Staying the Same in a Time of Change.

For my American readers it can hardly have escaped your attention (unless you completely avoid all news media) that there has recently been a scandal in the office of the Governor of Illinois. Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich has been arrested on corruption charges. This seems to be a prime example of the old saying: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

What I mean is that of the last seven Governors of Illinois three of them have served time in prison. This includes Blagojevich's immediate predecessor. If the charges stick and Blagojevich goes to prison it will make it four out of eight. That's fifty percent. Half. Corruption in Illinois seems to happen in a bipartisan way. Politicians of both main parties have a spent time behind bars.

While the United States, and the world, were caught up in the excitement of a new kind of politics arriving on November 4th of this year, Blagojevich was "allegedly" knee deep in some good old fashioned political corruption. When it became apparent that Barack Obama's seat in the United States Senate would be vacant following the election Blagojevich was looking at possible candidates to appoint to replace the now President-Elect. That in itself is not the issue as it is a Governor's responsibility to do so, but the way in which he went about it was. According to some pretty damning wire-tap evidence he was trying to gain financially from the vacancy. He would appoint someone who offered him something tangible. That's pretty bad. This is on top of several other corruption charges that I will not go into. As of this writing all Senate Democrats are calling for his resignation, as is President-Elect Obama and a vast majority of the Illinois State Senate. There could even be a special election to determine Obama's replacement. Exciting, right? Another election!

So Illinois politics is corrupt. That doesn't sound like change to me. Luckily we can depend on the Republican party to approach this in an appropriate way, right? You may be shocked to learn that no, they are not. The GOP response to this scandal is... to link Obama to it! That's right. As it was Obama's seat being auctioned off to the highest bidder he must have had a hand in it. The dirty traitor! He's already starting to unravel the fabric of democracy! Alright, I got carried away there, but you get my point.

This accusation will end up like just about all of the accusations thrown at Obama during the Presidential campaign: not sticking. This is because Obama's approval rating at the moment is around 60-70%. That's much higher than Clinton or George W. Bush had during their transitions. With favorables like that it will be difficult to tarnish Obama, at least before the Inauguration. The other, and most important, reason this will not stick is because Obama had nothing to do with it. The prosecutor said so, and the wire-taps show Blagojevich calling the President-Elect a "motherf***er" whose Administration wasn't preparing to offer him anything but "appreciation" for the Senate seat selection, adding "F*** them" . Doesn't sound to me like the two are in cahoots.

Even despite this, some members of the GOP are trying to distract attention away from their party's implosion by slandering the President-Elect. Although Obama's election was historic, I implore everyone to avoid getting too caught up in the idea that everything will be different now. This is a perfect example of the fact that there is still a lot of work to be done.

'Tis the Season

Having spent the last day or so looking for something to write about I came to the realization that the world is a very negative place. There was the terrorist situation in Mumbai I could write about but, alas, I admittedly know precious little about the Pakistani/Indian dynamic. There was the man in northern England who raped his two daughters and over the course of several years fathered nineteen children with them, and there was the case of "Baby P" who was neglected by social services and ended up being beaten to death by the people who should have been parents.

There is a lot going on to be angry or upset about. I do actually like a good rant about something that's bugging me, but not today. Not now. It is December, getting colder by the day and getting darker earlier. This can only mean one thing for the majority of the Western world: Christmas is coming.

Now this may surprise people (and it has done in the past) but I really like Christmas. Actually that's not true: I love Christmas. When the trees start appearing in town centers, the strings of lights across the streets and the decorations in people's houses go up I get excited. Christmas time can bring out the best in people.

Having said this I would like to point out now that I do not celebrate Christmas because of the story of Jesus Christ. I am not a Christian. I love and celebrate Christmas because it is a time (more than usual) that people openly display good will and kindness to one another regardless of the depth of their individual faith.

Some Christians are very vocal about Christmas. They say that people do not celebrate its "original purpose", and that it has been cheapened somehow. This in turn makes non-Christians feel more hostility to those protesting Christmas. I won't get into the argument of the "original purpose" of Christmas because that would contradict the rest of this entry. If people are celebrating their loved ones with gifts, good will and affection then why should the reasons for it be questioned? If they are being good to one another then that is what matters.

When it comes to Christmas I base my philosophy on something that could be regarded as odd, but please bear with me. My personal model of Christmas is heavily based on The Muppet Christmas Carol. I have watched this movie every year for as long as I can remember and it never fails to fill me with Christmas cheer. There is nothing confrontational about their vision of Christmas, and religion is hardly mentioned at all. The focus is love. The focus is friends and family. Being good to one another for the sake of being good. I have always found that movie uplifting and I credit it as the best Christmas movie ever made. I am yet to see another one that has come close to the uplifting feeling I get from that one. Although I am attempting to explain my Christmas philosophy, if pushed I would simply show them The Muppet Christmas Carol. It does more to explain what is right with Christmas than my words ever could.

It will nearly be time to watch it again, and I can't wait.

Misinterpreting Malcolm

Recently, Al-Qaida number two Ayman al-Zawahri released an audio message criticizing Barack Obama. It is the first message of this nature to be released since the election. In this message, al-Zawahri said that Obama was not like the "honorable" Americans who had come before him, most notably mentioning Malcolm X by name. He then called Obama, Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice "House Negroes", which was a reference to something that Malcolm X had spoken about. Now this is a gigantic can of worms (if you will forgive the cliche) in terms of American politics and what could be criticized about the message but there is one aspect of it that I would like to focus on, and that is Al-Qaida's failure to understand Malcolm X in context.

The "House Negroes" comment by Malcolm X was along these lines: in the time of American slavery there were two kinds of slave. House and Field. The House slave lived with his white master in the house, dressed relatively well, slept in the house and ate the leftovers from the master's meals. The house slave would have nothing but positive things to say about his master, because he was given a life of relative luxury. He would be proud of the master's house, and would be very concerned if the master ever got sick. Malcolm said that the house slave loved the master more than the master loved himself.
The other category of slave was the field slave. They toiled all day in the fields of the master's plantation for no money, barely any food and rags for clothing. They were miserable. They saw slavery for what it really was, and held no delusions about it. Malcolm said that the field slaves (which were the majority) hated their master. He said that when the master got sick they would pray that he died, and that if the master's house caught fire they would pray for a breeze to make it worse.

Malcolm said that there were still House and Field Negroes. He said that the House Negroes would preach that African-Americans and white-Americans could be integrated and could get along as equals. He said that the Field Negroes were once again the realists. He said that the only way for African-Americans to be equal was to have their own independent nation, separate from whites, and from the USA.

This idea of House Negroes is the idea that al-Zawahri was talking about. That any black American who believed that all men could be equal under the United States was a deluded house slave. He credited this theory to Malcolm X. There is a problem with this though. Although Malcolm X was the one who voiced this publicly it was not his theory. He was merely articulating the views of Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad. This is a problem for Al-Quaida, as a fundamentalist Muslim group, because Elijah Muhammad's version of Islam was discredited by Mecca as false, so even if they credited him properly for this theory they would be crediting a false prophet.

Then there's the problem of Malcolm's conversion. Once he made his pilgrimage to Mecca he converted to Orthodox Islam, it would surely make him a legitimate source for Al-Quaida to quote, right? Wrong. Once he had converted he disregarded Elijah Muhammad's hateful teachings and started talking about achieving equality for African-Americans. He even said that in order to do so, people should keep their religion to themselves. So in essence, he was saying that in order to achieve equality it should be brought about by non-religious means. By Al-Quaida's logic, he had become a "House Negro".

Ayman al-Zawahri has either no real understanding of Malcolm X, or is willingly invoking conflicting elements of him in order to stir hatred. Neither would surprise me. I would like to believe that were Malcolm alive today he would be pleased at the racial barrier that had been broken. I could be wrong (because there is no way of knowing) but I see this audio message as not only an attack on the characters of Obama, Powell and Rice but of Malcolm X.

Conspiracy of 37 Million

Now while I, like most of the Western world, am very happy at the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States there are some who are not. White Americans who believe that the only reason, the only reason, that African-American voters went overwhelmingly for Obama was down to the simple fact that he is black.

So Howard Stern felt it was his duty as a journalist and reporter of integrity to investigate. He interviewed some black voters in Harlem, NY to see who they were supporting. Unsurprisingly, they supported Obama. But then he decided to really test the theory. They told these voters that McCain's policies were Obama's to see if they really knew what Obama stood for and whether they would still support him. Here is an excerpt taken from YouTube.


Basically, the people he asked all agreed with "Obama's" policies, failed to spot that they were McCain's and said that Obama's choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President was a good one. That settles it once and for all. Black people have no idea what is going on in their country's politics and only support Obama because he is black. The proof is right there. The three people he talked to confirm it. Three. It couldn't possibly be selective examples. Howard Stern may be known for being a shock-jock who does and says things on his show to provoke a reaction, but in this case he is making an exception for the good of the nation. It is impossible to suspect that he could have interviewed people all day who spotted that he was using McCain's policies. It is impossible to suspect that most of the people he interviewed knew that Sarah Palin was McCain's VP pick and that Joe Biden was Obama's. It is impossible to suspect that he could have selected the three people who were ignorant of policy and broadcast that as the 'voice of the African-American people' in order to provoke outrage in white people who were already afraid that a black man had made it into the 'Whites Only' club that is the Presidency. It could not be that. No, it must be that all black people voted for Obama simply because he is black.

Give me a break.

By that logic all women should have voted for John McCain because Sarah Palin was on the ticket. Policy be damned, as a woman they should have voted for her anyway. Is that a fair statement? No, of course not. It's a hideous generalization. Which is something that in the 21st Century we should be above.

Something New

It is an odd feeling. One that I've never experienced before: being happy at the result of an election. In the years I have been politically aware this is the first time I have experienced this (well, apart from the 2006 U.S. Mid-Terms but I don't count that really). I remember seeing all of those important states going red in 2004 as I sat at a school computer blatantly ignoring the work I was supposed to be doing. I remember the disappointment that came over me knowing that the United States - and the world - was going to endure four more years of George W. Bush.

Contrast that with 2008. I was staying up throughout the night to watch the results come in. Pennsylvania went for Obama. That was brilliant. All of that time and money the McCain/Palin ticket had put into that state in an attempt to flip had not paid off. I was happy, but didn't get carried away. Pennsylvania went for Kerry in 2004, so it was still possible for a McCain win. Then came the second blow. Ohio called for Obama. McCain was in dire straits now, as he would have to flip a strong Obama-leaning state. Then the news came in from the west coast. With the electoral college votes that Obama picked up from those states he was the projected winner of the race and the 44th President of the United States.

I say that again: Barack Obama - President-Elect of the United States of America. This was a country that declared its independence with the immortal words: "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal", it is a nation that was fractured by the issue of slavery, reunited by a great leader only to be divided once more with segregation laws and what became known as the Jim Crow south. The Civil Rights movement reacted against this division. They demanded equal rights for all citizens regardless of their ethnicity. The Civil Rights bills passed went some way to rectifying this problem. Despite this, the country was always run by familiar faces. It didn't matter if they were Republican or Democrat, they were white men. They held one hundred percent of the Presidencies from America's inception until November 4th 2008.

Many years ago, a great man said in Washington D.C.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." That is what has happened in this election. The United States has not judged Barack Obama by the color of his skin. They have judged him on his character. He inspires hope in a way that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did all those years ago.

Him being African-American was not the reason he won in such a convincing manner. His message of change and hope was the reason. Americans have emphatically said that they are willing to sever links with the America of the past. When Americans tell their children that no matter who they are they can grow up to be anything, now they have proof.

I am under no illusion that racism has disappeared in the United States. I am certain it still exists - as it does in all countries. The historic part of this election is that a huge number of Americans have done exactly what Dr. King spoke about. Barack Obama was judged by the content of his character and he was judged to be the right man to lead the United States into the future.

There are so many reasons why I am pleased with the result of this election. The "most liberal Senator" has been elected. Which is astonishing considering that America is a generally conservative country. An African-American has been elected. The man I was supporting since he announced his candidacy (seems like a lifetime ago now) because I believe in his message and agree with most (but certainly not all) of his policies has become the 44th President of the U.S.A.

All the years I have been proud of America, but been ridiculed for it because of President Bush have been answered for. Now I can be unapologetic in saying that the United States is the country I always believed it to be. That in itself fills me with hope.

21 Going on 12

Country villages. Pleasant places to live. Everyone knows everyone else. A real sense of community. Happy places. Sounds good, doesn't it? How everyone can picture themselves living. Well unless you're over 40 I would like to submit my disagreement.

I can remember High School. I felt like there was nothing to do in my town. The only times I could go into the nearby city were with a member of my family who could drive. I did not like it too much. But as I continued to grow, I realized that these were not real limitations at all. I was trusted more by my parents to go out when I wanted to. Most of my friends lived nearby and were usually more than willing to hang out. The city thing was not a big deal either, really. Once I built up a very basic level of confidence I could get there easily on the bus. With friends nearby and a city in easy access things were good. I was often out doing something or even doing nothing but with people I had chosen to keep company.

Then university came. We all went to different areas of the country to further our education: both in academic terms and life in general. Even with these new experiences, when it came to the holidays we were all back and things seemed to slip effortlessly back into the old ways. It was just what was needed. I would say that those were the true definitions of holidays. We could unwind, catch up and generally share many laughs. I even made some new friends in the area.

It seemed like a good system to me. Sadly though, my mother and her partner were beginning to feel increasingly excluded from their respective branches of the family. This was down to the distance: we lived 2 and half hours from his family and at least 3 hours from hers. They wanted to do something about this, so a couple of new jobs later we uprooted and moved down south.

When my university tenure was over I left to go to a new house, in a new part of the country. A country village. That independence and adulthood I had cherished had disappeared. With the village being so very small there was literally nothing within its boundaries to do, and in the months I have been here I think I've seen a total of 4 buses drive through. Being the only member of the family who has yet to earn a full driving license I am stuck. The only times I can leave the house I need someone else with me (either to take me, or as a passenger in my car because I cannot yet drive alone).

Where I lived before was small, but there if we ran low on something simple like milk, or if I needed to post something it was easily done. Just a quick walk up the road. Now, to do anything or get anywhere a car is necessary.

I am not completely dismissing the appeal of a country village. For people who are older it would seem like a wonderful environment. Quiet, and relaxing. Unfortunately for me, having all of my friends 2 and half hours north, 5 and a half hours away in Wales, or an ocean away in the United States makes it difficult sometimes to see its positive qualities.

Run! The President is a Terrorist!

OK, I know this is yet another entry about the US Presidential Election, but I shall try to make it my last until after November 4th.

Recently, the McCain/Palin ticket has taken to some pretty shameless attacks on the character of Barack Obama. After the "he wants to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids" thing failed (mainly because it was flat out wrong) they have delved into the past associations pile.
They trot out Bill Ayers at every chance they get and use this as an example that Obama has been (in Palin's words) "palling around with terrorists". The problems with this are relatively simple. When Ayers was targeting the United States with bombs, Obama was 8 years old. Secondly, since this time Ayers has become a college professor who has ties to numerous charitable foundations and educative programs. Charity? Sounds dangerous to me!

It was through one of these charities that Obama and Ayers met. As residents of the same area of Chicago with the same interest in education it was inevitable. Obama and Ayers served on the board of one of these charities. What could they possibly have been doing? Plotting against the U.S no doubt. Forget that there were other people on that board including several Democrats and Republicans. They clearly used the charity as a front for their terrorist talk. Sounds about right, doesn't it? No? Of course it doesn't.

The big issue here is not Ayers, nor is it Keating (despite what Obama's response attack was). When the campaign puts these issues out into the open in the manner they have been, it provokes people to think in more extreme ways. More and more, McCain supporters have been yelling things like "Traitor!", "Terrorist!" and perhaps most disturbingly "Kill him!" at rallies. While the McCain campaign can claim that they are not responsible for their supporters it simply does not hold water. The tone of their campaign has allowed this overflow of hate and fear.

McCain has at one rally corrected a supporter who claimed Obama was an Arab, and assured another that there was nothing to fear from an Obama presidency, but was booed for the effort. While it was somewhat of a relief to see a flicker of decency left in McCain it didn't do much to change the minds of his supporters. A man who claims to be 'Country First' should be more forceful in dealing with these people. Where is the John McCain of 2000? If he could see the 2008 version I'm sure he'd be appalled. The campaign, especially Sarah Palin, have continued these attacks which could lead down a dangerous road.

They accuse Obama of associating with terrorists. By doing this they are provoking people's fear. They're making them scared. Terrified if you like. Why are they doing this? Because the polls are increasingly leaning towards Obama and they need a way of changing the tone of the campaign. Does this sound like a familiar concept? Exploiting people's fear in order to achieve their own goals... oh yes. That's terrorism. The irony is not lost on me.

His campaign has stirred up enough fear and hatred that the concerns some people had about an African-American running for president at the start of the race have resurfaced. I want to have faith in the American public that such an event will never occur. Unfortunately, the increasing anger heard by McCain supporters indicates that it could. This thought worries me.

John McCain is a true American hero. I mean it. The dedication he showed his fellow captive Americans in that P.O.W camp is astounding: Upon being offered an early release he refused; saying that until all American captives in that prison were released he would not be either. That is the making of a hero. So it disappoints me that a man who used to take on his own party when their ideas clashed with what he believed to be right has ended up with this campaign. After the 2000 primary against Bush, in which McCain suffered many attacks and slanders, I am sad to see that McCain's campaign has become the perpetrator.

Senator McCain: please be the maverick that you were. Emphatically put these people right. You have policy disagreements with Obama? Good! Talk about them. Debate the issues. Fight the honorable campaign you promised. I am not saying that you should not attack Obama at all, just attack his positions and proposed policies. You are much better than this campaign has made you.

I would still root for Obama even he did this, but that would not be a reflection of him. I agree with a lot (but not all) of Obama's policies, and that is why I want to see him in the White House. However, it would be uplifting for the whole country if in these last few weeks the campaign was fought with honor and dignity. That would be change that everyone could believe in.

A Philosophy in Ink

There used to be a time when someone with tattoos was considered dangerous. It was associated with stints in prison, gang culture or both. Recently tattooing has become more accepted into mainstream society, although not completely. More and more people are getting ink. People use the tattoo to express things about themselves, their lives and their ideas. There are, however, people who get tattoos simply for the sake of getting them. A tattoo just so they can say they have one. It means nothing to them, they simply picked it off the wall of the shop. I would claim to be part of the former. Although it may not seem like it (my collection of tattoos is steadily growing) every single piece of tattoo art I have put on my body means something to me. For me a tattoo is an expression of self. I also consider them to be a form of art just as legitimate as paint or sculpture. My tattoos show different parts of who I am and as a result the tattoos themselves become a part of me.
I often get asked about the meanings behind some of my tattoos so I thought I would take the time to explain a few.
The black circular symbol in the center of this design is an old African symbol meaning "creativity": something which I believe is important to my life. Without applying a creative mind to things you can never come up with a new perspective or a new idea. The color surrounding this symbol I designed myself. The idea behind was that it would represent the flow of ideas from a creative mind.
Just underneath are the musical notes. Music is such a big part of my life, whether I'm playing it, writing it or simply listening to it. For something that plays such a significant part in my life, the tattoo is relatively understated but I feel like it fits well with the design above.
This sits just atop my self designed piece. It is Latin, and the literal translation is "Remember to Live" but when used, the context made it more like "There's more to living than only surviving". That phrase is actually a line from a song by The Offspring called 'Staring at the Sun'. Ever since hearing that line for the first time it has stuck with me. I had it put at the top of my arm as a reminder that life is not just a case of how long someone can stay alive, but what they did with their time.
This is the only tattoo I have so far that is not on my left arm. It is on my right leg, and was an 18th birthday present from my Aunt. When choosing this one I decided that I would get something that represented my upbringing. I give all of the credit for the way I was raised to my mother, who loves big cats. I was raised with a respect for independent minded women so this tattoo represents my mother and all other strong women that have influenced me in a positive way. I think I'm secretly a feminist at heart...
This tattoo represents the Straight Edge lifestyle I lead. The X has become a key symbol of Straight Edge so it made sense to get it. I am not a fan of blatantly obvious tattoos, I much prefer ones that are slightly subtle in meaning. This tattoo has actually helped me on the very few occasions when I have been tempted away from that lifestyle. Knowing it is on my skin would make it meaningless if I ever abandoned that way of life so just having it there helps.
This tattoo I am rather proud of as I drew the design for it myself on a scrap of paper, so it is rewarding to now have it on my skin. I was inspired by Ken Kesey's novel 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'. For me, that novel was a critique of the conformity that seemed to be rife in America at the time, and I think it is as relevant today as it was then. The one bird flying in the opposite direction is the symbol of going against a popular opinion or lifestyle by staying true to yourself.
There are two meanings behind this tattoo. One is the main, serious reason and the other is rather silly (there's always room for some silliness). The main reason is the nature of questions. Without questions we would not have advanced so much as a species as new questions lead to new answers. Curiosity is one of the most wonderful things about the mind. That was what led me to choosing a question mark. The design of the question mark itself I took from Batman villain The Riddler (from the 'Batman Forever' movie). The Riddler was always my favorite of Batman's adversaries, due to his use of cerebral tactics as opposed to brute force. He also reinforced the power of questions.
This tattoo actually has three meanings behind it. The first and foremost was that because my aim in life is to live in the United States of America I wanted something that would represent where I came from: England. A St. George flag would be far too obvious and rather thuggish so I decided to pick the flower that is commonly associated with England: the rose. Also, with so many unorthodox and self designed tattoos I also wanted to show an appreciation for more traditional tattoo art. The third reason is known only to me, and shall stay that way.
This tattoo has a rather interesting back story. When I was studying for a semester at Utica College in New York state I made friends with Ting and Ami, two people I still love to death and wish I saw much more of. After they graduated they were planning to move to Boston, MA and encouraged me to visit. After about two days back in England I decided that I had to get back and see them. Luckily, they were more than happy with the arrangement. During my week in Boston, the three of us went on the Freedom Trail. When visiting one of the cemetaries the tour guide pointed out that on some of the puritan headstones were adorned with winged skulls. This was said to represent the soul rising to heaven after death. I figured the idea of a winged skull was a cool tattoo idea but didn't agree with puritan philosophies. When I gave it some more thought I realized that on a basic level, the puritans were Englishmen looking for a better life in the United States. That was something I could definitely relate to, so I got it inked.

Well there you go, the stories behind some of my tattoos. I plan on expanding the ink I already have. The goal is eventually a full left arm sleeve. It's coming along, albeit slowly...

The Fallacy of Choice

In a year where voter registration in the United States is hitting an all time high, enthusiasm for the political process is off the chart and two very interesting candidates battle it out for the right to be called President, what is happening in Britain?

Apathy. Total Political apathy. The more people learn about politics in this country the less people care. For a democracy that is not exactly an ideal situation. More people voted in the last series of that mind-numbing, intelligence sapping abortion of a TV show Big Brother than in the last General Election. That's quite depressing.

But when you stop and look at the political choices we have in Britain, it is rather understandable. Once upon a time there were three main political parties. The Conservative Party (also known as The Tories) who represented the upper class and the rich, The Labour Party who represented the working class and the less well off, and the Liberal Democrats who were sort of in the middle, although they never really had any chance of getting into power.

Now there are still three main parties. The Liberal Democrats (who still haven't a hope in Hell of actually winning), The Conservatives and New Labour. While the Conservatives held power, Labour were the party who stood up and fought for a more equal society, to give the working men and women a fair deal in life. The sad part about it was that they never held office. I guess the political system in Britain favoured the rich. So in 1997 they had a brainwave: New Labour. It basically promised a new direction for the party and, if they got in, the country. They had a fresh faced young leader, Tony Blair, and took advantage of people's dissatisfaction with the corruption, ineptitude and sleaze of the Tory party in what was a landslide election victory.

How power changes people. The New Labour government then took a sharp turn away from the left and headed for centrist policies. Or so they said. It just seemed that they were a new Tory party dressed in Labour red. The rich continued to benefit and could now vote guilt-free for a party that would hand them every advantage. The now Prime Minister Tony Blair led the country into an unjust war on Iraq based on intelligence that had been exaggerated. One of these intelligence claims was that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and that they could be activated and detonated within 45 minutes. So we stood alongside the USA in the invasion and no weapons were found. We had something in common with America. Our highest ranking politician had lied to us in order to curry favour for a war that had no real justification and ignored the millions of people who disagreed with them. Wonderful.


All this time, the man in charge of the UK's finances was Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. The man who so desperately wanted to succeed Tony Blair as Prime Minister. After what must have felt like eternity to Brown he finally got his wish. Blair resigned, handing over the reigns to Brown. Because of Blair's lack of popularity Brown's approval rating was rather high, yet an unelected Prime Minister refused to call an election. Probably a bad idea. Since taking charge there was flash flooding across the country which Brown's administration reacted to poorly, and the economy went into meltdown with the bank Northern Rock going under, with HBOS and Bradford & Bingley also in serious trouble. His approval ratings are in the toilet.

Surely the American slogan will work for us too? Time for a change! Umm, well no. The problem is that should Labour lose the next election, those likely to replace them in office would be just as bad, if not worse. David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, is trying to market himself as a fresh faced young leader taking his party and, should he get in, the country in a new direction. I swear I've seen this before. How did that work out last time? Oh yes, not well.

The other alternative is a real long shot. The Liberal Democrats. At the last General Election they had an interesting leader, with very new policies. Granted, he had an alcohol problem and they had no real chance of getting in anyway, but still. Now the leader is a man named Nick Clegg. I am sure he is a clone of David Cameron. He is utterly uninteresting and the Lib Dem policies are just as forgettable.

So there you have it. The British public cannot stand the political leadership at the moment, but the alternatives are just as bad. This could be more a comment on the British public's apparent insatiable need to complain, but I suspect this lack of real choice is the reason for such political apathy.

"Are you going to vote at the next election?"
"No, what difference would it make? They're all the same"

Sadly, there may be a point to that...

The "Choices"

The Nature of Choice Part 2

Doesn't everyone look forward to this time? Every four years in the United States of America the political ads start running and every second piece of news concerns the race for President. Polls change every day, which means that the media can have a new story every day. A candidate says something that they think is harmless but one commentator interprets it as offensive in some way and boom! A scandal. It's gold. How can you not love it?
Ok, maybe that was slightly sarcastic but in all honesty I do enjoy following the Presidential campaigns unfold.

This year seems more heated than ever. The candidates are being scrutinized for every statement, every misstatement and every action. Then in come the Vice Presidential nominees. I touched a little bit on the selection of Sarah Palin in the last entry but I do feel there is more to be said. While she does appeal to the base of the Republican Party, others also claim that she appeals to women voters. White women voters to be precise. After the Republican National Convention the polls indicated that there had been a major swing towards the McCain/Palin ticket with white women. The idea is that her selection would appeal to supporters of Hillary Clinton who were still dissatisfied that she didn't make the Democratic ticket. I am happy to say that the swing only appears to have been temporary. I was very worried that John McCain's campaign seemed to think that women were so suggestible that they would vote for him simply because he had a woman on the ticket. Therein madness lies.

Palin's policies could not be further removed from Clinton's. Palin genuinely believes in creationism and thinks that it should be taught in public schools with equal merit as evolution. She also opposed abortion in all cases. That's right: all cases. If you get raped and fall pregnant, if Palin was in charge, you're keeping it. This seems to indicate a very blurred line between the separation of church and state which is supposed to be key to American government. Palin also, rather bizarrely for a woman, opposes Equal Pay for Equal work. Right now American women make roughly 77 cents for a every dollar a man makes. McCain's answer to this imbalance? That women need more education and training. Palin must be one of the most anti-women politicians that I have ever come across. As an American woman, it is imperative to vote for who will make things better for you, not who you can relate to.

Look at it another way. John McCain is a 72 year old, multiple time cancer survivor. I would never wish death on anyone but say that he was to die in office, that would make Sarah Palin the President of the United States. That would be a pretty dangerous situation. She appears to be years behind the rest of the Western world in her belief system and would bring that to Washington. Abortions made illegal in all circumstances would force women to seek dangerous and illegal means of terminating an unwanted pregnancy. The abstinance only sex education that Palin supports would lead to an increase of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Young people are always going to have sex, but without a proper education in regards to the risks, these things would all increase in numbers. The risk of that happening are not worth taking in my estimation.

Going slightly back to the abortion subject for a moment, I would like to bring in the title of this very entry: The Nature of Choice. Palin's teenage daughter Bristol (still in high school) has fallen pregnant. One can only speculate that it may have been a result of the desire to have sex (which most adolescents feel) coupled with an abstinance only sex education. That is, however, beside the point. The media have said that they will leave the issue of Palin's daughter alone, but the language of the press release about it leads me to think that maybe it should be talked about, if only from a policy standpoint. The McCain/Palin campaign released a statement saying that Bristol had made the decision to keep the child and marry the father. I am not judging Bristol at all, but McCain and Palin's anti-abortion stance does make their use of the word "decision" interesting. In order to make a decision, one must be presented with a choice. Sarah Palin would gladly allow her daughter to decide about her pregnancy, but would also gladly take that choice away from every other woman in America. If Bristol wants to keep it, I wish her all the best of luck. She has made a choice and I applaud that. It is choice that makes us free as a society, and the McCain/Palin ticket wants to take away that choice from American women. Something about that just seems wrong.

The Nature of Choice Part 1

Election '08! Billed as the biggest Presidential Election of our lifetime. It has already been a historic race to the White House, and it is not over yet (much to the chagrin of many people who claim to have no interest in the matter). Once again the Democrat and Republican parties are doing anything they can to win your all important vote. They say that every vote counts and I agree, especially this year with the race being so close.

Choice is a wonderful thing, and that is what the American public has this coming November. The Republicans have nominated Vietnam veteran and twenty six year Senator John McCain of Arizona for the highest office in the land. He in turn has named Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has become the first African American to be nominated for President by a major party as the Democratic choice. His running mate is long time Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.

Some people have claimed that Barack Obama's nomination and popularity is merely a result of him being the first African American to run for President as part of a major party. That seems to diminish his accomplishment. Yes, it is a big deal but no, that is not the reason for his popularity. There are a lot of African Americans who no doubt feel a cultural connection to Obama and perhaps sense that maybe the tide is turning for them in American society.

Those, however, are not the only people who have attached themselves to the Obama campaign. Obama's message of change seems to have resonated with lots of Americans who are tired of the old Washington system and the current Republican administration. The way which special interest lobbyists would donate vast sums of money towards a candidate with the expectation that they would be granted special favors. Obama's campaign funds have come overwhelmingly from the American public. He has stated numerous times that special interests have not contributed to his campaign and would not run his White House. I applaud that sentiment.

Obama's policies seem to make a lot of sense for the majority of the American people. Abolishing the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and giving tax cuts to 95% of American working families is a much better way to stimulate the economy. Considering the NY Stock Market has experienced the worst crisis since the Wall Street Crash of 1929 Obama's consistent position still makes the most sense in dealing with the consequences.

John McCain, on the other hand, has a totally different approach. He willingly accepts special interest funding and even has several major Washington lobbyists working on his campaign. It would not be too cynical to think that a McCain administration would work more for those special interests than the wider American public. Despite this, after a week of public gaffes in relation to the economy (restating that the fundementals are strong, saying as President he would have fired the head of the SEC, having a spokesman claim he invented the Blackberry etc) he accused Barack Obama of being part of the special interest system of Washington that led to the crisis. This is also after months of claiming that Obama had not been in Washington long enough to run for President.

That leads me nicely to my next point. Experience. While Obama, a junior Senator, was talking about changing the way Washington works (as a relative outsider, a new perspective seems like it would help) John McCain was campaigning on the idea that he had the necessary experience to be President. For months this was the case. The main argument against Obama's message of change. Then McCain named Sarah Palin as his running mate. What's that sound? It's McCain shooting his own argument in the foot. As a first term Alaska Governor (the 47th most populous State in the Union) Palin's lack of experience makes any argument against Obama in that respect worthless. She only got a passport last year, has never met a foriegn head of state and her only political experience before becoming Governor was Mayor of Wasilla, AK. A town with approximately 9,000 people in it.

Sarah Palin's selection as McCain's running mate speaks volumes about how the McCain campaign is being run. It seems it is not being run by McCain. In order to clinch his party's nomination McCain had to abandon a lot of his previously held positions and policies. Apparently McCain wanted to select Joe Liebermann as his Vice Presidential running mate, yet he picked a Governor with little experience whom he had only met once prior to selection. That seems odd. Then you look at Palin's positions. She appeals directly to the Republican base. She is a gun-toting, Iraq War-supporting, abortion-opposing creationist. So instead of defying his party and picking a running mate that he believed in his heart would be a competant VP, he caved in to the demands of his party and selected Palin. Despite this and abandoning a lot of his previously held convictions McCain still refers to himself as a maverick. Don't laugh, some people still buy it.

To be continued...

A different method of killing time...

I will stand here and admit (well, I'm actually sitting but that seems inconsequential at this point) that I was taken in by the MySpace phenomenon. Seems like such a long time ago, doesn't it? With the arrival and surging popularity of Facebook, the former seems obsolete and uncool. I always maintained that I only signed up to those social networking sites in order to remain in easy contact with friends, not to branch out and aquire new ones. Sadly, when it came to MySpace I was suckered in. I would spend time wondering what layout would look good, what to call myself, which pictures to upload or who would be in my Top 8. So sad. I began to see the error of my ways as Facebook came along. This site had more of my friends on it, and needed much less effort to maintain, so I jumped ship - so to speak.

MySpace had become totally irrelevant. If I wanted to contact any friends online all of my MySpace friends had Facebook accounts. What was the use of maintaining it? I did have one reason. The blog. MySpace gave me somewhere to get my thoughts out into the open. Even though I suspect nobody really read them it was a great way for me to express myself. It didn't really matter if anyone read them. I was not doing it to become MySpace's next top blogger.

After a while I merely gave up and got rid of the account. Didn't seem to make too much of a difference initially. It was one less thing to think about. I did however, begin to miss having a space in which to post my thoughts. The Notes on Facebook were certainly not the place to do it. So here I am. None of that Top Friends nonsense, photographs that no one cares about or leaving comments for people. Just a space for me to get some thoughts written down.

People are more than welcome to read these posts, but if not, I will not be upset.