"A great voice falls silent. A great heart stops."

Salman Rushdie, in less than 140 characters, tweeted that moving tribute to his friend Christopher Hitchens. I am not in the least bit ashamed to say that I am truly saddened by the death of this remarkable man. I so wished that I would not write about him in the past tense for a long time. Sadly, that time has come.

I do not think I can be as eloquently succinct as Rushdie, or as moving as George Eaton of the New Statesman has been, but I need to at least try to martial my thoughts. Hitchens was above all a rationalist, so claiming emotional reasons not to write would probably annoy him no end.

He was the most eloquent person I have ever come across. While I never got to meet him (a disappointment that will now stay with me always), there was no one else who could match how passionately, how convincingly, and how lucidly as Hitch.

In January, I wrote about the different ways Hitchens has inspired and influenced me:

Firstly is very simple: his style of writing and speaking. He uses the English language in such a compelling way that I find myself riveted by what he has to say even if a particular topic is not of interest or even if I disagree with his position. The first example of a disagreement I can think of is his glorification and excessive consumption of alcohol. Regardless of minor things, his writing and speaking voice are very distinctive. Reading his books or articles, and listening to him in interviews or debates is always a pleasure.

The next thing that draws my attention to him is the way our main interests seem to overlap. Hitchens is avidly interested in American history, American politics and the influence of religion in a secular society. As am I. The fact that he writes so extensively about these three subjects has naturally drawn me more to his work.

The third and final factor in Hitchens' great influence on me is his life story and attitude. He was born and raised in England but always felt the pull of the United States. He has said that he feels like he was born in the wrong country: something I have been saying about myself for years. He is now a naturalized American citizen who writes for a living about America and religion. That is what I want for my own life (on my own terms obviously, I do not want to simply be a carbon copy).

I realize now that the idea of me becoming a carbon copy of Hitchens is ludicrous and rather big-headed of me to even imply (although that was not the original intention of the piece).

Hitchens was an intellectual giant. He could speak in great detail about a vast range of subjects. Most importantly, he was never boring. Ever. His mother once told him that the only unforgivable sin was to be boring, and Hitchens never was.

Like many people, I first became aware of Hitchens through his book god Is Not Great, a scathing attack on the morality of religion, but reading Hitchens on this subject was like reading my own thoughts but made by a much better educated and far more eloquent voice.

It did not stop there though. Once I had started reading Hitchens, it became my mission to devour as much of his writing as I could get my hands on. There are still books of his that I have not yet bought and read, but they are all on my list. His biographies of Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell are magnificent, as are his scathing polemics on Mother Theresa and Henry Kissinger. My favorite, however, is Letters to a Young Contrarian. I have reread that book several times and will most likely reread it again several times.

In that book, Hitchens said "The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks". This is as a good a mantra as ever to base your intellectual life on. While the door into journalism is a difficult one to open at the moment, I shall persevere. Hitchens is the one who made me want to be a writer, a journalist, a voice in the public sphere.

I am indebted to him in so many ways, yet this tribute probably comes across sounding extremely amateur. I apologize if that is the case, truly I do, but I needed to write something about the man who did more to shape my outlook than anyone else.

The man may be gone, but his work will live forever. Newton once said that he was standing on the shoulders of giants. Hitchens made giants look small. The world will be a much less interesting, and much less colorful place without him.

Christopher Hitchens
13 April 1949 - 15 December 2011

On Unemployment.

So, September begins and things are exactly the same as they were in August (and July, and June, and May, and April, and March, and February and January). Still with very little by way of money. Still next to nothing by way of a social life. Still no job. That seems to be the most important, and seemingly the defining aspect of my life as it is. I am unemployed.

I often see people in the media and even some friends of mine of Facebook take the "why can't people just get a job and stop complaining?" line. It is somewhat disheartening to hear, especially from actual friends. It is easy to say "get a job" when you already have one. For those of us without one, it is not so simple. I have a Bachelor's degree and a Master's degree (both of which I did rather well in). I have spent time, and been published by, a nationally printed magazine. None of those things have helped at all. I want to work. I am not one of these stereotypical unemployed people who have no desire to work and really want to be paid to do nothing. I want someone to value my time and skill enough to pay me for it. I want to contribute. Hell, I want to be able to pay tax! I am not, as the media and government like to call it "workshy".

Joblessness sucks. I cannot understand anyone who would be satisfied in this situation. The money is awful and the sense of uselessness is hard to combat. But combat it, I must. Applying for jobs has become my full-time job. Every day I wake up, switch on the computer, check Facebook and Twitter before beginning the daily trawl for jobs. Any job that is remotely relevant to my skills and qualifications. Some days I won't find any. Some days I will find several. The application process is long, boring and most of the time results in nothing. Not a peep. Sometimes I will get excited at the prospect of an employer sending one of those generated "Dear Applicant" emails, even if it is a rejection.

Then there are the fortnightly trips to Job Centre Plus. I never have quite figured out what the "Plus" meant. The place that apparently used to be simply called the Unemployment Office. I still maintain that it is a more accurate name than Job Centre. They are fortnightly admissions of failure. I hate it. Those places are soul-crushingly depressing. What makes it worse is that it turns me into a terrible human being while I am there. I hate judging people as better or worse, but at the dreaded Job Centre, that is exactly what I do. I catch myself thinking "I am in the same position as these people?" or thinking that I am probably better educated than the staff (there is no way to know this one way or the other without an awkward conversation). I hate that I think like that, but that place drains your goodwill and humanity like nothing else I have ever experienced.

So I shall carry on in this endeavor. Sometimes it feels like a hopeless one, and that I should just crawl into a darkened corner and stay there forever. I must push past these thoughts (although after nine months they are getting harder to brush aside) and just keep applying. There is not really anything more I can do. Wish me luck...

Obama's constant capitulation is infuriating and dangerous.

In signing the debt deal passed by the United States Congress, President Obama has once again caved in to the people who hate him. This deal is being touted as a "compromise" in order gain approval from Congress to raise the debt ceiling. It was not. As Mehdi Hasan so rightly pointed out, it was not a compromise but a capitulation. This is not the first of the Obama administration.

Back in December, Obama was having to contend with the Republican Party threatening to cut off unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed if he did not renew the economically disastrous tax cuts of the Bush administration. As always, he allowed the Republicans to win.

At the time I was working as an intern at New Statesman so I was able to post a blog entry on the subject. I believe a lot of what I said in that entry is still relevant today. For example, I said that

[t]he Democratic Party has been infuriating the American left for years because it appears to be utterly unwilling to fight the Republicans on any issue. The GOP is moving further and further to the right side of the political spectrum, which is dragging what should be the centre to the right. Instead of having a right-left divide, the weakness of the Democratic Party has resulted in a far-right/centre-right divide.

The debt ceiling debacle has been the perfect example of this point. Obama has been the very embodiment of the weak Democrat. The fact that he ran such a great campaign in 2008 on the idea of changing Washington from the inside makes this realization all the more infuriating.

At least the capitulation on the Bush Tax Cuts resulted in unemployment benefits being extended. This debt deal is an entirely Republican piece of legislation. It has deep, savage cuts to government spending with no tax increases on the rich, and no closing of tax loopholes. It did not even call for the tax breaks for private jet owners to end. Any Republican president would be proud of such a deal. In fact, Speaker of the House John Boehner said in an interview that this deal gave him 98% of what he wanted (one shudders to think what the other 2% included).

This is a terrible piece of legislation that in all likelihood will suffocate the economic recovery of the United States. If that happens, and unemployment is still sky-high come November 2012, who is going to get the blame? That's right, President Obama. The Republican message will be that a Democrat cannot be trusted to run a government because he has done nothing to improve the economic climate. The fact that the reason for that is that he refuses to stick by Democratic principles will be irrelevant. In my December blog entry I said that "Obama has given the Republicans the stick with which to beat him" and once again this is the case.

The Republicans are not interested in saving the US economy. Their priority is to unseat Obama from the Presidency, and it seems to be by any means necessary. If the economy fails, they benefit. These are not people with whom one can negotiate in good faith, as Obama constantly does. At first it was admirable that he wanted to be seen as the President of everyone instead of just those who voted for him but now it is infuriating. This is a man of great intellect yet he is unwilling to draw an obvious conclusion from the available evidence.

The fact that Obama has capitulated to Republican demands on just about every major issue just gives the GOP incentive to continue with their tactic of acting as national hostage-takers. His insistence on working with people whose sole purpose is to destroy him politically will be his undoing. The election of 2012 looked like a great prospect for Obama only a few short months ago; Bin Laden had been killed and the Republicans were having to defend their position to destroy Medicare. Now though, he will have to contend with an economy that will get worse thanks to Republican ideas while Republicans claim that things would be better if only he listened to them more.

Comedian Bill Maher said that it would be a shame if after four years of a Democratic presidency, the US had not tried any Democratic policies. I find it extremely difficult to disagree with that sentiment. Supporting Obama has become extremely difficult. The only thing keeping a lot of the left doing so is the knowledge that the only realistic alternative is a Republican presidency.

A follow-up on the candidacy of Michele Bachmann.

Earlier this year, I wrote a piece regarding the potential 2012 Presidential run of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN). At the time, the run was merely rumored but considered likely. As I write now, however, Bachmann is officially competing for the Republican nomination. In my previous piece I said that Bachmann "is not someone that should be elected to the highest office in the United States" and that her "use [of] violent rhetoric will prevent her from getting anywhere near the levers of power". While I absolutely stand behind the former, it appears as though the momentum of her campaign, not to mention the increasingly precarious economic environment, have thrown the latter assertion into some element of doubt.

Since officially declaring her candidacy in the town of her birth - Waterloo, IA - Bachmann has been polling well in the primary field. While a lot of the American political pundits assumed Mitt Romney, as frontrunner, would take the nomination it appears as though the Minnesota congresswoman will be mounting quite a formidable challenge.

This is utterly baffling to me, as I do not understand her appeal whatsoever. I have recently read two excellent pieces on her, one in Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi and the other in Slate by the peerless Christopher Hitchens. Both pieces were, to put it mildly, very critical of Bachmann.

Taibbi's piece called her "a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions", and "late-stage Kim Jong-Il crazy". Hitchens said that for her "to choose this moment to say that the loony of Libya poses no threat is to disqualify herself from any consideration for high office", that she "evidently knows nothing" about Libya before concluding by remarking that "she doesn't seem to know her Iowan derrière from an artesian well, either".

I urge you to read both in full as they are both eloquently written and devastating in their criticism.

Criticism from 'elitists' like Hitchens and Taibbi is one thing, but Bachmann is running into another - very different - problem. Having used the classic rock song "American Girl" by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers at her campaign launch, the band has subsequently sent her campaign a cease-and-desist letter asking her to no longer feature their music. What makes things slightly more interesting (and by interesting, I mean amusing) is that the song she chose the following day was "Walking on Sunshine" by Katrina and the Waves - who have also objected to her use of their music. It appears that while she is becoming the darling of the GOP, the musicians she wishes to be the soundtrack of her campaign do not share her vision.

Recently, she once again proved that she has no knowledge of American history when she claimed in an interview with ABC News that John Quincy Adams, the sixth US president, was one of America's Founding Fathers. When corrected, she stuck to her version of history despite the fact that he was all of 8 years old on the day the United States declared its independence. Her supporters, in a very Palinesque move, attempted to amend Adams' entry on Wikipedia so that it presented this obvious error as fact. As someone who claims to value the Constitution and what its authors stood for, she demonstrates a vast ignorance about early American history. This will give pause to anyone with a true appreciation for the founding of the United States.

Say what you like about Michele Bachmann as a candidate, but you cannot accuse her of being boring. The fact that she is doing so well with the Republican base should not be a surprise to anyone considering she is a religious fanatic and Obama conspiracy nut. It remains to be seen if she will upset Romney (who has been pretty much absent from most American news coverage over the last few days) for the nomination, but if she does it will be very interesting to see how she sells herself to the general electorate. Her rhetoric about the Tea Party including Republicans, Independents and Democrats sounds nice in a speech but will it hold true? Will the rest of the American voting public be as forgiving as the GOP base when it comes to demonstrably false assertions that she has a reputation for?

Time, as the cliche goes, will tell.

The circus of hypocrisy surrounding the Weiner scandal.

I have resisted writing a piece on the scandal involving now former Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) for a while now (I refuse to call it "Weinergate"). Every time that the story seemed like it was over a new piece of information, be it more photographs or a transcript of Facebook conversations, entered the public domain and suddenly it all started again. Following American news media over the past weeks has felt rather voyeuristic. With complicated, serious issues which effect the everyday lives of Americans and people of the world to discuss, the media went for the very simple, scandalous narrative of a Congressman's penis.

Anthony Weiner was, before this storm began, one of the loudest voices for the American left in Congress. He was quick-witted and passionate when arguing his case on the floor of the House of Representatives or on cable news. While many claim that his time in Congress was primarily to lay the foundations for a possible mayoral campaign in New York City, he did not shy away from contentious issues. He was one of the most vocal, and most articulate, advocates of health care reform. In fact, he was able to make an excellent case for a single payer national system. Yes, he was brash and arguably obnoxious, but the Democratic party needed someone like that. They no longer have anyone to be that voice. In the Senate, the loudest voice of the American left is Bernie Sanders, an Independent.

Having said all that, Weiner's actions online were nothing short of stupid and reckless. As a sitting United States Congressman, he should have been well aware of the repercussions that would surely follow from sending pictures of your penis to women over the Internet. It was a foolish mistake which should (and in all likelihood has) lead to a serious discussion between him and his wife.

That is, in my opinion, where this should have ended. Obviously, the late night comedians would be more than welcome to exploit this comedic goldmine (Weiner's weiner practically writes itself), but no crime was committed. As far as I am aware, no House ethics rules were broken. This was a personal matter that, while funny, should have had no impact on his status as a lawmaker. For the record, I also think that about the case of former Republican Congressman Chris Lee. Both men made rather large but personal mistakes. Neither man should have resigned over it.

Which brings me to Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Governor Eliot Spitzer (D-NY). Both men were caught in prostitution scandals while in office. Prostitution. A crime. Laws were broken in both cases, so their resignations would be absolutely justified. There is just one problem. Only Spitzer, a Democrat, resigned. Vitter is, to this day, still a member of the United States Senate. He received the support of a large number of Republicans in his re-election campaign. So when a Republican gets caught in sex scandal in which laws are broken that is perfectly acceptable, yet when a Democrat gets caught in one that breaks no law at all the entire Congress and media call for his immediate resignation. The double standard is as infuriating as it is blatant.

The reaction to this scandal has not only shown the hypocrisy of the Republican party, but also the cowardice of the Democratic party. Weiner, while apparently not too well liked in Washington DC (something that does not surprise me in the least), was one of their best, most articulate advocates. Were it not for someone like Weiner, the Democrats seem like anemic pushovers. They need a loud, strong voice. Despite this, a large number of Democrats were quick to call for his resignation, including Minority House Leader Nancy Pelosi and even President Barack Obama. They were so quick to abandon a member of their party for reasons I can only guess at. I will say, however, that their failure to demand that a Senator who broke the law in his scandal resign while calling for Weiner to is sheer cowardice.

So Andrew Breitbart (the conservative hack responsible for this story hitting the headlines) and the Republicans have succeeded. The loudest voice of the American left has been shamed and silenced. I am not attempting to defend the stupidity of Weiner's actions (they really were stupid!), but I just ask that this scandal be looked at in context. Specifically, in the context of previous sex scandals and their fallout.

Vitter remains in Congress while Weiner is banished from public life. Those who publicly called for Weiner's resignation had better be squeaky clean for the rest of the time they are in office, otherwise they have provided a rod for their own back. Unless, of course, they are a family values Republican.

Why the circumcision of minors should be outlawed immediately.

In California, there is a political movement which is gaining some traction. This movement wants to outlaw the practice of circumcision on underage males. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I fully support the goals of this group. Let me explain why.

The biggest argument against this proposal is that by banning something which Jews and Muslims believe is a command from god, it is infringing on their religious rights. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly and explicitly forbids infringements of this sort, but what the people making this argument fail to realize is that certain religious practices are already forbidden by US law. The first example that comes to mind involves Utah, the state with the largest concentration of Mormons. Utah was told by the federal government that it would not be accepted as a state unless polygamy was outlawed. The fact that Utah is a state tells you how that dilemma was resolved.

In the case of circumcision, the rights of the individual children are what should be considered more important than the religious requirements of their faiths. At the time of most circumcisions, the person getting it done is a small baby. How is it fair to inflict such a disgusting practice on people not old enough to make such a big decision? There are laws against under 18s getting tattoos, but this is different because it is 'mandated by god'. The state should not treat this as a religious practice (the First Amendment also forbids the establishment of a religion), but as a permanent body alteration and an elective medical procedure. Would a religion be allowed to tattoo their children's foreheads? I seriously doubt it. The mutilation of children's genitalia should be no different.

Now, if an adult male wishes to have part of his foreskin hacked off because he believes that an invisible man in the sky demands it of him (such an odd request when you think about it), then that right should be constitutionally protected. Just not for minors. Despite the accusations leveled at this effort, there is nothing anti-Semitic about it. Nobody wants to outlaw it altogether. That would be as ridiculous as outlawing tattoos altogether (although the latter would be more likely than the former). If the mutilation of one's genitalia still seems like an attractive prospect when people reach 18 then I would have no objection to those choosing to have it done.

Personally, I think that the mutilating the genitalia of children is a disgusting practice which should be left in the Bronze Age where it belongs. Can you imagine anyone standing up for the religious right of parents to cut off their daughters' clitorises and labias? Why is it socially considered to be a perfectly normal practice for one and yet the other is abhorrent?

Circumcision is part of what makes religion such a venomous influence in society. It also is an example of how children are labeled with the religion of their parents before they are able to make a conscious choice about the matter. This cannot be undone with the loss of faith or conversion though. It baffles me that otherwise moral people can, with a straight face, defend the right to slice off part of a baby's body. The sooner this revolting, vile practice is outlawed the better.

Following the example of Vermont.

I have said before that my favorite American state is New York. Well, this time I would like to take some time to say something positive about another state of the Union. It is actually a state I have not yet had the pleasure of visiting (I would like to see all 50 at some point). I am talking, of course, about the Green Mountain State: Vermont.

Just recently, Vermont became the first state of the Union to pass a universal health care bill. It is hardly surprising that the state which has Bernie Sanders (probably my favorite member of the United States Senate) represent them would be the state which takes this historic first step.

One should not be surprised, however, considering that it was also the first state to outlaw slavery and the first to have a universal public education system. Those two steps went on to be replicated in every state. One would hope that the same will one day be said of universal health care. As much as I love the United States and wish to live there, it is shameful that it is the only country in the Western world without a national, public health care system.

The small, rural state of Vermont has taken a big political risk (when one considers the opposition that the Democratic party's watered down version of health care received) so it is vital to anyone who wishes to see this spread across the United States that this program works and works well. I sincerely hope that it will, and I (as of the time of writing) have no reason to believe that it will not. If Vermont's system does succeed (in terms of caring for its people and in terms of value for money) then there is also no reason to believe that other states would not want to replicate it.

It is exceedingly rare in modern day politics to feel a real, tangible sense of hope. This is especially true for me as a natural cynic and (as I like to think of myself sometimes) a young curmudgeon. So often expectations are shattered, but I am prepared (realizing how foolish I will appear if I am wrong) to believe that this fantastic first step is indeed that: a first step. I do not know if the United States of America will see full, national, universal health care in my lifetime but I am prepared now to believe that it is possible at some point.

I would like to close by congratulating everyone in Vermont who contributed to this bill becoming law, although the uninsured of Vermont are probably more thankful than I could ever be at this stage. Vermont has done something truly positive for its people, and in today's global political climate that is all the more impressive.

Well done, Vermont. Here's hoping you start a trend.