"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.

Election 2012: It's very, very slowly getting started.

Something seems odd. Maybe it is just my own impatience but it feels like we should be further along in the 2012 presidential cycle by now. Admittedly, it is still over a year before the American electorate makes their choice, but I thought that by now we would have a better picture of how things were going to go.

We do know (utterly unsurprisingly) that Barack Obama will be running for re-election. It also appears as though he will do so unchallenged at the Democratic primaries. Opinion is divided among the political left about whether or not this is a good thing. Personally, while I do not think that Obama should be officially challenged in the primaries, the more left-leaning members of the Democratic party should be more vocal in their criticism. A primary challenge at this stage would do more harm than good. The elected Democrats need to develop a backbone (If they want to know how, maybe Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont could give them a few tips).

As for the Republican ticket, they need a nominee and yet their field of possibilities is weak to put it at its mildest. They have Newt Gingrich (the face of the GOP from the 90s) officially running, Mitt Romney (former Governor of Massachusetts), Tim Pawlenty (former Governor of Minnesota) and Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (if you have a moment and are not at work, just Google "santorum") all as potential nominees. Those are just some of the more serious candidates (but considering that we are talking about the GOP that description seems hardly appropriate).

There are still outsider candidates being talked about. Some because they are relatively unknown and others because they should be considered dangerous morons. One of the unknowns is Herman Cain, CEO of Godfather's Pizza. He actually performed admirably in the first GOP debate according to the Fox News panel (take that information with as much salt as you feel is necessary), and could make for an interesting primary season.

As for the dangerous moron wing of the Republican party, we have Michele Bachmann (who I have discussed previously) and Sarah Palin, who is apparently laying the ground work for a run at the White House. Neither of these candidates should be given any control of the most powerful nation on Earth. The fact that they are both Tea-partying, climate change deniers who refuse to accept the secular origin of the United States should really stop them from being taken seriously at all. Sadly, in the modern day Republican party these are seen as assets rather than hindrances.

The biggest problem the Republicans have is that none of the listed candidates really come across as a strong challenger for Obama. I would have said that former Governor Mike Huckabee would have been their strongest bet, but he has decided not to run this time around.

Obama has all the advantages at this point. He is the incumbent. He got most (but not all) American troops out of Iraq and was the president responsible for the killing of Osama bin Laden. The Republican who emerges from this very wide field of possible candidates has a tall order ahead of them. It will make the primary and general election seasons very interesting. I just wish things would get going.

Yes, I am one of those annoying people who loves elections; especially in the United States.

Motivation, Writing and Other Thoughts.

I cannot escape the feeling that this blog is being neglected. I seem to just write one piece and then leave it for along time before something moves me enough to write again. This system worked when I would find the motivation to write a piece every week or two. Lately this has not been the case, as you can no doubt see when you examine how far apart the last few entries have been.

There is not much I can offer in terms of justifications or excuses for this lapse in output. I realize that I should be writing as much as possible to keep my command of English up to a level that does not resemble the brainless rantings of a newly literate chimpanzee. I realize that a strong body of writing can only help if I ever want to make a living and a life out of it. Believe me, it is something that I so wish to do. My time at New Statesman was a taste for me of something I would like to explore.

With that in mind, it appears as though my lack of effort is not forgivable. Which is true. It is not forgivable. We, as children, are told to follow our dreams. Follow our hearts. Do not give up. The problem is the sobering, looming specter of reality. I do not want to delve too far into the fantasy versus reality question, or even the current economic and political climate I find myself in because I have touched on both issues before. They are, however, factors in what has become a very demotivating period in my life.

There are only so many times one can conceivably knock at a door without answer before turning away and trying another door. The sad reality is that the door I am standing in front of is that of writing. Journalism. Political journalism to be specific. American political journalism to be even more specific still. I would also relish the chance to write at length about religion. Or American history.

In fact, I am in the middle of trying to broaden my own knowledge of my favorite country's history. I am currently reading 'Setting the World Ablaze: Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the American Revolution' by John E. Ferling. It is a very interesting look at America's first three Presidents as each of their lives built towards the War of Independence. I am not yet halfway through this book but I am thoroughly enjoying it. While I have already read books on Jefferson (and as such some of the parts about him are familiar), the stories of Washington and Adams are equally fascinating. I hope that I can continue my education on the founding of America in the coming months and years.

I appear to have drifted from the point slightly. Going back to the door metaphor; the door of political journalism creaked open in November of last year (during my aforementioned stint at NS). That said, it felt like as soon as the door had opened slightly it slammed shut once again. Once again I am on the outside knocking.

I have been knocking at this door for months with no answer. I have even been knocking at neighboring doors too (non-political journalism, PR, communications etc.) with much the same response. After a while, the idea of following one's heart seems like a hollow one indeed. I am, at my core, a rationalist and a realist. Maybe this door is not something I am to walk through.

It is tough, because I see people that I admire at different stages of their journalistic career (people like Laurie Penny, Mehdi Hasan and Christopher Hitchens to name three) and they are doing what I want to be doing. I am under no delusion that I can walk onto a publication and immediately be at their level, but it is disheartening that I cannot even get onto that bottom rung (I am mixing metaphors here, for which I apologize) in order to work my way up.

After a while, the motivation to keep trying begins to wane. I must admit that driving forty minutes to the Job Centre every Monday is also a factor in the depletion of my psychological reserves. The black cloud above my head is telling me to leave the doorstep and try another house. It is a shame because the house looks so fulfilling from my view.

Despite all this, I will endeavor to write more regularly. I shall try to force myself to do so. I just hope that the entries I force myself to do are not obvious due to their awfulness.

Time, as they say, marches on...

Why AV won't change things and why I'm voting for it anyway.

As May 5th approaches here in the United Kingdom, the British electorate is faced with a referendum on a new voting system. The Alternative Vote (or AV). Its supporters say that it will be a much fairer system than the current First Past The Post (FPTP) system which has been responsible for MPs having 'jobs for life' in safe seats so therefore do not have to work for their constituents. General elections under the current system are decided by a small number of swing districts and, as a result, do not reflect the will of the people. AV, it is said, will put an end to that.

Well, not quite. A number of supporters of AV have said that while it is definitely an improvement on FPTP it is still not fully representative of the British people. It is, in the words of Deputy Prime Minister and AV advocate Nick Clegg a "miserable little compromise". With this sentiment I completely agree. This is especially true given my current circumstances.

My constituency is a rural one (the most rural in the country apparently). As a result it is also a deeply conservative constituency. How conservative? On June 11th 1987 it elected a Conservative MP and has continued to do so ever since. To be clear: the constituency I currently live in has had a Conservative MP longer than I have been alive (exactly a month longer to be exact). In fact, from that election up until 2010 it was the same MP. The only reason we have a new MP now is because the last one retired. A perfect example of a job for life.

So, with that in mind, AV should help, right? Wrong. In my constituency during the last general election the winning Conservative majority was 16, 425. Their total was 26,862. Even if every single Labour voter picked the Liberal Democrats as their second preference (very unlikely now) and vice-versa, the vote total against the Conservatives would be 19,711. Not even close to unseating the Conservative stronghold.

But that leads to another problem with my constituency. I have not counted the second or third preference votes of the other parties in the area. Can you guess which side of the political spectrum they fall on? If you said the right, you get a gold star. The other choices were the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), the English Democrats Party (committed to an exclusively English parliament) and the British National Party (BNP, an overtly racist organization). I would assume that those voters would prefer a Tory over a Labour or Lib Dem MP, so the Conservatives winning margin would remain unassailable.

I am a left leaning individual. I consider myself a democratic socialist in the mold of author George Orwell and Vermont independent Senator Bernie Sanders. As a result, my vote will never be represented in the British parliament because I am in a deeply conservative area. I am stuck. AV will not make a difference to that. Seats like mine will remain unchallenged by AV and all it will do is increase the number of potential swing votes across the country.

That being said, I still intend to vote in favor of it come May 5th. I genuinely believe that it is a step in the right direction. If AV is defeated, the Conservative led government will take it as a sign of approval for FPTP and a new, accurately representative system will never be implemented. AV is, in my opinion, a very small step that needs to be taken if we are ever to achieve a fully representative parliament in Britain. Also, the childish part of me wants AV to win because it will really piss of David Cameron.

Jesus Christ: Moral Teacher or Cruel Sadist?

There are some things in society which appear to just be taken as a given, regardless of your political, ideological or religious persuasion. They are all obvious, and mostly common sense that any morally functional person would agree with. Murder is bad. Kindness is good. Not in the least bit controversial because they are pretty much accepted by humanity as a whole. There are, of course, those who disagree with these assertions but it is still shocking (or, at the very least surprising) when this occurs.

I would like to take this opportunity to challenge a certain idea which seems to be held by people without question regardless of affiliation. Namely: that Jesus Christ was a good person and an exemplary role model.

While there are a few people who are speaking out against this idea already, it seems as though the majority opinion is in Jesus' favor. Bill Maher (an atheist comedian who is often very critical of religion) states that Jesus was a great man who can be admired even if he was not the son of god. Political Editor of New Statesman magazine Mehdi Hasan (a practicing Muslim) likes to extol the virtues of Christ by claiming him as a liberal. People on both sides of the political spectrum like to claim Jesus as their own, or at least express admiration for the man. My question is simple: Why? Why would you want to have someone like Jesus on your side? Why must he be praised, even by those who claim not to believe?

I did not choose this topic without reason. I sincerely question the idea that he is to be admired. As I'm sure you will know by now I am an atheist. So right off the bat, the idea that this man was the human incarnation of a celestial creator is not one I lend much credence. My specific problem is with those who also take this view, yet still insist on claiming Jesus was a moral man.

One of the most common arguments in defense of Jesus and the New Testament is that the barbarism of the Old Testament is undone by the forgiving, loving Christ. However, if one were to read the Bible, it would soon be discovered that it is a faulty argument. For example, in the Old Testament, when genocide, infanticide, slavery, incest and rape are all condoned, demanded or glorified there is no mention of Hell. Once the god of the Old Testament was done with you, that was it. Not so with the loving, forgiving Jesus. It is in the New Testament that Jesus claims that his followers should fear a god who "is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28, also mentioned in Luke 12:5), condemns entire cities to this ghoulish afterlife (Matthew 11:20-24 & Luke 10:10-15) and also claims that anyone who does not believe in him will be "cast ... into the fire, and ... burned" (John 15:6).

With this terrifying vision of what awaits unbelievers after they die, what does Jesus recommend as a means for cleansing sin in the here-and-now? Self mutilation, naturally. For it is better to have cut your own hand or leg off, or plucked out your own eye "rather than having two hands or two feet ... with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire" (Matthew 18:8-9).

Oh, and those who are cast into the fires of Hell can not only expect punishment, but "everlasting punishment" (Matthew 25:46). So basically, if you don't follow the teachings of Jesus, your soul will be tortured forever and ever. No appeal. No second chances.

It was not just the frankly hideous ideas about eternal hellfire that leads me to question Jesus' moral character. He reaffirms the Old Testament rule that children who "curseth father or mother, let him die the death" (Mark 7:10). That sounds awfully forgiving, doesn't it?

I would now like to turn to the work of famous Christian apologist C.S. Lewis. He pointed out in his book Mere Christianity that arguments for Jesus as a moral teacher were flawed. He stated that:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell... But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to (p40-41).

Lewis goes on to affirm his personal faith that Jesus was in fact the son of god. However, his argument against those who do not believe yet still claim Jesus as a good moral teacher is rightfully scathing. Anyone who reads the words of Christ and does not believe he was the son of god cannot also claim that he had any moral seriousness. The sort of things Jesus promoted were just as (if not more) horrific as the barbarism of the Old Testament.

I would like to conclude by saying that I harbor no ill will to any believing Christians. I do not share your beliefs but you are perfectly entitled to have them. My problem is with non-believers who simply bend to the conventional wisdom that Jesus, messiah or not, was a great person. All the evidence one needs is right there in the gospels. Any mortal man who uses ideas like Hell to frighten people to follow him, or encourages parents to murder disobedient children, or people to mutilate themselves is not, by any sensible person's definition, a good moral teacher.

Bachmann For President? Fortunately, I Doubt It.

While it is still only early 2011, American politics is steadily gearing up for November 2012. The next presidential election. We already know that the Democratic candidate will be incumbent President Barack Obama - frankly any talk of a primary challenge from the left is ludicrous and if it were to be taken seriously would be a frankly suicidal strategy for the Democrats to pursue. So that only leaves the question of who will be the Republican candidate? How will they regroup after the fiasco that was the McCain/Palin 2008 campaign?

While the current front runner appears to be former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (and I find it amusing that when the party looks for a new face they seem to turn to the face of the party during the Clinton administration), it appears as though Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (head of the House Tea Party Caucus) is setting up for a run at the Republican nomination. I highly doubt that she will be successful in her attempt to clinch the nomination, but a part of me is willing her to do so.

During my time at the New Statesman, I wrote two articles about Sarah Palin, and how if she gets the Republican nod, there is no way she will be elected President. Admittedly without looking at the numbers, I would be even more confident that this will be the case for Bachmann.

Bachmann first drew national attention to herself in 2008 when she appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC proposing that members of the United States Congress should be investigated to find out which of them were "pro-America" and which were "anti-America". It did not stop there either. Since then she has also claimed that CO2 is "a harmless gas" because it is "naturally occurring", has very little grasp of American history and has even used violent rhetoric while speaking out against President Obama.

It is fine to disagree with a sitting President, but Bachmann routinely gets the facts wrong when complaining about the Democratic agenda. Facts are important. Bachmann either willfully lies to the public in order to serve her own political ends or she is too ignorant to realize that she is wrong a lot. Either way you look at it, that is not someone that should be elected to the highest office in the United States. Ignorance, willful or otherwise, is not an attribute the most powerful person in the world should possess.

Bachmann is representative of the Tea Party as a whole, which is frankly a desperate, misinformed and uneducated resistance to an imagined threat. All one has to do is look at the actions of the Republican governors of Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida to realize what the nation would be like under a Tea Party government. That is a genuinely worrying prospect unless you are fortunate enough to be super-rich already, in which case you'll do wonderfully out of it. Luckily I suspect that Bachmann's woeful ignorance and propensity to use violent rhetoric will prevent her from getting anywhere near the levers of power.

The Frustration of the Lost Generation.

I realize that when I talk politics, my focus is usually on the United States of America. It is, after all, where I want to end up living so I have a vested interest in how it progresses as a society. I am, however, a product of British society and British politics. The political climate of this country has certainly left its mark upon my life. Welcome to David Cameron's Britain.

The economy was admittedly bad when the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition took power (amusingly labeled the Con-Dem-Nation by one British tabloid), but what has been done to improve things? From my perspective, the cuts and austerity measures put in place in order to "balance the budget" (a rallying cry of conservative politicians worldwide it seems) have hit the poor and the young the hardest. For the older, rich members of society a slight rise in VAT, or fuel costs, or university tuition fees will go relatively unnoticed.

Without meaning to sound selfish I would like to ask: What about me? When I say "me" I mean the poor, the young, the students, the graduates, the early school leavers and many others. These groups are feeling the full force of these cuts. University will soon become so expensive that only the rich, privileged few will be able to attend. Is that really what education should be? Something for the rich to enjoy? I thought it was to raise the standard of intellectual experience. To help social mobility. To improve people's lives, regardless of their parents incomes.

The British politicians of today all came from a society where higher education was free. Absolutely free. They paid nothing for an experience which landed them important, high paying jobs and what do they do to show their gratitude? Burn down the ladder they climbed. It is shameful. I realize that more people are going to university these days and costs are a problem, but surely the answer is not to punish those who wish to improve themselves? Why do conservative politicians complain about "punishing success" whenever someone suggests making corporations pay their fair share of tax, but are happy to heap the financial burden on students?

Even for those who have gone through the university system are suffering. I personally have several thousand pounds worth of debt. I have earned a Bachelor's degree and a Master's degree. Where has this got me? An important job in London? A nice place to live? An expensive car? Hardly. I am part of the nearly one million people between the ages of 16 and 24 in the unemployment line. I have more education than anyone else in my immediate family, yet I am the only one without paid employment.

The media has started to refer to my generation as "the lost generation" and I could not agree with the label more. It feels like the lines we were fed about the importance and benefits of education were all a lie. I was told that a university degree would set me on the pathway to a nice job, house and car (among other things). I realize that this sounds material but I currently find myself unemployed, living at home with my parents, with debts, no spending money and a 13 year old car.

It feels like the dream I was sold will be out of my reach forever. I read a statistic which said that a long stretch of unemployment in a person's youth can leave a "wage scar" for decades. The wages of someone who experiences unemployment in youth can expect their wages in 20 years time to be around 15% lower than they would otherwise be. So there you have it, if I ever cease to be another unemployment statistic (which feels increasingly like a personal failure, despite the circumstances) I can expect to be earning less than I otherwise would have.

Cameron's Britain has made this a reality for thousands of young people, yet their focus is the protection of corporations and banks who earn obscene amounts of money. Some priorities. History, if there is even the slightest justice, will look back in horror at what the coalition has done to its young population. The sad part is that I will simply be just another statistical casualty of this government. A government of privately educated millionaires protecting their friends.

The Global Citizen Dialogue!: Egypt...What Now?

The Global Citizen Dialogue!: Egypt...What Now?

A quick follow up piece on the idea of democracy, with a focus on the recent events in Egypt. Please do give it a read.

The Global Citizen Dialogue!: What does democracy mean to you?

The Global Citizen Dialogue!: What does democracy mean to you?: "Democracy is one of the most revolutionary, unifying and enduring concepts humanity has ever created."

Check out a post I submitted to another blog on the subject of democracy. The creator of that blog has a number of others which I urge you to read. Always a joy to read, whatever the subject.

Project Positivity #3: Water.

This entry may seem a little more abstract than my previous ones in this project, but please allow me to elaborate. Water is something that has a very positive effect on my life and experiences.

For a start, life as we know it could not exist at all on this tiny planet without water. Earth would be just another deserted rock taking up a relatively minuscule corner of the galaxy. As a result of water being present (and taking up two thirds of the world's surface) life was able to evolve from single celled organisms into the complexity and variety that enraptures so many people today.

Additionally, humans depend on water in order to survive (just like all other living things). We drink it to stay hydrated and our bodies are made up of roughly 60% water. In any conceivable way, life and humanity could not and would not exist without it.

Getting away from the obvious, and trying to personalize this more (that is the point of this project after all), water has symbolically been a major part of my life. I learned to swim at a very young age. I have always been grateful for that, as I have found comfort in water. It doesn't matter too much to me if it is a swimming pool or an ocean. I love to be in and around water.

The parts of the summer vacations I was taken on as a child that I looked forward to the most were the swimming and the ferry journey. The ferry was always very exciting to me. I would always go outside and watch the waves crash against the side of the ship. The feeling of being on the water was something I thoroughly enjoyed. I do not recall ever getting seasick. I suppose it is possible that I did but I have no memory of it.

Away from the vacations, just everyday life put me near to the water. For the first eighteen years of my life I lived walking distance from one of the biggest estuaries in the country and not too far away from the coast. My grandmother lived (and still does live) in the seaside town of Felixstowe. Every time we visited we would walk along the seafront and watch the waves, big and small, crash against the beach.

Felixstowe

Then I went to university. To Aberystwyth. A town on the exact opposite side of the British island to Felixstowe, yet something about it felt very familiar: the sea. It was a totally different body of water I gazed out upon in Aber and the waves were generally much bigger yet the effect it had on me was exactly the same. An odd mixture of excitement and calm. Something about the sight, smell and sound of the waves crashing on the shore was incredibly soothing. I did not always enjoy being in Aber. In fact, at times I was miserable. The upside was that I had a foolproof method of clearing my head: a walk along the seafront. It never failed. Rain or shine, day or night, if I had a lot on my mind I went for a walk to the seafront and just let my mind empty. It is usually impossible for me to switch my brain off (something that has caused much aggravation in the past and still continues to do so), but being in front of the water manages to do it.

Aberystwyth

I feel drawn to coastal areas. Part of the reason I love New York so much (and Long Island is a particularly good example of this) is its proximity to the water. I think it is no coincidence that while I did not much care for Florida, my favorite parts of the week I spent there were swimming in the hotel pool and swimming in the Gulf of Mexico (before the oil spill, naturally).

I sometimes feel sadness that I live in a place so far from the coasts. I even did my Master's degree in Coventry. There are few places in Britain further away from a coastline. I miss it. I miss swimming. I miss watching the waves in the rain. I love the water. Something so simple, yet complex at the same time. It fills me with such awe.

Project Positivity #2: Christopher Hitchens.

There are some writers who come along once in a generation. Their voice is clear from reading their work. They make compelling, alluring and arresting arguments for causes they care deeply about. They are more often than not loved and hated in equal measures. For me, the writer who has caught my attention more than any other is Christopher Hitchens.

Born in England and educated at Oxford University, Hitchens moved to the United States in 1981 and became an American citizen in 2007. He writes weekly columns for Slate and monthly pieces for Vanity Fair. His best-selling book god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything catapulted him to the front of what has been called (irritatingly, in my opinion) the 'New Atheists' alongside Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel C. Dennett. He is often invited onto American news shows to discuss issues of American politics, history and religion and is a prolific debater.

He is an unapologetic critic of Henry Kissinger, Mother Teresa, Bill Clinton and Pope Benedict XVI among others. He is an admirer of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and George Orwell (all three of whom have been subjects of his books).

Sadly he has recently been diagnosed with oesophageal cancer. I wrote briefly on this earlier and I really do hope that he recovers. However, this post is supposed to be focused on the positives, so I shall explain why Hitchens has become such a significant figure to 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).

Looking at the way Hitchens' life has turned out (cancer aside, obviously) makes me think about what is possible. The combination of what he has achieved, what he talks and writes about, and how he uses the English language have combined to make him the most significant influence in my writing, argumentative style and political thought. If I can achieve even some of the success in those areas as he has, I will be truly happy.

Project Positivity #1: New York.

I really could not start this project with anything else. New York. The city. The state. I know I have talked about it briefly before, but I do not feel I really did justice to my feelings. Hopefully, this entry will rectify that.

I have said it many times in conversation but New York was (and is) the first true love of my life. In terms of positivity, I cannot think of a single thing that quite matches New York. Friends and partners may come and go but you never forget your first real love.

Growing up, I never felt like I belonged anywhere. Sure, I had friends who were (and in some cases still are) very dear to me but I always felt out of place. Something about where I lived just did not feel right. There is no rational or logical explanation I can offer for this, it is just how I felt. At the same time, I was becoming increasingly exposed to American culture. This could be in movies, TV shows, music or anything else. The seed of desire to experience and live in the United States had been planted.

It was not until I was 16 that I was able to set foot in the United States of America. The trip was only for six days, but I was excited. America, finally. Many people in my family had told me that the image I had constructed in my head would not be matched by the reality. I was to be realistic in order to stave off disappointment. I tried to erase the wonderful images I had in my imagination of what New York would be. I was unable to.

New York City not only met my expectations, but surpassed them. I was absolutely enraptured by it. Enthralled. Mesmerized. The sheer scale of it was utterly breath taking. The noise was like nothing I had ever experienced in the UK. It was beautiful. Even the sweltering humidity of August in New York was not enough to tarnish the experience. I was in love.

It was more than that, however. Beyond the aesthetics of what was the most beautiful city I had ever laid eyes on were two intangibles. Two aspects of New York that are difficult to quantify and even more difficult to explain logically or empirically.

The first of these intangibles is something that so many people credit the city with: the energy. The air in New York feels electric. It did the first time I was there, and it does not fade with time. The entire city feels alive and exciting even if you are just strolling down the street with no particular plans or destination. It is something that cannot be adequately expressed except between people who have experienced it. Every time I have revisited New York, the sight of that world famous skyline appearing on the horizon never fails to excite me. There is no law of diminished returns for me. Being in the Big Apple, I feel alive in a way that does not seem possible anywhere else.

The second aspect that is difficult to defend using logic is quite simple. I finally felt at home. Yes, I had a building in the UK in which I kept all my possessions and which also housed my family but it never felt like a home. Not really. I did not know what the feeling of home was until I saw New York. While it is true that I feel excited any time I am in New York City, it is accompanied by the feeling of being at ease with my surroundings. As excited as I become, part of that excitement comes from the fact that I always feel like this is where I am meant to be.

I was born in the wrong country.

Feeling at home is not limited to New York City either. It extends to the entirety of New York State. I spent four months living in Utica (a city in upstate New York) and have spent several weeks on Long Island. In all three of those places I feel the same sense of ease and of belonging. It does not have to do with the people (although a lot of them certainly have helped), but with the places themselves. Funnily enough, I have visited other states of the Union as well as Washington D.C. I can appreciate these cities and states for all of their individual beauties and points of interest, yet that feeling of home has not been felt anywhere but within the State of New York. I have no reason to offer why that is the case, but it is. I love the United States and want to visit as much of it as possible in my lifetime, but I highly doubt that anywhere will ever feel as much like home as New York will.

I adore New York. Absolutely and without apology. Many people have bad experiences of it, or will be quick to point out its flaws or shortcomings. I can listen and accept these comments but they will not alter my mind at all. I have a tattoo on the inside of my left arm of an apple. The symbol of New York. I had no doubts about a New York inspired tattoo because the city and state have shaped my life in such a significant way that their influence can never be denied. Even if I never achieve my goal of living there, New York will forever be the first true love of my life.

Project Positivity: An Introduction.

I have decided to set myself a challenge. Usually the motivation for my blog posts are frustration and annoyance. I often feel the need to rant about something in particular. As a result I feel like I give off a very negative impression. I have been told numerous times that I look at things too negatively, and I certainly imagine that it comes across in my writing.

So with this in mind I am hoping to dedicate the next few entries (how many exactly I have not decided as the idea has only just occurred to me) to something that I love. Something positive. Upbeat. I see this as a challenge because most of my writing is fueled by negativity, and I want to see if I am able to write at all well when being positive. I shall let you be the judge.

Happy New Year

I realize that I am over a week late in wishing everyone a Happy New Year, so I apologize for my lethargy. I did not post on this blog throughout December as I was working as an intern for the New Statesman magazine. Overall it was a very good experience and I even managed to get some articles published. If you are interested in reading those articles and have not yet done so, they can all be found here.

Well, 2010 is over and 2011 is underway. A completely arbitrary distinction really but the start of a new year has become significant in the human psyche, at least in Western countries. It is seen as a time of reflection and of looking ahead. I shall attempt to do something along those lines and keep it brief so I do not run too high a risk of boring people.

2010 for me was awful. There are other, more crude words I use to describe it in everyday conversation but I am sure you can figure out what those words are. I am not, however, saying that the year was totally without its high points. The first few days of 2010 actually represented one of the happiest starts to a year I can remember (second happiest to be exact). It just went downhill from there. Yes, there were people and events that gave me reason to smile but when looking at the year overall: it was terrible. Those of you who know me well will probably know a lot of the reasons for that, so I shall not rehash the details.

When looking towards 2011 I see nothing. I do not mean to say that I see no positives on the horizon. I see no horizon. In most years there has always been a significant part of the upcoming months in which I knew what to expect (more or less), or had something to look forward to, or even something to dread. There is none of that this year. It is a complete unknown. I am still unsure if that is a good thing or not. Time, as they say, will tell.

I know what I hope to get out of 2011, but I realize some of them are highly unlikely and others are literally impossible. All I can do is work as hard as I can towards the goals that are merely unlikely as opposed to impossible and maybe by the end of the next twelve months I will have something to show for it. I will also try to post regularly on here, as I feel bad for neglecting this space.

I sincerely hope that 2011 is an improvement on 2010 for me and everyone else. I highly doubt my year will top the one I had in 2007 but one can only hope, and in the absence of tangible evidence that things will be better, hope is sometimes all one has.