Blog Themes

[General | Cerebral Palsy | Philosophy | Politics | Soccer | Real Ale]

NB: To post a blog comment, simply click on the link at the end of the post that indicate how many comments there currently are.

Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts

Wednesday, 4 March 2009

'Seize the Moment'

'Flash' Gordon Brown gave a speech to the US Congress calling for the US to seize the moment on the economy woes of our time.

Nick Robinson claims that this is not Brown's colgate moment with Obama, yet the Guardian calls it the crowning moment of Brown's political career.

Still with Brown's economic credentials, if the US actually listen to Brown, and do not vote for more protectionism and a 'buy American/made in America' clause, then maybe this influence of 'Brown knows' could hit home back here in the UK and thus the prophecy of Mandelson can be realized:

Labour can win a 4th term.

Sunday, 1 March 2009

National Health Service for America? (US Health Care)

The title, though far fatched, is a step in the right direction with Obama's intended reform of the American Health Care System.

In Michael Moore's filmn Sicko, almost fifty million Americans are uninsured and those who are covered are often victims of insurance companies. See Wikipedia entry if you have not seen the film, here.

As Justin Webb points out, it's been promised by Carter, Clinton, even Teddy Roosevelt.

The natural person for health secretary who I would have liked, though perhaps too radical for some Americans to contemplate after the scandal in the Clinton years would have been dear Hilary, now US Secretary of State.

Instead, Obama has plumped for Kathleen Sibelius, as his first choice Tom Daschle has been investigated over his tax activity.

Whatever, whoever is the face of healthcare reform in America's change administration, it is only natural to agree with Webb that paying $629 for"a day of education about diabetes" is indeed, madness.

This, I think beats any privatized-only medicine system argument in the United States considering the rings that the insurance companies will have you run around before they pay your hospital bills. Look at the UK system - you can have your choice of doctors here, where you can go for treatment: I myself am a good example - I travel 100+ miles for my orthopeadic surgery. And at the end of it all, is there really any difference between paying for medical insurance and paying a national health insurance tax?

It's still money spent. And the lesson to learn, is that you spend a lot less to get the treatment you want as well - even breast enlargement and sexual reassignment surgery are offered on the NHS, plus prescriptions. In America, you will pay a hell of a lot more to receive something that is a human right: access to medical care. There should never be a conflict over paying your doctor for treatment and their duty to the hippocratic oath, should there?

So what's next on my to do list?: Watch Sicko again...

Thursday, 22 January 2009

Illegitimate Presidency



The talking points surrounding the Inauguration meant that Barack Obama was NOT officially POTUS after taking the oath, as the wording was wrong. Now rectified, the agenda to close Guantanamo Bay has been ordered and the top US official post of Secretary of State has been confirmed : Hilary Rodham Clinton


Guantanamo Bay has been the main talking point, where Obama has ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay, the "gulag of our times".

It seems pretty clear that there were some forces behind the Bush Administration's inability to close Guantanamo - the stubborness of one Dick Cheny (suprise, suprise), and the fact that the Bush administration started the operation in the first place. John Bellinger, an advisor to Condeleezza Rice, shares his regret and frustrations over Guantanamo.

It would appear, I would expect, that Obama has retook the oath before signing the executive decision to close the detention centre. Though the era of change has begun, I fear that this is all a little more than symbolism by the Obama Administration.

If a 'perfectly logical' plan to set up the centre in the first place descended into such controversy where torture was used and accepted, if Bellinger's words are to be beleived, then we cannot ignore this possibility again. I can't fathom personally how the religious neo-conservatives can resort to such violence and inhumane nature - surely God judges at the end of the day.

The infamous legacy that this leaves behind will remain with Bush administration though I do not feel that the anti-Americans out there will see it that way. There is a history of US interventionism and dare I say 'imperalism' over the course of the twentieth century.

Having argued for a new era of openness from his administration and the closure of Guantanamo Bay, this is a good start by the Obama administration. Torture is indefensible - there are moral imperatives and all humans have rights - not simply those kept to and enshrined by national constitutions, bills of rights. The BBC is even asking readers, "Do you agree that Guantanamo prison should be closed?"

The bottom line is, people would say anything under torture to make someone stop. Its an involuntary human reflex, like jerking your hand away from something that's too hot. How anyone can ever justify something like this is beyond me.

Tuesday, 20 January 2009

Bring Home the Revolution: Obama, Hope, Progress, Change

5,000 tickets sold in less than a minute for the Obama Inauguration. Barack Hussein Obama, legally president at noon on January 20th before he took the Presidential Oath of Office, has now ushered in a new era of 'remaking America', an era of change.

Gone is George W. Bush and the neo-cons - now...

"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."





There is an international appeal to the Obama presidency and the powerful role of the United States plays in our world. It is, a notion that we here can share at home in the United Kingdom of failed politics.




As a member of Republic, I received an email from Republic: Campaign for an Elected Head of State, an organisation that I have been a member of for the past year and attended their annual conference back in October. Graham Smith, campaign manager of Republic is calling for increased membership and the launch of 55 in 5 campaign - a drive to establish a elected British head of State within the next 5 years. This is all very optimistic, and the state of the Monarchy in Britain is pretty low after the recent revelations of Harry making racist remarks on a video and Prince Charles (heir apparent) stating he wants to play a more hands-on role.

It reminds me of the old joke about the optimist and the pessimist:

Pessimist says: "It can't get any worse."

But the optimist says:

"Oh yes it can!"

American politics, British politics, democracy in general is as I can see it: Broken. There is discontent in UK political circles over the question of Scottish Independence (for one), and the political apathy as of late puts the major parties in a dead heat. In the latest opinion polls, (9th January in the Sun/YouGov), Conservaties are 41% to Labour's 34% and Liberal Democrats at 15%. The 7 point gap is not too massive, and I would argue that the polls taken in the Sun has arguably a right wing bias anyway. There is a reality, I feel that there could well be a 'hung parliament' at election time. What does this mean for UK Politics?

It means that no party can command a majority and so it is to the Monarch's discretion who to ask to form a government. The Monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, an unelected official could decide the legislative destiny and direction of the UK Parliament in the 21st century. Though the monarchy, some might argue has little importance (all she ever does is wave, see video below...) This threat is very real and very damaging to the notion of democracy.



Barack Obama spoke in his inaugral address of "remaking America". America is a country founded on the back of a bill of rights, on democracy, freedom from religious and political tyranny with liberty and justice for all. With the inaugration of a African-American as president, it is a sign that the social attitudes of even a country like America are shifting. They have elected a liberal as a President. With a Muslim middle name. Who is also mixed race. If America can see the error of their ways after the Bush years then I would argue there is hope for humanity yet. The notion of 'remaking America' has a personal touch to the Americans but it has a wider and global appeal. It is not Americentric. Instead. it is about the ideals for which the United States stands for, and exporting that to the world. Freedom for all people, the French have done it (5 times), the Germans, the Italians... and it is about being able for the people to govern themselves - either by proxy in a centralist government with representatives or small communities of direct democracy.

Of all the systems of government, as Winston Churchill once remarked "Democracy is the best of the worst" (or something to that effect). The system we have in the United Kingdom is not, if there is a hung parliament, a democracy at all. If no majority is found in a general election and the Queen chooses of her own accord who to form a government, then this is clearly going against democratic principle that the people have freedom. Freedom means choice.

We do not have that, here at home, with the realities of the British Constitution.

In 'remaking America' - 'America' being a system of ideals rather than a singular identity (see Jonathon Freedland - "Bring Home the Revolution") - we can take the inspiring message of hope, of change, of progress, of Obama, to the United Kingdom, and the rest of the world.

Friday, 16 January 2009

Bush: Smart, Articulate, Successful

So said Bob Tuttle, US Ambassador to the United Kingdom in the Telegraph.

What successes, I wonder? The Iraq debacle will always be his 'legacy', in my mind, and the global crisis that has soured the end of his second term.

Not to mention he is the most unpopular outgoing President (ever). The sooner Obama is sworn in, just a few more days come Jan 20th, the better.






Can't say I blame Connecticut, to be honest.

One thing, if anything I agree with Tuttle on, is that we should keep close ties with our American cousins. It is important for them, and important for us. I wouldn't have thought Sarkozy and France, Merkel and Germany would be too comfortable with us having a major role in European Politics, particularly as we weren't one of the founders of the Rome Treaty in 1957.

That is not to say I am a Euro-skeptic, far from it. Recent events in the financial crisis have shown that we do have an important role to play in International Affairs. Even though it was a big gaffe for Brown saying he 'saved the world' regarding the financial crisis... Even though he seems to be leading the way.

The only thing is... I'm not so sure if Obama and Brown will be best of friends, even if Obama thinks Cameron is a 'lightweight'.

It will be interesting to see how relations and UK impact on the foreign stage will play out in the next decade.


-- Post From My iPhone

Saturday, 10 January 2009

Era of Change

There are just 10 days until President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

Tickets have been sold for a parade too. 5,000 of them.

Obama tickets 'sell in a minute'

Barack Obama
Obama already faces an economic crisis and foreign policy challenges

Reserved seats for the US presidential inauguration parade have sold out within one minute of being put on sale, the ticket company has said.

More than 90% of the 5,000 seats available along the parade route in Washington were sold online.

The tickets cost $25 (£16) each - but some went on to reappear on internet sites at much higher prices.

Two million people are expected to crowd the National Mall as Barack Obama takes the oath of office on 20 January.

Most of the seats for the swearing-in ceremony are set aside for lawmakers, VIPs and diplomats.

The tickets that went on sale on Friday were for stands that line the route Mr Obama and his vice-president, Joe Biden, will take between the US Capitol and the White House.

Sales began at 1300 (1800 GMT) and went "blazingly fast", Albert Lopez, a spokesman for sales company Ticketmaster, said.

Linda Douglass, the chief spokeswoman for the inaugural committee, said the selling time was startling.

Workers build the inauguration stand on 7 November 2008
Work is already well underway for the event, set to draw huge crowds

"You just have to assume there must have been people sitting there at their computers ready to go when the clock struck one," she said.

Inauguration officials strongly disapproved of anyone seeking to profit from the sale of the ticket, she said - as tickets appeared at 10 times their original price on auction site eBay.

The committee says it wants to make Barack Obama's inauguration one of the most accessible in US history.




All I can say is.... Gone in Sixty Seconds. I'm sure the inaugural address is live on television, I'll post more when I find it. :)

Monday, 5 January 2009

Guns don't kill people...

A 12 year old boy from Arizona in the US shot and killed his mother this week.

I remember watching Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, where the NRA (National Rifle Association) said that Guns don't kill people, the people do.

I'm not so sure that is the case, especially in cases like these and more so in the one explored in the film of Michael Moore's - if I remember rightly a 6 year old killed a classmate with a gun. Crazy.

Still, the boy (if you read the article link above), has been deemed mentally capable to have the MO for the murder.

Ridiculous. At least Arizona is one the 49 US States that don't allow for the death penalty for minors (Georgia do - see "Why do people hate America" by Sardar and Davies)... so he will just be given a juvenile prison sentence.

Which is fair enough, hopefully though, he is rehabilitated rather than have his life destroyed by the courts.

Monday, 8 December 2008

Child Pornography, or Art?



Wikipedia child image censored

Mouse and keyboard, Eyewire
Wikipedia allows readers to edit the content of its pages

A decision by a number of UK internet providers to block a Wikipedia page showing an image of a naked girl has angered users of the popular site.

The blocked page of the online encyclopaedia shows an album cover of German heavy metal band Scorpions.

Internet providers acted after online watchdog the Internet Watch Foundation warned them its picture may be illegal.

Some volunteers who run Wikipedia said it was not for the foundation to censor one of the web's most popular sites.

They also argued that the image was available in a number of books and had never been ruled illegal.

But the IWF, which warns internet providers about possible images that could be linked to child abuse, said it had consulted the police before making its decision.

The foundation's list of proscribed sites is widely used by British internet service providers to filter out images showing child abuse and other illegal content.

It's the first time they've done this on such a visible site
David Gerard, Wikipedia volunteer

As a result, the addition of the Scorpions Wikipedia page has made it inaccessible to the majority of British internet users.

A spokeswoman for the IWF, which lists its members as including the BBC, AOL (UK), Ask and News International, suggested as many as 95% of British users would now be unable to access the page.

Wikipedia volunteer David Gerard said he and fellow users were angry that as well as the photo, the text on the page had been blocked.

"Blocking text is a whole new thing - it's the first time they've done this on such a visible site," he said.

Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation, which manages the encyclopaedia, said the removal of the page also appeared to have stopped thousands of UK users from editing articles on Wikipedia, which allows readers to self-edit its pages.

"It appears that there's a large number of editors - I can't say all - who appear to have access issues," he said.

The IWF spokeswoman said a reader had brought the image to the foundation's attention last week and it had contacted the police before adding the page to their list.

Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites. It is a multi-lingual online database written, edited and funded largely by its users. It has 2.6m articles in English alone.

(Source: BBC)



Child Pornography, or Art?

The Album the news is referring to, is Scorpions album "Virgin Killer" released in the 1970s - (access to wikipedia to find out if you can get to the page for UK users).

Reading further into Wikipedia's own entry on the controversy, I found that:

"The filtering is in response to the Internet Watch Foundation’s list of websites that host or contain content that have been reported to contain inappropriate images of naked children,(those under the age of 18). The IWF considers those images child pornography. However, in the United States (where the websites of the Wikimedia Foundation are hosted), it is not considered obscene under the criteria of the Miller test, which requires that an obscene work lack “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” (as album art is used to “brand” the album, it is considered to be artistic)."


This then, brings the question of whether we can consider such controversial images as Art. The crucial thing to note between the US and UK system of laws is that the UK is not protected by any Bill of Rights and I would assume that the "Miller test" which makes this kind of controversial image legal in the US is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The UK however, is not given this kind of protection in the constitution as we are bound to the 1998 Human Rights Act, which is subject to EU Human Rights legislation. There appears to be a case for a new bill, which is advocated by David Cameron.

I am not defending child pornography in any way, but freedom of speech, freedom of art and publication and expression is at the very foundation of our society. I have already looked into recently the criticism of Alan Carr, Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross in two blogs (One and Two).

Unfortunately because there is no real Bill of Rights in the UK protecting free speech (something that we really ought to sort out in the 21st Century), I cannot give any further analysis without viewing the image, which at the moment being considered "Child Porn", I could arrested for viewing and publicising the picture for something which is arguably art.

I would argue however, if it can pass the US litmus test for appropiate freedom of expression, then surely it can be accepted in our own society. The real crime here, is the true lack of any established bill of rights universally - if it can pass a western democracy with the power and stature in the world like the United States of America, then why not here in the United Kingdom.


Protect Art.

Protect Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression.


The argument against the publication or viewing of the album cover that it personifies and encourages child porn is akin to saying watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre will make us all like Edward Gein.

It would seem the media lately are having a particular moral panic and we cannot be trusted in the UK to use our common sense to say that such work (however distasteful) is art, not child It would not seem that the cover to Nirvana's "Nevermind" album is censored, it does feature a naked baby afterall. Is this "art" or child pornography? Art. And though it is apparently on the grey area whether I can look at the Scorpions album cover or not for legal reasons, I would argue anyway on the same grounds that artistic integrity should be protected, not just because somebody is offended by a particular image of particular expression. If the Virgin Killer album cover is censored for a depiction of 'child porn' and not art, then how the Nevermind album cover is free from scrutiny I will never know. I would like to think we can acheive some sort of moral standand. At the moment this smacks of nothing but double standards, and freedom of speech and expression has gone down the toilet because somebody raised a red flag because they were offended. Again.

If such arguments and events are a sign of things to come, then we have let the dark side of humanity win, and not our good side.

I would hope, that we can all use our common sense when it comes to moral issues and controversial subjects. Perhaps then we will actually get somewhere without seemingly pressing the panic button at every opportunity.