No Oathing Please

I am repulsed, annoyed, revolted, irritated, sickened by the idea of pledging an oath of allegiance to the Queen and country. Needless to say, I have fantasized many times about sitting down in protest against the British national anthem if I happen to win an Olympic Gold medal. Imagine that - an athlete making his own historical mark of personal integrity by having the courage to silently protest the absurd calling: "god save our queen" - redundant on a number of levels, I'm sure you'll agree. With regard to the monarchy, Thomas Paine wrote: "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right." The sooner we can shirk the childhood indoctrination into supposedly divine autocracy, the sooner Britain will formulate a true cultural identity.

The War on Drugs

One out of every hundred adults in the United States is in jail, and a good proportion of those incarcerated are inside for drug related crimes. Yet, we know that the percentage of adults in the US who use illegal drugs is more than 1%, and so, we can conclude that the war on drugs is failing. Simple. Even so, roughly 25% of those imprisoned were convicted on drug related crimes, and the ratio is increasing. Not only are we fighting an unwinable war, but could this be exacerbating a wealth of problems, from stretched police reserves, to free-fire street corners, to flooded prisons, to the demonization of the most desperate citizens who are isolated amongst the underclass? I have never taken any street drug, and I never plan to; I'm even weary of putting the most basic sporting supplements inside my body, but I felt an instant pang of agreement when I came across this article in Time magazine last week, written by none other than the writers of The Wire, the unprecedented success story of American television. They recognise these disparities supplanted into contemporary society and they have a solution: "If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented." Although this appears like a sweepingly naive statement delivered from the drooping lips of some sky-bound hippie, accept the weighty backdrop to such a decision. I urge you to read the article and ask yourself whether you see the war on drugs as a movement void of direction, ruining millions of American lives on the way. I have never watched an episode of The Wire, but I will now. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to buy me the super double deluxe box set supreme for my birthday sooner or later...

Why?

Anyone who has to guess my opinion on this matter would be insulting me.

The Atlantic Magazine

There was one up-side to my trip, by the way. On a venture to change a ten dollar bill into some smaller coins I purchased a copy of Atlantic magazine. I have since applied for my subscription. If you read nothing else after reading this, look closely at Eliza Grizwold's article, God's World. This is a magnificent piece about the lingering war between Christians and Muslims in Nigeria. The cover of the magazine reads: 'Which religion will win?', but given the accounts of pillage, murder, corruption, and unprecedented savagery, I fear that this question will not be singularly answered. Also, it's known that Christopher Hitchens writes monthly for the Atlantic, here focusing on a new book musing on the contradictions of anti-semitism. And, something that has now gone beyond mere coincidence, Hitchens defends my corner when discussing the withdrawal of Prince Harry from Afghanistan. As if his follow-up allusion to Taxi Driver wasn't enough, it now seems he is certainly taking inspiration from this blog. What's more, Hitchens has been in the limelight even more-so recently with his highly commendable rebuttal: 'Why women are still not funny' on Vanity Fair's video section this month (a sequel to his controversial exposure of the humour gap in his classic essay last year: 'Why Women aren't Funny'). A worthy update.

Return from Swimming

Never fear, I am still here. As planned I arrived back in Tucson yesterday following my second round trip to Austin, Texas. This time, however, I managed to confuse my flight plans and so I ended up flying to the infamous Kansas before hopping on a plane to the rapidly warming Tucson, on a trip that lasted the best part of eight hours; not great considering the usual two hour stone's throw. All of that, alongside the laborious swimming meet, has held me back from posting, for which I am, as always, deeply regretful. Even so, I have so far failed to embark on my frequent binge of intellectual stimuli from which I bring you my edited pearls of trifle. Nevertheless, I can tell you that the almost super-human Michael Phelps (who was recently polled as the third greatest sporting wonder behind Federer's forehand in The Times) made an appearance in Texas to swim the 200m Individual Medley. Rumour has it that he only showed up to endorse one of his many sponsors, which seems sensible. Otherwise, the swimming was fast. For example, to make the 100m Freestyle final you would have had to go below 49.7 seconds, a time that, in Britain, would surely win the National Championships. If you happen to want to watch a video of the event, it's right here. In fact, having watched it again, I urge you to watch this video to give you a brief taster of the what's to come this summer in Beijing. That event could well emulate what happened in Austin that night. Indeed, if you're interested in how I got on, flick through some of the finals in the sprint freestyle events - the 200m Freestyle was particularly embarrassing.

American Politics

Before I go I must bring you this article by Christopher Hitchens regarding the incessant lack of poetry amidst modern American politics. What's even more alarming is that Hitchens alludes to, and compares, Scorsese's Taxi Driver to our obsession with cliche. You may remember my comments made after watching Robert DeNiro's classic. Indeed, the office scene is crucial to our understanding of the underlying themes, and so too is the scene, for those of you who have seen it, between DeNiros character, Killer and fellow taxi driver, The Wizard; "[a man] becomes the job". Further evidence that our thinking processes are intertwined. (Why is it, by the way, that we are so interested in the next American president?) On the subject of Hitchens and American politics, this video is quite enjoyable, not necessarily for its arbitrary discussion, but for the very amusing montage of Hillary Clinton's mood swings: the seven stages of female emotion. As an epithet to this, I should also point out this video of Obama's dance; something which, I'm sure you'll agree, is of high historical and cultural significance, if only for its implicit racial backdrop.

Swimming

Tomorrow I leave for Austin, Texas, once again for another important swimming competition. This does mean, however, that my posting may become somewhat erratic, or, potentially, non-existent. Perhaps my posting for the upcoming days will consist mainly of swimming news from my unique position amongst the fastest swimmers in the world. If you hadn't already noticed, swimmers this year have taken the sport to yet another echelon, due, it need not be said, to the presence of the Olympics. There are a few good websites that provide interesting news from the meets, with modern video streaming too. If I happen to get a mention, you'll be first to know. Wish me luck.

Drinking, America, Religion, and Evolution

New, stricter drinking laws for underage "recreational" drinkers will not, in the long term, solve Britain's binge drinking culture. I say this having witnessed first-hand the ongoing repercussions of a nation besotted with protecting their children from alcohol. A more mature outlook towards alcohol will always encourage openness, honesty and responsible consumption. What we see in the States is a culture revolted by the idea of children freely drinking with their adult counterparts. This is not something we should hope to inculcate into our British teenagers, believe me. Anyway, the reason I post this evening is because I had a rather riveting conversation, or 'debate', with my swimming peer, Cory, who I'm sure won't mind the dedication. We argued for well over an hour about the existence of god, increasingly, it seemed, a Christian god. What's more, I had to adumbrate the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution. It struck me how little of the basics of evolution have been supplanted into the American mindset. they are, of course, a Christian nation, whether episcopalian, Mormon, or evangelical, who shirk the responsibilities of adequate education. Cory certainly is not one to attend church every Sunday but he does "believe" in God and in the afterlife. He will correct me if I do him an injustice, but he was definite that this gave him some form of comfort even though he is not afraid of death. Furthermore, he claimed not to believe in Evolution. (Is there anything to believe in?!) Although, having discussed various topics, such as morality without religion, first cause, and the beginnings of life on Earth, I will take it as a small success that he's now interested in reading The God Delusion. Victory.

Mount Improbable

Continuing my quest on biological understanding, I've now finished Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, a very approachable book explaining and elaborating the very essence of Darwinian evolution. As he says, we cannot simply bound up Mount Improbable in one leap, but we can conquer the climb with short, bite-size pathways on a gradual slope. In short, I've learnt more from this book than I did from four years of secondary school biology. Children would be fascinated by some of the examples and creature quirks that Dawkins presents here. If only teachers would model their lesson plans on some of the topics raised in this book. Rather than revisit photosynthesis over and over again, teachers could explore the forms of mollusc shells, or the mutual exploitation of figs and fig wasps. Oh well. The last time I remember learning this much from a book was when I read through Bill Bryson's superb, A Short History of Nearly Everything. Before I go, I'd like to relay something that Dawkins brings to light later in his book; nature was not designed with us in mind. I'm sure we would all agree with this, but this rather humorous appraisal of the banana is, in fact, serious, sent in by one of Dawkins' creationist correspondents:

Note that the banana:

1. Is shaped for human hand.
2. Has non-slip surface.
3. Has outward indicators of inward contents: Green - too early; Yellow - just right; Black - too late.
4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper.
5. Is perforated on wrapper.
6. Biodegradable wrapper
7. Is shaped for mouth.
8. Has a point at top for ease of entry.
9. Is pleasing to taste buds.
10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy.

Clearly.

An Important Rebuttal

In May 2006 Radiohead played a tiny, homecoming set in London's Koko to an audience of roughly 100 people, which happened to include some important guests invited by the climate awareness organization, Friends of the Earth. On that day, Conservative Party leader David Cameron was there. It happens that Mr Cameron accepted his invitation via email on the basis that Thom and Johnny play their 1995 masterpiece, Fake Plastic Trees. As any self-respecting Radiohead fan would know, hearing a rendition of FPS is almost guaranteed. I happened to be one of the lucky few to scramble tickets for that magical night, and yes, they played the song about half way through a 13 track performance. Now, Cameron came out afterwards saying that Thom played it for him, and I don't know how you would feel about something as sickening as that, but I've disliked the man ever since. Alas! In today’s Sunday Times Mr Cameron has written a fairly brief little article about the Conservative Party's new policy, supposedly adopted from Radiohead's inspirational release of In Rainbows last October (of which I commented extensively). This bankrupt and repugnant concept, attempting to connect with an elite sub-cult of the population and therefore dragging in other similarly impressionable people, seems to me like a last ditch effort not only, it seems, to have a personalized Thom Yorke endorsement, but also to engage the youth they appear to have so comprehensively ostracized in Britain. And yet! This decry comes on the same day that our bumbling heir, Prince Harry, is forcefully removed from duty in Afghanistan. Why, I ask, should he take precedent over the other equally courageous individuals who risk their lives fighting to protect our security? This question arose before he was initially deployed and I shan't comment too much here. What I would challenge, however, is the very inculcation of monarchist doctrine in Britain and this supposedly derived nationalism we draw from it. This is a topic I simply cannot ignore. Bryan shows his age in a very conservative post on his blog today, 'On Patriotism', where he apparently wanted to "stand up for Harry" and "let [his] chest swell a little". I expected better from Bryan, I'll be honest. He also suspects that the younger generation “regards the word 'patriotism' as so outdated as to be meaningless". Perhaps, but let me pose to you this consideration instead. Imagine a country, highly disconnected, disjointed, fractured, segregated, and immobilized as it stands, constantly led to believe that "multiculturalism" is a good thing, encapsulating this broken society. I would argue strongly that, no, multiculturalism is certainly not a beneficial national characteristic. In fact, it poisons the very essence of nationalism or any whisper of patriotism. This is why the younger generation is indifferent to their country. What would they be fighting for if they recruited themselves into the war? A "rainbow" community? Where cultures are independently honored and valued, yet inherently contradictory to one another and clashing with one another daily? What's more, those with even the bleakest intelligence can see through the dim-witted goon, who now seems to want to convert to Islam, Prince Charles (the next king of England!). The lineage of our monarchy was supposedly appointed and set in motion by a divine celestial dictatorship: god. This, without doubt, is a premise to which I do not subscribe, and I'm not the only teenager who seems to think so. With this rebuttal, my chest does swell somewhat with pride; as a generation we will no longer accept indoctrination into this sordid campaign of, what I like to call, fawn-ication. How can we allow this degeneration to continue? I urge you, comrades, dissect this information presented to you - is the basis of a monarchy a sound one? Is the declining national patriotism a symptom of a corrupting "multicultural" society? Or is it a symptom of distrust and the growing laughability of the royal family? Our taxes in Britain pay for these people to live a materially over-nourished existence, lest we forget. And so, when the Conservative party come out and vocally support the immediate withdrawal of our "prince", please put pressure on, and question, the grounds on which this disgrace is uttered.