Thursday 27 June 2013

Victory For Gay Rights in America

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued some historic rulings this week, two of the biggest were on gay rights. The two cases the Supreme Court dealt with were United States vs Windsor which concerned the Defense of Marriage act (DOMA) and Hollingsworth vs Perry which concerned California´s Proposition 8. The court ruled 5-4 in both cases in favour of gay rights.

DOMA was probably the more significant ruling as it has national implications. DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton (who has since disavowed the law). The law banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage, even in states like Massachusetts that have legalised it, this meant thousands of federal benefits were denied to same-sex couples. Edith Windsor, who married her partner of 40 years in Canada in 2007 was landed with over $300,000 in extra taxes following her partner´s death due to the federal government refusing to recognise their relationship. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4, with Justice Kennedy siding against DOMA, that the law was unconstitutional. Scalia wrote a scathing dissent, claiming that the Supreme Court had no right interferring with a law.

The Prop 8 ruling is very important to California as it now means that same-sex couples will be allowed to marry once again. The Prop 8 case finds its origins in early 2008 when the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry. Almost immediately the anti-gay side tried to undo the court´s ruling. They managed to gain enough signatures to put the question of same-sex marriage to the voters and in November 2008 Californians voted by 52% to ban same-sex marriage. A challenge was launched to Prop 8, claiming the law was unconstitutional. A Californian judge agreed, as did a majority of judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court of the United States decided to take the case. The ruling was rather bizarre as the justices ruled against Prop 8 on the grounds that those defending it had not suffered harm or injury. This meant that the judge´s ruling would stand. More bizarrely was how the court ruled, three of the four liberal justices as well as conservatives Roberts and Scalia ruled against Prop 8, whilst moderate Kennedy and liberal Sotomayor ruled in favour! The big surprises are Sotomayor and Scalia, considering how they normally rule in the opposite direction.  The decision effectively doubles the total population of US states that have legal same-sex marriage.

Wednesday 26 June 2013

The Young Turks Review

Presenters: Cenk Uygur (primary), Ana Kasparian (secondary) and contributions from numerous others.
Time: 21:00 - 23:00 (EST)/02:00 - 04:00 (GMT)

The Young Turks is an independent news show available online at www.tytnation.com. What I will be mainly focusing on is the main show. To watch the entire main show you will either have to buy TYT membership or watch it live on YouTube. They do upload some clips to YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks

The first hour of the show is presented by Cenk Uygur and the second hour is hosted by Cenk and Ana Kasparian. The exception is Friday when the first hour is a panel of Cenk and two other presenters.

Now onto why you should watch TYT! Cenk doesn't beat around the bush, he'll say exactly what he thinks and always tells you the truth. He is certainly left wing but is still very critical of the Democrats, and particularly Obama. The show tend to support social libertarianism and takes economics from a left-wing slant. They support the legalisation of all drugs, prostitution and gay marriage. They desperately want money out of politics, so much that Cenk founded a Political Action Committee called Wolf-PAC to try and achieve it. Cenk gets very passionate on every show, but he doesn't let his emotions get in the way of presenting you with the cold, hard facts.

Wednesday 19 June 2013

Change is Coming to Afghanistan

Afghanistan is changing, and hopefully for the better. Yesterday two rather important events happened, the ceremonial hanging over of the control of Afghanistan's security from NATO to Afghan forces and the revelation that the US will have direct talks with the Taliban. I am delighted with this news, I feel that it's only negotiations that will bring about peace. If the British government had never negotiated with the IRA, where would Northern Ireland be? It may not seem right to negotiate with terrorists but it saves lives. You also have to remember that this is a big step for the Taliban too, they hate us as much as we hate them. Unfortunately the Afghan government is not too happy as they have not been invited to the talks. Understandably angry the Afghan government has halted current security negotiations with America. Nonetheless, control of Afghan security has already been handed over from NATO.

The statements made by both sides gave me some hope, the White House said that the talks are the "first step on a long road to peace." In a press conference, Mohammad Sohail Shaheen, a Taliban spokesperson said the following:

"We must have good relations with all countries of the world."

I fear that talks may not work but we must hope that they will. If Afghanistan can move forward then there's hope for every troubled spot in the world.

Monday 17 June 2013

Syria Talks Stall at G8

It's looking increasingly unlikely that the world is ever going to agree on what to do about Syria. In a joint press conference with Obama, Russian president Putin warned that Europe will suffer if they arm the rebels. There was one agreement though, both men agreed that chemical weapons should not be used. Which really isn't that big a leap, and as shown recently, Russia will simply reject any Western intelligence indicating the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

This will have disappointed Cameron and Hollande who have been pressing the international community, particularly Russia and China, to do something constructive in Syria. Earlier today Cameron said the following:

"What we do need to do is bring about this peace conference and this transition so that the people in Syria can have a government that represents them rather than a government that's trying to butcher them."

There is a lot to worry about with intervention in Syria, frequently things are made worse by intervention. If we arm the rebels we risk what happened in Afghanistan, when American armed the Taliban to fight the Soviets, repeating itself in Syria. Boris Johnson has warned against arming "Syria's maniacs and fanatics". Personally I'm also wary of arming the rebels, what I favour is implementing a no-fly-zone. That way we help the rebels, but we don't give them anything that they could later turn on us.

I do fear what will happen in Syria regardless of what we do, 93,000 people have died since the uprising began. How many more must die before this brutal civil war will end? 

Sunday 16 June 2013

Success for Cameron on Tax Evasion

David Cameron managed to score a victory for his war on tax evasion yesterday. He was meeting with representatives of 10 Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies when he managed to strike a deal with them. In attendance were Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, Montserrat, and Turks and Caicos Islands, all thought of as tax havens. Cameron managed to get the dependencies to agree to a new law that would mean companies registered there would be forced to reveal who owns them. Cameron believes that shining a spotlight on the owners will help to reduce the amount of corruption in the finance world. Following the meeting Cameron said:

"The way that corrupt governments and corrupt companies pay bribes is often through shady nominee companies where you can't find out who owns what. That's why you need to have a system to find out who owns what company."

The new openness will mean that the dependencies will share data with other countries in an effort to reduce illegal tax activities.

What David Cameron also wants is a central registry where all the data will be held. This measure has caused a bit of controversy and is less likely to be implemented. The measure will be unpopular with big business, which have a lot of influence over policies, particularly in small territories like tax havens.

With the G8 meeting this week in Lough Erne, Fermanagh, this week, Cameron is hoping to put his tax evasion agenda right at the top. Unfortunately, thanks to Canada's Stephen Harper, success is looking unlikely.

Tuesday 11 June 2013

The Watchful Eye of Government

By far the most egregious scandal to come out of Washington in the last few months is the revelation that the US government has taken a drag net approach to internet surveillance. Given the codename 'Prism' the program takes all the information stored on certain internet giants for storage by the US government. The following companies hand all their data to the US government. (brackets indicates when they joined the program):

Microsoft (2007)
Yahoo! (2008)
Google (2009)
Facebook (2009)
PalTalk (2009)
YouTube (2010)
Skype (2011)
AOL (2011)
Apple (2012)

It's terrifying to think that the US government effectively knows all of our data that's owned by any of these companies. Every photo you have ever uploaded on Facebook, every email you have ever sent through gmail, every video you have watched on YouTube and all the audio and video that you have sent through Skype! It gets worse. Seriously! Remember that email you drafted but never sent and that sentence you typed on Skype but never sent? They have that too. This is an affront to liberty and goes completely against the US constitution. Particularly the fourth amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How is taking all the data on these websites possibly fit with the constitution? It doesn't, mass data collection in this form, is blatantly unconstitutional.

The funny thing is, all the companies are denying any involvement in the program, claiming that the information was seized without their knowledge. This is a complete pack of lies, the US government has already confirmed the program. Also, why would Twitter not be one the list? Twitter is a massive website with millions of users and a record for protecting its user's privacy. Also why did it take the government until 2012 to get all of Apple's data?

The political class in Washington has naturally tried to quell the scandal. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, then why fear Prism? This is a fool's argument, I don't want the US government poking into every detail of my life. There's other things we do online that are just embarrassing, such as watching porn of other such legal activities. Ever heard of J. Edgar Hoover? He was head of the FBI from its foundation in 1935 to his death in 1972. During that time he amassed huge amounts of information, enough to make even Presidents quake. Through the medium of blackmail he kept opponents in line. If that can happen then, it could happen now.

The US government most stop this unconstitutional program if it wishes to retain any credibility.