now we get to watch her running around, courting the anti-gay, anti-abortion
DUP, with full knowledge that it will reverse much of the huge effort that has
gone into stabilising Northern Ireland. It’s shameful how desperate she is to
stay in power.
Today she fired her two closest advisers and as more rats leave the sinking
ship, The Sun and The Daily Mail have abandoned her – even some cabinet members
are telling her to go.
But don’t worry, Theresa – it’s much worse than you think. Do what you need to
do but please realise – the electorate will never take you seriously again. You
are done.
Enjoy your half hour – the clock is ticking.
RedEaredRabbit
*Ok, Jeremy didn’t say that. I might have accidentally quoted Sultans of Ping
F.C.
Filed under Uncategorized
NO MORE TORIES
07/06/2017 Leave a comment
No more food banks,
No more climate change denial,
No more austerity,
No more tax cuts for the 1%,
No more benefit cuts for the poor,
No more cuts to our NHS,
No more wage stagnation,
No more cuts to state education,
No more cuts to our local services,
No more cuts to our police numbers,
No more taking away free school lunches from the poorest kids,
No more blaming everything on immigrants,
No more treating Scotland like a naughty child,
No more pricing poor people out of a university education,
No more economic stagnation,
No more pretending Brexit is a good thing,
No more “£350m more a week for the NHS” lies painted on buses,
No more hand-holding with Donald Trump,
No more saying “Strong and stable”, while you act weak and imbalanced,
No more pandering to The Daily Mail,
No more pandering to Rupert Murdoch,
No more politics funded by the rich for the rich,
No more fake news,
No more grammar schools,
No more bedroom tax,
No more demonising people on benefits,
No more Boris Johnson,
No more Jeremy Hunt,
No more Philip Hammond,
No more Amber Rudd,
No more Elizabeth Truss,
No more Iain Ducan Smith,
No more Theresa May,
No more Tories.
RedEaredRabbit
Filed under Uncategorized
HOW THE LEFT WAS LOST
09/05/2017 1 Comment
MRS RABBIT’S QUESTION
This morning, Mrs Rabbit asked me how rich someone would need to be in order
for them to logically vote Tory. Her thinking was that something didn’t add
up. Wouldn’t only a small proportion of people actually be better off with Tory
policies?
I wasn’t able to give an immediate answer to this because, firstly, I was about
to go onto a conference call with the Swedes and secondly, it’s pretty
complicated to determine where the line between better or worse off with the
Tories would be drawn. For a start, we need to decide that the alternative is.
The alternative might be to vote for Labour, Lib Dems, SNP or someone else. Also
there are lots of factors to consider. It isn’t simply about each party’s policy
on income tax. There are wealth taxes, consumption taxes, inheritance tax and
lots of other things such as how much a party might spend on public services and
how much those services benefit people of different levels of wealth.
As an example, we know that since 2010 the Tories have been wilfully
underfunding the NHS to such an extent that it is now in a very big mess. This
has a big negative impact on those people who can’t afford private health care
and a small positive impact on those who can (because of lower taxes). Those who
can afford private education for their children are similarly positively
affected by the wilful underfunding of our schools and those who can afford to
buy any book they want are positively affected by the closures of our libraries.
Whilst benefit cuts have predominantly hurt the poorest in our society, it does
seem that you would have to get to a fairly high level of wealth before you
were positively impacted by a broken NHS or state education system.
That much seems fairly obvious but strangely, when voters are given the option
of voting to increase taxes on the wealthier part of society in exchange for
additional funding of their public services, they don’t seem to respond in
anything like the numbers one might expect. In a world that’s lurching further
and further to the right, Mrs Rabbit has asked a pretty important question. So
what exactly is going on?
RICH DONORS
This is Michael Farmer.
Michael Farmer runs a hedge fund, has a personal fortune of £150m and has
donated over £6.5m to the Tories.
Why he supports the Tories isn’t too important. If I were to guess, I’d say that
Michael is one of the people who isn’t affected by the the underfunding of the
NHS or state schools and is more concerned with which party will offer him the
lowest taxes and the least amount of regulation on his hedge fund.
Now you might well argue that someone with £150m in the bank could afford to
have a slightly more altruistic outlook and you might be right but like it or
not, the Tories are going to be better for him personally than any alternative.
Simple enough.
However, while we all get to vote for the party of our choosing, very few of us
have the luxury of being able to give the party of our choosing £6.5m and
therein lies a big problem. A rich person has the opportunity to influence
proceedings far more than a non-rich person. Further still, the Tories can’t win
with only the votes of the people who they will make better off and they need to
convince an awful lot of other people (who they will make worse off) to vote for
them too.
Michael’s £6.5m doesn’t get spent convincing other people like Michael Farmer to
vote Tory – there aren’t enough of them to matter. That £6.5m goes straight
towards the campaign to, (if I may use a metaphor), convince non-Michael
Farmers to keep buying big guns, aiming them at their own foot and pulling the
trigger. And then when those people say, “Ow, my foot really hurts now!”,
telling them that it is due to (metaphor over) immigrants.
THE ART OF FIBBING
If you think about politics in a basic left/right context, there isn’t any
reason that one side should make stuff up more than the other. The right
believes in a smaller public sector, leaving more things to market forces and a
smaller redistribution of wealth. The left believes in a larger public sector,
leaving fewer things to market forces and a larger redistribution of wealth.
There is no reason here that one side should lie about things any more than the
other but that’s absolutely not what we see today.
Whether it is Donald Trump saying that Muslims in New Jersey were cheering as
the towers collapsed on September 11th, or Boris Johnson putting the £350
million per week figure on the side of his Brexit Battle Bus, the right is far
happier to make stuff up now than they have ever been and what’s more worrying
is how effective it is.
You want another example? Six months ago, Donald Trump convinced millions of
Americans to vote to lose their health insurance. Something is seriously amiss
here.
The issues we are asked to vote on are wide-ranging and complex. We are asked to
understand economics, healthcare, education, foreign policy, the environment
etc, we are asked to form an opinion on how each party’s policies will deliver
in each area and then make an informed choice. That’s a remarkably difficult
thing to do.
A political party could try to help voters make an informed choice but it is
clearly easier and more effective to go with a simplistic, lies-based narrative
that appeals to a lot of people who aren’t able to check. For the Tories, Trump
and others on the extreme right, it isn’t just easier, it is absolutely
necessary for them to get elected. Remember, only a small proportion of the
population will benefit from their policies so helping the rest of the
electorate to make an informed decision would be an act of extreme self-harm.
The fact that the small proportion who benefits can provide political funding
beyond the wildest dreams of those who don’t, perpetuates the problem. The
parties who benefit the richest donors get re-elected, the distribution of
wealth goes further in the wrong direction and the cycle continues.
I’m not done though. It gets worse.
THE MEDIA
You’ve got your funding and you’ve got your fibs. To really get your message out
there though, you need some friends in the press and, conveniently, owning and
marketing a national newspaper is expensive. It’s not surprising that a lot of
newspaper owners fall firmly into the small section of society that benefits
with the election of a right-wing government. I wrote a blogpost a while back
where I looked at the daily circulation of left-wing and right-wing newspapers
in the UK: 7m right-wing papers sold every day to 1.5m left-wing papers and the
list is dominated by The Sun and The Daily Mail.
These days though, owning the media isn’t enough for the right. These days,
chillingly, the right goes after any media outlet who attempts to do anything
other than toe the line. Trump wages war on the New York Times and the Tories
wage war on the BBC. Neither of those organisations is anything like as partisan
as some of the uncriticised publications that support the right-wing cause. The
Tories don’t criticise The Daily Mail and Trump doesn’t criticise
Breitbart. Lies good, facts… BAD!
SUMMARY
I’m no particular fan of Jeremy Corbyn or Tim Farron and I wasn’t a particular
fan of Hilary Clinton either. What I do know is that they are much better than
the alternative of what I’m describing here.
Am I paranoid? If you think so, here’s another one: Why is it that
climate-change denial is almost exclusively a right-wing thing? After all,
there’s no reason for it to be. There’s no reason that preferring lower taxes at
the expense of smaller public services should mean that you don’t believe
releasing carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere causes the planet to warm up.
This correlation could of course be coincidence but could it possibly be that
oil companies fund political parties? Or that rich donors or newspaper
owners fear they would be asked to pay more in tax if we were to move to
renewable energy? Tough one.
Before I end, let me make something clear. I am not trying to demonise all rich
people and I don’t have a problem with a society in which someone can become
rich. Those are the things I am often accused of by lazy people when I talk
about raising taxes but that’s not what this is about.
We live in a society where we don’t look after the poor or vulnerable properly.
We live in a society where we don’t fund healthcare or education properly. We
live in a society where there is enough money to tackle all of these things and
you know what? There’d still be enough money for us to have some rich people
too.
My point is simply that there is no sign of this happening, and the reason for
this is pretty simple too:
The problem isn’t that people can become rich. The problem is that the rich get
to make the rules.
RedEaredRabbit
Filed under Uncategorized
THIS IS GOING TO HURT
19/04/2017 Leave a comment
Do the Tories have shares in IPSOS MORI or maybe whoever it is that prints
election pamphlets? They do seem keen to send a lot of business their way these
days. Anyway, another election. So let’s think about what we might be able to
vote for.
A politician can be this:
> An elected individual who fights for what is good for the people and whose
> views are immune to those of special interest groups or the press.
A politician can also be this:
> An elected individual who fights for the views of special interest groups and
> the press and whose views are immune to what is good for the people.
If I were assessing Theresa May, I’d be giving her a 0/10 on the first
definition and a 10/10 on the second. Both paths can lead to political success
but in fairness to Theresa, the second one is much, much easier.
In the first one, you have to properly understand myriad complex issues, explain
these to voters in terms that they may understand, form policies based on them
and explain how these policies address these issues. You have to continually
measure how your policies are doing and adjust them based on the evidence. It’s
really hard work.
In the second one, you just need to read The Sun and The Daily Mail every
morning and just do what they said, safe in the knowledge that it will be
popular with an awful lot of people. Sure it means that Rupert Murdoch and Paul
Dacre are effectively running the country but look how popular you are with such
little effort!
Theresa is calling an election because she is way ahead in the opinion polls.
Let’s not kid ourselves with thinking there might be anything more
altruistic than this. She believes that, in current circumstances with no
coherent opposition, she can get a huge majority for the next five years. She is
probably also more than a bit concerned about what the electorate will think
when they start to see the reality of what she will actually get in her
negotiations with the EU. Didn’t work out for David, did it? Better to do this
now, before reality kicks in.
One of my friends told me yesterday that the result isn’t clear cut because
opinion polls have been shown to be wrong a lot recently – 2015 general
election, EU referendum, 2016 US election etc.
That’s true but it misses something that looks fairly obvious to me. Those
opinion polls were always wrong in the same direction. They underestimated two
things:
* The effectiveness of the right-wing press with biased and fake news
* In the voting booth a voter is more likely to be evil than when people are
watching
Neither of these things gives me confidence that the polls are wrong in a good
direction. If anything, they are probably underestimating the Tory lead.
So where are we? Jeremy Corbyn has seven weeks to convince voters of something
he has drastically failed to do in the last two years – that The Labour Party is
ready for government. And he’ll need to do it with the vast majority of the
press against him.
And Theresa? She might be awful when it comes to the good of the people but to
give her her dues, she’s great when it comes to opportunistic power grabs. You
might not like it but you have to admit, for a politician that cares only about
power and cares nothing for the good of the people, it’s a fairly astute move.
So, anyway. Do whatever you can with your vote to stop the inevitable but don’t
get your hopes up.
This is going to hurt.
RedEaredRabbit
P.S. I stole the title of the blogpost from Adam Kay’s upcoming book, “This is
going to hurt”. It’s probably the best book ever written and you can pre-order
it now. He is one of the most fantastic people I know and I am so proud of him
for writing it.
Filed under Politics
THE HYPOCRITIC OATH
17/03/2017 Leave a comment
I wonder if this is something that modern politicians are having to swear before
they take office.
Theresa May tells us that the Scottish people aren’t allowed an independence
referendum because the terms of the UK leaving The European Union are not yet
known.
Hold on a minute.
The UK just had a referendum on leaving the European Union when the terms of
leaving the European Union were unknown. That was ok, right? No, it was more
that ok, it was “The will of the people”. Lib Dems are asking for a second
referendum, once the terms are known, so that the public can vote based on
knowing what the alternative to staying in actually is. Theresa doesn’t seem in
favour.
I’m confused. When it suits you, the terms of leaving are important and when it
doesn’t they are not?
All this does is reinforce my fear that the Conseravtive Party is now simply the
political wing of the Daily Mail. They read whatever is in that paper today and…
that’s the policy! Sure, it buys them a lot of votes from people who don’t
realise that the Daily Mail is Satan’s own soiled toilet paper, but it isn’t
really the way that democracy is supposed to work.
This stuff is scary. This is Trump style politics – and worse still, we have no
coherent opposition to call them out on it.
We live in bad times.
RedEaredRabbit
Filed under Uncategorized
LUNACIDE
13/01/2017 Leave a comment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Moon is a dick and we should get rid of it.
WHY WE SHOULD GET RID OF THE MOON
TIDES
The most obvious effect of The Moon on The Earth are the tides. Tides are a
consequence of how The Moon’s gravity affects our planet. Gravity is a force
that attracts objects towards each other and its strength is dependent on the
objects’ mass and the distance between the objects. The closer they are, the
stronger the force of attraction.
The force of gravity follows an “inverse square law”, which means that it drops
off rapidly with distance. Double the distance, the force of gravity is reduced
to a quarter. At 10 times the distance, the force of gravity is reduced by a
factor of 100.
This means, because we’re close to The Moon, that whichever side of The Earth is
facing it experiences a noticeably stronger gravitational effect than the far
side. This causes the sea to rise up at the side nearest to The Moon. It also
pulls on The Earth more than it does the sea on the far side, so we have two
high tides per day.
(This isn’t to scale – that would be a fairly catastrophic high tide if it
were.)
Tides are rubbish and we should do without them. It’s annoying when you go to
the beach and it’s high tide and there’s nowhere to sit. It’s also annoying if
the sea is too far away. Get rid of The Moon and you have a happy medium and
every beach is just right. Have you ever spent time and effort, erecting the
perfect sand castle, only to have it destroyed by The Moon? Destroy The Moon and
our sand castles live on forever.
THE MOON IS MAKING DAYS LONGER
The presence of The Moon is actually slowing The Earth’s rotation. This is
because the bit of the Earth that is closest to the Moon, be it land or sea,
bulges up due to The Moon’s gravity. The bulge goes back down slowly such that
the bulge is always a little bit past where The Moon is. The Moon’s gravity
pulls back on the bulge, slows The Earth’s rotation and makes days longer. Do
you think when days are 30 hours long, we’ll still have an eight hour working
day and be allowed six more hours in bed? Of course not:
The Moon’s plan is to increase the length of your working day.
Incidentally, if you have ever wondered why the same side of The Moon always
faces The Earth, it is for the same reason. With our superior gravity we have
already done this to The Moon to such an extent that we stopped its rotation
altogether. Ha!
THE MOON RUINS THE BEAUTY OF THE NIGHT SKY
When The Moon isn’t around, the night sky looks like this:
When The Moon is around, the night sky looks like this:
THE MOON IS ARROGANT
The Moon considers itself on a par with The Sun (no, not the newspaper – it is
on a par with that). The Sun spends its time quietly fusing hydrogen together to
make helium, which gives out heat and light. This makes our planet just the
right temperature for life, allows plants to photosynthesise and, in short,
allows all of the life on our planet to exist. In comparison, The Moon destroys
sandcastles.
Further still, there are at least 176 moons in our solar system alone and an
unimaginably huge number in the universe as a whole. As far as we know, NONE of
these other moons have had the arrogance to call themselves “The Moon”. The Sun,
despite all the great stuff it does, has never been arrogant enough to call
itself, “The Star”. Donald Trump is the most arrogant human, but even he has
never had the audacity to rename himself, “The Homo Sapien”.
The Moon is the most arrogant object in the known universe.
OTHER
In addition to these arguments, we should also destroy The Moon because it would
be a bit of a laugh.
HOW DO WE DESTROY THE MOON?
I’ve had a look into this and it’s actually harder than you might think and the
problem, again, is gravity.
Suppose we were to blow up the moon with enough energy to scatter out all the
bits a few miles. Gravity would cause the expanding fragments to slow, then
stop, then start coming back together and then stick together to make the moon
again. This eventuality must be avoided at all costs, as it would be a
significant blow to our morale.
So when we destroy the moon (and I think we’re all now in agreement that it’s a
when, not an if) we need to supply sufficient energy for the fragments to
overcome the force of gravity and never collapse back into The Moon again.
The energy we need to supply is called the gravitational binding energy and we
can calculate it using the equation:
> U = 3GM² / 5R
Where G is the gravitational constant (6.67 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2), M is the mass
of the moon (7.35 × 1022kg) and R is the radius of the moon (1,737,000m)
Plugging this into our equation tells us that we need 1.25 × 1029 Joules of
energy to blow up the moon and stop it coming back together again. Great, now we
know – what are our options?
TNT
According to Wikipedia, 1000kg of TNT releases 4.2 billion Joules of energy.
Nice.
That means we just need… gimme a sec…
> 30 billion trillion kg of TNT.
I’ll be honest, that sounds like a little more than I was hoping for. The
maximum payload of a space shuttle was 25,000kg. So we need about 1.2
quintillion space shuttle missions to deliver the TNT to the moon. If we do one
mission a day, we should be able to destroy The Moon in about 3.3 quadrillion
years. That’s far too long for me – TNT is rubbish and we’re going to need
something bigger.
NUKES
Back to Wikipedia – the most powerful nuke ever detonated was the Tsar Bomba,
which the Soviets detonated in a test in 1961. The resulting mushroom cloud was
over seven times the height of Mount Everest (show offs).
The Tsar Bomba released the equivalent energy of 57 million tons of TNT. This
means we only need… gimme a sec…
> 526 billion Tsar Bombas
That’s better but there is quite a big catch in that the Tsar Bomba weighed
27,000kg, which is over our max space shuttle payload. Let’s suppose that
increasing the max payload of a shuttle from 25,000kg to 27,000kg is achievable.
At one mission per day we are still looking at 1.4 billion years to blow up the
moon. Better but still far too long – we’re going to need something bigger.
THE EARTH
How could The Earth possibly destroy The Moon? Yeah, it’s gravity again. If we
were able to halt The Moon’s orbit it would plummet to Earth, and before it hit,
it would move steeply up that gravity curve we mentioned before, such that the
near side experienced a much stronger gravitational pull compared with its far
side. At about 18,000km out, The Moon would be ripped apart by The Earth’s
gravity! Go The Earth!
The problem here is how to stop the orbit, in order to make it fall down (I’ll
neglect the problem that we have a destroyed Moon plummeting towards us at
catastrophic speed). The kinetic energy of the moon can be calculated as:
> E = GMm/2R
Where G is the gravitational constant, R, is the radius of the moon’s orbit
around the earth (384,400,000m,) M is the mass of The Earth (5.972 × 1024 kg)
and m is the mass of the moon (7.34767309 × 1022). (Do note that in the
equation, the big M is given to the mass of the Earth and the little m is the
mass of the moon. How do you like them apples, The Moon?)
So the kinetic energy of the moon is 4.8 × 1028J and we just need to apply as
much energy in the opposite direction to The Moon’s motion in order for us to
stop it in its tracks and let it plummet to Earth. Get the Tsar Bombas ready, we
just need….
> 200 billion Tsar Bombas
We are getting closer but we’re still a long way off. We’re going to need
something bigger.
THE SUN
While the Tsar Bomba sounds scary, The Sun is on another scale. Through nuclear
fusion, The Sun gives out a whopping 3.8 × 1026 Joules of energy every second.
If we could direct all of that at The Moon we would reach our goal of 1.25 ×
1029 Joules in less than six minutes! The Sun is a badass.
Now, we can’t easily focus all of The Sun’s energy on The Moon but we can do
something that helps out a bit. You know that if you take a magnifying glass and
focus The Sun’s rays on a small point, you can properly burn it? Imagine that on
a bigger scale, that’s what we’re going to do – a giant lens in space.
The Moon is going to spend half of its time behind The Earth and we definitely
do not want to be hitting The Earth with our giant sunbeam. So let’s say that we
have a window of 14 days to do this. If we were to put a very big lens at around
the orbit of Mercury and point it at The Moon, how big would it need to be to do
the deed in 14 days?
The orbit of Mercury is, at its closest, 47 million km from The Sun. The surface
area of a sphere is 4πr2, so the surface area of a sphere at this distance from
The Sun is 2.8× 1022 m2. That means that we’re getting 13,700 J per m2 every
second, or 1.2 billion Joules per day per m2. In order to shoot 1.25 × 1029 J at
The Moon in 14 days, our lens needs to have a diameter of…
> 1.5 million km
… or approximately 121 times the size of The Earth.
Oh dear. What are we going to need to build that?
A “can do” attitude? …Most likely.
Glass? …Definitely.
But I think I might need to admit defeat here. I really thought that, given the
circumstances, The Sun would be a little more help than this.
The Sun is a dick. Maybe we should get rid of it.
RedEaredRabbit
Filed under Genius, Uncategorized
THE GATHERING STORM
06/08/2016 Leave a comment
> There is a storm coming… like nothing you have ever seen… and not a one of you
> is prepared for it.
>
> Curtis, Take Shelter
During the six years that George Osborne was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he
often used the metaphor of “fixing the roof” to describe his economic policy.
Even as late at June 27th this year, in his last major speech in office, he
again made reference to the roof:
> I said we had to fix the roof so that we were prepared for whatever the future
> held. Thank goodness we did.
>
> As a result, our economy is about as strong as it could be to confront the
> challenge our country now faces.
>
> George Osborne
Ah well, that’s good! The roof is fixed, right? Hoorah!
Wrong, but don’t worry – it’s much worse than you think.
George didn’t talk a lot of sense while he was Chancellor, so it shouldn’t come
as a massive surprise he finished on a low note. During his six years, George
didn’t so much “fix” the roof as he did “patch it up with tissue paper and
spit and then go on a big marketing campaign to inform everyone about how good
the roof was.”
He frequently compared the economy with a family living beyond their means.
Cutting spending, we were told, was responsible and spending money was not. It
was though, an entirely false comparison. If a parent in a family earned £20,000
a year they could cut their weekly shopping bill, their Sky TV subscription,
their dining out, they could buy cheaper holidays etc. and they would still earn
£20,000.
The wider economy doesn’t work like that because, in the economy, my spending is
your income and your spending is my income. When the government cut spending,
they directly impoverished their citizens, avoided a proper recovery and left
the economy in a far worse state than it would have otherwise been. Many
economists spent the Osborne years calling for a fiscal stimulus to get the
economy back on track but he ignored them – after all politicians don’t like
listening to experts.
Worse still, George’s cuts weren’t targeted on those who could afford it. They
weren’t even spread around equally. George’s cuts were directly targeted at the
poorest in our society. The rich didn’t have to worry about the cuts to the NHS
or education – they could afford private alternatives. The rich didn’t have to
worry about cuts to social housing, legal aid, libraries or public transport.
Austerity has hit the poorest and most vulnerable the hardest and you know what?
All of this, and the promised irradiation of the deficit hasn’t happened.
Interest rates are still at the zero lower bound and our economy is still weak.
Here we are, six years after the Tories got into power, and that
well-marketed roof isn’t looking particularly robust. That roof is in fact, in
far worse shape than it was before the last financial crisis and if I were a
weatherman right now, I would not be forecasting sunshine.
This week the Bank of England cut the base rate from 0.5% to 0.25% and
announced further quantitive easing. It is far from enough. Cutting interest
rates makes saving less attractive and borrowing and spending more attractive.
That’s why rate cuts are used to boost the economy. At the end of 2007, on the
eve of the financial crisis, the base rate was 5.5%. When we needed to boost the
economy we had some room to manoeuvre. It’s a luxury that we no longer have.
The cut this week from 0.5% to 0.25% made big news but to put it into
perspective, in response to the financial crisis, we cut rates by 5%. We no
longer have that wriggle room because we are up against the zero lower bound.
Yes, we could make rates negative but that just makes hoarding cash in your
mattress the more attractive option. That doesn’t help.
If we had had a proper fiscal stimulus and the economy had properly recovered
from the financial crisis we would by now have interest rates within normal
levels and ready to respond to negative shocks. But we didn’t and we don’t.
If I were being generous, I might call all of this incompetence. I hope that’s
all it is, but I fear something far worse has happened. Since coming to
government, the Tories have pursued policies that they knew would put the poor
and vulnerable at risk. And they did this simply because the alternative was
asking the rich to pay more tax. It’s clear that our economy has suffered
overall but the vast majority of the pain has been weighted towards our poorest.
One of these days, and probably sooner than you think, we are going to see the
true price of austerity.
And when it happens, I don’t think it is going to be pretty.
RedEaredRabbit
Filed under Uncategorized
PLAYING WITH FIRE
25/06/2016 4 Comments
If this isn’t a mess, it will certainly do until the mess gets here. An
unnecessary, self-inflicted catastrophe on a truly astonishing scale. How did we
allow things to get this far?
My initial thoughts when the results were announced was that I live in a country
made up mostly of racists and half-wits but after some time to reflect I realise
of course it isn’t as simple as that. Though the truth is hardly a lesser cause
for despair.
From the start, I knew this was a terrible subject to put to a referendum. There
is little benefit in asking a huge number of people to vote about something when
a majority of them will have no chance of making an informed decision. But that
is exactly what we did.
It is inconceivable that the result we saw would have happened if the voters had
been making informed decisions. While the EU is far from perfect, the benefits
of membership clearly outweigh any benefit we might get from leaving, but they
are clear only if you understand the true consequences of what you are voting
for.
In January 2010,when David Cameron was campaigning to be Prime Minister, he said
that net immigration would be capped to limit it to tens of thousands.
Otherwise, he told us, public services would be overwhelmed. This was when David
started the fire. The fact that immigrants were actually boosting both the
economy and public services was surely known to David, so why did he campaign on
this point?
David is one of the world’s foremost pioneers in the creating and spreading of
what I named the “Phantom Problem“. That is, you tell people there is a problem
(knowing that most won’t check), scare them about it and then tell them how you
are going to solve it.
David knew that immigration was a prime candidate for a phantom problem and he
knew that he would be able to sound tougher about it than the incumbent Labour
Party on whose watch immigration had increased.
After becoming PM, David could probably have forgotten about the small fire that
he had started and it would surely have burnt itself out but it had served him
well so far, so he continued to throw more sticks on it. This from a Cameron
speech in 2011…
> …for too long, immigration has been too high.
>
> Between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million more people came to live in this country
> than left to live abroad.
>
> That’s the largest influx of people Britain as ever had…
>
> …and it has placed real pressures on communities up and down the country.
>
> Not just pressures on schools, housing and healthcare – though those have been
> serious…
>
> …but social pressures too.
>
> Because real communities aren’t just collections of public service users
> living in the same space.
>
> Real communities are bound by common experiences…
>
> …forged by friendship and conversation…
>
> …knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run
> to the chat down the pub.
>
> And these bonds can take time.
>
> So real integration takes time.
>
> That’s why, when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in
> neighbourhoods…
>
> …perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there…
>
> …on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate…
>
> …that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some
> neighbourhoods.
>
> This has been the experience for many people in our country – and I believe it
> is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it.
Of course, all the while, immigrants were continuing to play a major part in
propping up the economy that had been severely weakened, initially by the
financial crisis and subsequently by David’s policy of austerity. David found
that by stoking the fire he was able to successfully divert attention away from
the true reason that the economy was performing so badly.
But then along came UKIP.
David’s plan had been to start a small fire and then show a lot of bravado about
how he was taking tough decisions to tackle it. UKIP turned up to the fire
David had started with a can of petrol. Unable to douse the flames, David
decided to kick the problem into the long grass by announcing an in/out
referendum on the EU. He positioned it by saying that the EU was broken in its
current form but he would negotiate a much better deal for us to vote on. All
David really cared about was winning the 2015 general election and with this he
had bought himself a clear ride to victory.
When David returned to the fire after the election the problem he had
single-handledly created was not in a good way and so off he went to Europe in
search of some fire engines. Shortly afterwards he came back sporting a
miniature water pistol, a moist handkerchief and a can-do attitude. Worse still,
while he had been focusing on the 2015 election, UKIP, the right-wing press and
his most ambitious Tory colleagues had spent their time loading their planes
with napalm.
David’s sudden switch, a few months ago, to fighting the fire rather than
fanning it was far too little, far too late. Having spent five years telling the
electorate that immigration was too high and that immigrants were benefit
tourists who were the reason for a stretched NHS, he had made a fire bigger than
he could put out.
In hindsight you might wonder how he could have been so arrogant to assume he
would be able to control the fire but you must appreciate that phantom problems
had been the entire backbone of David’s political success. Labour spending
caused the global financial crisis (phantom problem) therefore we need
austerity. People on benefits are lazy scroungers (phantom problem) therefore we
need to cut benefits. Phantom problems had worked so well for David, he could
never have conceived that one of them could ultimately lead to his downfall.
And all the time that David talked up those phantom problems, he told us not to
listen to the voices of the economists who were trying to tell the public what
was really going on.
Logic, facts and evidence were lost in the Brexit debate because the voices of
the people trying to responsibly inform the public were drowned out by those who
were not. The political environment that David created since coming to power has
been mislead the public, tell them to listen to the right-wing press and tell
them to ignore experts and that was the political environment in which the EU
referendum took place.
In such a scenario, how can we possibly expect the public to make an informed
decision?
So what happens next? I don’t think anyone knows, there doesn’t seem to be any
plan whatsoever. Scotland will surely push for independence again and well they
should. After the EU referendum result I feel nothing but guilt that I asked
them to stay last time. Even if they do go, the rest of us have a very uncertain
time ahead and all we really know is that we will be worse off than we would
have been otherwise.
Economics aside, we have sent a very sad message out about our country. A
message that the UK is not an inclusive country, a message that we have reverted
back to the that horrible attitude of many on the right, that there is something
inherently special and superior about British people and “British values”,
whatever those are.
The 51.9% are not all stupid racists. The vast majority are good people who have
been misled because David created a political environment in which logic, facts
and common sense are no longer relevant. When you watch the interviews with
people on the news who voted leave and hear the reasons they did it, it is easy
to tell yourself that they are either racist or stupid. In most cases they will
be neither. These are good people who have more often than not been victims of
Cameron’s austerity experiment and who have been let down badly by our
politicians and our media.
And while this whole sorry episode in our history should finish when David threw
himself on the fire he created the metaphor breaks down heavily there. David is
a multimillionaire who will never experience one drop of the pain that he has
created for the country he professes to love.
But, David, I do have a message for you because from all of this mess you have
created there is something you can still learn:
Divisive rhetoric, no matter how much it helps the short-term ambitions of an
individual, can have a truly devastating effect on society. George Osborne
should have told you this earlier – after all, he has a degree in history. And
despite your vast wealth, like Tony before you, your terrible legacy will haunt
you forever. Whenever and wherever you pop up you will be forced to defend the
indefensible, we won’t buy it and you will be remembered solely for creating
this calamity.
That, David is your legacy.
And now it is time for you to go off and enjoy it. You pudding-faced,
society-dividing, poverty-fuelling, hate-mongering piece of toss.
Here endeth the lesson.
RedEaredRabbit
Filed under Uncategorized
← Older posts
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS BLOG
Email Address:
Subscribe
RECENT POSTS
* One day a lemming will fly
* Chaos
* Before the devil knows you’re dead
* No more Tories
* How the left was lost
* This is going to hurt
ARCHIVE
* October 2018 (1)
* January 2018 (1)
* June 2017 (2)
* May 2017 (1)
* April 2017 (1)
* March 2017 (1)
* January 2017 (1)
* August 2016 (1)
* June 2016 (3)
* May 2015 (1)
* April 2014 (1)
* March 2014 (1)
* January 2014 (1)
* November 2013 (2)
* October 2013 (4)
* September 2013 (1)
* August 2013 (2)
* July 2013 (2)
* June 2013 (4)
* May 2013 (2)
* April 2013 (6)
* March 2013 (3)
* February 2013 (3)
* January 2013 (6)
* December 2012 (1)
* November 2012 (3)
* October 2012 (4)
* September 2012 (1)
* August 2012 (1)
* May 2012 (3)
* April 2012 (1)
* March 2012 (1)
* January 2012 (4)
* December 2011 (2)
* November 2011 (1)
* October 2011 (2)
* September 2011 (3)
* August 2011 (3)
* July 2011 (2)
* May 2011 (2)
* February 2011 (2)
* January 2011 (2)
* December 2010 (2)
* October 2010 (2)
* September 2010 (2)
* August 2010 (5)
* July 2010 (1)
* June 2010 (1)
* May 2010 (4)
TAGS
Alternative Vote Austerity Bailout Banks Baroness Warsi Big Society Blair
Bonuses Books Borda Count Camden Cameron Cards Clegg Crime Debt Depression
DuncansDream Economics Electoral Reform Euro Europe Eurozone Evolution Financial
Crisis First Past The Post Fiscal Policy Food GDP Genius George Osborne
Government Greece Homo Perfectus Homo Sapien IFS Immigration Income Tax
Independence Intelligent Design Interest Rates Jazz Le Gavroche Merkel NHS
Office Furniture Osborne Paul Smith Politics Polls Probability Puzzle Question
Time Recession Recovery Referendum Religion Republicans Restaurant Science
Scientology Scotland Spending Cuts Stationery Club Statistics Surveys Sushi Tax
The Big Green Bookshop The King of Toss Toilet Tuition Fees Twitter USA Vince
Cable
BLOG VISITS
* 82,711 visits
Blog at WordPress.com.
RedEaredRabbit
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
* Follow Following
* RedEaredRabbit
Join 1,753 other followers
Sign me up
* Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
* * RedEaredRabbit
* Customize
* Follow Following
* Sign up
* Log in
* Report this content
* View site in Reader
* Manage subscriptions
* Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...
Write a Comment...
Email (Required) Name (Required) Website
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website,
you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Advertisements
Powered by wordads.co
We've received your report.
Thanks for your feedback!
Seen too often
Not relevant
Offensive
Broken
Report this ad