Christmas

Hey

This is just to say I'm going to be offline for Christmas and New Year.

I'll be back to posting in January

Maybe there is Hope

I was intending to do a blog post about Egypt and how it seems that the Egyptian people really hadn’t learnt from the past thirty years.  But then I was reading the paper and I found a story that prompted a change in direction. There’s too much depression and darkness in the world. Let’s have a bit of hope.

Totnes in Devon has always been a place that has gone its own way. A centre of the new age and bohemian lifestyles, it issued its own alternative currency a few years back and it was most recently in the news for fighting off Costa Coffee’s attempts to open a branch in the town famed for its unique self-sufficient style.  But this week it was in the news again, for a startling act of compassion.

Michael Gething, a homeless man who had been living on the streets of Totnes for the past eighteen months, died last week of suspected hypothermia. Some might say that it was his own fault – he had been offered accommodation in Dartmouth and refused to take it up – and others may simply have let the matter slide. Homelessness is all too often a problem that we, with homes and heating and food, see but ignore.

Instead, in a moment of a solidarity, rather than turning their back on him, the people of Totnes, even those who had never met this man, came together to organise a funeral for him, granting him the respect in death, that he may not have received in life. A former homeless man now living in Totnes, Graham Walker, slept rough for two days to raise money for the funeral, as well as money to help other homeless people in similar situations.

Local undertaker Robert Callender said that he hoped that  “people might put their judgements aside about what life on the streets is like, and what people who live on the streets are like……they are ordinary people who have fallen on hard times."

This strikes me as something especially important to remember as we go into the Christmas season. While many of us will be enjoying time with our family and friends, far, far, too many people, even those who do have somewhere to live, will be sad and lonely this Christmas. For too many Christmas is not the joyous happy time it is for the rest of us.

All too often the news is full of depressing, dark stories and at times the world can seem like a depressing dark place. But the people of Totnes have proved that it isn’t always. That sometimes it is the smallest things that matter.  That people can do good and bring a little light into the world.

Christmas is a time of hope, of change. Of second chances. As we head into Christmas and lose ourselves amongst the turkey and presents, I would urge you to take just a moment to remember those who aren’t as lucky as you. Christmas is supposed to be a time of joy. What can you do to spread that joy about a bit?

 

Multiculturalism is a Must

Let’s kick this off by saying that I don’t agree with the decision by Rotherham Council to remove a group of children from their foster parents, on the grounds that the foster parents in question belonged to UKIP. A person’s political opinions should have little to no bearing on their ability to care for children in need, and if as the reports suggest the couple believed that they were meeting the cultural needs of the children, then all the better.

 

That said, I always feel a shiver run up my spine whenever UKIP is mentioned, because this lingering remnant of Thatcherism is one of the things that scares me the most. Nobody save the hardcore skinheads really takes the BNP and the EDL seriously, but UKIP, made up of dissatisfied eurosceptics and libertarians, gives the British far right a respectable middle class face, one which guarantees them support.

 

UKIP claim not to be racist and that may very well be the case, but their very name – the UK Independence Party – and their insistence on tighter immigration regulations, an immediate withdrawal from the EU and a ending of the UK’s policy of multiculturalism means they do a very good job of a appearing as such. And it’s the last of that policy triad that really worries me.

 

UKIP and their supporters on the Conservative right seem to me to be the type of insular Little Englanders who believe that everything will be okay if we just rely on ourselves and stop associating with Johnny Foreigner. They are stuck with an empire mentality and don’t realize that times have changed.

 

Multiculturalism is a must nowadays. Asia is rapidly becoming the world’s production hub, China is over taking the US as the premier economic super power and India has the world’s most rapidly growing population, set to surpass China by 2025, only 13 years from now. The axis of power in the world is rapidly shifting from the West to the East and we need to get with the times.

 

This is not to say that the West does not have a lot to offer or has become irrelevant, because that is not true. The US President is still acknowledged as the world’s most powerful man and the US still has the world’s biggest military. But military strength is not what matters anymore. We have to move with the times, and recognize the world is changing, lest we get left behind.

 

In UKIP’s dream world, England would be politically and economically self-sufficient, and immigration, while still ongoing would be tightly controlled, keeping the white majority in tact. But in reality, this will not end in UK’s independence, but in the UK’s utter isolation, leaving us alone, in a world that has changed beyond our understanding. A world in which we no longer have a voice or any authority. If the UK wishes to keep its place as a respected elder statesman, than rather than rejecting multiculturalism, we must embrace it.

Away for the Weekend

Hey all.

I'm away for the weekend, so expect an update next week

See you later

The Benefits of the BBC

“Ladies and gentlemen, if we cannot debate that which troubles our society and more importantly troubles our government, then we cannot in all honesty, call ourselves a democracy.”

                       Freddie Lyon – The Hour, Season 1.

So the BBC has hit some bumps in the road of late, what with the Saville investigation and now the Newsnight debacle leading to the resignation of its Director General George Entwhistle after just fifty four days in the job. Not that it was ever going to be an easy job. Now the new DG, whoever he or she is, as well as the BBC Trust, are going to have the job of rebuilding the public’s trust in the BBC. Of restoring it to the national symbol that it is.

Whenever something like this happens, a few naysayers always pop up out of the woodwork to attack the BBC and its supposedly biased nature. And maybe it is biased slightly, but only in the way that all forms of media are in some way biased. If there’s anything I’ve learnt over the last year and a bit as a journalism student, it’s that everyone has an angle and everyone is trying to sell it. There’s no such thing as unbiased reporting.

But the most important thing about the BBC is not only that it produces brilliant and at times thought provoking, entertaining and enlightening programmes, but that it allows for the point encapsulated in the quote at the beginning of this blog. It allows us to debate that which troubles our society and gives fair and equal weight to all sides. Whatever it’s supposed bias, it allows everyone, on all sides of an argument, the chance to say their piece. That’s the point of Question Time, or the Andrew Marr Show, or Daily Politics. The BBC may disagree with someone’s view, but it doesn’t stop them from airing it.

In order to see what life would be like without the BBC we need only to look across the Atlantic to the US. They have numerous news networks, but all of them are privately funded and obviously biased. You have MSNBC and CNN on the liberal side of the aisle and Murdoch’s pet Fox News on the conservative side,(though some would argue that Fox is not so much a news program as the propaganda arm of the Republican party, with its blatant disregard for truth and facts).  They report what their viewers want to see, and what their investors tell them to report. It has reached a point where if you want proper unbiased analysis of the news, it would be better for you to turn over to Comedy Central and Jon Stewart’s Daily Show than watch any of the main news stations.

The BBC on the other hand, is publically funded. The only people it is responsible and accountable to are the licence payers. This frees it up to report freely and honestly, taking the time to weigh up and display both sides of a story. It is a vital tool of our democracy and we would be lost without it.

Yes it has hit some bumps in the road of late. But it will get over them. Because without it, Britain just wouldn’t be Britain any more.

Danger Still Lurks in the Corridors of Power

"You wrote a concession?”

“Of course I wrote a concession. What you want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?”

“No.”

“Then go outside turn around three times and spit.”

West Wing: Season 4 – Election Day

So, Election Day 2012 has come and gone and President Obama has been re-elected, cruising to victory with 332 to 206 electoral votes. The pollsters had seen this result coming for a while – this election has been called a triumph for science – but for me I think it was confirmed when I heard that Romney had not bothered to write a concession speech. The above quote from the West Wing immediately sprung to mind.

Always have a concession speech, for the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing is mighty and terrible.

But despite the fact that Romney has lost and will now hopefully fade into obscurity, I am still worried, about the future of America. For it was not Romney’s economic policies or even his foreign policies that worried me, but his social policy. Or, rather, the social policies that would have been forced on him by a Tea Party Congress.

I was recently informed of a book called The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Attwood. In it the US has been replaced with the Republic of Gilead, a patriarchal society where women are considered second class citizens, good for nothing more than reproduction. While I am not saying that is what would have happened, I could see the US under President Romney and a Tea Party Congress going in a similar direction.

I was seeing borders tightened as fear and racism took hold, the defence budget going up while the war hawks’ eyes turned towards Iran, Obamacare overturned, social security and Medicaid gutted to pay for another round of unnecessary tax cuts for the one percent. I saw the Supreme Court packed with enough conservative justices to overturn Roe v Wade and all the other steps that have been made to make America a more open and accepting nation. I was seeing social policy and civil rights in the US set back twenty years or more.

The poster boy for this may have been defeated, the rape denying Akin and Mourdock may have lost their election bids. But while the likes of Michelle Bachmann; Paul Ryan and Doug Lambourn are the still in the House, while Rush Limbaugh still holds sway over millions of Americans, while there is anyone left in a position of authority who supports the opinion than an Obama victory marks the death of liberty and freedom in America, then the job is not done. Not by a long chalk. The Tea Party and its backwards, nineteenth century ways need to be exercised from Congress quickly. The Moderates within the GOP need to take this as an opportunity to take their party back from the fringe right.

The Jabberwock of Fear that Mitt Romney represented may have been defeated, but the people that put him there in the first place still exist. And until they have been removed, America will never properly heal.

Oh Those Fickle Weather Lords

I don’t think I’m living inside a disaster movie – the type where all of that climate change stuff that members of the US House of Representatives Science Sub-committee say is a load of liberal propaganda comes back to bite us – but I can’t be certain. After all, in all those type of films, New York is always one of the first places to go and, judging by the pictures on the news, it might be time for me to stock up on tinned goods.

Yes, Hurricane Sandy has been and gone and left the city that never sleeps looking a little hung-over and that’s before we get into what she did to New Jersey. But now as the clean-up begins all eyes turn to next Tuesday and possible the most divisive and partisan presidential election of the last twenty years.

 But here again, Sandy has had an effect. Up until the first debate, there was no doubt that Obama would win. Romney was partisan, flip flopping, uncharismatic and, as covered in this blog, had managed to insult everyone from Israel to the UK. The only real question was how few electoral votes could he conceivably get? Then the first debate happened and despite strong performances by the President in the second and third ones, Romney managed to close the gap.

Which is where Sandy kicks in.

The storm puts Romney at a real political disadvantage. He can’t campaign without looking like he cares more about politics than people, yet without access to any actual power – he’s not a sitting Governor anymore after all – there is little he can do other than kick his heels and give the press the occasional soundbite.

Obama meanwhile has had a chance not only to look Presidential and professional, but also to actually get something done. He does after all control the federal government, which in this case means FEMA – the Federal Emergency Management Agency – and his swift action has earned him praise not only from the Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg but New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who up until this point was one of Romney’s most vocal supporters.

And, of course, not only is Romney not in a position to exercise any power, but the comments about FEMA that he made during the Primaries – that it should be dismantled and its duties handed over to private companies – will come back to haunt him. If he doubled down on them he would come off as heartless, instead he praised it and once again looked weak and indecisive.

I am in no way saying that a super storm is a good idea, and no politician would wish for something like this to happen so close to an election where it might hinder people from getting out to vote. Nevertheless, if Obama does win re-election next Tuesday by even a small margin, then I think he will be thanking his lucky stars that Hurricane Sandy hit land precisely when it did.

Rise and Rise Again.

“Rise and Rise again, until Lambs become Lions”.

This is a quote from Ridley Scott’s 2010 film, Robin Hood, a line said by Robin’s father, which was supposedly the impetus for the Magna Carta. It means trying and trying again, never giving up on the ideas of liberty and freedom.

I was reminded of this line when I read a quote from the father of Malala Yousafzai, the fifteen year old Pakistani girl shot by the Taliban for advocating education for everyone. He said that

“The person who attacked her wanted to kill her. She fell temporarily but she will rise again”

Nothing terrifies a fundamentalist group or a totalitarian regime more than an educated population. That’s why the Taliban targeted Malala, because she called for education for everyone. An uneducated population can be cowed and convinced that whatever the regime is doing is right, because they don’t know any better. But an educated population do know better. They know right from wrong and how things should be. That’s why the first thing many totalitarian governments do is ban and burn books.

Education, to quote the West Wing, is “the Silver Bullet”. It is the key to stopping pretty much anything, disease, war, you name it. Hence the old maxim, “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Education allows for self-improvement. Education not only affects one person, it affects an entire population, benefiting one and all.

And if one thing is more important than education, it is education for everyone. There are whole countries where education is the preserve of either the upper classes, the elites or of men. There are countries where women can’t even write their own names. All of this, in the 21^st Century. We are supposed to be better than this by now.

 That was what Malala was fighting for, and why she was shot. She wanted everyone, regardless of gender to have the chance of a full time education, something we should all support, and something we should all be in favour of.

That is why I encourage everyone who reads this blog – yes all six of you – to get involved in Gordon Brown’s “Day for Malala” on November 10^th – one month since she was shot – and send a message to governments and groups, that education is one thing we will not give up on. By 2015 we will have every child in Primary School.

We need to send a message across the world, a message that will be heard loud and clear by governments, regimes and the Taliban alike. You can shoot one fifteen year old girl; you can silence whole groups of journalists and activists. But you cannot shoot; you cannot silence the whole world. No matter what you do, no matter how many of us you try and kill, more will rise up to take our place and our voice and our message will ring out all the louder, until the world takes notice. We will not be silenced.

RISE AND RISE AGAIN. UNTIL LAMBS BECOME LIONS.

 

Somethings are scandals, somethings aren't

There are two big “scandals” featured heavily in the newspapers today, both supposedly showing that the government is full of high class toffs with no respect for hard working every day sort of folk. But while one is clearly a scandal, to my mind the other isn’t.

On the one hand we have Plebgate – badly named by the way. We almost had a scandal called Gategate. That would have been epic -  and the swift resignation of Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell over comments he may or may not have made to a Downing Street police officer.  On the other we have Ticketgate concerning the Chancellor and whether or not he tried to sit in a First Class coach with a standard ticket.

Now I don’t know about you, but the former strikes me as much more of a scandal than the latter. From the reports I’ve seen about the Chancellor’s little ticket issue, he was booked onto a train from his constituency with a standard ticket, but when he was able to get a different train he moved to first class, sought out the train manager and paid the difference. He did just what everyone who gets onto a train without the correct ticket does. But the media – unfortunately – are painting this as yet another example of how the Government are out of touch with the population.

“He WHAT!! He sat in the first class carriage with a standard ticket. HOW DARE HE!! There are Grannies freezing in Northumbria.”

Seriously everyone, back up. From what we know, he didn’t argue, he didn’t pull rank, he didn’t threaten to have the manager sacked and his children sent down the mines. He just paid the balance of his new ticket. No harm. No foul.

As for Plebgate, that is an actual scandal. Whether or not the former Chief Whip referred to the officer as an  ‘F***ing pleb’ or not –he says he didn’t, the Police Federation said he did – it clearly had an adverse effect on the Government. Mr Cameron has worked very hard to “detoxify” the image of the Conservative party (though some would argue he hasn’t done the best job. See making Chris Grayling Justice Secretary) and the Chief Whip using a word like ‘pleb’ only exemplifies the public’s opinion that Conservative Ministers think they are better than everyone else.

While Mr Mitchell tried to hold on it was obvious from the start that he had to go. And while some will say that he went in order to cover for Mr Osborne, I personally think it had more to do with Wednesday’s meeting of the 1922 Committee. If they reported that Mr Mitchell no longer had the support of the backbenchers than his fate was sealed. Even though they are the senior members of the Coalition, the Tories still need every vote they can get to push their policies thorough, and if the Chief Whip has no control over party MPs then he is useless. Enter Sir George Young, back from the shortest backbench retirement ever.

But my point is this. Sometimes the media like to see scandal where there isn’t one – as in the case of Ticketgate – and sometimes they like to focus all of their attention on certain scandals, as in the case of Plebgate – but both have the unfortunate side effect of distracting their attention from bigger and more important issues such as the Government’s attempts to slash several billion from the welfare budget, or the rise in fuel prices which will harm thousands of people come the winter. These are the real scandals, and they should receive the real attention.

 

Ain't No Party Like a Party Conference

Now the Party Conference season is over and MPs and delegates are flooding back from Brighton (Lib Dems), Manchester (Labour) and Birmingham (Conservatives, by the way, Birmingham? Because that’s not a transparent attempt to connect with the average voter. I guess the Conservatives couldn’t find room in Bath), I thought I should take a look at some of the points that came out of the annual love fests.

Liberal Democrats.

What most people will remember about this conference is not the actual conference itself, but the video that was released immediately before it, the one with Nick Clegg apologising for the Lib Dems actions over tuition fees. I’ve already covered that video in this blog, but really it set the tone for the whole conference.

The Lib Dems have been having a difficult time of it recently. They were badly hurt at the local elections back in May, and their prospects don’t seem too good for the next general election either. Despite all the good that they have done in this Parliament, in the media, and in the eyes of the general public, they are seen as traitors to their cause and subservient to the Tories.

So the point of this conference was to try and revitalise a despondent base and party.              It was a chance to point out all the good that they had done in this parliament – especially with regards to environmental legislation – and a chance for Nick Clegg – whose chances of retaining the leadership are looking very shaky indeed – to not only shore up his own position, but that of the Lib Dems as a whole.

Most of the new policy positions were related to trying to set themselves apart from the Tories, especially one concerning a mansion tax. Whether that will actually go anywhere remains to be seen.

Conservatives.

Again. Birmingham? Really? I mean the Tories went to Birmingham. I’m surprised they made it out alive.  The Conservative Conference was an interesting study in contrast, and showed the definite split between the left and right wings of the Party. One the one hand you had  David Cameron in his keynote address attempting to reclaim the One Nation, Compassionate Conservative, label, talking about working with all people to improve everyone’s lives and declaring that the Conservatives are, “a party for everyone. Black, white, straight or gay, northern or southern.”

On the other hand you had George Osborne talking about cutting ten billion pounds from the welfare budget, at the expense of housing and child benefit, and the new Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, announcing that they are looking into making it legal to stab burglars.

 As mentioned above, this demonstrates even more starkly the divide between the two wings of the Conservative party.  Mr Cameron’s job – especially if he wants to secure a Conservative Majority in 2015 – will be to bring together these two wings into a cohesive whole. A harder job than it sounds.

The other notable thing about this conference was the appearance of Boris Johnson . Everyone’s favourite Tory – and he has to be to win the Mayoralty in a city which is traditionally Labour dominated – his popularity both inside and outside the Party, will be making the PM very nervous. He knows Boris well enough to know that despite his promise to fulfil his term as Mayor, if the Party wants to make him leader, than he will find a way to do it. Boris may not make a great PM, but a lot of people, think he’d make a better one than Cameron.

Labour

This Conference was typical Labour fare in most aspects. A mix between moderate centrists, and the unions and left wingers who wish to blame the Tories for everything. Now I may not agree with everything the Tories are doing – see their ten billion welfare slash above – but the demonization coming out of Manchester from certain quarters of the Party is exactly why people don’t like politics and politicians. You can disagree with someone, without painting them as Satan’s school chum.

But the highlight of the conference was Ed Milliband’s tour de force speech. Not only did he speak without notes for an hour and a half – having apparently spent the previous few days memorising the whole thing – and reach levels of oratorical skill that many thought he was not careful of, but he stole one nationism – the centrepiece of compassionate Conservatism – right out from under the Tories nose, and explained how it was a much better fit for Labour.

The brainchild of Benjamin Disraeli, Britain’s first and only Jewish PM – which may be why Milliband likes him and his ideas – one nationism states that societies grow and evolve organically, and that everyone has a part to play in creating and maintaining them It also states that those at the top of the social hierarchy – the upper classes – have a duty and obligation to help those at the bottom. While Disraeli was a Conservative, it is easy to see how the idea that everyone has an obligation to look out for one another coheres with the socialist aims of the Labour Party.

What was also impressive was how for the first time Milliband showed Prime Ministerial qualities. A lot of the criticism he has received has revolved around how he is too aloof and intellectual to appeal to people, that he doesn’t have the charisma necessary to be Prime Minister. This speech showed that he does.

Not a lot of policy came out of any of these conferences but it rarely does. They are about rallying the faithful and urging them to remain true to the party cause. But now as the MPs return to Westminster, the idealistic dreams have to be packed away and the work of Government has to begin again.

What Am I Doing?

So I’ve been back at University for two weeks now and I’m feeling a bit down. I knew there would be bits of my course that I didn’t like – I mean hello Media Law and your boring and complex exam – but this week I was left with a profound sense of uncertainty about what I’m doing and why I’m doing it.

I had two lectures this week that just left me feeling downhearted. Celebrity and Spin where we were basically told that sometimes the world cares more about celebrities and who has been sleeping with whom, than about real news – or what I consider real news. In Journalism and Society our lecturer  told us that while the role of journalism and journalists used to be to act as a watchdog on the social elite, with the passage of time we have become part of the social elite, so instead of exposing their mistakes, we protect them, in order to protect ourselves.

This makes me a little sad, for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who knows me.

I haven’t got into journalism to do fluff pieces about Paris Hilton or Cheryl Cole. I haven’t got into journalism to protect those who think they are better or more important than others. I’ve got into journalism in order to – in some small way – change the world.

There’s a huge world out there. America is edging closer and closer to electing a robot President, there’s famine in Africa, war in Syria and monks setting themselves on fire in Tibet in protest against China’s continued occupation. There are countries waking up to their first democratic governments in over half a century. The world is a huge place and people – at least in my opinion – need to know exactly how huge it is.

The social elite do need a watchdog. They need someone to call them out when they are making a mistake, or when they’ve done something wrong. There are already too many procedures in place to protect them from the consequences of their actions. They don’t need journalists to help them out as well. I don’t want to help them out. I want to hold them to account.

I know that this is just a part of my course that I have to put up with, so I can get a set of qualifications and do good. So I can do the type of journalism that I actually want to do. So I can call out those in authority when they do something stupid or criminal. So I can open people’s eyes to the world around them that they don’t want to see.

I know that this is just a phase and that in a little while I’ll bounce back and remember exactly why I wanted to go into this career in the first place.

But right now I do find myself asking. What exactly am I doing? 

 

 

I'm Sorry. I'm So So Sorry

It’s not often a politician actually says sorry. It’s even rarer that they do it off their own bat, without being advised to do it by their cabal of advisors. But last week, Nick Clegg did just that, recording an abject apology for the Liberal Democrats’ U-turn on their tuition fees promise.

Of course this may have had something to do with both the upcoming Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton and the rumours of dissatisfaction among the Liberal Democrat  rank and file, who may be floating towards the more sceptical and outspoken Vince Cable. But whatever his reasons Clegg did seem genuinely sorry.

But Clegg should not believe that simply apologising and hoping that that will be an end of it will bring dissatisfied voters back into the fold. Whilst tuition fees is the thing everyone remembers - and if your central voter base is students raising tuition fees is really stupid, it is only a symptom of the larger problems facing the Liberal Democrats. There are still many outside the party (and inside it too I suspect) who believe that going into Coalition with the Conservatives was a bad idea, and a betrayal of party principles. These people seem to believe that the natural coalition partners for the Liberal Democrats would be Labour, as they share similar left wing principles.

But these people seem to have got confused about the position occupied by the Liberal Democrats on the political spectrum. The Liberal Democrats were formed out of a merger of the Liberals – who were always centre left - and the Social Democrats who were a Labour offshoot formed by dissatisfied members of Labour’s right wing. Thus while the Liberal Democrats could be said to be centre left – and thus a better fit for the Labour Party in a Coalition – they are actually more of a radical centrist party.

The other thing that people seem to have forgotten is that the current Liberal Democrat leadership is made up of so called “Orange Bookers,” those that contributed to The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism.  The “Orange Bookers,” while adhering to more traditional Liberal principles, are seen to be more on the right of the Liberal spectrum compared to those members of the Social Liberal forum who are seen to be on the left of the party.

It must also be taken into account that the Liberal Democrats really had no choice. Thrust into a kingmaker scenario in 2010, they had three options. Support neither party and watch a minority Conservative administration rise and fall probably within a year thus giving the country weak government at a time of serious economic crisis, support Labour, and end up in a Centre-Left coalition, which still wouldn’t have been able to make up the numbers and would have had to rely on the smaller Nationalist parties to get stuff through, or support the Conservatives as the party with the most seats, and try to temper their excesses.

I’m not attempting to apologise for the Liberal Democrats’ actions (or lack of action as the case may be) but I am wishing to point out that they were not in the easiest of positions, and their alliance with the Conservatives, is not as unlikely as it seems.

And those of you who haven’t seen the Nick Clegg Apology Remix on YouTube. Go look it up now.

Freedom of Speech

There have been two things in the press this week that have raised the question of whether there is a limit to free speech, or whether or people should limit it themselves. There has been the anti-Islamic film that has caused such a furore in the Middle East and the photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge that have appeared in a French magazine.

People talk about Freedom of Speech as if it is something complete and absolute. They think that they are free to say whatever they like because in the UK we have “freedom of speech” compared to those nasty dictatorial countries like China and North Korea. However, in reality, even in the UK we don’t have complete freedom of speech, which is why we are able to lock up members of the British National Party and the English Defence League every time they distribute leaflets encouraging people to rise up and drive the foreign invaders into the sea. If it’s liable to cause vast amounts of offence, you can’t print it, say it or sing it.

There’s also the fact that having freedom of speech doesn’t give you licence to be an idiot or free you from having to think about the consequences of your actions. The Middle East is a chronically unstable region and has been for as long as I’ve been alive. The recent overthrow of dictatorial regimes and the introduction of democratic governments isn’t going to change that. The guy who came up with the anti-Islamic film which, I believe, paints a rather unfortunate picture of the Prophet Mohammed presumably knows this unless he’s been living under a rock for the last forty years. He knew what effect this film would have once news of it hit the Middle East and he made it anyway. If he didn’t, then the people he made it with should have told him. Either way he’s just gone and thrown a lit match onto the world’s biggest stack of gun powder.

As for the photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge that have appeared in a French magazine, it’s clear that someone needs to take a refresher course in media law. The editor of Closer argued that the pictures were “in the public interest”, the phrase always used in these situations and one that suggests the person uttering it needs to be reminded of the difference between things that are in the public interest and things that the public are interested in. The general public may wish to see topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge. It doesn’t mean they have a right to.

It will be – and in fact has been argued – that since the Cambridges are frequently in the public eye they are fair game. This doesn’t make any sense to me. Just because they are famous, doesn’t mean they are not entitled to a private life. They are in the public eye regularly because of who they are and what they do, and when it is required of them they co-operate fully with the needs of the media. In exchange for this, surely they are entitled to some privacy when they ask for it?

Freedom of speech is a very important weapon in the arsenal of democracy, and one which we should protect. But as with all weapons there is a risk that some people will be inclined to abuse it. When that happens there are consequences and those are rarely, if ever, pretty.

Deadlocked

British politics has reached a stalemate. It’s deadlocked. It’s at an impasse. From the outside the House of Commons is packed with rows upon rows of identical upper middle class men and women, more and more of them never having had a job outside of politics, “professional politicians” rather than people who have stood out of a sense of responsibility. Parties that once stood for something now stand for nothing more than holding power, the dreams and desires of yesteryear subsumed into the malaise of Westminster.

And when people do stand up for something they believe in – for the NHS, for Education, for a chance to make the world a better place if only for a while – they either get vilified by the media or they get taken over by idiot would-be “anarchists” who use it as an excuse for property damage, reducing the protests’ talking points to five inches at the bottom of the page. Is it any wonder no one cares any more, when they feel their MPs don’t represent them and that their voice is worthless?

Our political system doesn’t help. Thanks to first past the post, only Labour and the Tories have any chance of winning, with the Lib Dems taking most of the seats that are left. And while it used to be possible to tell the difference between the two, since the rapid swing away from the far left by Labour in the late eighties and the firm pull back to the centre by the Tories in the mid-nineties, it is now hard to tell whether Labour is continuing the policies of Thatcherism, or if the Conservatives are continuing the policies of New Labour. Attempts to change our electoral system, - to bring in a newer and fairer system of elections –have been defeated thanks to the apathy of the electorate and the efforts of the two major parties to ensure that the systems that put them in power continue to keep them there.

So what now? Should we simply accept this, shrug and move on, waiting for the day the entire house of cards comes crashing down. Or is there still room for the believer, the dreamer, the radical? Is there still room in our political system for people who don’t just want to carry on doing the same old things, but actually want to change them? Is there room for people who want to try new things and really attempt, not only to change the lives of those who are alive right now, but to change the world for the better for the sake of generations yet to come?

I can’t honestly say that I know. But I hope that there is. But what I do know is that our system can’t sustain itself as it is right now. Sooner or later things will come to a head and that head will be violent. The riots have shown that. But I also know that the system can change if only a few people are willing to try. And some people already are; which is why the various grassroots political movements are beginning to grow.

Maybe there is a little hope. Maybe one day we can break the deadlock. And I hope when that happens, that I will be around to see it.

Not the Wild Wild West

July 20^th 2012 – Aurora, Colorado shootings

August 5^th 2012 – Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting

August 24^th 2012 – Empire State Building Shooting.

That’s three major shooting incidents – major enough to get on the news anyway – in just over a month and I’m sure there were more that I didn’t get to hear about. From this the topic of this week’s blog post should be fairly obvious. Gun Control.

 But don’t worry. This isn’t some overblow “Liberals are coming to take mah guns” cry for a complete end to gun ownership in the US. If people want to go and shoot drinks cans in the back garden that’s their thing. What this is about is finding some way for people to be able to do that, while protecting innocent people.

The first thing that has to happen is that there has to be a dialogue. Whenever there is a gun tragedy in the United States one of the first things you’ll hear is people calling for a debate on gun control. The second thing you’ll hear is that people agree with that, but that now is not the time, now is a time to grieve. I can understand that. The problem is that this is used as an excuse to bury the debate. The “proper” time for a debate never seems to materialise.

This may be something to do with the fact that gun ownership is part of the American consciousness. It’s wrapped tight around the collective notion of what being American means. I’m not just talking about the second amendment, I’m talking about movies and TV shows, which don’t seem complete without a gun and seeing Policemen walking down the street armed. There’s a frontier mentality still prevalent in the US, a belief that they are still trying to tame the West. They don’t seem to understand that that time has passed. The rest of the world has realised it. The US hasn’t.

I understand why some Americans think they need guns in order to protect themselves from and if need be overthrow a dictatorial government. I understand, but I don’t agree. In the first place, if the Army is on the side of the government, there’s not much civilians can do against the might of the 101^st Air Assault brigade, not to mention the winged power of the United States Air Force.  The best they could do would be to force a guerrilla war scenario. See Syria. But secondly this doesn’t mean that gun ownership can’t be licenced.

I went to Beaulieu Motor Museum on Thursday and one of the things it makes clear is that in the early days of driving and cars, there were no driving licences. People simply bought cars and away they went. Driving licences were bought in when the number of car related deaths went up. This didn’t mean that all the cars were taken away; it simply meant they were regulated and people had to pass a test to prove that they were competent and wouldn’t be danger to themselves or others before they were allowed to drive one.  The same could be done with guns. You could be required to sit tests to prove that not only can you handle and care for a gun properly, but that you were mentally sound enough to possess one.

It has been reported that the perpetrator of the Colorado massacre met with mental health professionals before the shooting. Yet he was still allowed to buy four different guns. Under tighter regulations this would have been prevented.

As I have said above, if Americans want to own guns then that’s fine. But they need to wake up to the need for regulations, before we have to add yet another tragedy to the ever increasing list.

To Boldly Go

This was going to be a rant about the ineffectual nature of the United Nations, its inability to do anything other than serve as a forum for the diplomatically disgruntled and the stupidity of anyone who thinks that the UN is in any way connected to a secret conspiracy to take over the world.

Then NASA dropped the Curiosity Rover onto Mars and I decided to do something about that instead. Because that’s far more interesting.

And by the way when I say dropped, I’m not kidding around. The last part of the Rover’s arrival on Mars involved it being dropped from a massive sky crane attached to it with what is essentially string. That’s right; NASA dropped a probe the size of a large car, from a crane, that had been sent all the way from Earth. The mind boggling awesomeness of that concept is just astounding. The Rover will now tour Mars picking up soil samples and trying to figure out if there is or ever was life on Mars.

So now to my question, if NASA is capable of doing something this cool, why does its budget absolutely suck?

It does. NASA’s budget for this fiscal year is a measly $17.7 billion, a mere 1.4% of the US’ yearly budget. Out of that NASA has to pay its staff, finance experiments, and spend $2.5 billion putting the Curiosity Rover on Mars.

Interestingly enough, the US spends $19.8 billion every year on nuclear weapons and related expenditure out of a total defence budget of $711 billion. The fact the combined defence spending of the rest of the UN security council wouldn’t even come close to the US defence budget, or the fact that the US spends double what it spends on welfare on defence, or that education spending makes up only 4% of the yearly budget is a rant for another day, but its expenditure on nuclear weapons alone means that the US spends more on letting members of the Navy potter around the world’s oceans playing solitaire than NASA gets to play with in a whole year.

I mean what’s up with that?

The US likes to paint itself as a world leader. The interest in science and space generated by Curiosity creates an opening for America to become a much more rounded world leader, not only in defence but also in the realms of science and technology. Newt Gingrich’s promise of lunar bases by 2020 may have been a completely empty one, but it spoke not only to a part of the American psyche, but to part of the psyche of the entire Western world, the bit that perked up when JFK promised to land a man on the Moon within the decade. Now we have the opportunity to put ourselves even further out there and perhaps could eventually even put a man on Mars. Not necessarily in the next decade, but perhaps within the next half century.

NASA have achieved something amazing, with a budget which was basically scraped together from behind the federal sofa cushions. Imagine what they could do with an adequate amount of money!

Next stop: The Red Planet.

Around the World in Eighty Gaffes

So Mitt Romney is back in America having finished a world tour, designed to show off his foreign relations qualifications as well as show he has what it takes to be a world leader. Unfortunately we’ve only discovered two things from this little world jaunt of his.

One: He’s as big an idiot as we all thought he was.

Two: He needs to fire his advance team and speech writers post haste.

He did quite well in Poland – it was his Press Secretary, not him who got into hot water that time - But, for those of you who haven’t been keeping up with his numerous mistakes, let’s go over them.

The UK

Actually we should be grateful to Mitt. He managed to do what countless advertising campaigns, news reports and Olympic torch relay videos had failed to do. Unite the whole country behind the Olympics, and get us all hoping it will be a complete success.

You see in an interview with an American news programme  on his first day here, Mr Romney – who lest we forgot single handedly saved the Salt Lake City Olympics – said that some of the mistakes in the recent run up to the games, such as for example the G4S scandal were “unsettling” and that he wasn’t sure if were ready. Well excuse me. When have preparations for an Olympics ever gone off without a hitch? That’s why you were put in charge of Salt Lake City in the first place, remember?

Of course after a conversation with Mr Cameron, he backtracked immediately – confirming his reputation as a flip flopper – and said that he was sure that everything would go fine. So, no harm, no foul. Till of course someone tracked down a book he had written where the UK was described as

“A small country, with tiny houses and tiny roads, where the trees are the wrong size, that doesn’t make much that the rest of the world wants.”

You mean apart from the Internet?  What a way to insult one of your closest allies.

I really hope, when he saw the celebration of the NHS at the Opening Ceremony, he choked on his dinner.

Israel.

Here he managed to engage in both positive and negative discrimination and proved that he really doesn’t do his research before he speaks.

Firstly he congratulated Israel on having a much higher GDP than Palestine – and got the figures wrong – claiming that it was Israeli culture that enabled them to make such strides. What he failed to note, is that Palestine, which is hemmed in on all sides by Israeli controlled territory, and is not recognised by minor groups like the UN, has much fewer opportunities to engage in economic growth. Not to mention that suggesting that it is Israeli culture that is helping them make money is running dangerously close towards the whole “Jews and Money” stereotype.

Secondly, he congratulated Israel on having an excellent health care system, upon which they spend eight percent of their GDP. What he didn’t mention – or possible didn’t know – is that while Israelis are expected to buy health insurance, the Israeli system uses non-profit plans, which are regulated by the Government and funded through high taxes. Hospitals are also mostly government owned and controlled.

You know what that is?  Socialised healthcare. That’s right. Mitt praised Israel for its socialised healthcare plan, the one thing his own party hates more than anything else in the world.

Seriously, he needs to fire his advance team. Or do some research on Wikipedia before he speaks.

As mentioned above, this trip was supposed to make Romney look Statesmen- like and Presidential.  All it’s done is make him look like a stereotypical ignorant American tourist and turn him into one worldwide joke.

Be Back Soon

Hey all

I'm away for a week, doing stuff and things and won't have access to a computer. So no blog this week.

See you after the break

The Rules of Gentlemanly Conduct

We now know that John Terry is not a racist after he was acquitted of racial abuse charges, by Westminster Crown Court yesterday. However, this doesn’t change the fact that he may well have used offensive language, nor does it alter the fact that such language now seems to be accepted as a normal part of the world of football. 

If you ask most football commentators and experts they will tell you that what is known as “industrial language,” that is a constant and regular stream of expletives, is a recognised part of the culture of professional football. If you were to record what players say to each other during a match, and not just afterwards, you would be shocked by the things that you would hear. Yet this is apparently considered not at all odd or unusual. It was only when the issue of another’s players race was bought up that things got awkward for Mr Terry.

But should this be the case?

Footballers are in the public eye. They have whole sections of the news media devoted to them each and every day. Many thousands of people look up to them as heroes and idols. Children and young people look to them as examples of how to live their lives. If this is the case surely they should not only manage their personal lives better – though that is a grumble for another day – but should also be careful to moderate their language, both on and off the field?

However this failure to engage in what might be called “gentlemanly conduct” is not only a failure of the world of football, but also of politicians at Westminster, another group of people who should know better and act more appropriately. I’m not just talking about MPs getting drunk and attempting to head-butt each other – though one MP tried this recently– but the behaviour of certain senior politicians when things don’t go their way.

Supposedly after the Tory backbench rebellion over Lords’ reform this week, the Prime Minister caught up with Jesse Norman, the MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire and the rebels’ ringleader, in the division lobby and according to eye witnesses, things got rather heated, with the PM accusing Mr Norman of acting dishonourably. Now if you ask me, an MP who has voted according to his principles and conscience and party loyalty be dammed has acted much more honourably than an MP who has simply blindly toed the party line.  It was then suggested by Tory whips that it might be better for Mr Norman to leave the Parliamentary estate. Though the reasons why differ, the general suggestion is that other Tory MPs might be out to get him and he would do better to stay out of their way until they had managed to calm down.

The media and the electorate don’t seem to have much respect for politicians at the moment, and behaviour like this is one of the reasons why. Because MPs have been entrusted by the electorate with the serious responsibility of managing the affairs of state we hold them to a much higher standard of conduct than ordinary members of the public and we expect them to hold themselves to this standard as well. Instead we find them acting like over excited school boys.

If footballers and politicians want our respect and admiration then they must earn it, by acting in an appropriate fashion, rather than simply assuming it will come automatically with their jobs.

What more is there to be said?

A quote by one of the attendees at Mitt Romney’s Hampton’s fundraiser set Twitter…well a twitter yesterday. According to the Los Angeles Times, the unnamed female donor said that,

“I don't think the common person is getting it….Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.  We've got the message, but my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the  right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."

This quote obviously says a lot about the woman in question. But it also says an awful lot about the type of people that the Romney campaign is mining for support and who they hope will help sweep him to victory come November. So let’s take the quote apart and see exactly what it says about Romney’s support network.

1: “I don't think the common person is getting it.”

The use of the word common says a lot on its own. Common is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as meaning – among many other things – “without special rank or position,” something that this woman clearly considers herself to have.

It’s also telling that other than her child in college, the “common people” she mentions include her baby sitter and nail lady – or manicurist – people who provide her with a service. She is clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel for non-millionaires that she knows. I’m surprised that guy who cleans her pool doesn’t get a mention.

Of course this isn’t really surprising as she was on her way to Romney’s Hamptons’ Fundraiser. The price of admission to some of his recent events has been between $25,000 and $75,000. This is clearly not an event for “common” people.

2: “I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated”

The fact that in her mind your level of income equals your level of education is a sign that this woman is completely disconnected from regular life and not exactly firing on all cylinders. It is quite possible to be a well-educated person from a good background and not earn enough money to require a wheelbarrow to take it home.

Yale for an example – that’s an Ivy League University by the way – undoubtedly offers one of the best educations in the United States. If you graduate from there you are going to be extremely well educated. But if you graduate with, say, a degree in creative writing, or journalism, or music do you think you’re going to be earning six figures right off the bat? Of course you’re not.

Furthermore, someone attending somewhere other than a highly prestigious college is also capable of getting an exemplary education yet won’t be snapped up by a Fortune 500 company. Even if someone does not attend college, that does not stop them reading books and watching television and educating themselves to some degree. Linking the level of your income to the level of your education is ridiculous. Of course there is a connection between the two, but only a very loose one.

3: “They don't understand the impact."

This is – to my mind – her most ridiculous statement. She implies that the man on the street neither understands why Obama is a bad president who is hurting Americans, nor why Romney would do a much better job. This is of course complete bull. Unless of course the man on the street gets his information from Fox News.

He knows that Obama has attempted to rebuild the economy, helped the motor business start operating at a profit again, increased jobs, provided funding to renewable energy projects, secured equal pay for women, overhauled the healthcare system, is hoping to extend tax cuts to everyone, especially middle and low income families, and most importantly has overseen the death of Osama Bin Laden, despite cuts made to the military. All this in the face of opposition from a hostile Republican Congress.

He also knows that if Romney were to become President he would scrap Obamacare, cut Medicare, cut Social Security, cut Welfare and access to higher education, work to limit a woman’s access to contraception and abortions, balloon the size of the military’s budget and reintroduce the Bush tax cuts which would raise the amount of tax paid by the middle classes while slashing the amount paid by the top one percent.

If the man on the street chooses to vote for Romney over Obama, it’s not because he doesn’t understand the impact. He understands it very well as it is more likely to affect him than the woman who gave this quote. He understands the impact and honestly believes Romney is a better choice than Obama.

People on a  low income are not stupid. They know what is going on.

Dissecting this quote we can see that the Romney campaign has one main mission once the convention in Tampa has passed in August. He needs to get on the road and meet with normal people. Hobnobbing with the Hamptons’ set is fine as a fundraising strategy, but if he thinks it’s a decent way of ensuring his election, then he is sorely mistaken.

Romney and the Romney campaign are regularly painted as being out of touch with the needs of everyday Americans. Based on this quote, and the locations of his recent parties, this is a claim that seems very hard to deny.