My Page Was Too White...

Crash, Bang, Wallop

2009-03-20T11:53:00.006+13:00

I am very sorry for the lack of posts recently - a problem that looks set to continue for some time yet - as I have suffered a major computer failure, resulting in large data loss and difficulty accessing the internet. This, as I'm sure you can imagine, is playing havoc with any attempt to blog on a regular basis. I am working to find a solution to this latest hurdle but until then I ask for your patience and continuing support.

All the best and in the words of Curtis Mayfield...

"Keep on keeping on."

Jacob

Iran: A Nation Of Bloggers

2009-03-02T14:58:00.005+13:00

IRAN: A Nation Of Bloggers from ayrakus on Vimeo.
Hat Tip: Fearless Blogger

This video combines stunning visuals with a simple but effective message. However, simplicity is the wrong word - perhaps clarity is better suited - as the video also contains some fascinating statistics that provide a new perspective on this frequently misunderstood nation. I discovered this video whilst reading the Fearless Blogger's site. In a post about it she writes:

Half of Iran’s 70 million people are under the age of 25 - members of a generation that is opposed to the current regime. To express their views, many young Iranians have turned to blogging.
As a result, Iran is the third largest country of bloggers.
In 2005, there were over 700,000 blogs in Iran (100,000 actively maintained).
Despite the risks involved and strong government opposition, the number of Iranian bloggers continues to grow.

In my world, blogging is a means to become fearless.

This movie puts that in perspective. In their world, taking the plunge merely to attach their own name to the opinions they express means Iranian bloggers risk imprisonment or death.

In their world, one must be fearless to blog.

Stirring Stuff Cont. (Again) and (Again)

2009-02-26T21:30:00.003+13:00

So here we are again, another installment of my video highlights from various inspiring political speeches. I was very tempted to include a real classic political speech - perhaps JFK, Jesse Jackson, Winston Churchill or even the text of Anna Eleanor Roosevelt's "The Struggle for Human Rights" - I then considered including the famous Obama "Yes We Can" speech which still makes me want to jump up and campaign until my pop-socks... (pop?). However, I believe I have discovered the next great leader - someone to help steer us through these troubled times. This incredible speech that literally left me breathless:

Is it right to make a 'witty' blog title with a punning usage of the terms "left" and "right"... if not, what's left?

2009-02-22T11:47:00.031+13:00

I received a panicked email from a reader yesterday. It contained an expression of horror that was recently photographed for a national newspaper and in the frame was Nick Cohen's book 'What's Left: How Liberals Lost Their Way.' The reader wondered how I could reconcile Cohen's "bilge" with my "lofty-lefty" ideals and sought reassurance that the inclusion of the book was a "post-modern ironic gesture" of some kind. I am afraid to say that my answer was a disappointment. As I explained in a personal email, and now in more detail here, there are a number of very useful lessons to be learned from Cohen's polemic but its inclusion was not a subtle statement - merely a coincidence (the photographer wanted to have books in the shot and it was close at hand. Sorry.)

But whilst I'm on the subject of Cohen and the future of the 'left' in a post-‘Blairite’, Obama scented era...

Let's get one thing very clear from the start - I am in no way a Cohen apologist, but I will not got so far as this reviewer who said: "Nick Cohen’s book takes its place with the autobiographies of Robert Kilroy Silk and Derek Hatton as one of the worst books I have ever been asked to review." However, despite a very clear stance on the book as a whole, they did make a rather interesting point that I feel is a useful springboard for further discussion:

"Cohen makes some legitimate criticisms of the anti-war movement, of its self-hating moral relativism, of its crass anti-Americanism, of its self-absorbed fears of terrorist retribution, of its indulgence of anti-Semitism and Islamic reaction. Yet even these pointed observations are drowned in a torrent of self-exculpatory bile. Everything comes back to Cohen’s inner turmoil, and the ongoing battle for his soul, between the former Blair-baiting journalist and the new Cohen, Blair apologist and laptop bombardier."

N.B. For a more balanced overview, this article from the Guardian (including a broad spectrum of opinion) should give you the gist of the book's successes and failings.

Obviously, there are some elements of Cohen’s politics I find detestable – especially in his new found role as best friend of neo-cons. Many examples of this new attitude can be found in a recent article he wrote:

"It is undeniable that the best way to have avoided complicity in the horrors of the last century would have been to have adopted the politics of Jonah Goldberg [a man in the same hysterical, reactionary vein as Melanie Phillips]. Much can be said against moderate conservatives, but it has to be admitted that their wariness of grand designs and their willingness to place limits on the over-mighty state give them a clean record others cannot share...

'Liberal Fascism' [Goldberg's book] is not a clean blow to the jaw, but a multiple rocket launcher of a book that targets just about every liberal American hero and ideal...

Goldberg certainly leaves them little left to be proud of as he provides an alternative history of an America that Simon Schama lacks the intellectual courage to confront...

Beginning with the Black Panthers, multiculturalism [Melanie Phillips territory again] has also placed racial and religious identity above all else and beyond the reach of rational argument. Fascism was a pagan movement, whose mystic tropes are repeated by new age healers, vegetarians and greens...

Hillary Clinton's admittedly sinister desire for the state to take the place of the family..."

etc

Each of the above statements is ridiculous in the extreme. However, we must not allow our immediate distaste for his odd mix of hawk and hammer politics to justify ignoring some essential messages contained within Cohen's pages. The basic thesis of the book is that the 'Left' have always had a strong set of guiding principles and objectives that, with varying success, have given them a clearly defined cause. However, since the collapse of socialism in the 1980s the 'Left' have been in malaise and have resorted to blind anti-Americanism and a dangerous spiral of 'my enemy's enemy' alliance identification. For obvious reasons, I am painting in broad strokes but so does Cohen. One of my principal criticisms of his work is his tendency to use rather limited and obscure examples to tar an entire movement (of almost unparalleled diversity) with the same brush.

Peter Oborne, in the Guardian's summary article referred to previously, argues that - "The section on how the Socialist Workers Party (a marginal organisation taken with perplexing seriousness by Cohen) evolved from a half-baked Marxist sub-group into a repository for Muslim grievance is very nicely done." However, one group with extremely limited influence (and integrity) does not a movement in crisis make. Of course Cohen cites other examples - "Chomsky's erratic public career, including a brief spell as apologist for Pol Pot, gets the treatment it probably deserves." - but the book's main argument is that the Left's opposition to the 2003 Iraqi invasion was inspired by intense anti-Americanism (motivated by residual resentment of the free market after the fall of interventionary, statist Socialism?) and thus contradicted its previous vow to oppose fascism whenever, wherever it is found (i.e. Hitchen's Islamofascism.) This 'my enemy's enemy' criticism is repeated so often throughout the book that it dulls to such an extent it enters the realms of lounge music - incessant and inappropriate.

The charge that the 'Left' lost sight of its real target - intolerant, violent and repressive groups or individuals - as it fell over itself to find a common cause in attacking 'the Great Satan' is reasonably valid and must be levied against many 'so called' advocates of the left. However, to argue that this was the reason that most on the 'Left' campaigned against the 2003 invasion (myself 11 year old self included) is frankly ridiculous and where Cohen's analysis falls down. Whilst Chomsky and Said can be accused (even if not in a particularly sophisticated way) of blind anti-Americanism, the same cannot be said for Robin Cook.

Cohen has often been accused by his critics as having little link to the 'Left' beyond his mother's ethical grapefruit purchases and so his attacks can be classed as another spasm of the 'Right'. Such a disownment lessens the betrayal as Cohen desperately lunges (not unsuccessfully) at a number of highly respected and influential figures within the widest possible definition of the 'Left'. Admittedly, whilst still writing for the decidedly liberal Observer, his recent articles suggest an ever increasing shift to the right. But not only does such a move prevent some very useful criticisms sinking in, there is also very little need to disown Cohen for his attacks - his targets are too insignificant. In a chapter entitled 'The Disgrace of the Anti-War Movement', Cohen admits: "A theme of this book is that ideas on the fringe are worth examining." This really is a central theme (and problem) with his work - the targets of his most stinging rebukes are much maligned "hangers on" to the broadly defined left.

Cohen takes the easy pickings of the movement's loonies - for example, the Respect Party's George Galloway gets beaten to an intellectual pulp and not one welcome in the ever popular fashionistas' ethical smoothies (as if we didn't know he was an egocentric, fascistic regime apologist). However, the best he can throw at the wider "good and well meaning" people of the left, the Liberals he refers to in his title, is that they attended marches organised by Galloway as leader of the Stop the War Coalition. But Cohen himself undermines this point almost within the next paragraph. He speculates about the euphoria that Galloway and his fellow far left crackpots must have experienced when addressing "not hundreds but hundred of thousands" at the largest political demonstration in British history - against the proposed 2003 invasion of Iraq. He then reflects that only a week or so later, at the local council elections, far left parties only won a single seat in the entire country (out of thousands of potential seats) in Preston (Town Centre) ward.

George Galloway's exploding ego and bad judgment is exemplified by his appearance on Celebrity Big Brother 2006

So obviously the vast majority of liberals had enough sense to attend a march in solidarity with a cause (that Cohen claims, in one of his most mendacious moments, was "against the overthrow of a fascist regime") but easily ignored the speeches of crack pot loonies from platforms along the way. Surely that's a positive? Cohen doesn't seem to think so. He examines over a century of the 'Left' highlighting misguided individuals and bad decisions but he has to spread their political blood so thinly in order to stain an entire movement that there is relatively no effect. Still, his criticism of Chomsky and Galloway is well deserved (but far from original) and he cogently argues against the assumption of an "Israeli root cause" to all Middle East issues:

"Sexist judges used to say that women who went out in mini-skirts were 'asking for it'. Their provocative dress was the 'root cause' of their rape. So it was with the intellectual left after 9/11. We 'had it coming'; we were the root cause of our own murder. Just as judges once removed responsibility from rapists... so intellectual leftists made mass murder a natural response to external provocation."

'What's Left?' contains a great deal of lucid and cogent argument but its premise is too large and its victims are too minor. At one point Cohen even admits that:

A complaint about my argument could be that 'you can always do this.' You can always discredit decent people by isolating the malevolant hangers-on who join them in upsurges of radicalism.

...and he's right, infuriatingly so. It's an 'enjoyable' read - always good for the ego to point at crack pots and feel self-satisfied - but please don't call it a polemical attack that "charts the breakdown of the Left and the confusion‚ malaise and double−standards that have turned it into little more than a dysfunctional family". In the concluding chapter, Cohen quotes a W. H. Auden poem and then reveals a very telling insight into his thinking:

Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.

I can hear the same being said about today's radical generation and I feel sorry for the poor dears. For when their fury passes, what will they have left?

But Cohen fails to mention another (admittedly less successful) stanza in the same Auden poem:

All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love each other or die.

Of course, this is a rather sorry state of affairs to find yourself (and your 'movement') - and I'm sure that the 'Left' isn't there yet - but here's where I really differ from Cohen. Until this point I find it very difficult to disagree with anything he says. Of course I take objection to his over generalisations and suspect framing of analysis to try and stain everyone with the political blood of the looney fringe. However, almost without exception his analysis is sound - selective and hardly representative - and true. But when he tries to argue that the entire 'Left' is in disarray - drowning in soy latte (but never from Starbucks) - I fear he really has lost the plot. I cannot and do not pretend to speak for the 'Left' or even a minority of it, I speak only for myself and my experience, but this is enough to clearly attest that Cohen is talking utter nonsense. So George Galloway dresses in lycra and purrs like a cat in a desperate lunge for popular appeal, but social democrats the world over are as passionate, committed and principled as ever.

By all means go out and read Cohen's book, by all means get angry at every other page and throw it against the wall at the end, by all means don't buy so many Chomsky rants with catchy titles but don't lose heart or extrapolate a crisis from crackpot cases. Then sit down, have a cup of tea and snuggle up with 'The Audacity of Hope'.

"All I have is a voice..."

- W.H. Auden

"It is so slick I almost broke down and wept..."

2009-02-17T14:45:00.022+13:00

I have been shocked by the speed with which so many have turned on President Obama. After the euphoria of his election and inauguration, the recent back stabbing and malicious briefings have made quite a contrast. Within a few weeks Obama was transformed, at least within some elements of the media and blogosphere, from messiah to pariah. The turbulent passage of the American Economic Recovery Package has been used as a stick to beat the new administration with - inspiring accusations of Obama's diplomatic incompetence after House and Senate Republicans failed to support (with limited but essential exceptions) the Recovery Package. What did everyone expect? There was never a realistic hope, and Obama never expressed such an expectation, that every Republican would abandon decades of fiscal dogma and bitter partisanship. I admit to being just a little surprised at the very small numbers of senators who eventually 'switched sides', in the face of such an emphatic mandate for change but it is hardly fair to blame Obama for the old elephants' ignorance.

Despite the rocky passage of ARRA (America Recovery and Reinvestment Act) it will eventually be signed into law in just a few hours time (in Denver, CO not Washington - continuing the President's strategy of re-engagement and consultation). And wow... is this administration good! To mark this occasion and the vital stimulus the law will provide, the White House has compiled a photo summary of recent events. It is so slick I almost broke down and wept... Admittedly, they are spinning so fast they appear to be in a different orbit but they are certainly not having the 'Blair/ Bush Drill Effect'. This phenomenon was most notably in evidence during the 2003 build up to the Iraq war - both administrations were spinning so fast and hard that they began digging deep holes for themselves. Rather the opposite is true for Obama - he is spinning into takeoff!

So while the Old Guard are patting themselves on the back in their own little bubble - oblivious of reality - Obama is getting down to work. Change has come...

Guilty When Charged

2009-02-17T09:43:00.001+13:00

In under two weeks NZ will have some of the harshest copyright laws in the world. Soon the presumption of innocence will be removed in copyright cases and a user's internet can be terminated on the basis of an accusation (without evidence or trial). Join in the grass roots campaign to stop this profoundly unjust law! I found this concise little explanation at the Creative Freedom Foundation website:

I've just become aware about some major proposed changes in NZ law that will have a huge impact on artists, businesses, and general members of the public: basically anyone that uses the internet, and I thought you should know about them.
The Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act assumes Guilt Upon Accusation and forces the termination of internet connections and websites without evidence, without a fair trial, and without punishment for any false accusations of copyright infringement. We should speak out against injustices like Guilt Upon Accusation being done in the name of artists and protecting creativity.

The countdown is on: we have until 28 February 2009 to influence government.
An organisation called the Creative Freedom Foundation has been set up to specifically represent artists voices on these issues. Check out their website: http://www.creativefreedom.org.nz, sign up and help our MPs make an informed decision about S92!

The campaign is asking people to black out their profile pictures on Facebook, Myspace and Twitter - as well as raising awareness of the issue among friends and other web users. This might not change the government's position but it should leave nobody in any doubt about the extent of public outrage over this legislation. Breaching copyright is wrong but what if the user whose internet access is denied is a library or school? Or what is the copyright holder's accusation is mistaken or malicious? The presumption of innocence until proven otherwise is fundamental to all constitutions (codified and unwritten) in every liberal democracy. To undermine it is a gross act of legislative arrogance and will result in profound injustice and malpractice. Let us not let this precedent be created - let's stand up for freedom and justice.

Speak Of The Devil

2009-02-15T19:18:00.007+13:00

Ok, so my timing was about a 'brilliant' as usual. Just as I published a blog post about being left out in the cold by Go 4th and Prescott - who gets in touch but the man himself. I was left with instructions to forward the designs to another figure in the campaign and I have a feeling there may be progress afoot. This does, however, leave me with a rather chicken and egg conundrum - did my rather bitchy blog post inspire the latest activity, hmm. Another totally pointless question for the ages methinks. Anyhoos, I'll keep you all up-to-date on any developments so watch this space...

Waiting By My Inbox

2009-02-14T21:33:00.010+13:00

Despite submitting my draft designs for a revamped Go 4th website to the campaign's web manager and John Prescott, as well as having receipt of the drafts acknowledged by Prezza himself, there is still no further word about how many, if any, of my ideas will be acted upon. This is understandable of course - who am I to be preaching to seasoned campaigners and political professionals - but what really irks me is that there is still no progress in site development. If the team had some radical new vision, or even a modest progression on the current bland dross, I would be more understanding. As it is, I have heard nothing (and don't expect to) and the website remains a poor quality portal for what is an essential campaign.

The purpose of a beta website, as gofourth.co.uk is now officially known (the logo in the top left corner proclaims it), is to promote comment and criticism from users and then to improve and develop in light of such information. So far, not much has changed since my original critique over 2 weeks ago. However, I do not want to sound too harsh. The site is chronically under resourced, so it is understandable that all of the campaign's attention has been focused on Prezza's recent return to the limelight with his 'No Ifs, No Buts - Give Up The Bonus' campaign. Whilst a very worthy cause, and successful (its petition has attracted over 30 000 signatures in a few days) it doesn't really seem consistent with Go 4th objectives. The campaign is centred on highlighting all the positives of the past three Labour terms in office and re-energising grassroots for another election campaign. However, Prezza's little vendetta serves to highlight the Treasury's failure to include strict limits on banking bonuses when the bail-out was drafted. It also keeps media attention (as if it needed more prompting) on the negative aspects of the banking crisis - an emphatic bust the Prime Minister claimed to have banished to 1920's history lessons.

Having said this, Prezza may well have been rather craftier than many will give him credit for. As a prominent Labour figure, spearheading a banking witch hunt, he has successfully shifted attention away from any failures of the government's economic policies and onto incompetent, greedy bankers. As an added bonus (although he will maintain it is his principal motivator) he is also working to ensure that the unsustainable culture of greed in the banking sector is given a clear thumbs down in public opinion and thus improve professional practice and regulation going into the future - hopefully going quite some way to prevent another such melt-down.

So I shall wait by my email inbox for a message from the Go 4th campaign once Prezza has herded the sheepish bankers into a pen of tighter regulation... when the focus will perhaps return to ensuring a Labour 4th term with a stronger web presence.

Tweet? More like Baa.

2009-02-13T17:45:00.003+13:00

I like to flatter myself by thinking I am at the 'cutting edge' of the net (where ever that happens to be at the time) however, I have been remarkably slow to embrace the new craze of Twitter. But my tardiness can be ascribed to insecurity not ignorance. My problem with Twittering is almost identical to my initial reservations about blogging. Call me old fashioned and narrow minded, but I honestly believe that the vast majority of people are just too boring to be of interest to anyone but their own mothers. I do not mark myself out as an exception to this general rule - I am amazed that anyone reads this blog, but you do and in increasingly significant numbers. I fell out of my seat when I discovered that if you Googled "facts about the recession" a month or so ago, this obscure corner of the blogosphere was 5th in the search rankings.

Anyhoo... Twitter, for those who are blissfully unaware, is a condensed form of blogging - styled as an extension of the Facebook status tool. Users are invited to share what they are doing in no more than 140 characters and others can subscribe to be kept up-to-date with these incremental developments. Now the value of this concise and convenient service, often posted from a handy Blackberry or iPhone, to a news professional or politician seeking to stay engaged with interested parties is not disputed. I can also see the benefits of Twittering within small family groups, so that increasingly disparate relatives can keep in touch. However, I was concerned that as Twitter does not guard the exclusivity of the service for journalists and politicians, and is open to millions of individuals who have decided to share the minutia of their lives with anyone who will listen, the end result would be mass mediocrity. But as with the blogosphere, my cynicism has been thrown back in my Face-book conservatism and I accept defeat.

Twitter is another fantastic tool for shrinking the world, removing traditional hurdles to accessibility and extending the vast meritocracy of the web. I was certain that any glimmers of gold would be swamped and suffocated by dross (and I maintain that the vast majority of 'Tweets' are just that - projections of narcissistic self-indulgence) but, as in the case of the blogosphere and unlike gold, the golden 'Tweeters' rise to the top (with a little effort and a slight metaphorical pressure under the metaphorical elbow from a metaphorical helping hand).

So, I too have recently become a sheep grazing on Twitter's fertile field and have a select group of Tweeters who I follow. And I admit that I adore Stephen Fry's frequent frivolity just as much as the BBC and Al Jazeera updates are informative. This is not to say that Twitter is without it's controversies. I am thinking of the case, recently highlighted by a great blog (a long-time resident on my Blog Roll), of the American Senator who seriously compromised his own security, and that of his entourage, by Twittering away the details of his secret trip to Iraq - including precise travel plans and the exact moment he arrived in the Green Zone.

But then again, the world will never be free of twits.

Wellywood

2009-02-11T17:34:00.006+13:00

I thought that I should take a break from the frankly depressing state of global affairs and focus on something a little more domestic. My adopted city: Wellington, NZ.

Walking through the leafy streets of Te Aro, nestled in a valley of ferns and pines, you can really feel a million miles from the hustle of the city centre. If you were to take a photograph of one of the many ramshackle buildings that cling to the valley walls like goats, anybody who saw the image could be forgiven for thinking it was tucked away miles from civilisation. This is the beauty of Wellington; everything is so compact and accessible but yet pleasantly separate and private. Each district has its own individual character and its own quirks.

From the trendy, if some what sterile, Thorndon - realm of the politician and the Prime Minister; the endearing disrepair of Te Aro with its bars, bookshops and Marxist slogans scrawled across the centre of streets in thin, white paint; the quiet contemplation of academics and professionals in Kelburn, with the German bakery and observatory or the pulsating Cuba Street and Courtenay Place with their cafes and culture. Wellington appears to breathe with an intense, dense rhythmic crunch - dark and mysterious but in no way threatening. Maybe it’s the geographical volatility of the place or the variety of its inhabitants but Wellington really does feel like a city on the edge of something special.

I sometimes walk along the edges of the Botanic Gardens, along paths open to all but explored by few, through inviting backstreets with obscure embassies and pick and mix houses and then down wide empty streets devoid of traffic or the all too familiar drone of nightclub fever - on down to the harbour, the helipad and parks. These Kantian wanderings, often conducted in bare feet and shorts allow me to establish a true sense of the city, tune into its vibrations and tremors and thus fully appreciate its beauty. Of course, it suffers the faults of every city, the drink and the drugs, but far less than many places.

Wellington is a city where you can truly discover, or lose yourself.

Stirring Stuff Cont. (Again)

2009-02-10T20:26:00.003+13:00

Part 1
(second installment below)

I thought I would continue my mini-trend of posting inspiring political speeches that provide some insight into my political philosophy and personal interpretation of social democracy. I would like to post the late Robin Cook's highly emotional resignation speech over the issue of the Iraq war. Robin Cook was a tireless advocate for social justice and a more egalitarian society. He was a man whose principles were so deeply held they flowed through his veins. Perhaps it is useful to quote one of the earlier speakers in this 'series', the newly elected NZ MP Jacinda Ardern:

...speeches are a bit like words spoken in a heated argument, like it or not - they will come back to haunt you. So today I want to share with you the words that I wish to haunt me, my values and beliefs - the things that bought me here. And I do so in the hope that should I ever abandon them, I will have the good grace to leave.

I am certain that Cook would have shared the same sentiment. As a small child, I was not politically aware contemporaneously but on more mature reflection I have established an immense respect for Cook's pre-2003 political career. However, his inability to reconcile his principles and integrity with the proposed membership of Britain in Bush's 'Coalition of the Willing' has elevated him to a very special place in my affections.

Part 2

Grass Is Greener

2009-02-08T12:32:00.023+13:00

As part of my initial critique of 'Go Fourth', Labour's campaign for a 4th Term, I suggested that the core of the movement - grassroots engagement and mobilisation - was essential to electoral success but that the campaign does not go far enough. We are living in an age of increasing voter apathy and public disengagement with politics. The recent scandal in the Lords has only entrenched the popular opinion that politicians are simply concerned with maximising personal gain. The scandal also highlighted one of the largest domestic failures of the present Labour government - not carrying out the constitutional reform they heralded. With an ever faster lunge for the centre ground, the differences between Labour and the Tories can often be hard to determine. This apparent 'merging', in combination with increasing disengagement and the development of a 'Westminster Village' mentality are greatly responsible for the prevailing public opinion that voting is essentially a pacifier for the masses but has no tangible effect on ordinary lives. In fairness, the same can be said for almost every developed democracy around the world... with one notable exception - America.

Obama's recent victory was built on an unprecedented grassroots foundation. His message of change demolished the encroaching walls of voter apathy and kick started voter engagement with issues and elections. It was only through a complete revolution in party structure and what it means to be a member of a political party that such a dramatic change could be realised. He bucked the trend, now how do we continue? Current party policy is not conducive to such Obama-esque grassroots revolution. To better understand this problem it is perhaps useful to consider the level of support for the party is as a continuum:

Passive Support
Uncommitted member of the constituency
Progressive minded member of the constituency
General Supporter (Name and contact details)
Non-committed supporter (in civil service, or within Parliament)
Unpaid Party Member
Paid Party Member
Donor
Active Volunteer (including non election years)
Party Structure Executive (Branch, Sector, Region and Nationwide)
UKLP employed staff
Member of Parliament
Active Support

(Thanks to Geoff Hayward for the original rough breakdown of Party structure... and the following:

"Obviously access to some levels of support is exclusive, but perhaps what is most important to note is that we all too often fail to see involvement as more than just paying membership, or panic during campaigns to find volunteers and convert them into organisers in a haphazard fashion. In fact, paying your membership, is just one way to show your support, and it is certainly not the highest level one can show their support.")

Obama did more than get volunteers out on the street and his message on the airwaves. His volunteers saw their action as fun and exciting - not as a chore. And the public saw them embodying the message of social democracy they were espousing. And he is still capitalising on the wave of support (and accompanying organisation) with his 'Organising America' initiative. In order to prevent the return of apathy and disillusion, Obama wants ordinary citizens to take an active role in future policy - extending a willing ear beyond the traditional party confines to voters of all affiliations. HOWEVER, the distinction between this engagement and the centrist pandering of both major UK parties over the last 10 years must be stressed to the greatest degree. This is not tabloid indulgence, this is active engagement and argument - resulting in stronger and more relevant legislation.

Such a revolution of party membership definition must not be considered as a return to the traditional Greek meaning of democracy - with all citizens voting on all legislation. The public elect politicians as their delegates in the democratic process and too much engagement can be just as effective at losing engagement as too little. There is obviously still a need for expert law makers and considered opinion when drafting legislation but nobody knows what the wider public wants and needs more than the wider public. Obama has introduced a system where American citizens can comment on each piece of legislation before he signs it into law. Such a measure, in isolation, does not equate to true engagement but when considered in combination with the numerous other reforms he has instituted it can be seen, very clearly, as a step in the right direction.

Obama was a community organiser in the very poorest districts of Chicago and his politics is irrevocably centred around social justice. Inspiring activists to proactively participate in social/ community projects - whilst distributing the Labour message and the positive benefits of the last 11 years - is a great way to redefine Party membership (and distinguish Labour from the Tories). Campaigning should not just be restricted to a few months before an election but a continuous presence in the community. This will bring 'politics to the people' showing that putting a tick on a ballot paper every four years is not just a way of choosing which candidate gets the Parliamentary salary and a comfy seat in the Commons but a way of changing every constituents' life - for the better.

Door knocking direct public engagement should not just be confined to a limited election period, after which new MPs shrink into the shadows for another term of "self-advancement". This task of re-engagement is even more essential if a party is in opposition. But rather than tasking volunteers to knock on doors and tell the residents of Council Flats how much Labour has improved their lives over the last decade (the improvements should speak for themselves) why not get the volunteers to work in community projects, get trained in basic citizen's advice info so that they can help with benefits queries (or Working for Families problems in NZ) whilst all the time presenting the Labour message of positive social democratic effort for a more equal society. Not only would such volunteer action address any accusation that a party had lost touch but it is totally consistent with the Party's values and core principles. Let's show that Labour believes in and practices the social democratic progressive agenda it espouses. One thing's for sure, we cannot continue as we are. There lies the political doldrums of the 1980's - another time of recession where Labour should have come into its own. What better way to evolve the party whilst differentiating Labour from the Tories. The day I see a Conservative Party volunteer working in a community project for a block of council flats I can give up politics for the battle will be won. Cameron likes to talk of cosy conservatism... well lets challenge him to show it whilst doing good for the electorate politicians are supposed to serve.

New Deal or National Ordeal?

2009-02-06T17:01:00.008+13:00

Time for the old elephants to leave the political herd and die quietly...

Perhaps living in NZ has made me more acutely aware of the enormous impact and influence America's economic fate has on the rest of the world. I do not agree with many of the strategies of the current NZ administration, but I concede that there is very little they can do to alter the fate of the country's economy. Life and business here feels like it's stalling - waiting for action from elsewhere. It is in light of this that I have been following Obama's economic stimulus package with almost obsessive interest.

I am deeply frustrated with the current Republican strategy - to stall the progress of the stimulus package through the Senate - especially as it totally ignores the overwhelming mandate for change that Obama was elected with. The same old bi-partisan feuds are not only exasperating, they are costing jobs and livelihoods - not just in the US but around the world. Change is long overdue, yet the ignorant elephants in the senate insist on repeating their failed mantra of 'tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts'. That was exactly the same strategy employed in 2001 and no one will argue that it was a roaring success when considering where we are now...

Obama obviously understands the intense pressure on the economy (after all he introduced daily economic briefings) and the urgent need for action. But it seems that Senate Republicans are so desperate to cling on to the failed policy of the past in an extraordinary ostrich display. During his inauguration speech Obama said that America was ready to lead once more - let's just hope that at least 2 Republicans pluck their heads from their Deep South desert sands, look around at the dire state of the American economy but also accept the hand Obama is offering up to the tower of enlightenment so that they can see that the rest of the world is holding its breath in an attempt to stay afloat - a rather short term tactic. Throw us a life line... please.

Stirring Stuff Cont.

2009-02-05T18:44:00.002+13:00

Yesterday I posted the video of new NZ Labour MP Jacinda Ardern's maiden speech to the House of Representatives. As promised, today is the turn of Grant Robertson - the new MP for Wellington Central. Over the course of the campaign I got to know Grant quite well and can honestly account for his immense intelligence, charisma and integrity. I was in the public gallery on the day of his maiden speech and was deeply impressed by not only its content but its pertinence and presentation...

Stirring Stuff

2009-02-04T18:17:00.005+13:00

I suppose that it is only right and proper to pay a little attention to NZ politics. As some of you may be all too aware, the NZ Labour Party (an incumbent with 9 years of positive reform as testament to their ability to govern) was recently defeated by the National Party (think Tories). I would go into more details about the appalling National policies and the incompetence of their leading figures but it would just depress me... if you want more info and analysis I suggest you read The Standard. However, there were a number of positives to come out of the last election - namely the large number of new Labour MPs who have entered the parliamentary caucus. One of which, Grant Robertson, I was very proud to campaign alongside to help him win the Wellington Central constituency. The new MPs have begun the essential renewal and re-engagement required to win back power - a process that usually takes another electoral term to carry out. The promise and enthusiasm of these new parliamentary representatives is clearly displayed by their maiden speeches.

I will post Jacinda Ardern's speech today and Grant Robertson's tomorrow. I am sure you will find them informative and inspiring - where ever you are in the world...

Jacinda Ardern MP

My Tuppence Worth

2009-02-03T11:39:00.001+13:00

Home

Never let it be said this blog just spouts off without proposing an alternative. As promised, here's my tuppence worth. I have uploaded the initial concept mock-up's of a new 'Go Fourth' website to replace the frankly inadequate incumbent... please bear in mind that these are very rough sketches using library images and will need considerable tweaking and refinement. Think of them as 'Go 4th Beta Beta'. Click each image to see a larger version. (Update - 4/02/09: I have recieved emailed questions about the practicalities of the site - i.e. navigation. I have not worked out all elements of the concept but I imagine navigation would be facilitated through the sidebar links and the homepage could be accessed through clicking on the 'Go Fourth Logo'.)

Join

Facebook Link Page

About

Founder Bio/ Personal Statement

Resouces/ Forum

Tough Love

2009-02-01T16:05:00.001+13:00

Ok... so maybe I was a bit harsh. I have recently been engaged in a very constructive dialogue with the organisers of Labour's 'Go Fourth' campaign, in light of which I must amend certain elements of my previous posting...

Initially, it is very important to note that directly engaging with the grass roots (and over zealous bloggers with considerable time on their hands) is a real sign of progress and engagement and I am really grateful for their consideration of what I have to say. I hope that any criticisms I have are constructive…

There were two factual inaccuracies in the previous post that must be corrected:

The 'Go Fourth' Campaign is not a 'head office' initiative - it is a personal project of the four founders mentioned previously and is only included in Labour's wider framework to ensure transparency of donations. Head Office is not controlling "any copy on the site".
The photo of the founders that I targeted considerable criticism towards, as Prescott pointed out himself in a comment on the post, was constructed by the New Statesman and was not an official campaign publicity shot.

I can certainly appreciate the funding decision to include Go 4th in the wider Labour Party (especially in light of recent events) - I was under the impression that the campaign was a head-office initiative to keep John and Ali busy. My mistake. I understand that these two figures wanted more direct engagement, I just wish it involved more of the caucus and was more diverse in terms of gender, race and age... the Labour Party should connect with the electorate (a failure that cost the NZ Labour Party the 2008 election) and unfortunately Prescott and Campbell aren't the most representative figures. On the 'get involved' section of Obama's website he has pictures of supporters from all sections of society - the 'symbolism' is so overt it is almost painful but the message really gets hammered home. If the Labour Party's hope for a fourth term is Tony's spin-doctor and an old warhorse - not especially known for his tact - it's hardly a message of renewal or progress.

I can also fully understand how Prezza would be a good leader for the grassroots - there is still considerable warmth to him amongst party supporters. However, I can't quite see how Alastair can function as a front man - incredibly skilled and incredibly bright - but he has so much baggage and there seems to be substantial animosity towards him at grass-root level. He is also not the most attractive figure to 'young people'... I might blog a bit more on this later.

In his comment, Prescott was at pains to point out the necessity for incremental changes to the 'Go Fourth' website over time, and I acknowledged in the previous blog post that Obama's 95 full-time internet staff were obviously responsible for the strength of his online campaign. However, I was given to understand that 'Go 4th' was launched 5 months ago (maybe the website is younger) and since it was attracting mainstream media attention (Daily Politics Show) I would have thought it would have progressed a little further. But as Prezza says, "we've got a long way to go so please see it as it is - a work in progress. But we're starting and we're in it for the long term." The fact that it has started at all is very positive (and essential if there is going to be any chance of success at the next election). But I can't help thinking that, despite the design being functional and obviously intended to be as multi-platform accessible as possible, it just seems the same as every other politician's website. (On a technical note, I was using Safari Version 2.0.4 (419.3) and Firefox 2.0.0.12 when I took the screenshots of poorly formatted text on the front page column. I updated my browser to Firefox 3 and the problem sorted itself. This does, however, cast doubts on the multi-platform accessibility of the site.)

The frequent video posts are great, as are the amazingly frequent blog posts but I feel these can be better served. Obama is a gold standard but frankly unattainable without huge investment. I understand with limited resources this isn’t easy but perhaps inspiration needs to be drawn from non-political sites. Even a clean homepage with links to the current site (used solely for blogs), to videos, to Facebook, to volunteer sign-up and another for further online activity would be a good improvement. Please forgive me presumptuousness but I have begun to create a very rough mock up to give a clearer idea than my very poor explanation…

I shall include these images in subsequent blog posts. The images have just been pulled from Google and are solely for illustrative purposes, and the mock-ups would require extensive refinement and tweaking. I also haven’t made mock-ups for all pages on the site but hopefully there’s enough to get a general sense of the idea.

Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You...

2009-01-30T14:00:00.006+13:00

The 'Obama for America' campaign has revolutionised the practise of politics. After mobilising millions of grassroots supporters, especially young campaigners and other previously apathetic demographics, Obama has decided that the opportunities his networks provide are too good to waste. To this extent he has created 'Organizing for America'. The organisation reaches across partisan lines and invites supporters and opponents alike to join in the discussion about America's future. The idea being to keep the public engaged and enthusiastic - taking a role in forming the future. This directly co-incides with how I see the future of 'political party membership' and I shall post much more on this new approach to politics and my personal vision for how the UK Labour Party can develop soon.

The first use of the campaigns 13 million email addresses and 2 million active volunteers is to arrange thousands of house parties to discuss the President's economic stimulus package and hopefully attract the attention of state officials and senators (especially in Republican states) who pose the greatest threat to Bill. Obviously the campaign does not want to bombard members of "the List" with too many requests for fear of reducing the response rate and thus public engagement. However, it is clear that the President wants to take full advantage of his unprecedented resources and range of support to advance what he considers to be a legislative program of huge importance.

Below is the complete email sent out by the organisation:

Last year, America lost 2.6 million jobs. This week, some of our biggest companies announced plans to cut tens of thousands more.

The economic crisis is deepening, but President Obama and members of Congress have proposed a recovery plan that will put more than 3 million Americans back to work.

You can learn more about how the plan will help your community by organizing an Economic Recovery House Meeting.

Join thousands of people across the country who are coming together to watch a special video about the recovery plan. Invite your friends and neighbors to watch the video with you and have a conversation about your community's economic situation.

The economic crisis can seem overwhelming and complex, but you can help the people you know connect the recovery plan to their lives and learn more about why it's so important.

Sign up to host an Economic Recovery House Meeting the weekend of Friday, February 6th.

The President's plan passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday. But if it's going to move forward, we need to avoid the usual partisan games.

That's why supporters are opening their homes to talk with neighbors and friends about how the plan will work -- and what it means for their community.

The video will outline the basics of the plan and how it will impact working families. It will also include answers to questions from folks across the country. Invite your friends and family to watch the video, discuss the plan, and help build support for it.

Don't worry if you've never hosted a house meeting before -- we'll make sure you have everything you need to make it a success.

Take the first step right now by signing up to host an Economic Recovery House Meeting:

http://my.barackobama.com/recoveryhost

Time and again, you've demonstrated your commitment to change. Now you can help America move in an important new direction.

Please forward this email to your friends and family, and encourage them to get involved as well.

Thank you for your hard work,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America

I See A Little Silhouetto Of A Party...

2009-01-29T18:10:00.026+13:00

Oh dear...

The UK Labour Party is in trouble. 11 years in power have resulted in great steps forward for the country and provided considerable reserves of experience for the party, but both appear to be tiring of each other. I would consider myself a reasonably pragmatic lefty - I am no friend of Campbell or Chomsky - but I am a social democrat and thus find my sensibilities broadly aligned with the Labour Party (one thing is for certain, I could not cope with a Cameron Cabinet.) I was therefore heartened to discover that an Obama inspired attempt at grassroots mobilisation was underway - with a specific focus on new media and a new generation of party supporters. Such an attempt would seem to provide precisely what Labour's lacking - direction and an outlet for tapping the deep passion of party members. As the New Statesman stated last Autumn:

"...for all the backbiting no one [in caucus] is offering an intellectually inspiring new political idea."

So surely the grassroots of the social democratic movement, who have been pushed aside by Blair's New Labour schmoozing of big business and foreign donors, could have something to offer...

I did wonder, however, why it had taken me so long to find out about this campaign - 'Go 4th'. Ironically, for a campaign designed to permeate the blogosphere and Facebook - finding new supporters through new means - I found out by watching the mainstream media (the Daily Politics Show) only this week. Back in September '08, a special edition of the New Statesman titled "The Battle for Labour - How to Save the Party" included an article that set out the manifesto of 'Go 4th', penned by none other than John Prescott. Further inspection of the article reveals that the two figures spearheading the campaign are John Prescott and Alastair Campbell... and suddenly I realised why it had taken me, someone with an ear well and truly pressed to the ground, almost five months to discover such a movement. The only excuse for this selection of 'advocates' would be if the entire thing was concocted by them personally. But oh no. The 'Go 4th' website reveals it is "Promoted by Ray Collins, General Secretary, the Labour Party on behalf of the Labour Party". Why, oh why would anybody in their right mind think that Prescott (political heavy-weight with limited tact, now put out to grass) and Campbell (vilified, cynical destroyer of social democratic values and good process) would inspire large grassroot support, let alone attract new, young members and their fresh ideas?

Hardly...

The campaign is supposedly based on Obama's unprecedented success - in both it's bottom up and web-centric approach. However, the photograph that accompanied the 'Go 4th' manifesto in the New Statesman sums up all that is wrong about this desperate lunge for support. Far from the simple yet inspiring publicity shots of Obama - a man who is so starkly in contrast with established political norms and who tapped an overwhelming demand for change - the Labour photo shows middle-aged, white (and frankly tired) looking members of the ruling party in what appears to be a contrived reference to Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody video! One of the few redeeming features I can see is the presence of Glenys Kinnock. She has been a very powerfully positive force in Europe and an awesome intellect, but even I will concede what she possesses in intellectual prowess (and pedigree) she lacks in charisma - brilliant for running a campaign but hardly a face to launch 1000 leafleters...

Okay... so there was one bad (quite shockingly bad) photo but a campaign is built on more than a photo, right? Obama was a great face but his campaign also mobilised thousands of supporters and his soaring rhetoric, backed by immense intellectual power, kept the movement growing at an incredible pace. 'Go 4th' must have quite a web presence and is fully utilising the Labour Party's existing list of supporter contact details... right? Well, no. They have a website, with a frequently updated blog, and a Facebook page but that's about the extent of it. A solid base to work from and a useful platform from which to launch a more extensive effort once the election campaign begins in earnest? Well, no. For a campaign that cites Obama as a seminal influence and tutor, it has been a very poor student. The website is decidedly average and includes almost none of the essential features of the Obama campaign. www.barackobama.com provided a hub through which volunteers throughout the country could liaise, unite and share ideas. www.gofourth.co.uk is essentially a glorified Prescott blog, to which Campbell occasionally contributes. It does not have any detail of policy, it has no campaign materials beyond a .pdf poster (seemingly designed on Microsoft Paint by an 11 year old - see above) and the only real 'get involved/ get mobilised' feature is an option to submit your email address to receive regular email updates - hardly revolutionary stuff. And to top it all off, my casual sweep revealed no sign of beloved Glenys...

In fairness, there are reasonably frequent video postings (by Prescott though, which practically undermines any efficacy of message) and comments on the blogs are answered frequently and in detail - but I think that can be attributed more to the scarcity of comments rather than any particular dedication of Prescott.

I could be called picky and spoilt in terms of political web contact (after all Obama had over 90 full time internet dedicated staff) especially when a general election may not be for over a year... but frankly an energising campaign to mobilise supporters needs to be a real step up. If 'Go 4th' wants to engage young, web savvy volunteers it needs to be of the high standard that the demographic expects. It also needs to begin early and gain momentum (Obama's marathon race began over two years before the election.) And this website is not just average - it's really poor. The colour scheme is grey and beige and the text is not even formatted properly (half is cut off when viewing the page on both safari and firefox browsers.) Compared to Obama this is shocking! The message conveyed (if the viewer can find it) also needs to be genuinely inspiring, not just the standard stump speech, copy and paste jobs of almost every MP in the country's websites.

I'm all for a Labour 4th term but this 'campaign' seems to reflect the wider public perception of the party - tired and incompetent. The party really needs to get some hunger for another term in office, the Tories have been throwing everything at wooing undecided voters and "decontaminating the brand", if Labour doesn't put in some effort they frankly don't deserve another chance. There is a really positive message to get out - Labour has great achievements to herald and the Tories will be a really shaky pair of hands for the country. Cameron is the inexperienced and incompetent leader so why does the public think it is the men with red ties who need to learn a lesson or two? Again, in the words of the New Statesman feature:

"David Cameron has given his ailing party a facelift, schmoozed voters and promised to transform society magically - and the left has let him get away with it"

The difference in quality is stark and is even greater when the column containing latest news and video cuts off sentences and has its text unformatted and overlapping.

(Click image for higher resolution)

The idea of a grassroots campaign fits in perfectly with the founding principles of the Labour Party and the social democratic values at its core. However, it is all too easy to suffer the delusion that having a Facebook site and encouraging supporters to be 'active' somehow constitutes a revolutionary change in approach. Changes to the site are relatively easy to fix (and should be made as soon as possible) but they will not overcome the fundamental problem with the campaign. Even if we leave aside the rather large problem of the political figureheads (Prescott and Campbell), unless Labour changes what it means to be a 'party member' - and what it means to campaign - politics will stumble along in its current deeply unsatisfying manner and public apathy will continue on its upward trajectory.

This is an issue I feel very passionately about and will blog more on later so, watch this space.

Change Indeed

2009-01-28T13:03:00.002+13:00

Susan E. Rice and the new Commander in Chief

Looking at key members of Obama's new administration I was particularly interested by his new appointment of US Permanent Representative to the UN, Susan E. Rice (no relation of, but much in common with, Condi). Whilst anything would be an improvement on Bolton (though she's also pretty outspoken), she has an incredibly strong pedigree - as one of the youngest ever assistant secretaries of state under Albright and Clinton. She has already said that she expects, in her new role at the UN, to engage in "vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy with Iran". But in regard to what many consider to be the greatest foreign policy pressure points (Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel/Palestine) she will have little sway over strategy, with Obama already making very clear noises in those directions with the appointment of George Mitchell and the upcoming Centcom Assessment on Afghanistan.

However, Rice will most likely have influence over approaches to the numerous humanitarian issues that have become the mainstay of UN action. In this regard Rice has an intriguing background. She was top diplomat for African issues during the 1998 terrorist bombings of embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and played a key role in shaping American policy to Africa during the 1994 Rwandan genocide - about which she told The Atlantic Monthly in 2001 that she had learnt a lesson:

“I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required.”

In light of this, I was particularly struck by a statement she made whilst testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 11, 2007. In it she made the case for authorizing United States military action against Sudan if the genocide in Darfur continued:

“Some argue that it is unthinkable in the current context. True, the international climate is less forgiving than it was in 1999 when we acted in Kosovo. Iraq and torture scandals have left many abroad doubting our motives and legitimacy. Some will reject any future U.S. military action, especially against an Islamic regime, even if purely to halt genocide against Muslim civilians. Sudan has also threatened that Al Qaeda will attack non-African forces in Darfur — a possibility since Sudan long hosted bin Laden and his businesses.

“Yet, to allow another state to deter the U.S. by threatening terrorism would set a terrible precedent. It would also be cowardly and, in the face of genocide, immoral.

“Others argue the U.S. military cannot take on another mission. Indeed, our ground forces are stretched thin. But a bombing campaign or a naval blockade would tax the Air Force and Navy, which have relatively more capacity, and could utilize the 1,500 U.S. military personnel already in nearby Djibouti.

“Still others insist that, without the consent of the U.N. or a relevant regional body, we would be breaking international law. But the Security Council last year codified a new international norm prescribing ‘the responsibility to protect’” It commits U.N. members to decisive action, including enforcement, when peaceful measures fail to halt genocide or crimes against humanity.”

One to watch me thinks...

Update *** Update

This is just a quick update to highlight the latest news from Obama-rama-land, that he has been working with top African affairs advisors to draft strong sanctions against Mugabe's oppressive, despotic regime and to smooth the passage through the Security Council by convincing Russia and China to either support or at least abstain in a vote on action. This will probably be the first big test for the newly appointed Rice and the strength of Obama's honeymoon effect around the world. President Putin, recently speaking at the Davos economic summit made some positive noises about co-operation with a changed American administration:

"Russia is willing to contribute to dealing with international priority issues. We expect all our partners in Europe, Asia and America, including the new US administration, to show interest in further constructive cooperation in dealing with all these issues and more. We wish the new team success."

Now is the time to put an end to the appalling inaction over the disaster in Zimbabwe. Let's wait to see if there will, finally, be change we can believe in.

Update *** Update

Titanic Seeking Titans

2009-01-27T13:04:00.004+13:00

With the intense global spotlight squarely fixed on the Obama whirlwind, it is all too easy to forget the vicious wranglings in the House of Commons as Brown and Cameron grapple for firmer ground in the shifting sands of the political plateau. But the sound of thundering British beasts can even be heard in the Antipodes this week. However, in order to properly understand this week's clash of the Titans we must first consider the build-up...

A common accusation against politicians is that they are all professional liars, with no 'real world' experience (outside politics) and simply manipulate the parliamentary system for the greatest personal gain. To his credit, when Gordon finally took the reigns of British premiership and began sulking from behind No. 10's absurdly shiny door rather than No. 11's, he promised to lead a "government of all the talents" and to this extent recruited 'experts' from business and academic spheres as well as the political arena. Brown's more sombre personal approach to governance was reinforced by the big beasts he yoked for his wider cabinet - notable figures including Professor Sir Ara Darzi, Sir Mark Malloch Brown, Admiral Sir Alan West and Sir Digby Jones. However, despite such heavyweight 'real world' experience, Brown suffered a drastic collapse of confidence from within his party and the public. After painstakingly building a worthy reputation as a lightening intellect, a man who understood his great responsibility and a steady hand at the tiller, Brown allowed himself to be pranced around by a complete lightweight leader of the the opposition and reduced to a national laughing-stock in the now infamous 'Mr. Bean' incident. The problem was very clear: despite the immense accumulation of knowledge and experience in Brown's government he had categorically failed to communicate his 'vision'.

Now, it is all too common for the public to consider politicians to be selfish, insular and nepotistic but Gordon Brown's popularity poll data clearly shows that experience and expertise are not enough to overcome. It was perhaps this (all too tardy) realisation that prompted Brown to recall the Dark Prince of New Labour, Peter Mandelson, from his EU exile. For all the fuss kicked up by the red tops as Mandy was bestowed the title of Baron Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool, his vast political savvy and communication skills have been essential to the Brown bounce (even if it now appears short-lived).

The truth is that the public, especially in these most uncertain of times, do not necessarily want someone to tell them the absolute truth with frequent recourse to statistics and studies - often what they want is someone to tell them it'll be alright whilst the number crunchers work behind the scenes to try to make the promise a reality. At the wake for the Blair era (hardly a downbeat period) pundits and politicians (especially Brown) were falling over themselves to condemn soundbites and backroom briefing whilst heralding a new age of political practice. Now I am certainly no New Labour apologist but, as the hard facts about the recession and the practical implications of the global downturn begin to materialise with brutal regularity (job cuts, company collapses etc) the public do not want dispassionate analysis, they want spectacle and (at least faux) sincerity. This is a careful balancing act - the difficulty of which is clearly demonstrated by the Cameron cabinet during the Brown bounce (too much spin, too little substance) - and requires almost constant adjustment. This leads neatly on to the recent clash of the political Titans...

There is currently no clamor for more 'real world' experience, no more experts or executives - and, in fairness, Cameron has understood the power of the Dark Prince and adjusted his cabinet accordingly. The return of Ken Clarke as shadow to Mandy (albeit in "the other place") clearly demonstrates Cameron's acceptance of the importance of big beasts at a time like this. Whilst Clarke will not melt the hearts of housewives as a fresh faced Blair did in '97, his impassioned statements in the House and considerable debating prowess have and will continue to win him praise from within the chattering classes and, perhaps most importantly, provide numerous soundbites to conveniently play in 20 second news slots or red top headlines. That might just give him the edge he needs.

The importance of certain figures is taken to its rather tongue-in-cheek conclusion by the ever interesting Frank Field. He recently stressed the importance of the the 'Titans' so far as to claim that Mandelson, Clarke and Cable could run the country as a multi-party triumvirate. Dangerous water, Frank! The last thing you want to do is give egos that large further delusions of grandeur. I'd watch out for the coup if I were you...

Raising the Flag...

2008-02-11T23:35:00.000+13:00

Laugh Now But...

2008-02-10T22:41:00.000+13:00

Scary isn't it...

Whale of a Tail...

2008-01-17T23:22:00.000+13:00

This is a graphic picture but it is one of a very few whaling images that are not too horrific to show.

Is it just me or does the BBC's correspondent on board the Greenpeace ship chasing the Japanese whaling fleet have a remarkably pertinent name. The intrepid journalist, Jonah Fisher, has been on board the Greenpeace ship since it left harbour in Auckland and has been sending very insightful and articulate accounts back to Broadcasting House ever since. I'm sure that as soon as the Boffs at the Beeb decided they needed a man on board there really could be no argument about who was to be sent and a collective giggle has been echoing around the airwaves ever since. But there is very little giggling in the Southern Seas at the moment...

His reports, free from the spin of Greenpeace or the Japanese, highlight the seriousness of the situation at hand. More than a thousand whales are to be killed by the Japanese fleet who are far better resourced than the monitoring vessels of both Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd and appear to have a much stronger resolve than the Australian or New Zealand governments who have diverted token resources to monitor the fleet and ensure they stay within its "scientific" remit.

The situation is bleak. The Japanese fleet is leading the monitoring ships on a wild goose chase around the Southern Ocean which is steadily eating away at the group's limited fuel supplies. The animosity between the moderate Greenpeace and more militant Sea Shepherd is also making life all the harder for those who wish to save the whales.

As if things were not bad enough, news came through on Tuesday that two Sea Shepherd activists, a Brit and an Australian, have been detained by the crew of one of the whaling ships whilst trying to deliver a letter of protest. The Japanese claim they are terrorists, Sea Shepherd are trying to make martyrs out of them and the Australian government is stuck in the middle attempting to retrieve the men without causing an enormous diplomatic incident or inflaming the already volatile situation. An Australian Navy ship, the Viking Warrior, has been dispatched to the area to take control of the situation on the sea but no one is quite sure what they will do when they arrive.

Although, on the surface, the Australian's look like they are in a difficult position, I believe they can turn the situation to their, and the whales', advantage. The situation on board the whaler is allowing the Australian ship to steam straight towards the fleet without any attempts at evasion. After the Sea Shepherd activists are safely transfered, the Viking Warrior can stay in the vicinity, tracking the Japanese fleet, possibly claiming that they are standing by in case of another incident in order to avoid diplomatic awkwardness, and ensuring that the fleet are kept closely in check and thus limiting the number of whales harmed.

If the Japanese fleet attempts to evade the Australian ship there will no doubt be cries of foul play and accusations that the whalers have something to hide and thus the Japanese's political situation will become even more uncomfortable. This situation is far more preferential than only having the environmental groups' ships near by. If the Japanese attempt to shake the "Greenies", as they have been doing for the last week or so, it is easier for the diplomats to claim that the fleet is simply trying to avoid the "terrorists" and ensure the safety of the whaling crew who may be in danger from the "radical extremists" of the high seas.

There may be hope left for the whales...

The World's Most Paranoid Nation... With Good Reason?

2008-01-16T14:55:00.002+13:00

It has just been reported on the BBC that the US now considers the greatest threat to its borders to come from Europe. This latest example of paranoia is justified by the Vulcan's in Washington (with their ever pointier ears) by the terror attacks in London on 7/7 and the Madrid bombings.

It has been said in the corridors of power and subsequently on Fox (that bastion of rights, freedoms and considered perspectives) that flights from Europe which have marginally lighter security checks than other flights should be targeted by Home Land Security officials to ensure that America's great borders are not breached by dangerous elements from the wild, uncontrollable and all too liberal Europe. And maybe in their own heavy handed and inarticulate way they have a point. The threat of extremism has shifted in a very real way to European and American shores. One of the most horrific and terrifying aspects of the 7/7 attacks was not that they occurred in the heart of London, that was an uncomfortable inevitability at the forefront of everyone's minds, but that the atrocity was committed by British citizens. The idea that people who have grown up in a country can turn against it with such deadly force is a petrifying thought and the reasons for it are numerous if not immediately obvious, as are the solutions, but the subject for another post.

However, there is something about this latest initiative that makes me fundamentally uneasy.

The report reminded me of a case a few years back involving the singer Yusuf Islam, formerly Cat Stevens, who was allowed to board a flight from London to Washington with his daughter but the flight was diverted mid air to an airport in Maine where the singer was detained by Homeland Security Personnel and subject to interrogation on suspicion of being involved in international terrorism and being a threat to American national security. Even after his release and deportation, the various nameless shadows who 'protect and serve' still insist Mr Islam is a continuing threat to US security and his name still resides of the infamous and murky "No-Fly List" with little prospect of removal.

I can't help wondering whether the singer, who converted to Islam and adopted his new name way back in the 1970's and has been a long time advocate for the messages of peace and tolerance at the heart of the Koran, wondered when being whisked away in a blacked out car whether he would soon find himself in orange overalls and if his songs "I've Got A Thing About Seeing My Grandson', 'Miles From Nowhere' and 'The First Cut Is The Deepest' were about to take on a new meaning...

I wonder how much Mr Islam's treatment has to do with his activities being a sustained and substantial threat and how much they had to do with his beard and surname? This obsession with terror is not confined to the "administration" but has permeated the consciousness of normal citizens. I have been on planes where passengers have cast frantic searching looks at men with beards or a turbans (and if you are really worried about the "Muslim threat" its Sikh's who wear turbans!), I have even witnessed one woman ask a steward if she could be moved away from one poor individual who had apparently been "looking funny". Can this be labelled a greater sense of awareness of the "real and ever present risk" that is so often cited by the grey faced at the top or is it, as I consider, a very sad state of affairs.

With plans in the pipeline for a mega, all encompassing database of US and UK citizen's personal information and biometric data, into which the security services can trawl at will and satisfy their frankly unhealthy obsession with guesswork and supposition I believe we need to take a step back, deep breath and think. If we couple the data plans with a greater focus of European citizens and previous incidents such as that of Yusuf Islam and I fear the "No-Fly List" is going to get much longer before one day we find ourselves waking up and not recognising the world we live in.

I fully accept that we are living in dangerous times and that the security services of our respective countries are doing an invaluable job ensuring our security. I also accept that the "threat" needs to be continually stressed because it is all too easy to be lured into a false sense of security, by the very nature of the security services if they are successful we should never know the danger that faces us.

The various agencies of the world live in a darkened world of subterfuge and treachery and the individuals of the agencies put their lives on the line everyday for our sake but we must not allow the threat to be manipulated by the powers that be.

I am all for maintaining national and international security but not at the expense of individual liberties. By all means find and detain the extremists who threaten us but do so on solid evidence and with due process. It may be argued that terrorists do not care about due process and justice and thus why should we. The answer is simple: it is due process and a sense of universal justice that distinguishes us from the terrorists.

There are persistent questions dogging those in power:

How far do you go? Is there a line that is not crossed?

It is all to easy to lose the lonely lifeline of the moral high ground when dealing with those hell-bent on the destruction of democracy, freedoms, liberties and life but it is all we have. Let us not undermine ourselves by restricting rights and persecuting the innocent because then the extremists win, they do not need bombs to defeat us if we allow the fear of bombs to justify destroying ourselves.

We must stand together rather than casting desperate aspersions, we must work together but not with mega Orwellian data banks with little safeguards for protection and we must ensure national and international security but not at the expense of fundamental liberties, freedoms or the innocent.

Wailing... But Not In A Good Way

2008-01-15T11:18:00.001+13:00

As part of the Wellington "Summer City" festival the city council is holding a series of open air concerts in the Botanic Gardens, a different act a night for a month. Looking at the programme it is relatively easy to judge which of the acts is worth watching and which must be avoided like the plague (which I might add is nearly all of them). However, one act that caught my eye was called 'Niko Ne Zna'. It was billed as:

"...a hot and spicy taste of Europe in Wellington. Playing music from the gypsy-soaked
(which they misspelled) Balkan states..."

The night started badly when the compare read out the description and presently asked where the Balkan states were...

What transpired was not an authentic "...hot and spicy taste of Europe" but a reasonably competent series of cover songs ranging from the James Bond theme to the Can-Can, of course these were played by a band that included an accordionist and thus the music was authentic! This was not at all what I expected but it was not bad and the lights in the gardens were worth watching. There was the inevitable exhibitionism from the front with a number of not quite sober women of a certain age showing off the moves they had learnt in the numerous belly dancing classes springing up in community halls everywhere and trying to catch the drummer's eye... but this was easily avoided by looking at the flowers rather than the stage. Everyone seemed to enjoying themselves and the picnics with the Pino Gris and Camembert tasted all the better for the fresh air and heady aroma of freshly cut grass.

This was until the band decided to play a song of their own creation which they had called the "Monkey Song". This was described as a "...song from the midst of time, traditionally only sang by people with blocked noses to celebrate the return of the monkey catchers."

Right... how many monkeys are there in the Balkan states?

The band then began wailing and hooting like a monkey, in an attempt, I can only imagine, was meant to inspire thoughts of traditional Romany music which has characteristically soulful and declamatory vocals and unmistakably prominent glissandi (slides) between notes (hence the wailing). Scarily, it was at this point that the assembled crowd of about 200 started to get into the swing of the music and began to enjoy themselves. It was when the hoots of laughter began to outnumber the hoots from on stage that my assembled family unit looked at each other with looks of horror and we swiftly made an exit.

Unfortunately, this total naivety and lack of cultural awareness appears to be systemic throughout New Zealand. I assume the sheer distance between this far flung shore and the culture and history of Europe has led to this strange state where much of the "culture" Kiwis are exposed to is either filtered through American television or by cover bands such as Niko Ne Zna. Thus many people have a very warped sense of the world. It can't be healthy. Having said this Britain, despite its proximity to Europe, is also becoming more culturally inept due to the large influence of television and the internet which, to be frank, contains information from sources of dubious reliability...

Sir Edmund Hilary: Mountain of a Man

2008-01-11T13:24:00.000+13:00

One of the world's greatest explorers, climbers, mountaineers and personalities has died today aged 88.

The climber famed for being the first man to reach the summit of the elusive Mt Everest (Chomolungma) with Sherpa Tenzing Norgay in 1953 has been a vocal and influential advocate of mountaineering and other sports, especially encouraging children to participate more actively. He has been a keen and generous philanthropist establishing the Himalayan Trust, which plays a vital role in improving Nepalese infrastructure and bettering the lives of its citizens especially those of the Sherpa community. It was as a result of these invaluable works and the contribution he has made to the people of Nepal that Sir Edmund was made an Honorary Nepalese citizen in 2003.

It was on a visit to Nepal, a country especially close to his heart, second only to New Zealand, last April that he suffered a fall and his health had been in decline since then.
His story begins for most on the summit of Everest, disappearing into the clouds only to reemerge on the highest point on earth, a moment of enormous significance and emotion, shared only by his faithful Sherpa Tenzing Norgay with who he formed a great friendship until the latter's death thirty years later. On his return to Everest Base Camp after conquering the mountain that had, and continues to, claim so many, Hilary is supposed to have said to a fellow climber "Well, George, we've knocked the bastard off." It was this spirit that made Hilary a classic Kiwi. He had grit in his blood and a passion for adventure in his heart. He represented the dogged spirit of exploration and a resilience that so epitomises New Zealand and endears this lonely piece of rock to the world. Hilary was a Kiwi icon and probably the most respected, revered and renowned character in its short but colourful history.

Sir Edmund Hilary was described by New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clarke as a "...heroic figure who not only 'knocked off' Everest but lived a life of determination, humility and generosity. The legendary mountaineer, adventurer, and philanthropist is the best-known New Zealander ever to have lived, but most of all he was a quintessential Kiwi."

"He was ours - from his craggy appearance to laconic style to his directness and honesty. All New Zealanders will deeply mourn his passing."
The sun is still beating down from a faultless sky and slowly bleaching the houses scattered across the planes and valleys of this great country just as it has for centuries but there is a definite feeling of loss across the silver fern today. The red and ruddy expressions are tainted with sadness and many eyes have lost their sparkle. Something intractable has changed, his death has marked the end of a great age of exploration and adventure, one that has captured the hearts of millions and seen countless landmarks of human endurance and courage.

Many climbers head to Everest inspired by ego and pride, they have very little respect for the Sherpas and guides who are so vital to their attempts and no understanding of the magnitude of the challenge ahead of them. Hilary was different. He was a man of great personal integrity, perception and principle.

If you want a case that demonstrates Hilary’s unfaltering principled nature and his love and respect for the mountain that made him and breaks many others then this example from mid-2006, which split the opinion of the climbing community in half, shows the great man at his best.

It is unlikely that there will ever be anyone to rival Hilary’s courage, determination, influence and respect. His achievements stretched far beyond the mountains to the very edges of the earth and the respect he has here in New Zealand, the land of his birth, followed him there.

It is for the history books to document his greatness but for now we must celebrate his life and his achievements for they were many and they were great. In Sir Edmund Hilary the world has not only lost a mountaineer, although he was one of the greatest, they have also lost a tiresome campaigner, a fiercely principled activist, a lover of nature and a role model to whom everyone can look up to and revere. I have no doubt that will be sorely missed by all who have a respect for the planet, for each other and for themselves for in Edmund Hilary the planet has lost a dear friend.

You May Be The Big Brother But Always Remember Who's The Daddy...

2008-01-07T18:59:00.000+13:00

News has just broken that the average Briton will have a higher GDP than the average American in 2008. They will also be richer than the average German and French citizen. After a disastrous fifteen year Tory led economic doldrums with major unemployment and recession the last ten years of New Labour have seen a dramatic upturn in British economic fortunes. From being an average of 33% behind our larger neighbours we are now steaming ahead. It is important to note at this point that the average cost of goods is less in America and thus their citizens will continue to have a greater spending power... however this is a great improvement. After years of ridicule the UK is regaining its place in the exclusive club of economic powerhouses. With possibly the most important financial centre in London the world must not forget the Old Empire state... no matter how small she may be.

Gordon Brown has continually told us that the UK's economy is among the best in the world but this has often been taken as rhetoric and spin... he's telling the truth. New Labour have been remarkable over the last ten years in terms of economic policy, even when the recent run on Northern Rock is considered. Labour really has overtaken the Tories as the party of the economy, with the boy's in blue beating on about becoming the party of the NHS (even though they voted against its formation) this is a real kick in the teeth... especially as their key voting group is one of the groups that have benefited most out of the upturn in economic fortunes. Maybe now people will start believing Brown...

We are going back from Rue Britannia to Rule Britannia!

Tears of the Horn

2008-01-06T19:08:00.001+13:00

Kenyan has until recently been considered a shining example of post-colonial Africa and a bastion of hope for the numerous failing states suffering from crippling poverty, bloody and bitter struggles between brothers and tyrannous leadership. After the long awaited elections that which most commentators would result in a landslide victory for the the country's opposition leader Mr Odinga, the brutal rioting and looting has rocked the country.

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that looking at the numerous pictures of riots, police crackdowns and bodies in the gutters is heartbreaking. Photojournalism has brought world events rights into cereal at breakfast and the reality, no matter how subjective the portrayal, will always leave a lump in your throat.

Fortunately over the last few days, under mounting international pressure (that old thing) both the incumbent President Kibaki and Mr Odinga's opposition party have softened their positions, possibly through love of their country or fear of history's weighty hand of judgment. This may yet lead to a peaceful solution but it is not coming soon enough...

and none of them can believe what is has been happening in the streets of their country loved by both tourists and locals alike. They resent the wider media's I have read the accounts of a number of people via the world wide blogosphere who are based in Nairobi and who resent the portrayal of the conflict in the wider international media which they consider trivialises the problem putting the violence and unrest down to "tribal differences". They cannot believe what is happening on their streets, the streets of a country that is loved by tourists and locals alike.

The unrest is unprecedented in a country that despite its location by the troubled horn of nations and the crisies beyond its borders has remained stable and relatively prosperous, though many still live bellow the infamous dollar a day mark.

The thought yellowing trousers in the world's corridors of power is that Kenya, if the issues rocking its foundations are not resolved soon, may descend into a situation similar to Sudan or Zimbawe, both previously stable both economically and physically. No one wants that...

I've Been Thinking...

2008-01-04T23:12:00.000+13:00

I've been thinking long and hard about the US Presidential election process. The most worrying thought being that this is effectively a race to become the most powerful and influential person in the world... fortunately it also means that George W. will no longer fill that position.

The options of the American people are as follows:

Republican

A Mormon (Romney)
A Baptist Creationist (Huckerbee)
A Hollywood Character Actor (Thompson)
A Right-Wing Tortured Veteran (McCain)
and Rudy Giuliani (Enough Said)

Democrat

Baggage (Clinton)
Inexperience (Obama)
Not a Chance (Edwards)

Well it's obvious that I will not be supporting a Republican... we have all seen in ever more graphic terms the damage that particular party has caused the world over the last seven years and John Edwards is a non-starter for the Democrats, he just doesn't have the presence, principles or policies for the White House.

America needs a change, a visible progression that moves beyond the current perception of the world's largest superpower that has seen world popularity ratings drop too almost negligible levels over the last five years. America is now seen as the root cause of most of the world's problems, it is the incarnation of 'Western capitalist evil' with its burgers and beer and thus the scape goat for pretty much anything one cares to mention from war and wag the dog syndrome to wikipedia. However, the truth rarely uttered by lefties such as my self is that America isn't an essentially evil entity and can be a very effective bastion and bringer of democracy and justice.

In my opinion the only choice for those inhabitants of the land of the free and home of the brave, who George Dubya refers to as "my fellow Merkins", is between Clinton and Obama. With Clinton you have a passionate, dedicated and experienced politician with a proven track record with foreign policy and the invaluable experience of once having lived in the White House. It also important to remember that by electing Clinton you are voting for two presidents, for with Hilary comes Bill, one of the most charismatic, influential and subtle politicians of the modern era. This invaluable experience and clout is sorely lacking in the Obama camp...

Obama is young, dedicated and eloquent (his Iowa caucus victory speech was pure political brilliance) and he has high profile and influential backing in the form of Oprah Winfrey who claimed he had "...an ear for eloquence and a tongue dipped in the unvarnished truth" (mixed metaphor but we can forgive Oprah) and the slightly uncomfortable reality is that if Oprah wanted to stand for president she would probably win!

However, Hilary has political baggage including Bill and Iraq, whereas Obama does not mainly because he hasn't been in politics for long enough. Half of me wants a dream team with Clinton as President and Obama as Vice-President for the first term, long enough for him to accumulate the vital experience required to be President and then take over for a second Democrat term but that is never going to happen! John McCain once said of the Vice Presidency "I spent all those years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, kept in the dark, fed scraps - why the heck would I want to do that all over again?". The fact is America needs to decide between these two political heavy weights.

I have made my choice, along with millions of other armchair commentators. I have decided that change is more important than experience and Clinton is just not capable of creating the sense of change required to drag the lame beast of America to its feet once more and put it back on track. However, and there is always a caveat... if Clinton gets in I won't be too heartbroken, the idea of a Clinton team back in the Oval Office isn't too terrifying...

Well... Here We All Are... What Next?

2008-01-04T22:37:00.000+13:00

As a new year is ushered in from the various horizons of the world and the haze of innumerable fireworks has dispersed from our collective consciousness we are faced with a harsh reality... 2008 has not come as what Homer refers to as a dawn "fresh and rosy fingered".

To quickly take stock of the numerous happenings of the last few dawns we have had...

Riots in Kenya over hotly disputed election results...

Pakistani elections being delayed....

Benazir Bhutto's son being named as the next leader of the PPP...

The Japanese continuing with a controversial whaling expedition in the face of fierce international pressure...

Barak Obama and Mike Huckerbee winning their respective caucuses in Iowa...

Oh...

and Britney's house being visited by America's finest boy's in blue...

I can't wait for the rest...

Worst Fears

2007-12-30T09:23:00.000+13:00

The statistics in this BBC News article are really scary.

Pakistan appears to be decending ever further into political crisis. Elections are the only way forward but I cannot see how they can take place in the current climate, it's a Catch 22 situation, without elections the rioting and unrest will continue but if elections are held there will inevitably be claims of vote rigging and corruption, probably resulting in riots and unrest. It is a truly scary situation.

All eyes on Pakistan...

Cowardice

2007-12-28T12:02:00.000+13:00

I was not expecting to make another post today but I have just found out, as I'm sure have many of you, that Benazir Bhutto, the moderate, pro-Western opposition leader in Pakistan has been assassinated whilst leaving a rally in Rawalpindi.

I only have the facts available to everyone at this time but it does seem, probably an inevitable result of the chaos, that no one, including the security forces in Pakistan, know quite what has happened. It appears, from what I can decipher from the numerous media reports and official briefings that Benazir Bhutto was shot while leaving the rally in a vehicle by a man who managed to get past her security personnel. It is now thought that the gunman blew himself up after taking the shots. It is unclear whether the shots or the blast proved fatal and perhaps we shall never know.

The attack happened at around half past two this morning (New Zealand time) and in the few hours between the attack and the writing of this post widespread riots have spread out across the country, at least five people have been killed, the internal security forces have been ordered to shoot protesters on sight, President Musharraf has declared three days of national mourning (a move many consider as effectively imposing a three day curfew) and Nawaz Sharif has declared his party will boycott the January elections.

My concern is that the riots initiated by Bhutto's supporters will take hold and lead to a further destabilisation of Pakistan and thus allow Musharraf to reimpose Emergency Rule, a move that would benefit nobody other than Musharraf and his party. Questions are now being asked about whether or not the elections due on the 8th of January will go ahead and, if they do, whether they could ever be considered a true representation of democracy. I believe that Musharraf will continue with the elections in an attempt to quickly legitimise his rule but it would be almost impossible in the present circumstances for any elections to be free, fair and equally contested.

The horrible truth is that Benazir Bhutto was almost unique in her courage, charisma and principles and there is no real alternative to succeed her. She had a progressive attitude for the development of a secular Pakistan which respected civil rights and liberties. After returning from exile and surviving an attempt on her life that caused the deaths of over a hundred of her supporters, she fearlessly and tirelessly campaigned for her party and was making significant in roads into Musharraf's majority. When Emergency Rule was imposed, she remained principled and defiant in the face of considerable pressure, including her arrest and the imprisonment of hundreds, possibly thousands of her supporters.

Bhutto's murder is a truly cowardly act, perpetrated by those wishing suppress the rights of women, civil liberties and democracy as a whole. Unfortunately, it appears as if the objectives of the attack, to cause instability and derail Pakistan's attempts at democracy, have been achieved with dire consequences for the future of the fragile nation that is so vital in the fight against extremism. All now rests on the actions of Musharraf, his security forces and Bhutto's supporters.

This is not an event to be taken lightly. It is a great tragedy caused by cowards who must be brought to justice. However, if basic rights and liberties are infringed and democracy is rejected in favour of authoritarian measures, Pakistan will be on a very steep and slippery slope to disaster that will be incredibly hard to recover from.

The Tinsel Has Been Removed From My Head

2007-12-28T07:00:00.000+13:00

Greetings

I have finally managed to shake the haze of festivity from my head, removed the assorted bottle tops and streamers from my keyboard and have resumed my interminable quest for blog glory. I can only apologise to the die-hard clique of blog browsers still scouring the blogosphere during this period for the sparseness of posts in the last few days... even bloggers are mortal and will occasionally succumb to the temptations of chocolate cake and roast potatoes.

We have now entered the reflective time between the indulgence of one festival and the indulgence of another in the form of New Year and what have we learnt? Hopefully, not to eat so much next year!

I hope all my readers have had a happy, safe (and I think I used the term 'propitious' ) festive season regardless of religion or race. I also want to wish everyone a prosporous and productive (I do like adjectives beginning with 'p') New Year.

I shall be resuming normal blog practice shortly but wanted to seize the opportunity of the this relative lull in proceedings to wish you all well and give a progress update.

Happy posting

Jacob

Festive Greetings

2007-12-24T12:06:00.000+13:00

All that is left for me to do is wish all of the blog browsers who stumble upon this remote corner of the blogosphere a happy, safe and propitious festive season.

I look forward to return, feeling more content, if slightly more bloated, than before.

Keep safe

Jacob

Censorship or Reasonable Reaction?

2007-12-18T16:29:00.000+13:00

A few hours ago I was alerted to a series of comments from an individual called "Merde" (and we all know what that means in French!). These comments were directed at two posts of mine and more specifically the individuals concerned. After immediately reviewing the comments I decided to delete two of the four. These comments were of an offensive nature and totally off-topic. I have clearly stated on this site that:

"Comments on all articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site author. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable may be summarily deleted."

The comments in question in this case were written in French, in a possible attempt to delay their identification as offensive or because the individual in question speaks French. Unfortunately for the individual in question, I can speak a fair bit of French...

The user name "Merde" is a nickname and thus cannot be traced back to a blogger account, if it could I would have no reservation in referring that individual to the Blogger administrators. I have said in the comment section of the related posts, and I will repeat here, that I do not wish to restrict the freedom of opinion and expression of my readers but I will not tolerate comments that are "...off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable...". I believe this is a reasonable position and reserve the right to do so again in the future.

Most of the comments on this blog have been of a positive and constructive nature and there have been a number expressing opinions I do not agree with, however, it is important to note that I have not deleted or in any way censored these comments as they are expressing a personal opinion that is not specifically offensive or targeted. I believe this is an important distinction to make. I am a strong believer that comments such as those made by "Merde" do nothing for improving the public impression of bloggers and the wider internet community. They are not funny and only serve to degenerate the quality of sites and the enjoyment of readers.

I hope you support me in this matter and continue to enjoy reading this blog and making considered comments where you see fit.

Happy posting

Yours

Jacob

Urgent Action Is Required... We'll Talk About It Later

2007-12-16T00:50:00.001+13:00

World leaders have unanimously agreed that the time for united and uncompromising action against climate change is now and that the world is in a delicate state where, unless large changes in behaviour are made, disaster is just around the corner. All of the delegates at the Bali Climate Change conference have agreed that carbon dioxide emissions must be cut dramatically and that governments need to take responsibility for their environmental impact. This is all very promising...

However... with all the talk about urgency and imminent danger, the countries represented at Bali have agreed to discuss the problem later!

This procrastination smacks of self-protection and political maneuvering! The wording of the universally accepted statement from Bali is carefully constructed to create the illusion of action but contains negligible levels of substance. World leaders do not need a full cover up, all they need is enough ambiguity for a bare faced denial! The EU provided a promising start to the talks, giving a strong statement to the US that unless meaningful and binding targets were agreed at Bali, EU nations will boycott Bush's own climate summit. The universally agreed Bali statement did not include "meaningful and binding targets" but it is still uncertain whether or not EU nations will be represented at Bush's summit.

Unfortunately, this is no great surprise. When one delves beyond the rhetoric political figures and their respective governments are far more concerned with protecting their current economies from the "detriment" of climate change provisions and each nation is unwilling to start off the necessary process of mandatory and meaningful carbon cuts for fear of being isolated and thus "destroying" their own economy for very little impact. Modern eco-politics has quickly adopted the same problems associated with nuclear disarmament. No individual country is going to dismantle their nuclear weapons in case other states do not and are subsequently left with a nuclear capacity with which to bully the world and increase their own power. However, if no single country is going start meaningful and mandatory cuts the world can adopt another term from the days of the Cold War... MAD (mutually assured destruction). For if strong action is not taken imminently, the consequences will be too dire to contemplate!

Now is the time to overcome protectionist tactics and political motivations and instead focus on combating the ever increasing threat of climate change. For if we continue with our selfish ways we will be heading for a slippery slope that will be impossible to climb out from. This is not just a problem for our leaders either. Each and everyone of us must do our bit (no matter how small) and also put unprecedented pressure on our leaders for change for the better. If the politicians can see, in no uncertain terms, that the public want action it will be delivered. People should not be scared of their governments, governments should be scared of the people and above all else, people must be scared of the future!

Spooky!

2007-12-12T19:46:00.000+13:00

As an avid fan of the BBC drama series 'Spooks', a show that follows a team of crack spies on their countless exciting and beautifully lit attempts to save the UK from destruction, and as a keen observer of the state of security in my home country, I was intrigued to read a BBC article regarding the MoD's renting of over 8000 empty homes. This article suggested the MoD had intended them to be used by military personnel for living accommodation but this can't be true when the housing situation for British military personnel is so desperate, was anybody else thinking like me:

Safehouses!

Read On...

2007-12-09T07:01:00.000+13:00

I can say no more than read the previous post. It has been written perfectly, unfortunately not by me...

Mr President, I Have Some Bad News...

2007-12-05T20:51:00.000+13:00

With all 16 US intelligence agencies directed to scramble for snippets of intelligence information on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, to desperately try and justify the Bush administration’s rhetoric, proclaiming the possibility of World War Three and nuclear Armageddon, it appears some sensible soul has said enough is enough.

The publication of a joint intelligence report on Iran’s nuclear ambitions has stated that Iran once had a clandestine nuclear weapons programme but that it was halted in 2003, possibly due to the vast numbers of foreign troops blasting sizeable holes in its neighbour. The report has totally undermined the Bush/ Cheney spin that has been pouring profusely from every spokes thing with a microphone. It says it is “highly confident” that Iran has stopped its military nuclear development programme and is “confident” that it has not restarted it. Tehran obviously feels vindicated and has its state media proclaiming victory. I wouldn’t be surprised if Beethoven’s Fifth was played out at full volume across the airwaves (the famous de-de-de-da opening being Morse code for victory!)

After recent accusations of a waning of his political neutrality, it appears the National Security Co-ordinator has hit back in style at his masters in the White House. This apparent display of independence and conscience is a refreshing sign and one that many security forces around the world should replicate. However, and there is almost always a ‘however’, the cynic inside me is screaming foul play. I can think of two other explanations for this declassification other than security service morality:

They are covering their backs before possible military action. They remember the roasting they were given after the Iraq intelligence disaster when the 40 minutes to global annihilation claim encountered the tiny problem that there were not WMD’s. This way, even if the monkey in the Oval Office was to shout charge and head for Iran the intelligence community could retain the moral high ground and say, “I told you so…”

The declassification was authorised by the White House to provide a handy way to ease off there push for war without being seen to lack backbone in the eyes of the evangelical right and the Texas oil barons who are baying ever more publicly for more Middle Eastern meat. In this version of events the White House has recognised that Russia and China will not tolerate any form of military action against Iran and without their blessing America cannot possibly conceive further action, for trade, military and moral reasons.

Even if one of these scenarios is true the world is still further from all out conflict than it has been in a long time. My only concern is that now global political will might have weakened some what and thus the increasing international pressure on Iran to respect the rule of law and human rights and to move further towards a free and fair democracy may be lessened, allowing the regime to continue its bloody, violent and brutal acts.

Only time will tell...

Rights, Freedoms and Accountability

2007-12-04T18:21:00.000+13:00

In this time of terror and fear, governments attempt to capitalise on our collective concerns. Many have imposed increasingly authoritarian measures that restrict our rights and limit our freedoms, in the name of the War on Terror or National Security. These ambiguous terms with viscous definitions and nameless advocates have become disseminated into our public consciousness and vocabulary; they have slipped seamlessly into dinner party prattle and water cooler conversations. We have been accepting and understanding, allowing ever more conservative and restrictive measures to alter our day-to-day lives and influence our convictions. This understanding has been bred from fear and disillusionment but it is not sustainable. We cannot continue our blind acceptance of Government propaganda and spin.

We live in an age of faceless enemies, of terrorist atrocities committed by individuals without a flag and without a traditional ideology. This inevitably makes identifying them and preventing their plots from reaching completion far more difficult. We used to know with whom we were fighting; now the fight has evolved. A flag gave the enemy something to put over the coffins, now they are burning ours. However, we cannot allow our leaders to use the anonymity of terrorists to place us all under suspicion. Such actions play perfectly into their hands. There are many who wish to destroy our society and structures, bring democracy, a tool that has served us so well, crashing down around us. By sacrificing civil liberties and fundamental rights we are dismantling our beliefs for them. We do not need terrorists to disrupt our lives and create a climate of fear… we are doing that for ourselves! It is all too easy to lose the moral high ground and sink down to their level, to the level of the terrorists.

Human rights and civil liberties are the bedrock on which we all carry out our lives. They protect us from ourselves and our leaders and their erosion will lead to injustice, inhumanity and abuse on an unprecedented scale. The ‘State’ protects us from terrorists but what protects us from the State? I am fortunate enough to have been brought up in a country that has ensured I have had a decent education, enough to eat, clothes and shelter if I could not find them, a job and provided support if I did not have one, protected me from my peers, offered me a free and fair trial if I was accused of a crime and a lawyer if I could not afford one, has not tortured or arbitrarily arrested me, has defended my rights as an individual and has allowed me to chose my own leaders. However, rights that were once taken for granted are now applied at the discretion of a “higher power”. We rely on the judgement of our leaders to decide who “deserves” rights and freedoms. This inevitably causes injustice and persecution of the innocent.

To decide from a higher moral authority who “deserves” rights and freedoms and, more importantly, who does not, undermines their very concept. Human rights and civil liberties are to be applied universally and unconditionally. When selectivity is introduced so is injustice. We cannot rely on the State to choose!

By adjusting our behaviour and eroding once sacrosanct principles we not only undermine ourselves and our beliefs, we also provide a recruiting call for terrorists and extremists who use examples of Western Power’s abuses of rights and freedoms, such as indefinite detention in Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition and torture of suspects and the restrictions imposed on free speech and expression in numerous countries, including ours, to justify their own acts of terror. This cannot continue. Only when full transparency and accountability is introduced at the highest level, democracy and human rights are respected unconditionally and civil liberties are not applied discretionally will we truly be able to combat those who seek to undermine us.

Thank Goodness For Our Peers!

2007-12-03T22:07:00.000+13:00

I am delighted to announce that the 54 year old British teacher jailed in Sudan for allowing her primary school class to call their teddy bear 'Muhammad' has been unconditionally pardoned by the Sudanese President. But her release was not the result of "careful diplomacy" between the Sudanese administration and the Foreign Office.

Mr Bean is famous for his close relationship to his teddy, however in the recent case of Gillian Gibbons, Gordon Brown who was recently dubbed as "Mr Bean" and his foreign minister David Milliband (who happens to look like a teddy) have been left floundering. Instead her pardon has been secured by a British Muslim delegation from the House of Lords.

As I highlighted in an earlier post, the Sudanese administration was in a difficult position in this case. They were being increasingly sandwiched between religious hardliners in their own cabinet and individuals who hold great religious and political influence domestically and the Western world who's support is vital for the international legitimacy of the administration.

There was no way the Sudanese President could have been seen to surrender Gillian Gibbons to an "imperial power" especially when many within his own government and in the public thought the sentence should be much harsher. The only way forward was to pursue with the negotiation initiated by the British Muslim delegation, thus allowing the Sudanese administration to save face.

Diplomacy at its best! Thank goodness for our Peers!

Does the Cruelty and Insensitivity of the Tabloid Press Know No Bounds?

2007-12-03T15:45:00.000+13:00

I could hardly be labelled a 'Jordan Fan Club' member but I am deeply outraged and incredulous at 'Heat' magazine's decision to publish a sticker of her disabled child, regardless of the identity of his parents, and make jokes at his expense.

This action is totally unacceptable and demonstrates a callous disregard of the child's rights, and a level of stupidity and lack of foresight beyond all comprehension. The fact that such an editorial decision could have been made shocks me to the core. How desperate for readers does a magazine have to be to stoop to this level? What disgusts me even more is that 'Heat' has probably sold an extortionate amount of copies as a result of the recent media furore.

Making fun of media personalities is one thing but to target a child who has not chosen to enter the media spotlight and has done nothing to warrant such an act is mind blowing! Does the editorial team of 'Heat' magazine have no principles or ethical considerations?

I am disgusted that such a decision could have been made at any level of production. As a magazine that boasts to have over 1 million readers, many under 30 years of age, do they not feel any sense of responsibility for the influence of their magazine on its readers? I am susposedly a member of their target audience, and am appalled by their actions, as are many of my peers. This incident indicates a severe warping of judgement that could easily manifest in other, equally damaging, forms. Unfortunately, I fear that this incident points to a more systemic problem of editorial mismanagement within the tabloid press globally that is threatening to undermine the entire industry.

I sincerely hope that the Press Complaints Commission takes severe action against the magazine and that they make every effort to ensure such an incident never happens again.

"Hello, My Name Is Muhammad..."

2007-11-30T20:09:00.000+13:00

The British school teacher arrested in Sudan five days ago for "inciting religious hatred and insulting Islam" after allowing her class to call a toy bear Muhammad, has been sentenced by a Sudanese court to serve 15 days in jail and then face immediate deportation. This has been dubbed a "lenient" sentence by the courts in Sudan. The maximum penalties for the charge were six months imprisonment, a heavy fine or 40 lashes.

This case is an obvious manipulation of Islamic law to fulfil a political objective, as in the case of the Saudi rape victim sentenced to a lengthy prison term and 100 lashes. Gillian Gibbons, the teacher involved, has even been accused by some in the Sudanese administration of being part of a Western plot to undermine Islam. Every Muslim organisation from the Muslim Council of Britain to Hizb ut-Tahir has condemned the arrest and stated the charge 'bears' (forgive the pun) no relevance to Islamic law as there was obviously no intention to insult or undermine Islam or the holy prophet.

Before a charge was brought, the British Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, made numerous statements insisting the Foreign Office was confident of Ms Gibbons imminent release and pointing to press releases from the Sudanese Embassy which claimed the incident in question was merely the result of a cultural misunderstanding. However, as soon as the primary school teacher was charged the mood changed dramatically. The Sudanese Ambassador was urgently summoned to Whitehall and a full explanation was demanded from him. After sentencing, Mr Milliband called the entire incident "very disappointing" and expressed in no uncertain terms that the FCO was making every effort to secure Ms Gibbons release. The facts of the case are well known but its implications are not so clear.

One wonders what options the Foreign Office is pursuing in securing Ms Gibbons release. Surely asking the Sudanese administration to directly interfere in the judicial process would compromise the British government's clear policy of promoting fair and open justice systems and independent judiciary, as in the case if Pakistan. Obviously the case of Ms Gibbons is a clear miscarriage of justice and has many political overtones, however openly advocating political interference would put the government in a difficult position.

The Sudanese situation must also be considered. There is a fundamentalist government in Karthoum who have numerous policies and strict penalties, utilised to protect the "Islamic faith". With public opinion heavily divided on this issue and tensions running so high it would be political suicide to be seen to make an exception for an "ignorant" Westerner. Britain needs as many allies it can get in the Islamic world, and considering Sudan's preachers rising prominence in forming ideological opinions and the exisiting damage to British/ Sudanese relations over Darfur, political instability and a withdrawal of diplomatic co-operation would further no one's cause.

I would never advocate using Gillian Gibbons as a political fall-guy or scapegoat for Islamic frustration with the West and I sincerely hope she is released unconditionally and unharmed but this incident highlights in the most graphic terms the difficulties of diplomatic negotiations.

Unfortunately, not only will this incident become another recruiting agent for extreme right-wing conservative groups, such as the BNP, who will use it to further portray Islam as an oppressive and irrational religion who's sole purpose is to undermine the West and persecute innocent people, it will have a significant impact on humanitarian conditions worldwide. This high profile case will inevitably act as a deterrent to those considering going to less developed parts of the world to teach or participate in humanitarian activities.

This incident will have far reaching implications and direct and indirect repercussions will continue for a long time to come. It threatens to further increase Islamophobic opinions in the West and anti-Western feelings in the Islamic world all from a primary school teacher allowing her class to vote on the name of a teddy bear.

Wellywood and Wind

2007-11-29T13:46:00.000+13:00

The watery sky of the South Pacific remains just as turbulent and the wind blows with similar ferocity but summer is gradually breaking through the clouds above the Windy City. I am writing this from the eye of the first real storm to have hit Wellington since our arrival in August. I was looking on the EQC's (Earthquake Commission) website and saw to my mild amusement that our new house sits right on the largest fault line in the south pacific. It appears our back garden, complete with cable car (just to give you an idea of how steep the access is), straddles two rather angry platonic rifts that occasionally like to shake and throw each other about.

I reassured an ashen-faced mother that despite the news that Wellington suffers an earthquake every two weeks or so, the villa in which we now reside has stood untroubled for over a hundred years and is inevitably rather experienced at weathering such wobbles. The infamous Wellington Wind has also struck and we have been securing all the hatches accessible. Ordinary Wellingtonians are still strolling about untroubled in their shorts and t-shirts and remarking politely about how refreshing this little breeze is. However, the novelty hasn't worn off yet and I'm still having the time of my life. We'll just weather this one out and emerge to discover the lampposts are at an even more absurd angle and the people look even more windswept and interesting but nothing substantial has really changed.

I am sure I saw a great man the other day, before we were treated to Hurricane Kiwi. The specky, rather obsessive little weasel of a man who is now almost violently rich and has been at the helm of many a cinematic triumph... despite the sketchy dialogue and suspect "acting" was walking through the creative district, Cuba, and listening avidly to a rather excited specimen of an assistant. I only caught a glimpse of him and my initial judgment of his identity was unsettled somewhat by the nonchalant attitude of all other people in the vicinity. I have concluded that they all either live in a cardboard box, in a cave, hundreds of feet below ground and rarely venture into the plentiful sunlight or they adopt the same attitude as many Wellingtonians and simply don't care, for this man was none other than Steven Spielberg.

The residents of this humble city, recently voted the best little capital in the world, must be some of the hardest to shock and impress. I am certain that if a rhino should charge through the main shopping district wearing a tutu and singing Engelbert Humperdink songs no one would bat an eyelid. They've all suffered far too many tremors and seen too many hobbits to be concerned anymore. Wellington has become the unofficial retreat for browbeaten Hollywood inhabitants who wish to slip into anonymity for a few jet lagged and fleeting, but rather rewarding, moments. During my short but eventful stay in Wellington I have seen Peter Jackson, David Beckham, Bob Dylan, Steven Spielberg, Merrill Streep and the lead singer of Muse, not to mention the entire NZ cabinet, the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister herself.

Happy Days

Jacob

Plus ca change...

2007-11-28T19:57:00.000+13:00

As I highlighted in an earlier post on the state of France and mainland Europe, political and social tensions are at breaking point. The millions of Euros supposedly ploughed into housing, education and social support services since the infamous riots of 2005, might just as well have gone up with the smoke from the libraries, playgroups and police stations torched by this new wave of disillusioned and angry "youths", for all the good they have done.

France is a state with deeply entrenched and volatile socio-political fault lines. Second and third generation immigrants from Algeria, Egypt and Eastern Europe have shaken off the quiet acceptance of their parents, who were simply grateful to have left the violence and poverty of their home countries, and have now begun to demand more from the nation they could never call "home". Unfortunately, their perfectly justified expectations of decent housing conditions, job opportunities and quality education have fallen on stubborn and selective ears. Many of these young men consider themselves second-class citizens in the eyes of the wider French public and government policies. For far too long these "youths" have been ignored by the French administration and their anger is bubbling away, never far from the surface. All it takes is a tragic, but otherwise innocuous incident, such as a motorcycle accident, and this frustration erupts in an all too visible fashion.

Is it surprising that a community segregated by the middle classes and "condemned" to live in poverty and cultural isolation by oppressive and needlessly restrictive labour, immigration and housing legislation lashes out when it feels under threat once more? I in no way condone the violence in the Parisian suburbs but I am in no way surprised by it. What I cannot understand is why a group so committed to obtaining better public infrastructure for their community will torch libraries, schools, shops and transport facilities. This will be not be viewed favourably by the French public who may interpret it as ingratitude and therefore may not be so sympathetic to their calls. What one often forgets is that these riots are not co-ordinated, rational political acts of the type the France are famous for. They are instead the passionate and predominantly emotional reaction to the conditions the men find themselves in. One protestor described the riots as the result of frustration and not anger and urged people not to consider their acts as violence but "revenge".

As The Economist put it, "This wave of violence comes at a testing time for Mr Sarkozy's six-month-old presidency. He has just endured a nine-day public-transport strike, which brought chaos to the capital's roads and enraged commuters. Students have been blockading university campuses for weeks in protest at higher-education reform. Magistrates are holding a one-day strike on Thursday (29th November) against judicial reform. It is one thing to deal with this form of organised discontent on the streets. The disorganised criminal violence that broke out this week is altogether more unpredictable."

The riots in 2005 shocked the thinking classes in France and there was large public pressure on a beleaguered Chirac administration to improve the living and working conditions for those who are at the heart of France's industrial sector. However, as is so often the case, when the fires had been extinguished in the estates so was the passion of the public and thus the demand for change also abated. Recent events are the inevitable result. This time there is no excuse.

One hopes that events will be different without the imminent prospect of an election. France no longer has a jumpy and power hungry interior minister (they now have a jumpy and power hungry leader!) and instead have a minister who may be more committed to long term, sustainable change. One hopes. One thing is for certain, if the administration fails on its commitments once more and is not seen to be tackling the issues head on these will not be the last riots in French boulevards. The thought browning trousers in the Palais Bourbon is that the riots may leave the ghettos and enter the more affluent tourist centres, the damage of which would be unimaginable.

Maybe this time the administration will really sit up et prêtez l'attention!

Palestine: To Be Or Not To Be?

2007-11-27T22:46:00.000+13:00

A two-state solution is the only sustainable way forward for this deeply troubled part of the world. Regardless of the legality and morality of the creation of a Jewish homeland and the subsequent treatment of Palestinian Arabs, which has been undeniably appalling, Palestinians and Israeli's alike must accept there is no other solution to this most bitter and intractable conflict.

There is certainly no military or peaceful, 'civil protest' solution. Such a move, centring on a reclamation of the Palestinian "home land" is popular among residents of the Gaza strip and Tehran alike. There is also a growing support for it among Western academics and journalists who are so eager to urge Palestine to "stand up for itself". This is a very dangerous logic that, if applied, would inevitably result in the deaths of hundreds, even thousands, of individuals, including many innocent citizens, and would undermine any support the Palestinian people still have from within the international community. Any military move over the Israeli border would be seen to justify Israel's stance that it is "under attack" and could even create the global political will to enforce mass eviction and resettlement of all Palestinians from their native lands and the compulsory surrender of the entire state of Palestine to the Israeli's. Such an act would spell disaster for both sides and could tip the already volatile Middle Eastern region into anarchy.

The possibility of nuclear war is also ever present, with the establishment of an Iranian nuclear capacity. An out and out conflict between Palestine and Israel could cause the destruction of the entire region and, if American support was offered, the possibility of global nuclear Armageddon. The only answer is to allow a controlled and measured diplomatic exchange of ideas and mutually accepted principles to forge the way for two co-habiting states.

Having said this I consider the recent moves by President Bush and the Israeli administration as shameless and selfish acts of political positioning and propaganda, in a flawed attempt at establishing a "legacy" to replace Iraq in the public consciousness. I am incredulous that such an opportunity could be wasted, for it will be wasted as a result of not inviting Hamas, a democratically elected organisation who have the broad public support of the Palestinian majority and without whom no lasting peace could ever be achieved. Even if a two-state solution were to be agreed at Annapolis, with favourable terms for the Palestinian administration, they would never be accepted by the Hamas movement and their supporters, as they would be seen as surrendering to an "Israeli occupier".

One worries that this "summit" is more about establishing an alliance against the Iranian regime and creating a strategy for the redistribution of American troops within the region away from Iraq and towards Iran, than finding a sustainable peace for Palestinians. These are frightening times...

Ipod With A Conscience...

2007-11-27T15:24:00.001+13:00

Quotes of the Day

2007-11-27T13:54:00.000+13:00

"So, on behalf of a well-oiled unit of people who came together to serve something greater than themselves, congratulations."

George W. Bush
May 31, 2001
White House ceremony honoring the University of Nebraska women's volleyball team, the 2001 NCAA Champions.

"I can only tell you these allegations are false and I know who the alligators are and they will be brought to justice."

George W. Bush
In a White House statement in 2002

What's Left Of The Left?

2007-11-26T17:24:00.000+13:00

Flyer reads:
"Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! "

The poor sap pictured was canvassing at a peace demonstration in Manchester not so long ago. The leaflet's in his hand reads as above and his t-shirt bears the Hezbollah emblem and slogan. Other protesters at the rally, each sporting yellow Hezbollah t-shirts, were heard to chant "Martyrs not murders!"

What has inspired these otherwise reasonable and rational lefties to act so stupidly?

There is a growing acceptance among commentators and individuals within the left that there is a systemic problem in the movement; disillusioned by a increasing centralisation of the political landscape and a distancing of mainstream politicians from their cause, mixed with a brooding resentment of the establishment over the invasion of Iraq, many in the left have lost their sense of identity and perspective.

Traditional 'moderate liberals' have always been defenders of free speech, human rights, peace and stability throughout the world. In times gone by they had a clearly identifiable 'Nemesis' and thus a strong sense of identity and purpose. Impassioned and peaceful CND campaigns against nuclear armament and the legendarily inclusive Anti-Vietnam protests, not to mention the racial equality and social welfare marches epitomised the free-thinking and principled time in which they occurred. Now in this age of international terrorism, with a diversification of challenges to traditional liberal agendas and an increasing level of public support for authoritarian and restrictive measures, lefties everywhere are crying out for guidance and consistency.

Unfortunately, in this search for 'consistency' many have become obsessed with their own governments and institutions, focusing on controversial foreign policies and increasingly conservative "security measures" and thus ignoring threats to the "liberal cause" and infringements of the rights, freedoms and liberties of individuals worldwide. I would be the last to say that the left needs to abandon its struggles for justice, equality and the protection of fundamental rights at home, I am merely saying that these need to be placed within a global context and a reasonable level of perspective applied. Many individuals are becoming evermore susceptible to manipulation from the extremes of ideological debate and are subsequently abandoning previously sacrosanct principles for the sake of "the greater good".

The argument of the "greater good" is also commonly employed by Western authorities, as a justification for their "war on terror" and gradual erosion of civil liberties. Unfortunately, it is usually part and parcel to an acceptance that 'evils' in various forms are being committed and are legitimate.

Anti-Iraq war feeling is an incredibly potent force that when correctly channeled can be a fabulous resource. However, due to the current state of confusion within the left, many have associated themselves with groups opposing the US/UK coalition in Iraq with little thought to the groups other ideologies and tactics. As in the case of the individual pictured, many are very naive (innocently or selectively) when it comes to the other activities of groups such as Hezbollah. The flyer pictured states "Fight Racism", I assume this refers to the particular focus of anti-terror legislation on Muslims. There are two apparent flaws to this statement. One is it is being delivered by a man in a Hezbollah t-shirt, Hezbollah being an openly anti-semitic, sexist group who justify the kidnapping and murder of innocent civilians and journalists in the name of the 'greater good'. This is a fact often overlooked by "lefties" associated with the group.

The second flaw is one that I deem to undermine the very principle of the statement. I could not possibly state a full support for every measure included in the legislation and I do not deny that recent anti-terrorism laws target Muslims more than other groups in society. However, I fail to see how targeting Muslims is "disproportionate". During the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland, was it not sensible to focus most resources on Irish suspects. This was reasonable because the largest threat came from within the Irish community. As now, the largest threat comes from within the Muslim community. This is not to say that only Muslims pose a threat but simply that they are more likely to commit a terrorist attack. This is not a matter of principle but one of fact. I do, however, think it is wrong to only target young, Asian males because the moment this is deemed to be a security tactic, the fanatics wishing to do harm and undermine established, open and democratic society will start using elderly white operatives. We must keep an open mind, but this does not mean political correctness should undermine pragmatism.

The current problems within the left are doing untold damage to the movement's credibility and respect. In fact there is no longer any real 'movement' as such, merely disparate groups with their own agendas. Before the left can once again play an effective role in political debates it must first provide a united front with which the public can associate it. By distancing itself from extremist fundamentalist groups and unequivocally condemning the murder and torture of innocent civilians, the left will no longer be seen as hypocritical and confused but principled and just. This does not mean sacrificing anti-war beliefs or following the government's 'spin', in fact quite the opposite. By presenting a moderate and considered front the left will once again regain the respect and support of mainstream politicians and more importantly, the public.

The left has always been a principled and passionate movement, now is the time to regroup, reunite and respond.

'Liberal'? Me?

2007-11-26T17:08:00.000+13:00

Liberal Song

2007-11-25T23:51:00.000+13:00

Images of the Week

2007-11-25T23:08:00.000+13:00

Malaysian Riots: widely ignored by the mainstream media

Floods in Bangladesh: subject of a worrying lack of concern by Westerners

Conspiracy Theories Are Part Of A Global New Order Conspiracy!

2007-11-24T23:30:00.000+13:00

With my ultimate educational objective being to attend Corpus Christi, Oxford and study modern history and politics, I make regular searches of the interweb to drag up obscure information about the Holy Grail of tertiary education. On my most recent sweep I stumbled on a thread debating whether the great institute of Oxford is the centre of a global conspiracy to create a new world order.

We are all aware that the Internet is a breeding ground for "eccentrics" and the arguments presented on this site are not unique, however I found some contributor's sincerity shockingly intense. Not all of the contributors share the same extreme views and some attempt to apply logic and rational arguments to undermine the increasingly absurd conspiracies. However, some members appear to have abandoned all reason, for it only to be replaced by snowballing conspiracies.

I have provided a link to the thread so you can see for yourselves (try not to get sucked in)!

We Are Watching...

2007-11-24T11:57:00.001+13:00

(Enter the Administration from Stage Right...)

The US State Department has announced a "cunning plan" to infiltrate the blogosphere with a crack team of blog experts to dispel assertions or "misrepresentations" of US foreign policy within the blogosphere. This crack squad of writers will specifically target Arabic and Persian blogs with the aim to counter extremist messages with clear and concise outlines of US foreign policy (which some may argue do not need much misrepresenting to become inflammatory).

This move highlights two major points:

The growing power and influence of the blogosphere

The increasing desperation of the administration

While I recognise the need to counter extremist messages and deliberate misrepresentations, I fail to see how entering a "blog war" will do so. Firstly, there is the problem of identification. It is easy to tell who is a White House spokesperson on the television but in the blogosphere things become rather murkier. As soon as people latch on to the fact US "spies" are attempting to infiltrate their blogs they will immediately disable their comments, change their domain names or even impersonate the US officers and place inflammatory comments on other Arabic and Persian blogs increasing the disillusionment and frustration with the West.

The danger is that many of the bloggers targeted, be they extremist in their views or not, will see this as just another move by the US administration to attempt to control and influence other states and individuals and thus reinforce the perception that the US has imperialist objectives. The beauty of blogs and the Internet is that they provide a relatively free and open, uncensored environment with which to express one's views. As soon as governments attempt to play politics and manipulate blogs for propaganda purposes there will be strong, if reactionary, consequences. I fail to see the good this move will create.

The True Face of the "Axis of Evil"

2007-11-24T02:02:00.000+13:00

I have, during a scheduled dredge of the Internet's culturally vibrant and intellectually stimulating layers, uncovered a real gem. In an age where White House rhetoric rule the airways it is often useful to experience another side, another perspective with which to look at an image. An underground Iranian band named Kiosk (think Dire Straights) has just released a video, shot over two days in Tehran, featuring ordinary Iranians miming the lyrics of their song.

This is a must see for everyone wishing to experience another side of the "Axis of Evil". The lyrics roughly translate as:

"The power of love or love of power
Modernism versus tradition forever

Living in the axis of evil
Speed freaks in jalopy taxis

Why feel any pain and suffer
When pills and powders are all on offer

Nothing for lunch or dinner to make
Then let them eat Yellow Cake

Multiple choice elections left to chance
Holy matrimony by loan and finance

Scraped up the very last dime
Sent it straight to Palestine

Guaranteed success or money back
Underground music or cultural attack

No need for cardiologists
Just facelifts by cosmetologists

Immoral zealots, fanatic factions
Chinese-style economic expansions

Religious democratic droppings
Pizza with Ghormeh Sabzi toppings

Barefoot children on the street
Chelo Kebab: "All you can eat"

Smuggling women to Dubai
Our noble men turning a blind eye

Blood transfusion with an H.I.V flavour
Bird Flu virus or the new life saver

Cholera hits and one takes a bow
Another man dies from Mad Cow

Foreign currencies are reserved
Border movements all observed

Tried everything in our ability
Still no financial credibility

Oil dependant economy is hooked
Incentive vacations overbooked

Philosophical cinema in fusion
Cross-over musical confusion

Clandestine lovers and attractions
Chinese-style economic expansions

Religious democratic droppings
Pizza with Ghormeh Sabzi toppings

Meat stew served in posh cafes over artistic rants
Meditation classes just to get into each others pants

Break your fast, charity food served up
Zereshk Polo with ketchup

Life in virtual reality
Amusement park University

Our national soccer heroes
Can't kick their over-inflated egos

Counterfeit medication
Addiction as a recreation

A nation dressed up in fashion
Artificial industrial passion

Long distance system of education
Sell answers to entrance examination

Interest rates or finance charge
By choice or force but by and large

Immoral zealots, fanatic factions
Chinese-style economic expansions

Religious democratic droppings
Pizza with Ghormeh Sabzi topping"

Watch and Enjoy...

God Save The Queen!

2007-11-24T01:40:00.000+13:00

"This is an energy that should be tapped more fully... Young people can and should play a part in the many global challenges that cannot be resolved by older generations alone, whether in the Commonwealth as a whole or in each of its member countries."

Watery Skies and Emptier Minds

2007-11-24T00:20:00.001+13:00

The watery sky of the South Pacific remains just as turbulent and the wind blows with similar ferocity while I huddle round a singular oil heater and try and dredge up something eloquent to express over the ethernet to the two and a half readers of this blog, to try and fill up the vast empty spaces that stretch out into slightly longer spaces when one tries to avoid undertaking proper work. I tend to write these posts at the time in the evening when one cannot possibly be expected to achieve anything meaningful or productive. A time in the lucid space bewteen the formal day and the exotic night. A time when the air still buzzes with the electricity of potential production but slightly dampened by the expectation of eloquence. I will trawl the muse of the BBC or Guardian and attempt to write something meaningful in the meantime. No promises...

Yours

Jacob

Now or Never

2007-11-23T13:08:00.000+13:00

An elite clique whose members include some of the most unstable and dangerous individuals in the world is growing at an alarming rate. Long after the fall of the Soviet Union and the break-up of the Balkan block, there are still many dictators who continue to abuse their considerable power and influence to prevent the evolution of the democratic process and instead abuse and restrict the rights of their people. The most worrying thing is that their number, strategic importance and thus influence is growing rapidly, almost unchecked.

In this age of increased nuclear proliferation and heightened religious and ideological tensions, the growing presence and influence of dictatorial regimes is a worrying phenomenon. With Russia and Pakistan, both states with considerable nuclear arsenals, teetering on the edge of dictatorship and Iran, a country with an extremely volatile leader and a political system on the verge of self-destruct, claiming to have nuclear capabilities, it is difficult not to be worried about the status quo.

Dictators and military controlled regimes are rife throughout the world, ranging from Zimbabwe in Africa to North Korea in Asia and Fiji in the Pacific. There seems to be no consistent approach to dealing with these nations and tactics appear arbitrary. There is large political capital to be made in the developed world from the treatment of these failing states. It would be political suicide to ignore the nuclear ambitions of North Korea or the crackdown on peaceful protests in Burma when they were still front page news however many dictators have been slowly absorbed into the fabric of world politics and are effectively left to their own devices when the television crews withdraw and shift the focus elsewhere.

When Fiji was seized in a military coup last year strong condemnations were issued from all sides of the political spectrum but now the will has waned and attention has moved on. Gordon Brown and David Milliband have pledged to do all they can to resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe. However, as soon as the Middle East rears its ugly head once more nobody has the time or resources to follow through with their policy statements. Very few recognised the imminent massacre in Rwanda or the humanitarian disaster of Darfur until it was too late. And leaders still ignore the bloody disputes and spiralling death tolls of many African states. And from the chaos emerge brutal and repressive regimes that offer pseudo-stability, often with the help of Western weaponry, in return for a sacrifice of freedoms, rights and thus democracy.

This is a vicious circle resulting from a frivolous and inconsistent collective foreign policy and one that will continue to tear away at the fragile fabric of democracy and drag us all further away from our fundamental rights and freedoms. We do not have to live in a dictatorship to have our rights abused.

For international instability results in global terrorism, and while previously disputes appeared restricted to a domestic and relatively small scale, they provide perfect breeding grounds for the disillusioned masses who require a scapegoat for their frustration and thus they turn towards the previously stable political platforms of the West. As I mentioned yesterday, Europe is experiencing a sudden and substantial lurch towards the right of the political spectrum and abandoning the moderate liberal philosophies that have served them so well. Basic rights are being whittled away in the name of national security and the war on terror and thus the delicate democracies are further eroded.

This problem is embodied by the current crisis in Pakistan. General Pervez Musharraf is very close to joining the exclusive group whose other members have included: Mugabe, Castro and Mao. After imposing emergency rule on the 3rd of November he has steadily moved his country further away from democracy and civilian rule and back towards the days of martial law, censored press and limited freedoms.

This move, which was inspired by a fear of the Supreme Court and its increasingly independent judiciary who threatened to undermine his credibility as ruler and deem his recent presidential election as unlawful, has left the Western world reeling. At a time when exiled leaders were returning to Pakistan in preparation for much anticipated elections in January and the state appeared to be moving away from its military past and towards a brighter, stable future, the entire system has been undermined, politicians arrested, judges sacked, protesters beaten and Parliament abandoned.

Pakistan is a crucial ally of the West and plays a vital role in counter-extremism and intelligence gathering and thus it is politically impossible for “developed” nations to employ their usual strategy of ignoring the problem and allowing the country’s leaders to continue with their brutal crackdowns in the hope it would achieve some form of stability in the longer term. The West could not be seen to work with a repressive regime in order to undermine others such as Iran, and thus they are stuck in the awkward position where they have to be seen to condemn Musharraf’s actions and promote democracy, thus exposing all of the problems associated with repressive regimes to a global audience.

Events in Pakistan and the attitude of its leaders are in no way unique, in fact they are quite moderate in comparison with other states that receive far less media coverage. In fact so called “respected” states like China employ similar methods to control and manipulate their population but it would not further any agenda to expose it.

The problems currently being encountered are not isolated cases and they have no simple military or diplomatic solution. Many will persist for years to come, causing untold damage to neighbouring states, world economies and the ordinary lives of millions of innocent civilians both in the countries in question and abroad as the result of terrorism and government imposed restrictions, for the sake of “national security”, unless immediate action is taken to develop and implement a consistent collective foreign policy with the emphasis on democracy, long term stability and the individual rights and freedoms of the citizens of the country in question. We need a global front that is indiscriminate, effective and applied universally regardless of other political implications. Without this we are heading downhill very quickly and it will only be more painful to stop.

"We Will Never Let The Palestinian People Down..."

2007-11-22T22:26:00.000+13:00

"We will never let the Palestinian people down."

"We will never let the Palestinian people down," Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, pledged. One year on, many commentators, including myself, can only conclude this is exactly what has been done.

After being one of the main champions of the elections in the Palestinian Territories last year, the European Union have categorically failed the Palestinian people by withdrawing essential aid and financial support from already stricken provinces on the grounds that the result of the "democratic process" was not as desired. Admittedly, Hamas have policies that do not wash well with most established, and increasingly sectarian, Western democracies. I, personally, could never condone some of the policies and tactics employed by the Hamas government over the last 12 months, however it is obvious to most impartial observers that withdrawing support and aid, not acting swiftly to stop totally unnecessary Israeli border and economic restrictions and thus effectively turning Palestine into a "hostile, terrorist state" were possibly the worst possible moves to have made.

The European Union has a considerable amount of financial and political weight to throw around in the international arena if it adopts a common attitude on a particular issue. However, with influence comes responsibility and with the EU towing the American/ Israeli stance on Hamas they have effectively undermined any respect they may otherwise have been awarded for developing an independent and pragmatic attitude to foreign policy.

Not only have they damaged their own reputation within the Arab States they have also gone some way in undermining respect for free and open democracies. By passing judgement on the results of free and fair elections within Palestine, the EU gave the impression they possessed some higher moral authority founded on arbitrary judgements. Instead of appearing consistent, impartial and respectful of true democracy, as they would have done if they accepted the Palestinian people’s choice, EU foreign ministers have presented themselves to the Arab world as hypocritical and bias. This perception, rooted in a belief the EU will only support democracy if it results in their desired, pro-Western, outcome, will jeopardise future attempts to play a significant role in the rebuilding and reconciliation movements after a two-state solution is agreed upon.

With the EU now commonly deemed an Israeli sympathiser and thus an enemy of the “Arab cause” most of the responsibility for securing a lasting and stable peace has fallen upon other Arab states such as Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and individual factions within Palestine. And the implications of this are clear to see. Another missed opportunity for the EU was in the recent appointment of Middle East Peace Envoy. The choice they made only served to further their image as an American “cohort”. And I am sure Hamas and its supporters will not consider Tony Blair an impartial and constructive brokering partner!

The EU must distance itself from the Bush Administration before the forthcoming US elections and subsequently work to rebuild its former position as an independent force for good in the region and in other conflicts worldwide. This can be relatively easily achieved by paying more respect to the UN and its sanctions, by contributing to peace keeping missions worldwide and by playing a constructive role in negations of peace in trouble spots such as Pakistan and Burma. The EU must utilise its considerable economic and political power independently from the US and Israel to make a positive impact before they will be able to play any significant role in the Middle East.

"No Surrender"

2007-11-22T17:12:00.001+13:00

(Cartoon by Steve Bell of the Guardian)

News has just come across the wires from over the numerous ponds between New Zealand and the continent that French talks with striking rail workers have failed. This news is rather unsurprising... the French love to strike, it's one thing they do very well, and frankly I believe its about time Mr Sarkozy has his far too immaculately preened feathers ruffled (not that I'm being political or anything). The man is a dangerous influence within the otherwise sane continental states. He's steadily undermining the great French institutions, the Unions, the 30hr working week, the public sector etc, which will inevitably lead to strikes and unrest. Not only this but his pro-American/ pro-Bush policy will only serve to expose France to the interminable barrage of Islamic extremist activities and inspire more riots within the Arab majority suburbs of Paris. Not to mention being the cousin and unofficial sympathiser of Jean Marie la Pen the infamous pseudo-fascist of French politics.

("I'm On Strike")

Europe appears to be making a violent right-turn in the latest rounds of elections. Switzerland has gone almost as far right as the BNP, France recently rejected the chance to elect a progressive liberal and opted instead for a man who is now chipping away at the very heart of French infrastructure, Germany are desperate to rejoin the exclusive league of financial super powers and Russia is set on re-electing Putin's United Russia Party ensuring the country moves further towards a regressive dictatorship! I can only see things spiralling down hill from here...

*UPDATE: Since writing this post two significant events have occurred.*

Of course I would never say I told you so but...

Wikipedia: Menace or Martyr?

2007-11-22T14:49:00.000+13:00

In my various trawls through the turgid, viscous pretentious and plagiarised mass that is cyberspace I hear many cries calling for the head of the Wiki-Empire. This ever increasing baying for Wiki-Blood is founded on the assertion that Wikpedia and its various off shots are watering down and polluting (through a slow but painstaking dissemination of misinformation) our race's collective reference material and thus corrupting our children and undermining the sacrosanct institution that is the Internet. Well, what with its golden halo and untarnished reputation for providing perfect and 100% verifiable information we can’t possibly stand for such an outrage.

The awkward truth is the Internet, by its very nature and strong reliance on user-generated content, is inevitably exposed to countless idiots who each want to spread their pointless message or intentionally disrupt the normal transactions of information. The Internet will always be the victim of fanatics and idiots. And however painful the truth is… Wikipedia and its legions of tireless crusaders for the protection of all that is factually and verifiably correct are one of the best resources for ensuring the factual correctness of Internet content. Self-censorship at its best!

This may be a shocking conclusion to some of you as I have never been a paid up member of the Wiki-Fanclub. It was precisely to appease my cynicism that I embarked on a deep and dangerous adventure into the obscure vaults of the Wiki-Empire with only one objective... to disrupt, disfigure and undermine politically sensitive articles. And I am pleased to say I failed spectacularly and barely made it back to the relative security of the blogosphere alive!

As you can no doubt imagine all of the obvious articles (George W. Bush etc) have been locked from changes but a few remained, on the surface at least, open to manipulation. I focused my immediate attention on the article concerning John Key, Leader of the opposition National Party in NZ, and a worthy target of mischief making. I inserted a similar text as can be found below this post and sat back to watch the fireworks fly. The page remained in its edited state for a good hour or two by which point we had all had a good old giggle. Then I received a pleasant comment thanking me for experimenting with Wikipedia and asking me, in no uncertain terms, not to do it again. As you probably expect I merely copied the text back into the page and waited. This time the delay was much shorter before the article was once again reverted back to its original state and I was warned off in much stronger terms… calling me a vandal and threatening to block my editing privileges.

It was then I decided to shift my attentions and test the responses of the British moderators. Well that was a mistake! The minute I edited David Cameron’s article to resemble Mr Key’s Santa text it was reverted and I was effectively told to grow up and shut up or face immediate exclusion from the “inclusive” Wiki-Community.

Individuals who have dedicated themselves to maintaining the standards of Wikipedia entries conduct the censorship of content. Whether they are vehement supporters of the individuals in question or whether they simply hate to see incorrect postings I shall never know but in any case I feel much more secure in the knowledge that if I ever want to research an obscure article it will at least be factually correct and free from annoying “vandals” such as myself.

It is with a heavy heart that I apologise to the all-powerful Wiki-Empire for my years of apathy and my minor fumblings in their neat back yard with immaculate white picket fence of self-censors. I do however have a number of concerns I would never have imagined to be presented with before embarking on this project…

Wikipedia claims to embody the democratic nature of ideas and the Internet. Its main claim to fame and criticism is that anybody can edit its articles free from censorship or restriction. However, this is not necessarily the case! Surely if the Wiki-Empire is so tightly monitored by self-imposed and undemocratic “guardians” all content must meet their approval and thus be subjected to uncontrolled censorship.

This means that people can just as easily delete comments they dislike as add them. There appears to be no standard with which to judge what is appropriate and what is not. Inevitably, Wiki-Men will argue that the standard lies in what can be demonstrated as fact but surely fact is a subjective quality and thus subject to interpretation. My example was an extreme but what’s to stop a “guardian” summarily deleting an article on a contentious figure and thus not allowing that person and their opinions from reaching the broader public consciousness. In theory, Wiki-Guardians are also restricting what the public sees as well as opening up information. This restrictive element forms the basis of most modern propaganda systems and leaves Wikipedia and its off shots dangerously exposed to censorship, manipulation and control of the very nature I highlighted in my rather frivolous example, just on a much larger and subtle level. It makes you think… We all used to think that Google and Yahoo were impartial and unrestrictive but as with the recent Chinese example of restricting search entries you can never be sure of anything in cyberspace.

It’s just a thought…

Call Me "Dave" Cameron

2007-11-22T14:46:00.000+13:00

The following text was inserted in various Wikipedia articles with relevant name changes until I was threatened with a suspension of my account. See above for more details:

Many voters are unaware that, before embarking in politics, Cameron had a long and distinguished career as a "Stand-In Santa". This involved attending events at schools, community groups and shopping centres when the venerable Sir Nicholas Christmas, or Santa as he is often known, was unable to do so on the grounds of ill health or prior engagements.

This role, often excluded from biographies, required a diverse range of skills including a sound knowledge of body padding and a certificated qualification in 'Comprehensive Festive Jollity' (a demanding course with a variety of components that cover fake beard maintenance, elf discipline and how to field awkward questions from arrogant and demanding 8 year olds).

Cameron was a prominent spokesman for Elfish welfare and tireless campaigner for the rights of reindeer, however his conscience was quickly sacrificed when he started his political career.

The High Council of Elfish Activities honoured Mr Cameron on numerous occasions for his high child query turnover, his comprehensive knowledge of “Naughty or Nice” protocol and his unwavering commitment to the Festive Cause in the face of extreme adversity after the now infamous Foggy Night Fiasco. He was personally honoured by Sir Christmas and promoted to Christmas Operations Co-ordinator (COC) after playing a vital logistical role on that fateful night.

However, the man once dubbed by Tinsel magazine as “the saviour of the festive season’ has been accused by many of undermining the sacrosanct institutions of Christmas. Many claim Cameron asset stripped both the delivery and production operations of which he assumed ultimate responsibility and “sold out” his beliefs when he supported the corporate takeover of the Christmas brand after the death of Sir Nicholas in the horrific “Sleigh Slip” incident of 1994.

The Christmas brand was bought by the “Dark Coalition”, a powerful multi-national group owned by Rupert Murdoch for a rumoured $20 trillion (US) in 1995. This figure was initially seen as generous considering the chaotic state of the group’s infrastructure, which relied on manual production for the majority of its toys, and the large investment required to bring the group’s equipment into the commercial age, but now many independent analysts claim was the figure paid was only 20% of the group’s true value.

Cameron was widely condemned by the wider Elfish community, who vehemently opposed the move, after he supported the take over and then assumed a prominent role in the new group. Cameron left the organisation six months later to pursue “other careers” but it is widely rumoured he was offered a “deal” by the coalition, one may claim resulted in his new role as Conservative Party Leader.

I Admit... I Failed

2007-10-04T15:25:00.000+13:00

Greetings

I can only apologise to the dedicated few who occassionaly peruse this little internet back water in search for medicore tip-bits of commentary. I have failed in my promise to post regularly... my ears are burning with the collective scorn of other internet commentators and die-hard bloggers who vehmently uphold the unwritten code of blogging that states that all posts should be made regularly and frequently... or else.

I don't wish to make excuses but...

Things have been rather hectic what with moving to the other side of the world and everything.

But I wish to reassure all the insomniacs and people wishing to kill time in between working and well... working, that I will be posting more regularly from now on.

Anyway... I better stop or none of you will ever come back.

Happy Posting

Jacob

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Mugabe?

2007-09-10T12:41:00.001+12:00

Zimbabwe was once the 'Bread Basket of Africa' but it is now under one of the most corrupt and brutal regimes in the world. With the recent physical attacks and intimidation of opposition figures and an appalling record of human rights abuses it is tempting to think about employing force to depose of this bloody regime. This argument however has a number of flaws.

The main sticking point is who would provide the resources required for such an act. The African Union is at full stretch in trying to salvage some resemblance of normality in Darfur, the US and UK, along with their traditional allies, are caught up in the spiralling conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan and UN member states, including New Zealand, have demonstrated a distinct reluctance to interfere with domestic politics when they see no obvious replacement for a regime. One cannot forget that, despite the success of 'humanitarian' efforts in the Balkans, the EU and UN member states are increasingly wary of intervention in foreign matters, especially after the anarchy and chaos in Iraq, for fear of being deemed colonialist and selfish in their motives.

Even if the US, UK, Australia, France, Japan etc had troops available to mount a military offensive in Zimbabwe to depose of the Mugabe regime they would not be able to get a UN Security Council resolution supporting their actions without the support of China and Russia who would inevitably veto the move on the grounds of political interest. These two blundering super powers have considerable clout and unfortunately their vested interest in maintaining the status quo would cloud any humanitarian benefits. Proceeding without Security Council resolutions would not be an option after the mess in the Iraq occupation of 2003 which went ahead without obtaining a full resolution.

I believe that the use of force is not a viable option in the present circumstances and would be unadvisable until all peaceful means had been exhausted. In my opinion this has not yet happened.

One way of combating the bleeding of Zimbabwe’s economy and aid packages by corrupt officials would be to freeze all foreign accounts belonging to officials and placing travel restrictions on members of Mugabe’s administration. The international community could also send representatives of the World Bank and other bodies to advise the administration on how to recover Zimbabwe’s disastrous economy by combating the astronomical inflation and thus returning the country to a position where it can function normally and put in place the structures to boost employment and raise the standard of living.

Surely the well-being of Zimbabwean citizens is more important, in the short term, than creating even more uncertainty and probably bloodshed in a military deposition of Mugabe. I believe that once a sense of normality is restored to this fragile state then the process of democratic change can take place. With the current structures and organisations any replacement administration would suffer the same problems with corruption and the economy, and thus the people of Zimbabwe, would be in no better position.

The use of force to depose of Robert Mugabe and his administration is not the correct action to undertake in the present circumstances. Not only is it logistically almost impossible and unlikely to improve the lives of ordinary Zimbabweans it is also very likely to result in mass casualties and an even more unstable and corrupt organisation.

For The "Greater Good"?

2007-09-05T15:23:00.001+12:00

Fortunately I only have to face the paper creations...

Others are not so lucky...

Amnesty International "Close Guantanomo Flotilla"

2007-08-29T14:52:00.001+12:00

The protection of human rights world wide is a cause I support passionately. Amnesty International is probably the best known NGO that is dedicated solely to fighting for this cause and raising awareness of human rights abuses where ever they occur. One of the most publicised cases of prolonged human rights abuse is that of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This is a US naval detention centre infamous for the indefinite detention and often torture of suspected "terrorists" without trial. In a new attempt to put pressure on the US government to close the detention centre, Amnesty has devised an interactive flotilla of characters from around the world, all representing real activists, converging on Cuba. Every time someone signs up, the flotilla from their region moves closer to its destination. The Australasia and South Pacific flotilla, of which I am a proud part, is at 8% of its target number whereas the European flotilla is well into the 80% bracket. Each area is given a target figure, relative to its size, and obviously some areas are doing better than others.

When someone signs up they can design their own character and choose their mode of transport (surfboard, jet ski, dolphin, sea monster etc) and then they join the journey. Every time the flotilla from your area moves forwards a stage Amnesty sends you an email. The objective is to get more people passionate and involved in this cause and to put more pressure on the American administration in the run up to the Presidential election, with the ultimate goal of the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the free and fair trial of all of its inmates.

I feel this is a really worthy cause, and its free, and so strongly advocate that everybody should sign up and increase the total number of voyagers from 30 000 to its total.

HH The Dalai Lama - Peace

2007-08-28T20:35:00.000+12:00

I found this quote from HH The Dalai Lama, it is so profound and eloquent that I do not feel I need to say anything else...

"Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value to someone who is dying of hunger or cold. It will not remove the pain of torture inflicted on a prisoner of conscience. It does not comfort those who have lost their loved ones in floods caused by senseless deforestation in a neighboring country. Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free.

Responsibility does not only lie with the leaders of our countries or with those who have been appointed or elected to do a particular job. It lies with each of us individually. Peace, for example, starts within each one of us. When we have inner peace, we can be at peace with those around us.

When we feel love and kindness toward others, it not only makes others feel loved and cared for, but it helps us also to develop inner happiness and peace."

Blog Modification Update

2007-08-28T20:14:00.000+12:00

Hello again

I have now completed most of the updating but a few more changes may take place over the next couple of days. I will give you a quick update on what I've done...

Although the superficial changes are relatively small I feel the change in colour scheme makes it easier to read some of the posts and text on the side bars. This should make visiting the page a more pleasant experience.

There are some new widgets to play around with... the site meter tool not only shows how many people have visited the site, if you click on it you will discover a whole heap of pointless information about the site and its visitors... the information this provides will enable me to keep the site relevant and up to date.

I've sorted out some html faults that were stopping some of you reading the bottom few posts.

I've added some new legal stuff such as disclaimers, further acknowledgments etc

And generally done a bit of a spring clean

I hope you approve of the changes... there may be more to come. If you have any comments or suggestions (good or bad) please do not hesitate to leave a comment and I will do my best to take them on board.

Thanks for bearing with me

Jacob

Conservative Future?

2007-08-28T15:29:00.000+12:00

I have just stumbled across a disturbing fact...

The BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson, was the Chairman of Conservative Youth in the 1980's.

I hold Nick Robinson in very high regard and consider him an outstanding journalist and moderate 'leftie' (who also has a very good blog). He appears to be the moderate face of liberalism, unbias in his commentary and certain in his views without forcing them on others. With this in mind, his former membership and active participation in Conservative Youth, an organisation disbanded because it had been become a breeding ground for hard line right wing extremists and because its members were notorious for their riotous drinking and violent habits, was a bit of a shock. Admittedly he was elected chairman as a moderate candidate but he was very proactive and vocal in his support for many Thatcherite policies.

The first question is:

Is he really a 'leftie'?

And the second is:

Does it really matter?

Conservative Youth was replaced in 1998 by Ian Duncan Smith, in its place came Conservative Future - a community of Conservative Party supporters under 30. This new group have representatives in a number of higher education institutions and cities. This group are the embodiment of the "respectable and centre-ground" image David "Dave" Cameron is trying to present. If anybody is wondering what the policies of the man who called Thatcher 'Mother' are going to be when he releases his manifesto, they need to look no further than the Conservative Future website which is packed full of 'candid' interviews with backbenchers, campaign resources for budding John Majors and Boris Johnson support t-shirts...

I may just have to have one shipped over to NZ for the sheer comedy value...

Is this the new face of conservatism... I really hope so... It all goes to prove the new Conservative Party are just clutching at straws and living off fad policies and Boris Johnson gimmicks.

Any party who allows Boris Johnson, brilliant though he is, to represent them at the London Mayoral elections is really desperate! I would go so far as to suggest that Boris Johnson would make a better Prime Minister and strategist than David "Dave" Cameron and his band of brothers.

Blog Modification

2007-08-28T14:09:00.000+12:00

Hello

Just a quick post to say that if you happen to be passing through I will be doing some blog layout modification today, August 28th. If you have any suggestions about how the site may be improved do not hesitate to yell and I will seriously consider your comments.

Jacob

The Hedonistic World of the Blogosphere (Part II)

2007-08-28T13:00:00.000+12:00

After some casual browsing of other blogs I have come to a startling conclusion. I feel almost guilty because I appear to be letting the blogosphere down... not doing my bit. Many of the other bloggers I have seen are obsessive writers. There is almost a post a day on their sites, more sometimes. These people seem to have a neurotic obsession with blog posting. It is this strange dedication and commitment that often feels intimidating or bullying. It is as though there is a second class of bloggers who can never reach the heady heights of mass readership because they "DO NOT POST EVERYDAY". This sub-community have become a bit of a cyber-pressure group who frown on those who do not conform to their regime.

This appears a counter-productive mindset. Surely a blogger should write when they have something to say. If everybody wrote everything everyday the quality of content would inevitably decrease and the web would become saturated with meaningless drivel, spouted out to ensure the "1 a day" program is upheld. I suppose this mindset is the result of 24 hour news broadcasting and a vast choice of media content on the radio, TV and the web. This "cultural revolution" has vastly increased access to information but has also shortened attention spans and made viewers far more demanding. The emphasis is now on more rather then better. This opinion cannot last, it is just another bubble waiting to pop. And frankly, the sooner the better.

Having said all this... I do feel an obligation to my readers... all 4 of you... and so in future I will endeavor to post more frequently... but don't expect something everyday... the content is bad enough already!

Tiananmen Square

2007-08-22T14:37:00.000+12:00

When searching the internet oracle that is YouTube, for the clip now found below, I came across a shocking level of irreverence and disrespect. The majority of people who had left a comment were using the opportunity to express their right-wing, capitalist agenda of hate or leaving preachy Marxist rebellion messages glorifying the actions of the PRC and vilifying the dead students. What was worse, however, were the majority of reactions to these messages of extremist nonsense. Many left reciprocal messages or exclamations of hilarity. In a time when China and its regime is becoming one of the most powerful in history and the rest of the world is becoming increasingly reliant on it, now is not the time to be polarising the debate or expressing no concern for the PRC's actions at all. I know that YouTube commentators are not the most representative of society but the internet and its growing content of grassroots media is becoming increasingly influential, especially on the younger generation who will become the future decision makers. If a considerable number of opinions are warped by the uncensored and unregulated stream of consciousness and the nonsense that results then the problems of mass irreverence, inertia and radical extremism will only become more pronounced in the future.

The solution? Not so clear cut... I would be the last to reccommend censorship or restriction of the Internet. Self moderation? Self control? Strong peer condemnation? Better eductation? To be frankly honest... I don't have an obvious answer.

Drunken Hypocrite?

2007-08-21T15:49:00.000+12:00

A collective giggle echoed around Australasia on Sunday morning as people awoke to the news that the man tipped to the next Australian PM, the leader of the Labourl Party, Kevin Rudd, had visited a "gentleman's club" while on an official visit to the UN in New York. But not only this, he had also been thrown out by club security for inappropriate behaviour, as yet unspecified.

The hot favourite to succeed John Howard as the next Australian Prime Minister after elections in November had previously been perceived as a rather nerdy, hard line Christian character. However, to no where near the same extent as his opponent Joh Howard of the Liberal Party. Do not be confused by the 'Liberal' title, in comparison with most liberals world wide, John Howard has policies a bit like Genghis Khan and had spent the last few months cosying up to the hard-line, far-right evangelicals of Australia.

However, if the story, which had been kept a secret since 2003, was leaked by Howard's campaign team in the run up to the election as an attempt to undermine his credibility it would have sadly backfired. The buzz from political bloggers and columnists is that the story has enhanced Rudd's popularity with the majority of Australians who feel he is now more 'human'. A spokeswoman from Australia's largest women's rights pressure group was quoted as saying "If we hanged every man who made a mistake we'd have very few left."

In America, such a story would destroy a political career but in Australia and much of Europe the electorate appear to accept the news with a snigger and a smile. The British Conservative party is often caught with its trousers down, quite literally. If a Conservative MP was found tied to a four-poster with only a ball and chain to maintain his modesty the good old British public would rarely bat an eyelid. And in Australia the story is much the same, although stories aren't quite as frequent or bizarre. It was the country who elected a champion beer drinker and who's leader of the opposition died in a hotel room in suspicious circumstances after a night with his considerably younger lover.

The final twist in this tale that has had its fair share or surprises is that the story was broken by the Australian Sunday Telegraph's political columnist who was caught on National TV at last year's national press awards throwing his very drunken self on stage and attempting to hit the announcer and subsequently the stage manager who tried to intervene only to be led off to tumultuous applause. The whole sorry episode has now been immortalised on YouTube. Many other columnists would have been asked to leave but Rupert Murdoch was so cosy with the man in question he let him stay. However it seems a bit rich for the right-wing press to allow the drunkard to break the story and then to condemn Rudd. Now I am no big fan of Rudd but this story seems to demonstrate the hypocrisy and mess of right-wing parties and media all over the world.

Secular Liberalism

2007-07-12T04:20:00.001+12:00

I have been reading Brian Whitaker's recent article and am very impressed by its quality of analysis but I was rather miffed by a number of comments on it at Guardian Unlimited. One of the contributors told Mr Whitaker to "...take off the glasses of secular liberalism and stop viewing the Muslim world from the viewpoint of cultural imperialism."

Being a secular liberal myself I am obviously biased but I fail to follow the contributor's logic. As a secular liberal surely you are free from the prejudicial elements of religion and its teachings. In addition to this, a partisan liberal with a strongly held dogma accepts everyone for what they are and is probably one of the least judgmental members of society. One might assume that a fundamentalist Muslim or someone with a strongly held set of religious beliefs would be in a more compromised position and less able to make an objective and informed judgement.

I believe Brian Whitaker made a very measured and comprehensive argument that provided a large selection of evidence to support his conclusion. Although Hizb ut-Tahir are obviously very fundamentalist and extreme in their views they are still a non-violent movement who express their opinion through democratic means. If the government follows the Conservative's proposals to ban them we would merely be forcing them underground and undermining our democratic credentials, and thus be giving the extremists more material with which to recruit. A fundamental part of our society is the belief that everyone has the right to freedom of religion, opinion and expression. If we ban groups like HuT a dangerous precedent would be set which could easily result in a further impingement of civil rights. Although their ideologies are distinctly different, the BNP and other extreme right-wing groups have a number of similarities with HuT and others. If we decide to ban HuT does that also mean that the BNP and other groups who express extreme sentiments will be banned. If this is the case, can Britain still call itself a free and open society? I doubt it. Would the public be safer? I am sure they wouldn't be as the extremists would be forced below the radar and more militant splinter groups are likely to be formed.

Considered and moderate intellectual responses to these issues, such as that of Brian Whitaker and others, are critically important for the good of British society and more are required. What must be avoided at all costs are knee-jerk responses and draconian measures that further impinge our rights, this would lose the government the moral high ground and make the growing threat of extremist violence even harder to confront.

"Dave" Cameron Shows His True Colours... He's Blue Through and Through

2007-07-11T06:58:00.000+12:00

The long awaited findings of one of the Tory's long awaited policy groups, headed up by another "Dave", were released to an expectant public yesterday and what do they mean... a massive swing to the right once more. "Dave" Cameron is trying to appeal to the disillusioned right of his fractured party by reverting back to his true ideologies, the ones he possessed when he called Maggie Thatcher "Mother". Their absurd plans to promote the institution of marriage include a tax break for married couples but penalties for single parents and unmarried couples. The overriding objective of which is to "Save the Children". Their pans are so ridiculous and unfeasible they would sit well in the manifesto of the 'Standing at the Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party' in Blackadder. The kind, "Hug a Hoodie" party leader who wants us all to call him "Dave" is showing us his true character. The public are now beginning to realise that the distinct lack of policy was not the result of lengthy policy group investigations, it is to hide the fact that David "Dave" Cameron and his Etonian cronies are very right wing in their attitudes and any substantial policies would reflect this. It appears the modern Conservative Party, soon to be renamed "New Conservatives", are merely vultures, feeding of public disillusionment with Blairism and the sooner the public realise this the better!

Scars of War... Wounds of Peace

2007-07-11T01:48:00.000+12:00

The Israeli-Palestine conflict has been raging for decades. The trouble has now degenerated to a chicken and egg scenario. The Israelis claim that they wish a peaceful solution could be worked out and that a two-state solution could be reached, resulting in inter-faith cooperation and business, however they refuse to allow it state sovereignty and continue to discriminate and persecute Palestinian citizens in their country and maintain the detention of political activists. Palestinians claim that they want a collaborative and sustainable future free from Israeli persecution and censorship and seek the right of self-domination, however many refuse to accept the existence of Israel and continue their insurgent attacks on their neighbour and its infrastructure. The West, embodied by the Quartet, who is also a key player in this conflict, claims to seek a two party solution that is mutually advantageous. It says one of their priorities is helping the Palestinians sort out their political problems but refuses to accept the democratically elected government of Hamas. The problem appears interminable and the deployment of Tony Blair is unlikely to break the perpetual circle. The Middle East needs new ideas not old stereotypes and agendas.

Gaffes, Malapropisms and Cringe Inducing Syntax

2007-07-09T05:29:00.000+12:00

From my uniquely privileged position in my living room it is all too easy to judge individuals and events. With the current state of world politics there are numerous figures that make far too convenient scapegoats...

"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way"
George W. Bush - Washington D.C.; April 28th, 2005

"For a century and half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times."
George W. Bush - Tokyo, Japan; February 18th, 2002

As George Bush reaches the end of his presidency, his verbal gaffes, malapropisms, and cringe inducing syntax are as commonplace as ever. This, combined with his reactionary, misjudged, incoherent and illegal foreign policy have made him a prime target for satirists, politicians and members of the public worldwide. However this attitude, although justified, appears almost counter-productive. We are never going to achieve a successful and productive system of global politics if we continue to shift blame and responsibility. This does not, however justify allowing a man who says, "Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." to become one of, if not the most, powerful man in the world. I believe the American public's actions in re-electing him as President reflect worse on their nation than the 'verbal inconsistencies' of their "Commander in Chief"

The Hedonistic World of the Blogosphere...

2007-07-08T06:51:00.001+12:00

There are those who question the motives of bloggers. Many feel they are merely satisfying their own insecurities and idiosyncrasies. Blogging is often perceived as a means by which people break the mundane cycles of everyday life and escape to a separate reality where their opinion is valued and their thoughts are taken into consideration. Critics of blogging often describe participators as pretentious and accuse them of suffering from a desperation to be appreciated and valued which results in the forum for discussion and debate, created by the internet, being swamped with the boring and insignificant, therefore stifling expressions of wide value and importance.

However, I fail to see how this is the case. Surely the more debate and discussion that can be provided, the greater the chance of expressions and arguments of great importance and merit being actuated. The arguments of the critics also raise questions regarding the idea of merit and how such notions can be determined when different individuals apply their own idiosyncratic and subjective criteria. Leading one to wonder, who has the right to judge for the individual except the individual? If a new form of censorship or system of exclusivity was to be established on the internet and its many 'institutions' all the debate and conclusions drawn from the 'new order' would lose all credibility and a similar situation to that of the traditional mechanisms of politics would arise.

The Internet, acting as a forum for discussion and a platform for the exchange of ideas has created a new form of politics. Politics in the traditional sense has long been accused of unwarranted exclusivity and an isolation of a wide spectrum of ideas, thus creating a crippling apathy amongst members of the public. Blogging and other web-based mechanisms for debate and discussion, such as social networking sites, have effectively dismantled the old conceptions and instruments of restriction, which have undermined theoretical democracy and politics and have instated a new form of pragmatic democracy that allows comprehensive participation and limited censorship. And what has resulted? Not a form of ideological anarchy but an ordered and pragmatic system with far fewer disadvantages than traditional politics.

Does this mean the Internet has undermined traditional politics and its associated instruments? No, they have been merely supplemented but it is now clear that society cannot chose between the two mediums, a collaboration must be formed and a compromise reached as both systems are now interdependent and if they work together a far superior hybrid will revolutionise our society and its instruments.