You know, I'm pretty sure if my father could have been responsible for scripting November 4th, 2008, he would have not only had John McCain winning the Presidency - but also had every last person in the State of California vote 'Yes' on Proposition 8.
Yes, my father is a bit afraid of those gays. A homophobe in the truest sense of the word, he knows that their bedroom activities do not include him and would not affect him even if he didn't know about it - but he still fears that if we grant homosexuals the same rights as everyone who 'plays by the rules', he will somehow end up with a dick in the butt.
Is it crazy? Yes. Is it archaic? Yes. Is it funny? Sort of.
It can only be viewed as funny if you think about his fear, and not about his mindset. He truly believes that homosexuals are second-class citizens (of this or any country), which means that he believes that there are second-class citizens. Which is wrong on all accounts, but especially so in a country which pretty openly stresses that it views all men to have been created equal. "Liberty and justice for all" is a great catch phrase for people like my father, because it perpetuates their own freedoms while granting them the liberties of restricting others.
The idea that marriage is anything other than A.) a commitment which requires a ceremony involving friends or family witnessing two people stating what was usually already fairly obvious to everyone else, or B.) a legal phrase that we assign to couples who don't mind the alteration in their taxes or people knowing that they are attempting to stay with one person for the rest of their lives - is ludicrous.
I've heard the argument that there are people who would use same-sex marriages with 'malicious' intents such as guaranteeing themselves insurance coverage from their employers, or ensuring that any children that they have or may have will be the sole executors of their estate, thanks to a friend who is willing to pose as a lover to help meet those ends. Yes, because heterosexual coupling has never produced anything that could even be construed as illegal.
The fact of the matter is that prohibiting gays, lesbians and/or transgendered people their right to marry whoever they see fit is an action that serves only to show the cowardice of those who introduce such a bill, and the weak-mindedness of those who would vote for it.
Actually, I take that back - it also violates one of the founding principles of the United States: separation of church and state. Of course many of the arguments for the establishment of that separation are founded on the idea that a government should have a complete lack of authority in the realm of individual conscience. But keeping with the theme of checks and balances that was also established in this country, shouldn't the ideals of a religion have no authority in the realm of social contracts? Should freedom of religion take priority over freedom of expression - such as the expression of love between two people, regardless of their gender?
I distinctly recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, stating that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
... And if we look to the other side of the argument, the non-secular view of the world offers many contradictory points in reference to being with a person of your own gender. Apparently being a homosexual will in turn banish that person to a firey pit of torment for all of eternity not spent on Earth, unless the mass hatred poured out towards homosexuals is to be counted. And speaking of that hatred, don't the same books that state that homosexuality is 'wrong' also speak of not judging other people, as God will do so with infinite wisdom?
This argument could go on forever, and I'm only discussing it with myself at the moment. So to conclude I will say this - I would rather burn in Hell if it allows two people who truly love each other, be they two men or two women, to have the right and the confidence to state and express that love how, when and wherever they see fit.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
18.11.08
6.6.08
"There appears to be an event happening..."
The working thesis for this particular entry is as follows: "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
Derrick Comedy: Spelling Bee [NSFW]
Following that clip, and before any discussion takes place, it should first be stated that very rarely is racial humour of any fashion appreciated on a universal level, and that it is the responsibility of the joke-teller to point out the comical nature of the joke, and not the responsibility of those hearing the joke to stop, analyze and then determine whether to be offended or entertained.
That said, holding something up to the light is not the same as making light of it.
The language of hate has many different faces and dialects, and regardless of how easily any given individual can picture a perfect world - the reality within which we live is far from those dreams of utopia. Derogatory terms rarely have a shelf life, and to take on such a subject without first understanding both the history and modern application of such terms is just as, if not more ignorant than simply applying such words in everyday conversation. For as weak of an argument as it is, at least one can make a case of accidental ignorance - if they were raised around such words, and never were introduced to detestable history of their use as a blanket term for people who share only an ethnic background or similar skin tone.
Armed with that knowledge, even the casual use of such words as 'nigger' or 'faggot' can only be defined as direct and conscious ignorance of the fact that all people are born as equals, and that only in our actions can we then separate 'good' from 'bad'. And if the intent is to utilize such terms to get a laugh, then that person or group of people are guilty of satire in it's poorest and least effective form.
But if the joke simply 'must' be made, it should make light of things that even those within the race of focus can appreciate as either ludicrous stereotypes or otherwise harmless observations - and not simply make sweeping generalizations in and of itself.
There is often a sense of entitlement, especially among the black community, to their right to the casual usage of terms that they would never tolerate a non-member of their race to use even comically. It is referred to as 'taking the power away' from the terms, but in reality such actions only serve to grant more power to those who use it 'without permission'. Quite honestly, the level of idiocy exhibited from many musicians and entertainers who could otherwise be considered very capable thinkers is troubling - namely, those who speak out against racism only to cater to the many tenets that make up the stereotypes that they are unfairly held against.
Such behaviour is detestable, yes - but it does allow us to see that in this modern world, we have grown into a global society still filled with two types of people: hunters and gatherers.
In the past, hunters were directly responsible for the survival of not only themselves, but their families - all by spending their life out tracking, stalking and finally killing their prey. And that carcass would serve not just as food, but as tools, clothing and shelter to get that family through a winter that most cannot even begin to fathom - tucked into their warm safe beds, with thermostats just a few steps away to drive off any sneaking discomfort that manages to find its way through their insulated walls.
And while there have been significant developments since that time, particularly in the terms of medical science, architecture and the development of a monetary system - modern hunters still have an important tie to their predecessors. Their lives are dedicated to the search - often forging out on a path less chosen, in order to track and eventually come across their goal: to dominate something much larger than themselves, and use it to provide for those they hold dear.
Meanwhile, gatherers supplemented the time between kills by harvesting nuts, roots and berries from the wild. And while they didn't provide the impressive bulk and diverse functionality that the hunters did with their contributions, they oftentimes represented the only source of food that a family would have during periods of drought and especially trying hunting seasons.
The most important thing about early gatherers was that they worked in conjunction with the hunters to provide, and never saw their jobs as unimportant or not as prestigious as that of the hunters' - they had neither time nor need for such internal debate. Their only concern was that of keeping their family alive and on course, focused only on making it to the next round of provisions from their hunting partners.
And that is the point on which modern gatherers diverge from their historical forebears. Most modern gatherers can only be found following the trails blazed by their hunting counterparts, gathering only enough to support their own needs - and most often spending any time that remains attempting to bring down other gatherers, or defame the accomplishments of the hunters who allowed them to live with comfort in a world they often feel does not meet some mythic standard that is owed to them.
They use every possible means available to enrich only themselves, and curse anyone who questions their motives or methods. They stand as icons of bitterness, upset that they were not solely responsible for creating or developing the ideas and standards they have used to provide a life for themselves, and never truly appreciative of the fortunes they are afforded.
This is the world in which we live today, and this is the world that those of you with children will be leaving to them as inheritance, unless we can agree to take a stand against the benchmarks currently held in regard to such topics. Otherwise, the already bleak future we have as our forecast will only become more dismal and disjointed as time goes on - until we are left in a world of irrationality within which the ignorance of today will only be met by the blindness of tomorrow.
Derrick Comedy: Spelling Bee [NSFW]
Following that clip, and before any discussion takes place, it should first be stated that very rarely is racial humour of any fashion appreciated on a universal level, and that it is the responsibility of the joke-teller to point out the comical nature of the joke, and not the responsibility of those hearing the joke to stop, analyze and then determine whether to be offended or entertained.
That said, holding something up to the light is not the same as making light of it.
The language of hate has many different faces and dialects, and regardless of how easily any given individual can picture a perfect world - the reality within which we live is far from those dreams of utopia. Derogatory terms rarely have a shelf life, and to take on such a subject without first understanding both the history and modern application of such terms is just as, if not more ignorant than simply applying such words in everyday conversation. For as weak of an argument as it is, at least one can make a case of accidental ignorance - if they were raised around such words, and never were introduced to detestable history of their use as a blanket term for people who share only an ethnic background or similar skin tone.
Armed with that knowledge, even the casual use of such words as 'nigger' or 'faggot' can only be defined as direct and conscious ignorance of the fact that all people are born as equals, and that only in our actions can we then separate 'good' from 'bad'. And if the intent is to utilize such terms to get a laugh, then that person or group of people are guilty of satire in it's poorest and least effective form.
But if the joke simply 'must' be made, it should make light of things that even those within the race of focus can appreciate as either ludicrous stereotypes or otherwise harmless observations - and not simply make sweeping generalizations in and of itself.
There is often a sense of entitlement, especially among the black community, to their right to the casual usage of terms that they would never tolerate a non-member of their race to use even comically. It is referred to as 'taking the power away' from the terms, but in reality such actions only serve to grant more power to those who use it 'without permission'. Quite honestly, the level of idiocy exhibited from many musicians and entertainers who could otherwise be considered very capable thinkers is troubling - namely, those who speak out against racism only to cater to the many tenets that make up the stereotypes that they are unfairly held against.
Such behaviour is detestable, yes - but it does allow us to see that in this modern world, we have grown into a global society still filled with two types of people: hunters and gatherers.
In the past, hunters were directly responsible for the survival of not only themselves, but their families - all by spending their life out tracking, stalking and finally killing their prey. And that carcass would serve not just as food, but as tools, clothing and shelter to get that family through a winter that most cannot even begin to fathom - tucked into their warm safe beds, with thermostats just a few steps away to drive off any sneaking discomfort that manages to find its way through their insulated walls.
And while there have been significant developments since that time, particularly in the terms of medical science, architecture and the development of a monetary system - modern hunters still have an important tie to their predecessors. Their lives are dedicated to the search - often forging out on a path less chosen, in order to track and eventually come across their goal: to dominate something much larger than themselves, and use it to provide for those they hold dear.
Meanwhile, gatherers supplemented the time between kills by harvesting nuts, roots and berries from the wild. And while they didn't provide the impressive bulk and diverse functionality that the hunters did with their contributions, they oftentimes represented the only source of food that a family would have during periods of drought and especially trying hunting seasons.
The most important thing about early gatherers was that they worked in conjunction with the hunters to provide, and never saw their jobs as unimportant or not as prestigious as that of the hunters' - they had neither time nor need for such internal debate. Their only concern was that of keeping their family alive and on course, focused only on making it to the next round of provisions from their hunting partners.
And that is the point on which modern gatherers diverge from their historical forebears. Most modern gatherers can only be found following the trails blazed by their hunting counterparts, gathering only enough to support their own needs - and most often spending any time that remains attempting to bring down other gatherers, or defame the accomplishments of the hunters who allowed them to live with comfort in a world they often feel does not meet some mythic standard that is owed to them.
They use every possible means available to enrich only themselves, and curse anyone who questions their motives or methods. They stand as icons of bitterness, upset that they were not solely responsible for creating or developing the ideas and standards they have used to provide a life for themselves, and never truly appreciative of the fortunes they are afforded.
This is the world in which we live today, and this is the world that those of you with children will be leaving to them as inheritance, unless we can agree to take a stand against the benchmarks currently held in regard to such topics. Otherwise, the already bleak future we have as our forecast will only become more dismal and disjointed as time goes on - until we are left in a world of irrationality within which the ignorance of today will only be met by the blindness of tomorrow.
14.5.08
Identifying Poverty
Poverty is defined as,
The first question one must ask when approaching such a task is how is poverty defined? The current accepted definition within the European Union is a person being below 60% of the median net disposable income - the median being the midpoint of the range of incomes. Under this definition, no fewer than thirteen million people in the United Kingdom alone are living in poverty. That works out to one-in-four people, including one-in-three children.
For those skeptical of the numbers thus far here are a few more - it is thought that over 10.5 million people live in financial insecurity in Britain, unable to save, or to insure their homes adequately. In addition to that, a 2000 survey by revealed that 6.5 million adults have to go without essential items of clothing, such as warm coats, simply because they do not have the money to buy them.
Across the ocean in the United States, one of the main indicators of the volume of population living in poverty is that of food stamps. Since the beginning of the fiscal year (October 2007), it is estimated that some twenty-eight million people in the US are using government-issued food stamps to purchase essentials such as groceries - the highest level since the Food Stamp Act of 1964.
Add into that the widening income differentials faced by third-world countries, where some live on means of less than £1 a day - and new questions are raised. Whose situation is more pressing - that of an impoverished man who lives on the streets of London, or someone who does without in the plains of Africa?
A primary issue that accompanies any discussion of poverty is the unjust accusations and assignments of blame made by those who examine these statistics. There are direct links to employment - especially quality of employment, and poverty.
Perhaps employers ought to take a share of the blame and some responsibility for the poverty? Tackling inequality and low pay, making work more accessible and resisting the temptation to increase the volume of insecure, vulnerable work – these are some of the interventions employers can use to make a difference.
For those living above the poverty line, which more than likely includes most who are reading this column - you can make a difference, as well. Whether through monetary donations, volunteer work or simply taking note of which politicians are more active in the areas of poverty. If nothing else, you will help prevent more of the population from slipping into poverty than already have - perhaps including yourself.
For more information, view the 2007 Human Development Report [PDF] and Millenium Development Goals Report [PDF], both issued by the United Nations Development Programme - as well as the World Bank's criteria for identifying urban poverty.
1.) the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.Regardless of where one lives in this world, they are never too far separated from people living in situations of poverty. A great deal is made about this by people in very prominent positions, but the question remains - what can truly be done to assist those currently living in situations of impoverishment? And how can we prevent any more from meeting such a fate?
2.) deficiency of necessary or desirable ingredients, qualities, etc.
3.) scantiness; insufficiency.
The first question one must ask when approaching such a task is how is poverty defined? The current accepted definition within the European Union is a person being below 60% of the median net disposable income - the median being the midpoint of the range of incomes. Under this definition, no fewer than thirteen million people in the United Kingdom alone are living in poverty. That works out to one-in-four people, including one-in-three children.
For those skeptical of the numbers thus far here are a few more - it is thought that over 10.5 million people live in financial insecurity in Britain, unable to save, or to insure their homes adequately. In addition to that, a 2000 survey by revealed that 6.5 million adults have to go without essential items of clothing, such as warm coats, simply because they do not have the money to buy them.
Across the ocean in the United States, one of the main indicators of the volume of population living in poverty is that of food stamps. Since the beginning of the fiscal year (October 2007), it is estimated that some twenty-eight million people in the US are using government-issued food stamps to purchase essentials such as groceries - the highest level since the Food Stamp Act of 1964.
Add into that the widening income differentials faced by third-world countries, where some live on means of less than £1 a day - and new questions are raised. Whose situation is more pressing - that of an impoverished man who lives on the streets of London, or someone who does without in the plains of Africa?
A primary issue that accompanies any discussion of poverty is the unjust accusations and assignments of blame made by those who examine these statistics. There are direct links to employment - especially quality of employment, and poverty.
Perhaps employers ought to take a share of the blame and some responsibility for the poverty? Tackling inequality and low pay, making work more accessible and resisting the temptation to increase the volume of insecure, vulnerable work – these are some of the interventions employers can use to make a difference.
For those living above the poverty line, which more than likely includes most who are reading this column - you can make a difference, as well. Whether through monetary donations, volunteer work or simply taking note of which politicians are more active in the areas of poverty. If nothing else, you will help prevent more of the population from slipping into poverty than already have - perhaps including yourself.
For more information, view the 2007 Human Development Report [PDF] and Millenium Development Goals Report [PDF], both issued by the United Nations Development Programme - as well as the World Bank's criteria for identifying urban poverty.
6.5.08
When The Fall Is All That's Left
Considering our status as an infant in this ever-expanding blogosphere, it is hard for us to imagine what the day-to-day is like in the life of those elite and famous players in this game called life. Proud, distinguished and accomplished people who have their daily lives thoroughly examined with the highest scrutiny, and put through the most unflattering motions - even if sometimes only for the entertainment of the general population.
Now, while movie stars and musicians often get more attention when their careers (and/or personal lives) begin a steady descent - the topic at hand today is the recent decline of several prominent politicians, some of whom have since vacated their positions - and some who still remain in office. For as compelling as it may be to watch a previously beloved actor, singer or athlete attempt to confront their demons under the attentive gaze of their public - it is a completely transcendent experience to witness the fall of an elected official. A person who was directly given, by way of votes, copious amounts of support and trust in hopes that they would become or remain one of the major factors in advancing the society in which they and their voters reside.
We will examine what brought about the rise to prominence in each instance, and try to determine which were the most destructive forces in their particular case - as well as whether or not any of them are or were potentially able to be repaired or avoided outright.
Gordon Brown
We begin with current UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who has long been depicted as an exceedingly dour individual, even as he is elected to and holds high office. A man who is openly referred to as 'the Clunking Fist' and 'Bottler Brown' - and has been described on two separate occasions as having 'Macavity qualities' by both David Heath and Lord Andrew Turnbull.
He has been called a 'control freak', a policy thief - stubborn to the point of patronising. Some even go as far as to refer to him as having 'Stalinist tendencies', or to say that he lacks any real vision.
But those are all examinations and criticisms of Brown's personality, or things that he has failed to do, that all too often ignore his successes - although even these are the subject of criticism.
The Prime Minister's website highlights four specific achievements from his period as Chancellor: his leadership in advancing the plan to write-off the entire US$40 billion debt owed by 18 of the countries in the HIPC program during the 'G8+5' summit in Gleneagles; his run as the longest continuous serving Chancellor of the Exchequer (in addition to longest serving Labour Chancellor); his granting the Bank of England operational independence in monetary policy - all of which contain little to no shades of grey, and thusly can have no real opposition or critique, at least in terms of his responsibility for the action.
But the last achievement cited, his presiding over the "longest ever period" of economic growth in the United Kingdom, has been called into question not necessarily due to his responsibility for the actions, but his responsibility in said actions.
The claims have been questioned by independent researchers such as Martin Weale (director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research), Simon Rubinsohn (of the international investment house Gerrard), Malcolm Barr (of JP Morgan Chase), Andrew Smith (of professional services firm KPMG) - and many others.
The focus of concern in most examinations of the then-Chancellor is his continual steadfastness towards optimistic fiscal forecasts that seemingly never turned out the results that were expected, all too often gambling on a stark rise in economic activity at just the right time in order to continue on an upward trend. Though, regardless of how the plans are working, they are doing just that - whether or not they are as miraculous as the Prime Minister would have us believe.
In addition to any faults that may be perceived of Brown personally and politically, a good deal of the criticism directed toward him stems from his relationship with Tony Blair - much of which is usually linked to the so-called Granita Pact.
The basis of the Pact is that Brown agreed to stand down during the Labour Party's leadership election in 1994, which then led to Blair's victory in the general election in 1997. In exchange for his participation in the deal, Brown would be allowed control over economic and other domestic policies. Another facet of the deal was that should Blair become Prime Minister, he would hold the job for an agreed on period of time, and then turn the office over to Brown.
The very idea of such a deal implies that Blair was not confident enough to run against Brown without some sort of insurance. So he offered Brown some form of control over policy, while he was installed as a figurehead. And in such an implication, this would mean that Brown was popular enough with the people in 1994 to cause such a worry in Blair.
So what caused the fall in the general view of Brown, and how deserving is he of such a fate? Given the criticisms, one could be led to believe that neither the public nor his political colleagues knew all that much about Brown prior to his spike in popularity in 1994 - and that he never quite delivered on the promise he showed at that time. This seems to be a rational way of viewing the situation - especially considering that Brown, as a member of the Labour Party, was fighting against not only his own party's history of overspending - but also against the Conservative Party's scandal and conflict-ridden administration.
Should this be the case, then it is hard to argue that Brown has done anything to deserve the poor fortunes he has been given. However minor the increments towards growth have been, they do exist - and it should take more than a sullen personality to attract such derision.
George W. Bush
Even in the grand tradition of governmental leaders surrounded by controversy, George W. Bush stands out as a special case. Rarely, if ever has the leader of a country been so openly mocked by their constituency. Throughout his Presidency, Bush has been the subject of great ridicule - some of which finds its root in his father's term as President, but most of which is aimed at Bush's 'folksy' demeanor that often times makes him appear to be unqualified to lead a McDonald's staff - much less the United States.
But supporters claim that Bush not only understands this, but welcomes such a perception. That those elements of his personality that most would view as humiliating or even degrading, are all part of an elaborate act that Bush puts on to keep everyone from the media, to his political opponents - to even the general public off-guard, and underestimating him.
And there is good evidence to support their theory. After attending Yale and serving in the US National Guard during the Vietnam War, Bush then graduated with his MBA from Harvard Business School in 1975. Between 1976 and 1978, he worked in the oil industry, got married and settled down in Texas - and finally decided to foray into politics by running for an open seat in the House of Representatives, in a race he would ultimately lose to Kent Hance.
But it is the circumstances in which Bush lost that warrant the most examination. As odd and unbelievable as it may seem now, Bush lost an election in Texas due to his seeming almost elitist when compared to his opponent, who only had to appeal to the voters as the product of a local upbringing - which became large piece of the successful campaigns that Bush would launch years later to win both Governorship of Texas and the Presidency of the United States.
Bush has had many controversial moments throughout his terms as President, even if one sets aside the already well-covered 2000 Presidential election and invasion of Iraq. During his administration, the US has seen spikes in unemployment - ranging from 4.1% during January 2001 to a high of 6.3% in June 2003, to a current rate of 5%. The national on-budget deficit has gone from a surplus of US$86 billion in 2000 to US$9.34 trillion currently.
His 'No Child Left Behind Act' has been the subject of much debate, with one of the most prominent and apt statement belonging to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy -
But by far the greatest criticisms of Bush are his usage of the PATRIOT Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to gather information on seemingly any given individual, under the premise of their being suspected of some level of involvement with terrorist groups. More frightening than his granting his country's intelligence agencies more free reign in their approach to surveillance of the common man, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The stated purpose of the MCA is "to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes", at best a vague definition - and at worst an illegal one. The MCA also denies also denies those tried by commission access to habeas corpus - and while still declaring torture illegal, does allow for the President to determine what constitutes torture.
In addition to these acts, Bush also faces criticism for many other issues, such as his delay in response, as well as his overall lack of action in the events leading up to and immediately following Hurricane Katrina; his shadowy behaviour and lack of explanation concerning the dismissal of several US attorneys; and in a switch, for his use of military action against Iraq without what many consider to be real provocation.
Much like with Prime Minister Brown, the easiest way of approaching a case like President Bush is to presume that prior to his attaining power he was relatively unknown, and since then has failed to deliver on potential shown and promises made during that time.
However, unlike the Prime Minister - Bush has had not one but two of the more counterproductive terms as US President in all of recorded history, justifying his swing from one of the most popular Presidents (in terms of Gallop polls, around 90% in the wake of the September 11th attacks), to perhaps the most despised (28% approval rating, 69% disapproval as of April 2008).
Still, it is incredible how quickly George W. Bush has gone from a universally questioned, to a universally loathed - to an all but forgotten personality on the world stage. It is almost as though his countrymen are simply averting their eyes from the time remaining on his term, as they await the time in which they will be allowed the opportunity to name his replacement. There is no question that action was necessary following the attacks on his country, and even granting him some of the less questionable events as 'fair' or even 'positive' - he still leaves behind a legacy of a Big-Brother government who was granted an opportunity on 11/9/2001 to quickly grab and maintain even more power than they already had.
Tony Blair
As invisible as George W. Bush has become globally - to a point where he resorts to what can only be defined as publicity stunts, to attract attention, even while he is still in office - upon consideration one cannot help but believe that Tony Blair's fate is at least a tinge worse.
First and foremost, Blair had the misfortune of being a politician in the United Kingdom - home to one of the most unforgiving and straightforward voting populations on the planet. And while Bush is mocked for his behaviour and questioned on his policy, the controversies and criticisms surrounding Blair almost always point to his appearing to be a figurehead whose only aim in the political is that of garnering attention.
Blair is unlike Gordon Brown, whose personality is mocked and whose policies are questioned, but a man who has generally accomplished something of worth. And he is also not quite similar to George W. Bush, who has always had a consistency in his politics and policies, regardless of how damaging they are.
No, Blair is commonly seen to have one good term and one bad term - or, a term in which he brought on positive change in small doses, and a term in which he brought on negative change in large doses.
Under Blair there has been introduced the Human Rights Act, the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales and a Freedom of Information Act which saw its provisions actually come into effect. There are also been many acts of legislation granting new and broader rights to gay, lesbian and transgender individuals including a Civil Partnership Act and a Gender Recognition Act. Things that were less effective included his handling of the Millenium Dome project, his approach to the Kosovo War, and his removal of peers from the House of Lords (although this is a situation of great debate even to this day.
All of these things were accomplished during his first term in the Premiership, and all of them promote social change and a streamlining of government in the UK. But it is during his second term that he would see any sort of real turmoil.
First, his decision to align the UK with the US in the War in Afghanistan was heavily disapproved of in Britain - although in America he was awarded several honors, including the US Congressional Gold Medal. Blair also supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 - providing the war with forty-six thousand British troops. Following the investigation of the terms upon which the invasion relied, both Bush and Blair came under consider considerable fire, both in their home countries as well as internationally.
What further damages Blair is that the global perception of Bush is as a simple-minded 'non-thinker', and Blair has always been regarded as a persuasive personality - so for him to become as convinced that action was necessary from Britain, when none of the effects that supported the cause had impacted the UK, made him seem almost a 'yes-man' to the President. This and similar events spawned a large public and political campaign to impeach Blair, commonly referred to as the "Tony Bliar" campaign, which continued up until his resignation on 23 June 2007.
Consider that a satirical film based on the notion that his time in office would conclude with his having to face an international tribunal on charges of war crimes (The Trial of Tony Blair) was conceived, scripted, produced and released before he stood down as Prime Minister. While the point can be made that there are many films, television programmes and plays about political leaders that are made during their runs - and that most of those are satirical in nature, very rarely do they take the tone or have an outlook as bleak as the one depicted in The Trial of Tony Blair.
The most incredible facet of the demise of Tony Blair, is that his fate was the most easily avoided. Had he not decided to follow the US into Afghanistan and Iraq - a strong case can be made supporting his remaining in office with public support, even to this day (setting aside any implications from the Granita Pact). Perhaps he may not have been the strongest Prime Minister, but other than those prominent examples - he did little to no damage during his terms. The fact is that once he lost the public's support, he seemed to have little to no effect in his job - even when introducing positive legislation.
-------------
This column was not written in condemnation of any of the individuals involved, but only to examine if their fates were avoidable. What links these men together, other than proximity, is the common tie of perception. In each instance, the public's perception of the man was held firmly as being reality. So as soon as the public viewed each as being incompetent, it would seem that work began to happen around them - as opposed to through them. None of these men were impeached by their governments, but rather by their people - which proved to be infinitely more effective - in the sense of rendering them politically sterile, and vastly more damaging to their credibility not only as politicians, but perhaps also as citizens.
For those who see our world as one controlled by a very select few, should rejoyce in the knowledge that the last three men to hold the most powerful offices in two of the more influential countries on the planet - were all held in check and ultimately brought down by the 'common' people of their countries.
Now, while movie stars and musicians often get more attention when their careers (and/or personal lives) begin a steady descent - the topic at hand today is the recent decline of several prominent politicians, some of whom have since vacated their positions - and some who still remain in office. For as compelling as it may be to watch a previously beloved actor, singer or athlete attempt to confront their demons under the attentive gaze of their public - it is a completely transcendent experience to witness the fall of an elected official. A person who was directly given, by way of votes, copious amounts of support and trust in hopes that they would become or remain one of the major factors in advancing the society in which they and their voters reside.
We will examine what brought about the rise to prominence in each instance, and try to determine which were the most destructive forces in their particular case - as well as whether or not any of them are or were potentially able to be repaired or avoided outright.
Gordon Brown
We begin with current UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who has long been depicted as an exceedingly dour individual, even as he is elected to and holds high office. A man who is openly referred to as 'the Clunking Fist' and 'Bottler Brown' - and has been described on two separate occasions as having 'Macavity qualities' by both David Heath and Lord Andrew Turnbull.
He has been called a 'control freak', a policy thief - stubborn to the point of patronising. Some even go as far as to refer to him as having 'Stalinist tendencies', or to say that he lacks any real vision.
But those are all examinations and criticisms of Brown's personality, or things that he has failed to do, that all too often ignore his successes - although even these are the subject of criticism.
The Prime Minister's website highlights four specific achievements from his period as Chancellor: his leadership in advancing the plan to write-off the entire US$40 billion debt owed by 18 of the countries in the HIPC program during the 'G8+5' summit in Gleneagles; his run as the longest continuous serving Chancellor of the Exchequer (in addition to longest serving Labour Chancellor); his granting the Bank of England operational independence in monetary policy - all of which contain little to no shades of grey, and thusly can have no real opposition or critique, at least in terms of his responsibility for the action.
But the last achievement cited, his presiding over the "longest ever period" of economic growth in the United Kingdom, has been called into question not necessarily due to his responsibility for the actions, but his responsibility in said actions.
The claims have been questioned by independent researchers such as Martin Weale (director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research), Simon Rubinsohn (of the international investment house Gerrard), Malcolm Barr (of JP Morgan Chase), Andrew Smith (of professional services firm KPMG) - and many others.
The focus of concern in most examinations of the then-Chancellor is his continual steadfastness towards optimistic fiscal forecasts that seemingly never turned out the results that were expected, all too often gambling on a stark rise in economic activity at just the right time in order to continue on an upward trend. Though, regardless of how the plans are working, they are doing just that - whether or not they are as miraculous as the Prime Minister would have us believe.
In addition to any faults that may be perceived of Brown personally and politically, a good deal of the criticism directed toward him stems from his relationship with Tony Blair - much of which is usually linked to the so-called Granita Pact.
The basis of the Pact is that Brown agreed to stand down during the Labour Party's leadership election in 1994, which then led to Blair's victory in the general election in 1997. In exchange for his participation in the deal, Brown would be allowed control over economic and other domestic policies. Another facet of the deal was that should Blair become Prime Minister, he would hold the job for an agreed on period of time, and then turn the office over to Brown.
The very idea of such a deal implies that Blair was not confident enough to run against Brown without some sort of insurance. So he offered Brown some form of control over policy, while he was installed as a figurehead. And in such an implication, this would mean that Brown was popular enough with the people in 1994 to cause such a worry in Blair.
So what caused the fall in the general view of Brown, and how deserving is he of such a fate? Given the criticisms, one could be led to believe that neither the public nor his political colleagues knew all that much about Brown prior to his spike in popularity in 1994 - and that he never quite delivered on the promise he showed at that time. This seems to be a rational way of viewing the situation - especially considering that Brown, as a member of the Labour Party, was fighting against not only his own party's history of overspending - but also against the Conservative Party's scandal and conflict-ridden administration.
Should this be the case, then it is hard to argue that Brown has done anything to deserve the poor fortunes he has been given. However minor the increments towards growth have been, they do exist - and it should take more than a sullen personality to attract such derision.
George W. Bush
Even in the grand tradition of governmental leaders surrounded by controversy, George W. Bush stands out as a special case. Rarely, if ever has the leader of a country been so openly mocked by their constituency. Throughout his Presidency, Bush has been the subject of great ridicule - some of which finds its root in his father's term as President, but most of which is aimed at Bush's 'folksy' demeanor that often times makes him appear to be unqualified to lead a McDonald's staff - much less the United States.
But supporters claim that Bush not only understands this, but welcomes such a perception. That those elements of his personality that most would view as humiliating or even degrading, are all part of an elaborate act that Bush puts on to keep everyone from the media, to his political opponents - to even the general public off-guard, and underestimating him.
And there is good evidence to support their theory. After attending Yale and serving in the US National Guard during the Vietnam War, Bush then graduated with his MBA from Harvard Business School in 1975. Between 1976 and 1978, he worked in the oil industry, got married and settled down in Texas - and finally decided to foray into politics by running for an open seat in the House of Representatives, in a race he would ultimately lose to Kent Hance.
But it is the circumstances in which Bush lost that warrant the most examination. As odd and unbelievable as it may seem now, Bush lost an election in Texas due to his seeming almost elitist when compared to his opponent, who only had to appeal to the voters as the product of a local upbringing - which became large piece of the successful campaigns that Bush would launch years later to win both Governorship of Texas and the Presidency of the United States.
Bush has had many controversial moments throughout his terms as President, even if one sets aside the already well-covered 2000 Presidential election and invasion of Iraq. During his administration, the US has seen spikes in unemployment - ranging from 4.1% during January 2001 to a high of 6.3% in June 2003, to a current rate of 5%. The national on-budget deficit has gone from a surplus of US$86 billion in 2000 to US$9.34 trillion currently.
His 'No Child Left Behind Act' has been the subject of much debate, with one of the most prominent and apt statement belonging to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy -
'The tragedy is that these long-overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not.'
But by far the greatest criticisms of Bush are his usage of the PATRIOT Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to gather information on seemingly any given individual, under the premise of their being suspected of some level of involvement with terrorist groups. More frightening than his granting his country's intelligence agencies more free reign in their approach to surveillance of the common man, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The stated purpose of the MCA is "to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes", at best a vague definition - and at worst an illegal one. The MCA also denies also denies those tried by commission access to habeas corpus - and while still declaring torture illegal, does allow for the President to determine what constitutes torture.
In addition to these acts, Bush also faces criticism for many other issues, such as his delay in response, as well as his overall lack of action in the events leading up to and immediately following Hurricane Katrina; his shadowy behaviour and lack of explanation concerning the dismissal of several US attorneys; and in a switch, for his use of military action against Iraq without what many consider to be real provocation.
Much like with Prime Minister Brown, the easiest way of approaching a case like President Bush is to presume that prior to his attaining power he was relatively unknown, and since then has failed to deliver on potential shown and promises made during that time.
However, unlike the Prime Minister - Bush has had not one but two of the more counterproductive terms as US President in all of recorded history, justifying his swing from one of the most popular Presidents (in terms of Gallop polls, around 90% in the wake of the September 11th attacks), to perhaps the most despised (28% approval rating, 69% disapproval as of April 2008).
Still, it is incredible how quickly George W. Bush has gone from a universally questioned, to a universally loathed - to an all but forgotten personality on the world stage. It is almost as though his countrymen are simply averting their eyes from the time remaining on his term, as they await the time in which they will be allowed the opportunity to name his replacement. There is no question that action was necessary following the attacks on his country, and even granting him some of the less questionable events as 'fair' or even 'positive' - he still leaves behind a legacy of a Big-Brother government who was granted an opportunity on 11/9/2001 to quickly grab and maintain even more power than they already had.
Tony Blair
As invisible as George W. Bush has become globally - to a point where he resorts to what can only be defined as publicity stunts, to attract attention, even while he is still in office - upon consideration one cannot help but believe that Tony Blair's fate is at least a tinge worse.
First and foremost, Blair had the misfortune of being a politician in the United Kingdom - home to one of the most unforgiving and straightforward voting populations on the planet. And while Bush is mocked for his behaviour and questioned on his policy, the controversies and criticisms surrounding Blair almost always point to his appearing to be a figurehead whose only aim in the political is that of garnering attention.
Blair is unlike Gordon Brown, whose personality is mocked and whose policies are questioned, but a man who has generally accomplished something of worth. And he is also not quite similar to George W. Bush, who has always had a consistency in his politics and policies, regardless of how damaging they are.
No, Blair is commonly seen to have one good term and one bad term - or, a term in which he brought on positive change in small doses, and a term in which he brought on negative change in large doses.
Under Blair there has been introduced the Human Rights Act, the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales and a Freedom of Information Act which saw its provisions actually come into effect. There are also been many acts of legislation granting new and broader rights to gay, lesbian and transgender individuals including a Civil Partnership Act and a Gender Recognition Act. Things that were less effective included his handling of the Millenium Dome project, his approach to the Kosovo War, and his removal of peers from the House of Lords (although this is a situation of great debate even to this day.
All of these things were accomplished during his first term in the Premiership, and all of them promote social change and a streamlining of government in the UK. But it is during his second term that he would see any sort of real turmoil.
First, his decision to align the UK with the US in the War in Afghanistan was heavily disapproved of in Britain - although in America he was awarded several honors, including the US Congressional Gold Medal. Blair also supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 - providing the war with forty-six thousand British troops. Following the investigation of the terms upon which the invasion relied, both Bush and Blair came under consider considerable fire, both in their home countries as well as internationally.
What further damages Blair is that the global perception of Bush is as a simple-minded 'non-thinker', and Blair has always been regarded as a persuasive personality - so for him to become as convinced that action was necessary from Britain, when none of the effects that supported the cause had impacted the UK, made him seem almost a 'yes-man' to the President. This and similar events spawned a large public and political campaign to impeach Blair, commonly referred to as the "Tony Bliar" campaign, which continued up until his resignation on 23 June 2007.
Consider that a satirical film based on the notion that his time in office would conclude with his having to face an international tribunal on charges of war crimes (The Trial of Tony Blair) was conceived, scripted, produced and released before he stood down as Prime Minister. While the point can be made that there are many films, television programmes and plays about political leaders that are made during their runs - and that most of those are satirical in nature, very rarely do they take the tone or have an outlook as bleak as the one depicted in The Trial of Tony Blair.
The most incredible facet of the demise of Tony Blair, is that his fate was the most easily avoided. Had he not decided to follow the US into Afghanistan and Iraq - a strong case can be made supporting his remaining in office with public support, even to this day (setting aside any implications from the Granita Pact). Perhaps he may not have been the strongest Prime Minister, but other than those prominent examples - he did little to no damage during his terms. The fact is that once he lost the public's support, he seemed to have little to no effect in his job - even when introducing positive legislation.
-------------
This column was not written in condemnation of any of the individuals involved, but only to examine if their fates were avoidable. What links these men together, other than proximity, is the common tie of perception. In each instance, the public's perception of the man was held firmly as being reality. So as soon as the public viewed each as being incompetent, it would seem that work began to happen around them - as opposed to through them. None of these men were impeached by their governments, but rather by their people - which proved to be infinitely more effective - in the sense of rendering them politically sterile, and vastly more damaging to their credibility not only as politicians, but perhaps also as citizens.
For those who see our world as one controlled by a very select few, should rejoyce in the knowledge that the last three men to hold the most powerful offices in two of the more influential countries on the planet - were all held in check and ultimately brought down by the 'common' people of their countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)