The American Election

Living in mainstream America, as I do, everyday I'm immersed in turgid journalism "covering" the 2008 election, which usually centers around the ongoing struggle between Sen.Clinton and Sen.Obama. More often than not, the daily commentary is not worth reading, but the Atlantic has two excellent articles between its covers this month: articles that have supported my suspicions for some time now. Both indulge Barack Obama, who would now have to burn the American flag to not be elected as the Democratic headpiece. Firstly, Marc Ambinder highlights the successes of Obama's online campaigning and how this would translate well into government. Of course, if he were to be elected president, the history books would be filled with the racial facets of progress and cultural revolution, seamlessly sweeping aside his dabblings with the internet. He's churned out well in excess of $50 million through his website donations alone, but his real statement has been his cyber-networking, pulling in Facebook fans and MySpace clingers-on alike. The Web is a fickle engine, capable of derailing even the hardiest public figure with one looped video-clip, but as Ambinder explains: "If Obama wins, he can harness the Web as a unifying force once the voting is done [and] even deliver some of the audacious promises that Obama the candidate has made." Indeed, if he employed and (crucially) developed the British model of online petitioning, he could encourage genuine democracy beyond the meager vote. The second of Atlantic's Obama articles draws, for the first time, on the possibility that the extended furore between the two Democratic candidates might, in fact, help them in the long run. Besides the obvious benefits, such as time to hone their arguments and refine their speeches, they've also been forced repeatedly to revise their policies and evolve the fundamental messages of their campaigns. (Some might argue that Clinton hasn't done this at all, and I would concur, but Obama certainly has.) What's more, now that the campaign has extended well into it's ninth month, both candidates have become household names, and the subjects of many round-the-table discussions. Our honourable friend, Mr McCain has somewhat slid off the radar. For the neutral bystanders among us, like myself, voting for a Democratic candidate seems an easy option, but that would severely misread the scale of the Democratic operation. Not only do they have to overcome this lengthy affair unscathed, with a viable contender, they also have to overcome the Republican party, similar to the Conservatives switching places with Labour in Briatin. This draws a close comparison; how many Labour back-benchers can you name? No reader of this blog could not name the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, the Education Minister, etc. But could you name the Shadow Chancellor, the Shadow Home Secretary? Probably not. However, with the election of Boris Johnson, we see that promiscuity of character can occasionally prevail as a valuable long-term investment, as the Tories would undoubtedly agree. This, my friends, poses a problem to the Republican Party in the US. Can they uphold public awareness to the point of total confidence? especially in the wake of the glossy Mr Obama and his web-friendly user base, the upcoming months will be interesting for this very reason. But will the media pick up on it as Matthew Yglesias has done in this month's Atlantic? I will.

9/11 Again

Whilst on the topic of 9/11, few may remember my commentary of the Pope's visit to the US. During his round trip he attended a memorial at Ground Zero in New York where he lent a prayer and a moment of reverie for the dead. This has to stop. As is the case with the anniversary of 9/11, each year the event takes on an even greater air of tragedy. This takes away from what the attacks actually embodied: an act of aggression. Needless to say, we must remember those who disastrously lost their lives, yet we must also remember the source of those terror-driven events. This lapse of judgement could represent a languid general mourning, whereby individuals prefer the memory as one of national tragedy rather than international warfare. This must be tackled head-on.

Zeitgeist

One of my closest friends, who could be credited with bringing The God Delusion to my attention, has now drawn my eye to this film, Zeitgeist. It's a very interesting piece of work, which forces you to question what you think you know. The first part, 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', introduces the central theme to the piece: dispelling commonly held myths. Indeed, we are given a highly persuasive analysis of Christianity's origins and the life of Jesus Christ with direct reference to classical mythology and ancient history. The conclusion we inevitably come to is that Jesus did not exist at all. The title, Zeitgeist, is a clever illustration of the times we live in - one cannot deny a changing of the tides, where education has enabled the West to see through the transparent falsities of our culture. Unfortunately, the film quickly descends into mere conspiracy in the same vein as Loose Change. In fact, the next section tries its level best to portray the 9/11 attacks as an inside job orchestrated by the US government, something which was categorically rubbished by the British media last year. What would have cemented the film's success is a continuous discourse, interlocking the various sections to a central topic. What the second part does demonstrate, however, is that Humans still prefer a conspiracy theory to no theory at all, indicative of our bumpy evolutionary past, something which the religious, incidentally, fail to accept.

A Philosophical Question

Question: If something exists repeatedly across Time's infinity, but with lacunae in between, can this, therefore, exist eternally? Answers on a postcard.

Surveillance States

Once again, statistics have proved what we already knew - CCTV has no great deterrent value, nor does it aid police in locating their suspects. Orwell was not simply an alarmist, but he foresaw with worrying detail the potential damage of such a state. In last month's Free Inquiry, Nat Hentoff points out that people's malcontent for public surveillance is not resultant of their fear of being watched, but more-so of their unknowing: are they being watched or not? This kind of unknowing manifests distrust and inevitably leads to everyday paranoia. Indeed, in sociology there exists such a concept as the 'Panoptic Gaze', which identifies the innate onlooker within all of us; we conduct ourselves at all times as if someone were watching. Did the July 7th bombers know they were being filmed as they ambled through the London Underground? Of course. Would they have conducted themselves differently if they thought otherwise? No. The same is true for any individual travelling through the great surveillance states like London, or American college campuses. Why then do our governing bodies insist on bringing us this supposedly pro-active vigilance when there remains no discernible merit? Why then has the FBI commissioned a $1 billion enterprise to database people's physical characteristics, from the way we walk to the sound of our voice? Human privacy is being eroded at massive cost for seemingly no benefit, and yet the movement continues. Our vulnerabilities are exposed on a daily basis in our ignorance of this matter. The next time you see an oblong box jutting from a building corner, or a convex black chandelier suspiciously protruding from the ceiling, do as your fellow author and extend a finger with relish.

The scourging abruptness of Pat Condell

"Just a couple of weeks ago, the classic story of the three little pigs, the classic children's story, was censored by a committee of English middle-class bed-wetters desperate to show how culturally sensitive they are at everybody else's expense. And it's a classic story, we all know the story, I'm sure. The three little pigs, they're building their houses, aren't they? One of brick, one of wood, and with a naivety that would embarrass even a dimmy Archbishop, one of straw. And we all know what happens. The big bad wolf comes along and blows down the first two houses, but he can't blow down the brick one, so he flies an aeroplane into it and blames the Jews. [Pause] Isn't that it?"
-- Pat Condell, Sharia Fiasco (10/02/2008).

100 Most Influential People

Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People edition arrived through my postbox recently and I was slightly surprised to see Edgar Bronfman Jr., CEO of the Warner Music Group, write some very astute words about Radiohead and their pioneering move to release In Rainbows for whatever price you like: "If any band could extend its creativity and spirit to redefine an entire industry, it would be Radiohead." Equally as surprising was Radiohead's categorisation under the 'Builders & Titans' section, as opposed to the preceding 'Artists & Entertainers' section; a peculiar gesture of good-will I suppose. However, what was most striking about Time's list was their ration of male to female influentials. I haven't counted the exact number, but I'd expect a 4:1 split in favour of the men. Obviously, measuring "influence" is entirely subjective, and their list is cast through a lengthy public vote, so, one would suspect their list reflects society rather than dictates society. Indeed, Time's list is global, and women are subject to suppression in many of the countries where these individuals originate from. And yet, there is a putrid stench of irony in the air when they cover those men campaigning for women's liberation but fail to include those most orchestrative in garnering a cultural movement. Where was the inclusion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example, or Benazhir Bhutto, or even J.K. Rowling? Much is made of those who are effected, but not those who affect. Here lies the ongoing flaw in Time's many lists. Only months ago did I comment on their judgement of 'Person of the Year' - Vladimir Putin, "Tsar of the New Russia". As we can see, winning one of these competitions is not necessarily something to be proud of, but surely women play a more prominent role in our global direction than what Time implies. In case you needed further proof, check this alternative cover to this weeks edition; if you squint your eyes, is that a woman or a man?

Pat Condell

Richard Dawkins has churned out another questionable business venture through his website recently after having collaborated with Pat Condell to release a DVD with all of Pat's internet videos. As is the case with most of Professor Dawkins' videos, they're all there for the eye to see on YouTube. However, if you have not come across Pat Condell before, you have missed something rather spectacular. Having joined YouTube about a year ago he has released periodical tirades against everything he despises about religion. Whilst his laments begin fairly sweetly, with a resounding dose of quintessential British tolerance, he later finds himself ranting until he's red in the face with regard to whatever he picks up as his latest topic. Strangely, he's ranked third in the UK's most subscribed-to comedy channels, yet what Pat discusses is rarely laughable. Covering topics ranging from 'Catholic morality' to 'the trouble with Islam', he's come in for stark debate. May he be arrested, or murdered, for what he has to say? Very likely. May the individuals he criticises face immediate opposition from the powers that be? Very unlikely. This, dear reader, is the problem with European society as it stands, as depicted encouragingly by this American news piece. I leave you with a section from his clip, 'Sharia fiasco':

The solution is to prosecute those who incite terror; to close down the mosques and deport the imams. Any sane society would be doing this automatically. We need to stop treating Islam like a special needs case.

Obama and the Reverend

Barack Obama has credited himself wisely by denouncing the absurd preachings of his "former" pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This man appears to be having a party at the expense of our glossy candidate, fully taking advantage of his position. With quotes such as, "God damn America", and, "you cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you", this merely acts to reinforce the depressing claim that you really can say anything as long as you have the term 'Reverend' before your name. Just as a simple thought experiment, therefore, what would become of this man if he dressed in Muslim garb, stood atop a box in Hackney, and spewed the same anti-social nonsense? Would he be arrested for inciting violence, racial hatred, or terrorist acts? Let us hope so. But that does not excuse the drivelling fool from projecting his warped, transparently Christian, beliefs. Lest we forget that Obama has similar associates being tried for terrorist accusations in Illinois as we speak. At last the media has caught up with the problems of Obama's past. These are questions that need to be raised, and the free ride he's received so far from the press has got to stop. For those of you who feel somewhat left behind by the whole debacle, watch this Slate recap of the entire Democratic election in 7 minutes.

Terrorism and Islam

A drought of opinion has kept me away from this page since Sunday, but low and behold, news pieces have flooded in which compel me to comment. Firstly, the news yesterday of the teenager charged under the Terrorism Act displays wonderfully how this insipid religion can affect the minds of the young, to their infinite detriment. Not only have we seen doctors careering into airport terminals in Scotland, we've now seen British-born youths engaging in calculated plots to bring on our demise. The police officer issuing a press-release yesterday even had the cheek to condemn the news coverage for stirring fear and racial hatred within the community - I don't wish to be overly prudent, but surely this sick young man did that all by himself. Alas, this wasn't the first, nor the youngest teenager to be arrested under suspicious circumstances; in 2003 a 17 year-old from Northern Ireland was charged with possessing items likely to be used for acts of terrorism. Indeed, our whole media furore is at the whim of what these mindless individuals can think of next, as demonstrated by the morning news today, the who-cares news of newly released CCTV footage apparently showing our terrorist counterparts at work. Should we provide these people with a viable media outlet? I think not. Much in the same was as the media has a moral responsibility not to cover teenage suicides in Bridgend, surely we have an intrinsic duty not to flaunt these muppets over the news. The whole debacle has incensed me to the point where I give you this short poem I wrote the day after the Glasgow Airport attacks:

Islamorama

Today the ocean shed a tear. To-
Day the sun quivered in the sky.
Today the moon and stars shone red.
Today the living lived in fear.
Today I drew a breath and smirked.
Today I prayed our war had worked.
Today I ended a terminal phase.
Today I set myself ablaze.