Hysteria in the Tory Party

Immigration has been at the centre of British politics for years now. On one side you have cries to close the border totally and on the other to actively increasing immigration. In 2012 517,000 people immigrated to the UK whilst 349,000 emigrated from it, resulting in a net migration of +168,000. Preliminary estimates for 2013 show this rising slightly to 183,000 with 320,000 people leaving and 503,000 arriving. Considering that David Cameron and the Tories promised to curb immigration, this reflects poorly on them with their base.

Part of the problem for the Conservative Party is that they legally cannot do anything to stop people coming from the EU. The only countries that can face restrictions are Bulgaria and Romania who joined the EU in 2007. Unfortunately for the Tories, these restrictions must be lifted following the end of 2013. This is predicted to cause a mild spike in immigration next year. Rising immigration could prove disastrous for the Tories leading into the 2015 election. They are extremely fearful of UKIP whose twin issues are immigration and the EU. The Tories fear that if they do not appear conservative enough on the EU and immigration then UKIP will pull enough votes from them to guarantee a 2015 electoral defeat.

Cue hysteria in the Conservative Party!

David Cameron has announced support for a cap on EU migrants at 75,000 per year! The proposed cap is blatantly illegal and would destroy Britain’s relationship with Europe. Cameron has also proposed changes to benefits which are much more sensible (not to mention legal). New immigrants will not be able to claim benefits for the first three months and benefits will stop after six months if they cannot find a job and have no hope of finding one. 

MPs' Shocking Pay Rise!

When the British people get asked, which profession is the least trustworthy, the answer is nearly always politicians. Politicians’ have had a continual decline in popularity since the scandals of the 1960’s and the 1970’s. Their popularity took a huge hit in 2009 when the expenses scandal broke, it turned out many politicians had cheated the system. MPs turned out to be claiming for all sorts of ridiculous things such as duck houses (no seriously, one MP did claim money for a duck house). After this scandal MPs decided to take the decision of their pay and expenses out of the hands of parliament and into a totally independent body.

This action certainly seemed like a good idea at the time, but now it has turned around to bite them. At the moment MPs get paid £66,396 per annum, which is more than double what the average Brit ears at £26,500. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has decided that MPs need to get paid more! IPSA has revealed that it will increase the salary of MPs to £74,000, a rise of 11%! This is more than five times inflation and much higher than the 1% rise cap being experienced by everyone else in the public sector. All three leaders of the main political parties are opposed to the rise as they find it politically embarrassing. At a time when most ordinary people are struggling, a pay rise seems offensive. Yet due to IPSA’s independence, they are powerless to do anything about it.

What I believe is that the pay of MPs should be capped at double the median wage of the country. This would give them more of an incentive to raise the wages of ordinary people, plus still give them a healthy salary. If that were to be implemented right now it would mean MPs would get an annual salary of £53,000.  

Ukraine Should Remind us that the EU is Still Important

The EU has not had a great few years, the Euro currency has been in constant pain since the economic crisis of 2007-2009. The wealthier Euro nations such as Germany, Netherlands and Finland have had to support the appropriately named ‘PIIGS’ countries. All across the EU euro-scepticism is rising with the likes of the National Front in France and UKIP in the UK. You might think that with all that pain on the inside, non-EU nations would be hesitant about creating closer ties with the organisation. Especially when there is a viable alternative.

It will then come as a surprise to you to learn that there is a country in which pro-EU sentiment is strong enough to spark a revolution! That country is Ukraine.

The EU has eyed Ukraine as a country that it wishes to create closer bonds with. As part of the European Neighbourhood Policy it was trying to get Ukraine to sign an Association Agreement, so long as it implements certain reforms. The major problem was that the agreement is opposed by Ukraine’s ally, Russia. The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, really hates the deal as he wants Ukraine to join the Eurasian Economic Community of five former Soviet States and eventually the customs union that includes only Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The strong opposition from Putin caused Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to refuse to sign the Agreement on the 29^th of November as he was supposed to. This sparked fury in Ukraine.

For the past ten days people have protested in cities all across Ukraine, but particularly in the capital, Kiev. The Ukrainian people have grown fed up with the historic influence of Russia and the Kremlin. They wish to leave its bitter embrace and join with Western Europe, in the hopes of some fresh air. The statue of Lenin in Kiev was torn down yesterday, as it was seen as a symbol of Russian oppression. It was replaced with the European Union’s flag – now a symbol of hope and democracy in the poor Eastern European country.

This is not the first time Ukrainians have taken to the streets to protest against Yanukovych. In 2004 he won a highly disputed election that resulted in mass demonstrations and the election being annulled. In the second election Yanukovych was easily beaten by his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko. The Orange Revolution, as it was later called, should have served as a warning to Yanukovych that if he messed with the Ukrainian people, then he would pay a high price.

It is difficult to say whether these demonstrations will actually cause a change in government, but they nonetheless show that the European Union is still important. To many people living in well-established democracies like the United Kingdom and France, the EU has outlived its usefulness. Founding it was meant to make war impossible amongst the ‘Great Powers’ of Europe, and in that it has succeeded. Yet to those who live in fledgling democracies, which could fail at any given moment, the EU is a beacon of light. It is something that they can work towards and will help stabilise their countries. It is something that has proven to bring economic well-being to the less advantaged nations. Ireland, Greece and Portugal may seem to be in a bad economic situation now, but it is still better than what it was in their pre-EU days. If the countries that did not ‘need’ the EU were to leave, you would find a significantly weaker EU, one that could not help the nations that need it.  

The People's Pope

The Catholic Church changed on the 19^th of March 2013. This was the day that Cardinal Bergoglio was formally inaugurated as Pope Francis I.

His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, has staked out a very conservative position on many political issues. At one point the Pontiff had said that homosexuality was a greater threat to humanity than global warming! He also presided over a Church torn apart by sex abuse scandals all across the globe. The revelations included Priests in Ireland, the USA and Germany, where Benedict was from. It was not just the abuse of young children that shocked and angered the world, it was also the church’s reaction to it. The church consistently denied the allegations whilst concealing the truth. When the church found out that a Priest was abusing children, they did not hand them over to the police or even de-robe them. They simply moved the Priest to a different parish where they continued to abuse. Benedict was also controversial due to his involvement in World War Two. He had been a member of the Hitler Young and even flew fighter planes for Nazi Germany. So by the time Benedict resigned as Pope, the church’s reputation was in tatters.

Then along came Pope Francis. Francis was always going to be a historic Pope, he was the first non-European Pope since Gregory III of Syria died in 741 and the first Pope from the Americas.  Yet it is not the facts surrounding where he is from that make him historic, it is how he has acted and behaved since. Although still opposed to gay rights and abortion, Francis has tried to relax how fervent the Church is on these issues. When asked what his opinion was on gay people he said; “who am I to judge?” This is something his predecessor would never have said. His action on poverty is one on which he hopes to base his papacy on. In a Vatican document released earlier this week he chastised modern capitalism for its relentless pursuit of profit at the expense of the poor. He even went as far as calling it a “new tyranny”. He then went on to talk about how the Church should act saying that he would prefer a Church that was “bruised, hurting and dirty because it had been out on the streets” rather than one that is “unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security.”

Furthermore last month Francis suspended the Bishop of Limburg, dubbed the Bishop of bling, for spending €31 million (£26 million/$42 million) renovating his residence. Instead Francis has promised to turn the home into a soup kitchen and shelter for the homeless.

Overall this Pope is a lot more popular than Benedict ever was, particularly with those on the left. Hopefully he will put words into action and help the millions of people across the globe who are stuck in the trap of poverty.

Breakthrough with Iran!

After a decade of bitterness between Iran and the West over the country’s nuclear weapons program, real progress has finally been made. In Geneva today an agreement was announced between Iran and six of the world’s most powerful nations (USA, UK, France, China, Germany and Russia). Iran agreed to neutralise all of its stocks of 20% enriched uranium, the kind that could make a weak nuclear weapon. Iran has also agreed to stop enriching uranium beyond 5%. The rest of the world has agreed to ease sanctions on Iran and will allow it to enrich uranium up to 5%.

The breakthrough is historic and actually achieves something. The economy of Iran should improve, which will reflect well on the moderate President, Hassan Rouhani. It would also help the poor in Iran who have been hit hard by the sanctions but have nothing to do with the nuclear program. Keeping Rouhani popular is important to the West as he is prepared to negotiate. After all we do not want a radical like Ahmadinejad to gain power and threaten our security.

Despite this deal only lasting six months, Israel is already condemning it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called it a mistake that the world will regret. I totally reject that statement as it stops Iran from enriching uranium to the point at which they could make any sort of functional nuclear weapon! Also, if it were up to Netanyahu, there would be no negotiations at all and war with Iran would be inevitable.

Make no mistake, there’s still a lot of work to be done with Iran. We have to make sure that they stick to the terms of the treaty and expand it further so that one day all sanctions that can be lifted. As Iran begins to journey from the darkness and into the light, let us hope that all future Iranian Presidents are as open to negotiations and sense as Rouhani has been!

Afghan War to Continue

The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have always been very different wars. Immediately following 9/11 the US and UK (later joined by NATO and other allies) invaded Afghanistan to drive out the Al-Qaeda supporting Taliban. The war had strong international support, even amongst those countries who did not participate. Fast forward two years and the Iraq War is underway, but unlike Afghanistan it is much more contentious. The reason Britain and American want to go to war in Iraq is based on evidence that the country is trying to get weapons of mass destruction. That evidence was called into question by the international community which is unsure as to the authenticity of the evidence. Soon after the invasion, it is discovered that Iraq didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction and that most of the ‘evidence’ was simply false.

Needless to say the war based on a lie rapidly became unpopular and eventually all allied troops left Iraq by 2012. On the other hand Afghanistan is still ongoing and it looks like there will be a Western presence in Afghanistan for at least another decade. NBC News managed to get hold of a draft document of an agreement between the American and Afghan governments whereby troops would continue to reside inside the country until at least 2024! Although the war will officially end next year it will not be the end of a Western presence in Afghanistan. 

Same-sex Marriage Makes Huge Progress

There has been a flurry of activity lately when it comes to same-sex marriage. Last month New Jersey became the 14^th state to legalise same-sex marriage following a court ruling. On the 23^rd of October the New Mexico Supreme Court heard arguments around whether or not same-sex marriage was legal in the state. The court has said that it will rule I the coming months. Great news came out of Illinois and Hawaii as both states are on track to legalise same-sex marriage. Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois has said that he’ll sign a same-sex marriage bill into law on the 20^th of November. Governor Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii said he will sign the corresponding Hawaiian bill after the state senate votes on it a second time. In Oregon the gay rights movement only needs 6,286 more signatures to put same-sex marriage on the ballot in November in 2014. Ohio also has a petition to legalise same-sex marriage but unfortunately they have no revealed how many signatures they have gotten. In Michigan a district court judge has agreed to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban in February 2014. Suits have also been filed in Arkansas, Kentucky, Texas and Pennsylvania. Following their success at defeating the same-sex marriage ban in California, the American Foundation for Equal Rights has stated that its next target will be Virginia.

In Australia, the Australian Capital Territory (aka Canberra) became the first Australian jurisdiction to legalise same-sex marriage. Unfortunately the conservative government has said it will try and block the legislation. More good news came out of Ireland where the government announced that a referendum would be held in 2015 on the issue of same-sex marriage. It is almost certain to pass, when this happens Ireland will become the first country to legalise same-sex marriage through a referendum. Ireland is one of only two European Atlantic Coast countries to not have legal same-sex marriage (the other being Germany), although several sub-national jurisdictions have also not legalised it.

In the Scottish Parliament the bill to legalise same-sex marriage passed through the Equal Opportunities Committee very easily and now awaits a vote by the main parliament. It will have to go through three more votes before it actually becomes law.

The Structure of the Chinese State

US Off Year Elections

Firstly I'd like to apologise for the long hiatus. I have had several deadlines this week at University which took up all my time. Now, onto the elections.

Several elections took place yesterday in the United States with unsurprising results.

New York City voted for a new mayor yesterday, and for the first time since the 1980's, they chose a Democrat. Not just any Democrat, a populist progressive Democrat. Bill de Blasio managed to tap into two key issues  in New Yorkers' minds; rampant inequality and racial profiling. New York has grown increasingly unequal, especially under the mayoralty of Michael Bloomberg. de Blasio promised that he would work hard to defend the poorer neighbourhoods and reduce inequality. The second issue was racial profiling, NYC's policy of "stop and frisk" is extremely unpopular with certain sections of the city. What the policy means is that the police can stop anyone they like and frisk them, no warrant or reason required. One of the reasons this is so controversial (other than the obvious 4th amendment civil liberties violations) is the racial aspect. Black people make up 23.4% of NYC's population yet 53% of people stopped and frisked are black. Latinos make up 29.3% of NYC whilst they account for 33.7% of stop and frisk. White people on the other hand? They make up 47.3% of NYC but only 13.3% of the population. All this and only 10% are actually guilty of a crime. The policy has infuriated minorities and de Blasio's promise to end it helped him a lot.

In the general election de Blasio trounced Republican nominee Joe Lhota 73-24!

Moving one state south to New Jersey and you find another important race. Incumbent Republican, Chris Christie, was vying for a second term. Democratic nominee Barbara Buono tried to unseat him by bringing up political issues which New Jerseyans and Christie opposed each other. She tried to make hay out of Christie's opposition to gay marriage and his veto of a gun safety bill earlier in the year. Alas it was to no avail and Buono was defeated 61-38. Elections for New Jersey's Senate changed nothing and in the Assembly Republicans may gain two seats, but both are going to recounts.

Virginia was the real battle ground with the governorship and attorney general's office being heavily contested. It was close throughout the night but eventually Democrat Terry McAuliffe pulled ahead and beat the Republican Ken Cuccinelli 48-45. The Libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, did quite well for a third party candidate, gaining 6.6% of the vote. The race for lieutenant governor was not well contested with Democrat Ralph Northam easily beating Republican E.W. Jackson 55-45. The really close race was the attorney general's race, so close that it still hasn't been called! Republican Mark Obenshain holds the narrowest of leads over Democrat Mark Herring, leading him by a mere 286 votes of 2,198,558 vast! Naturally there will be a recount.

The main issue of the campaign was social issues. Cuccinelli is a Tea Party guy with virulent anti-gay and anti-women views. The only reason he didn't do worse is that McAuliffe is also unpopular in Virginia. This goes a long way to explaining with Sarvis did so well, many moderates and independents were unhappy with both parties' candidates.

These were the most important races of the night, but a special shout out has to go to the 11 counties in northern Colorado who were voting on whether to secede from the state. The motion failed, not that success would have mattered as any new state needs the permission of Congress to join the Union, something that will not be happening any time soon. 

America Has No Right To Be Embarrassed

The revelations of the extent of American spying has thoroughly embarrassed the Obama administration.

The original revelations that the NSA was spying on ordinary people and taking a drag net approach to internet information didn't embarrass them at all. They were just furious that the public had found out about their spying as it would mean that the programs might be properly scrutinised. What has really embarrassed the US is the revelations that the NSA had spied on the allies of the US. It was discovered that the NSA had bugged European Union offices in Brussels, infuriating the US' European allies. This week it was revealed that the US had tapped the phone of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, needless to say Merkel was very unhappy. She called in the US ambassador and told him "frankly" to stop tapping her phone. What an awkward conversation that must have been for Obama.

Naturally this has raised tensions between the two countries. Things can only get worse for the President as not all of Edward Snowden's stolen information has been released.

To be honest I don't feel sorry at all for Obama or the American government. If they didn't want to be embarrassed then they shouldn't have spied on their allies. The revelation of Merkel's phone being tapped really shows that nobody is safe from the NSA. Who else have they spied on; Blair? Sarkozy? People within the American government? 

The Shutdown Ends

The shutdown has finally ended, much to the relief of the American people and to the thousands of federal workers who had been furloughed during the crisis. In terms of partisan politics, the Democratic Party certainly ‘won’. In polls Democrats are consistently ahead and liked a lot more than the Republicans.

Hopefully the Democrats and Obama have learnt a lot from this crisis. They finally said no to the Republicans and refused to negotiate with their brinkmanship tricks and look how well it turned out. They won the policy fight and devastated the Republican Party’s popularity. Perhaps in the future Democrats will start winning instead of losing consistently.

Unfortunately some Democrats have taken this win too far and headed into rabidly radical territory. A petition has been set up that’s been going round on the liberal blogs and facebook page calling for the arrest of Republican leaders on the charge of sedition. The petition, started on moveon.org, reads as follows:

“I call on the Justice Department of the United States of America to arrest Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and other decision-making House Republican leaders for the crime of seditious conspiracy against the United States of America.”

Republicans absolutely need to be punished for what they did to the United States when they shutdown the government, but you can’t do that by arresting them – you do it through the ballot box. Arresting politicians for sedition has all the hallmarks of a dictatorship, not a democracy. Anyone who signs this petition cannot call themselves a liberal or a supporter for Democracy. If you really feel that strongly about what the Republicans did, then volunteer to help the Democrats in 2014 or organise a petition to have them recalled. Arresting them is not the answer.

The Rapid Rise and Decline of the Far Right (Hopefully)

When times are hard, people turn to extremes. This was very evident following the 1929 Wall Street Crash, all across the world people looked for alternatives to the system that had just destroyed their lives. Some went to the communists and others went to the fascists. Without a doubt WWII can be directly linked to the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Fast forward 79 years to 2008 and you find yourself in the midst of another economic catastrophe, again Wall Street has failed. People once again were forced to the extremes, but this time it is all very different. Unlike in 1929, only the far-right seems to have really made gains, the ranks of communists and socialists have barely increased at all whilst across the world the far-right has made fantastic gains!

 In the European elections in 2009 the BNP managed to gain two seats. In last year’s election in Greece the neo-Nazi party, Golden Dawn, managed to win 21 seats in Greece’s parliament. In France the National Front candidate, Marine Le Pen, took 20% of the votes in the first round. In Italy the Northern League has helped to form a right-wing coalition! In America the Tea Party movement sprang up following the election of Barack Obama. There are a few non-economic reasons for their rise, immigration is usually a major campaigning tool for the far-right, and that isn’t exactly a new issue.

Yet, thankfully, the tide appears to be turning, at least in some countries. In the UK the BNP is already falling apart, in the 2010 General Election they failed to gain any seats. In the 2012 London Assembly elections they lost their one MLA. The next European elections in 2014 should see their success in 2009 reversed.

In the states, the popularity of the Tea Party seems to be dwindling. Although they are still a vocal minority, only 21% of Americans in a recent poll actually approve of the Tea Party.

In Greece the government appears to be finally cracking down on Golden Dawn. Six of their MPs have been arrested, including the leader of the party, Nikolaos Michaloliakos, and the deputy leader, Christos Pappas. The Party was the most neo-Nazi of all the new movement, actively advocating racial superiority. Most other parties across the West were more subtle when it came to being that extreme.

The next big test for the far-right will be the 2014 European Elections. How many seats the far right gets in the European Parliament will be extremely telling when election time comes. Let’s hope they fail – and don’t forget to vote!

Day Six of the Shutdown

Day Six of the Shutdown

The shutdown of the US federal government is now in its sixth day and it seems as if there is no end in sight. As I’ve already written about, the fight is over whether or not to fund the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. Many pundits have been predicting a short shutdown as it is deeply unpopular with the American people. Unfortunately this has not been true and the shutdown continues.

There has been a lot going on in the last few days that you should know about and I will endeavour to explain them to you.

Two factions are beginning to form in the Republican Party over this debate. On one side you have radicals like Ted Cruz and Michele Bachmann who are enjoying the shutdown and want it to continue as long as possible. Opposing them as the likes of John McCain and Peter King (when you make Peter King look like a moderate you know you’ve gone too far). Now it’s not like any of these more ‘moderate’ Republicans actually like Obamacare, they just recognise that staging a government shutdown to try and defund it is political suicide. The latter group’s worries are entirely justified; polling consistently puts opposition to the strategy at around 70% and Republicans are blamed more for the shutdown than the Democrats. In ways you also have a third faction, not radical enough to enjoy the shutdown but too scared to speak out against the Tea Party. If you were to split the 232 House Republicans into the factions, about 20 would be in the vocally anti-shutdown faction, around 40 in the radical faction and the rest form the silent majority. Think about that for a moment, if only 40 Republicans want the government shutdown out of 232, then why is it happening? The simple answer is fear and gerrymandering. The radicals here have come from districts that have been gerrymandered to the extreme and so they know they will never face the wrath of the voters, no matter how unpopular the policy. The silent majority fear the wrath of the Tea Party, if they do not do the bidding of the Tea Party then they face a challenge within the party and they lose their job.

John Boehner, the speaker of the House, also is deeply unpopular in his party. Earlier this year he narrowly was re-elected as speaker with just six votes to spare! If he upsets the Tea Party then he risks losing his job. John Boehner could end the shutdown any time he wanted. If he brought a government funding bill (with no mention of the Affordable Care Act) to the floor of the House, it would pass.

If you have been listening to any Republican over the past few days then you will have heard the talking point “Obama won’t negotiate”. As a tactic it has been working well and people are beginning to ask questions about this. The truth however is very different, the Democrats have already compromised! When you hear talk of a “clean continuing resolution” (sometimes referred to as a “clean CR”), what that means is; a bill to fund the government without anything else attached. So since the Democrats want a clean CR and Republicans want one that defunds the Affordable Care Act, Republicans argue that there has to be some sort of compromise. Sounds reasonable, right? Wrong. The clean CR is already a massive compromise for the Democrats as the funding levels provided are several hundred billion dollars lower than the Democrats want, almost exactly in line with the Republicans. So next time a Republican tells you the Democrats won’t compromise, you tell them the truth.

Another note of frustration for much of the general public is the fact that Congress still gets paid during the shutdown, while other federal workers are not paid. Some Congressmen have decided to give up their pay, or donate it to charity, as long as the shutdown is in effect. To be honest this doesn’t really matter to them as most are incredibly wealthy already. Those refusing pay include Harry Reid, Ted Cruz and John Boehner. Yet not all of members of Congress have given up their pay, some of the reasons are laughably ridiculous and show just how out of touch the current Congress is! Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (R-NC) was quoted as saying “I need my paycheque, that’s the bottom line”, considering her husband is a surgeon, need might not be the word she was looking for.

Members of Congress get paid $174,000 per annum, which works out at $477 every day. If the shutdown goes on for a week, they get $3,339 for being incompetent, if it continues for a month (30 days) then they get $14,310 for being incompetent. And Congress wonders why its approval rating is at 10%?

What the coming week will bring us, I don’t know. The dynamics within the Republican Party are too difficult to predict. On the other hand I will happily predict that the Democrats will not buckle under the pressure and finally beat the Republicans in a policy debate on Capitol Hill. 

The US Government has Shutdown

The federal government shut down at around midnight last night after Washington failed to pass a bill to fund the government. The fight was all over the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and whether or not to defund it. The Republicans were demanding that Obamacare be defunded or at least delayed. Naturally this was something that the Democrats were never going to agree to.

Quite what happens next, nobody really knows. Most pundits are predicting that the charade won't last long. The move is very unpopular and Republicans are getting the blame. A CNN poll showed 46% of Americans blaming Republicans for the shutdown, 36% for Obama and 13% for both. The longer they hold out, the worse it will get. If the Speaker of the house, John Boehner, were to table a bill that funded the whole government, it would pass as there are enough Republicans who support the measure.

It will be interesting to see how this all will effect the 2014 mid-term elections. The President's party should struggle as mid-terms never play out well for the incumbent. The likely outcome at the moment is a Republican House and a very tight Senate. If Republicans keep this shutdown for too long it could seriously hurt their chances. If they do the same with the debt ceiling it would be catastrophic.

Ed Miliband's Fantastic Speech

Ed Miliband gave the greatest speech of his career so far at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton. During the speech he made a number of electoral promises for 2015 and beyond. Here are a few of these promises:

1 million green jobs

Tax hike for 88,000 big businesses

Tax cut for 1,500,000 small businesses

Every primary school should have breakfast and after school clubs

Electricity and gas prices would be frozen for 20 months

Labour would build 200,000 social houses every year

Votes for 16/17 year olds

Bedroom tax would be repealed

Although that only seems like a few promises, it is still a year and a half from the next general election so expect a lot more at next year’s conference. It will be the last before the 2015 general election. The speech was very well received in the conference hall, he got four standing ovations during the speech as well as one before and one after.

Many people, particularly in the media and on the right, like to portray Ed Miliband as dorky and uncharismatic, as someone who has no social skills. Well let me tell them that they are categorically wrong. He gives fantastic speeches and is extremely personable and friendly. When I wrote about Ed Miliband last year I was totally wrong. He is a strong leader and will lead Labour to success in 2015.

Watch Them Crash and Burn

Today Republicans have gotten into a fight that they will lose and that should devastate their popularity. Already House Republicans have voted to repeal Obamacare on 41 separate occasions, naturally the attempts never went anywhere due to the Democratic Senate and Democratic President. Now they have tried a different tactic, one which the Senate cannot ignore. Periodically Congress needs to pass a bill funding the federal government, if a bill doesn't pass then the government shuts down. So naturally, you want a bill to pass. House Republicans have other ideas.

They passed a bill today that funds all of the federal government except it bans funds going to Obamacare. The bill passed basically along party lines 230-189 (one Republican nay and two Democratic yeas) and now it heads to the Senate. This isn't the first time Republicans have taken the country hostage, remember the debt ceiling crisis of 2011? The problem for Republicans is that this time there is no compromise possible, they will lose on this issue. Obamacare is the signature achievement of Obama's first term, he will never sign the bill that defunds it. As well as that there is the problem of the Democratic Senate. They would need to convince Harry Reid to bring it up for a vote and they would need to convince at least five Democratic Senators to vote for it, assuming there was no filibuster. If there was a filibuster then they would need the support of 14 Democrats, ignoring the fact that several Republicans including John McCain do not support the bill! This. Will. Fail.

Republicans may one day repeal Obamacare but I am doubtful of their chances. To repeal Obamacare they would need control of the House, presidency and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. For a little historical perspective Republicans have not had this since the great depression.

If the Republicans do shut down the federal government, they will be devastated in the 2014 midterms. 

The Fallout of DOMA

When the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional it had wide ranging consequences for states with and without equal marriage. In the 13 states and DC where same-sex marriage is legal, same-sex couples who were legally married became eligible for over 1100 benefits from the federal government! Obviously this had wide ranging consequences for those states with same-sex marriage but is also had a large affect on the six states with civil unions, and even those with zero recognition.

Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada and Oregon all have legalised civil unions. This effectively gave same-sex couples in these states equal access to state benefits as opposite-sex couples, usually only withholding the word marriage. The Supreme Court ruling in  June matters a lot in those states as now there is a difference between civil unions and full marriage. The federal government doesn't recognise civil unions and so withholds 1100 benefits from same-sex couples in the above six states that it doesn't withhold from those in states with full marriage.

Previously supporters of gay rights in civil union states didn't feel an urgent need to legalise full marriage as all state benefits could be provided by civil unions. Now gay rights activists can turn round to supporters and tell them that they need to be more proactive when it comes to marriage as now there is a very real difference between marriage and civil unions.

We can already tell this has indeed changed things. In Hawaii, Governor Neil Abercrombie has announced that he will recall the state legislature for a special session on the 28th of October to vote on a same-sex marriage bill. Most people predict that it will pass as the governor would be unlikely to recall the legislature if he didn't have enough votes. As well as that the Hawaiian legislature is the most Democratic in the country. The house is 86% Democratic (44 Democrats, seven Republicans) and in the Senate it is an incredible 96% Democratic with 24 Democrats and only one Republican.

Illinois is the only other state where the legislature may be spurred into action. A same-sex marriage bill passed the Democratic state Senate 34-21 but was never called to vote in the House. With the veto session looming it could actually pass the legislature and get it signed into law by Governor Quinn.

Hawaii and Illinois are the only states who are likely to pass same-sex marriage in the next few months. Of the 38 states who do not have legal same-sex marriage, 30 have a constitutional ban on it, which means that the legislature in those states cannot legalise it. Of the remaining states that are liberal, Pennsylvania is completely controlled by Republicans whilst New Mexico and New Jersey have Republican governors that are opposed to same-sex marriage. The other three states without a constitutional ban are Indiana, West Virginia and Wyoming which are all very conservative.

Yet state legislatures are not the only way to legalise same-sex marriage. The judiciary and referendums are also means. At the moment organisations in Ohio and Oregon are collecting signatures to try and put marriage equality on the ballot. In Oregon, Oregon United for Marriage began collecting signatures on the 26th of July, exactly one month after the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA. At the time of writing it has gotten 80,764 signatures of the 116,284 required to put it on the ballot. Unfortunately I can't find anything on the progress the Ohio petition has made.

The DOMA decision has also driven gay rights activists to the courts. Already suits have been filed across the US from New Mexico to Michigan, already judges have cited the DOMA decision as a reason why they gave pro-gay decisions. 

No Intervention?

It all seemed set, the US was going to bomb Syria with French help and without the British. Although Obama decided to ask Congress, he refused to say whether or not he would bomb Syria if Congress said no.  Then Secretary of State, John Kerry, made some off the cuff remarks whilst in London that changed everything. In response to a reporter's question Kerry said that the only way Syria could prevent the bombings would be to hand over all its chemical weapons.

Now all of a sudden 'peace' seems to be an option. The Russians and Assad jumped at the opportunity to prevent the strikes. If Assad does hand all his chemical weapons to the international community then this saga will have been a success (in a way). It was the credible threat of force that made Assad agree to this and could save Obama a lot of face. Intervention in Syria is unpopular and Obama's reputation was on the line. Now he may have removed chemical weapons from Syria without a single bomb dropped.

Yet we have to be careful, as the old Russian proverb says; trust, but verify. As we do not know how many chemical weapons Assad has, it will be difficult to confirm that he has gotten rid of all of his them. We must not get overexcited either, the situation in Syria is terrible at the moment; after all it is a Civil War. It won't be easy getting UN inspectors into Syria to remove the chemical weapons and even harder for them to prove that they have taken them all. Nonetheless this must be done to get rid of some of these horrifying weapons.

Don't get me wrong, I still favour intervention. But my will to intervene has very little to do with chemical weapons. I've been advocating for a no fly zone for a while now to even the fight between rebels and the Assad regime. Removing chemical weapons will not do this but it still a good move and I applaud it.

Same-Sex Marriage Legislation Worldwide

Same-sex marriage is legal in only a handful of countries, but the number is rapidly expanding. In the parliaments of five nations full same-sex marriage rights are being debating and in a further 12 countries some form of same-sex civil unions are being debated. As well as countries, same-sex marriage or civil unions are being debated in sub-national jurisdictions of the USA, Mexico and Australia as well as the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar.

Countries debating full same-sex marriage rights:

Finland: As the only Nordic country that has not legalised same-sex marriage, it is a surprise that legislation has taken as long as it has. The two most recent polls in Finland put support at 57% and 58% by polling firms YouGov and Taloustutkimus respectively. A same-sex marriage bill was voted down 9-8 in the Legal Affairs Committee but a citizens' initiative will force all of parliament to debate and vote on the bill. The results are expected later this year. In 2001 Finland passed a registered partnerships bill 99-84 under the left-wing Social Democrats and expanded in 2009 108-29 under the Centre Party. The current government is the centre right National Coalition and the next elections are in 2015.

Ireland: According to most polls of the Irish public, support for same-sex marriage is consistently above 70%. This bodes well for a referendum on the issue in 2014. This means that Ireland will almost certainly have marriage equality.

Italy: As it is one of the more socially conservative countries in Western Europe, it doesn't even have civil unions. Polls in Italy consistently show that a majority of Italians do not support full marriage rights. The Catholic Church has also been very influential in preventing the legalisation of gay unions. Bills have been introduced attempting to legalise either same-sex marriage or civil unions. The marriage bill is almost certain to fail as only three parties, representing only 22.2% of the 2013 electoral vote support it. Civil unions ave more hope as the largest party also supports them, bringing the percentage to 55.3.

Luxembourg: The only thing surprising about Luxembourg is that it hasn't already passed same-sex marriage. In 2004 it passed partnerships and expanded them in 2010. A recent poll by Polimonitor put support for same-sex marriage at 83%! It looked likely that same-sex marriage would finally pass this year but early elections to be held in October have delayed its inevitable passage.

Nepal: The country is in the midst if trying to draft a new constitution and the government wanted to expand to same-sex couples. Unfortunately negotiations broke down and the parliament was dissolved until new elections. If same-sex marriage were to be passed. Nepal would become the first Asian nation to legalise same-sex marriage.

Sub-national jurisdictions debating full same-sex marriage rights.

Mexico

- Coahuila: Back in 20078 the state legalised a "civil pact of solidarity" aka civil unions 20-13. It is not currently debating whether to join Mexico City and Quintana Roo and become the third Mexican state to legalise same-sex marriage.
- Oaxaca is also vying to be the third state to legalise full same-sex marriage rights. Unlike Coahuila it has no previous legislative history on the issue.
- Yucatán is the final Mexican state trying to legalise same-sex marriage, but unlike the other two states, Yucatán already has a same-sex marriage ban.The ban's legality is currently making its way through the courts.

Australia

- Canberra: By far Canberra has been the most progressive Australian state/territory in regards to gay rights. In 1994 it passed the first unregistered cohabitation act in Australia and expanded it in 2004. Canberra tried to go further in 2006 by passing civil unions but the federal government overturned it, in 2007 it tried to pass a civil partnerships bill but again the federal government said no. Finally the federal government stopped meddling and in 2008 it legalised civil partnerships and then expanded them in 2009. In 2012 it legalised civil unions and is hoping for full marriage rights in 2013.
- New South Wales: The state passed an unregistered cohabitation act in 1999, which it expanded in 2002 and 2008. In 2010 it passed a relationship register bill overwhelmingly, 32-5 in the upper house and 62-9 in the lower house. A bill to legalise same-sex marriage has been proposed in the upper house this year, I don't know whether or not it will pass.
- South Australia: In 2004 an attempt to legalise civil unions failed in the lower house but in 2006 domestic partnership bill passed. In July of this year a marriage bill was introduced but went nowhere. I am not confident that it will pass.
- Victoria: The state passed unregistered cohabitation way back in 2001 and a relationship register was created in 2008 with strong majorities in both houses (29-10 in the upper house and 54-24 in the lower house).
- Western Australia: The largest Australian state passed an unregistered cohabitation bill in 2002 but hasn't made any more since. Currently a bill to legalise same-sex marriage is lingering in the upper house.

Countries debating legalising civil unions:

Bolivia: The only legislative history regarding gay unions in Bolivia is a 2009 referendum which banned same-sex marriage. The referendum passed with 61.43% of the vote. This doesn't necessarily bode badly for the bill's chance as a lot more strides have been taken on LGBT rights in the last four years. It is also important to note that civil unions consistently get higher levels of support than same-sex marriage. I couldn't find any polling on Bolivia and very few articles online.

Chile: Unfortunately in Chile there are attempts to ban same-sex marriage by adding an amendment to the constitution. At the same time there are attempts to create civil unions, legislation passed out of committee in April in a 4-1 vote.

Croatia: Unregistered cohabitation passed back in 2003, this year is a life partnership agreement has been proposed. Croatia's recent accession to the EU has helped to liberalise Croatia's attitude to same-sex marriage.

Cuba: The country's constitution currently bans same-sex marriage but no civil unions. There have been previous attempts to legalise civil unions in 2007 and 2009 that failed. It Cuba were to legalise civil unions this year it would become the first Caribbean state to recognise any form of same-sex civil unions.

Cyprus: A civil partnership bill has been proposed in Cyprus but I am sceptical about its ability to pass. The Greek Orthodox Church is extremely powerful in Cyprus and has consistently opposed the expansion of gay rights. The likelihood of it passing is slim to none.

Estonia: A bill has been introduced in Estonia that would create a form of same-sex union. Of the four main parties in the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) only the Social Democratic Party supports it. Of the Coalition Government the Reform Party is neutral whilst the 'Pro Patria and Res Publica Union' opposes it. The final party in the parliament, the Centre Party is also neutral on it. There is also a significant ethnic divide between Estonians and Russians, the former favour legalising same-sex marriage whilst the latter is staunchly opposed.

Israel: Certainly the most gay friendly place in the Middle East (it wouldn't be difficult) but Israel does not recognise any sort of same-sex union. according to a 2009 poll, 61% of Israelis supported full marriage rights whilst 31% were opposed. Unfortunately a same-sex marriage bill failed 11-39 in the Knesset (Israeli Parliament). This year a civil union bill was introduced and has yet to be voted upon.

Malta: Although Malta has never voted on gay union legislation, all the major parties have said that they support some form of recognition for gay couples. The new Labour government is currently trying to legalise same-sex union.

Poland: As it is one of the nine European countries that has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, it is unlikely to legalise same-sex marriage. To make matters worse only around 25% of Poles support it. Nonetheless there are attempts to create a registered partnership for gay couples. Unfortunately it failed earlier this year, but has been re-introduced for another go.

Thailand: Historically the country has been very accepting of LGBT peoples but does not recognise same-sex unions. Recently there have been attempts to recognise gay couples, currently a bill to legalise civil partnerships is making its way through the Thai Parliament.

Vietnam: Since only 37% of the public support same-sex marriage it is unlikely that it will grant full marriage rights. Nonetheless the government is trying to give some form of rights to cohabitating same-sex couples.

Sub-national jurisdictions debating civil unions:

Campeche (Mexico): Only two states have legal civil unions. Campeche is vying to be the third.
Gibraltar: As one of the few Western European jurisdictions to have no recognition of same-sex couples, it is well behind the time. This year the government has introduced legislation to create civil unions.

End the War on Drugs Now - Why the World Should Legalise Drugs

The worldwide war on drugs has been an epic failure. It has torn apart the lives of millions of people and drug usage rates are rising, not falling. In Mexico the drug war has claimed the lives of around 100,000 people and in the US roughly 330,000 people are in prison for drug offenses, 48% of all people in federal prisons. Despite the generations’ long crackdown on drugs, in 2009 data from the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) says 39,000 people died from drug overdoses (in the US). It should be immensely clear to political leaders and civilians globally that the War on Drugs has been a disaster of epic proportions. It is time for a new strategy and I favour legalisation. Here I will outlay 10 reasons for legalising all drugs (bar a few).

1.  Nobody doubts that drugs can be extremely damaging to a person’s health especially when they are addicted. Legalising drugs will make it easier for people to get help as it will remove the fear of arrest or a criminal record. It will also make it easier for families or friends to get counselling for loved ones.

2. Alcohol is legal. Alcoholism is very damaging to society, just like other drug addictions. How can we argue that alcohol should be legal whilst other drugs are illegal? The reason is that alcohol is deeply rooted in European culture (and the culture of the Americas where many Europeans migrated to). Tens of thousands of people die every year from alcohol poisoning and many more are addicted. According to the NHS 9% of men and 4% of women are alcoholics. Alcohol is also frequently linked to violent behaviour and aggressiveness, whilst many illegal drugs have no such link.

3. One of the bonuses with legalising drugs concerns policing. Police spend many hours dealing with drug smuggling as well as possession and the paperwork that goes along with it. Legalising drugs would give police more time to deal with serious crime. Now don’t get me wrong, drug cartels are serious criminals, but they do a lot more than drug smuggling; racketeering, murder etc. Reducing the time police spend on the small fry would make it easier to get the big fry. Although a police raid might only last one minute, preparing for it takes hours of meticulous planning. As police gather information about who is who and what exactly they are doing. There are also many hours spent after arrest interrogating the suspects.

4. Another benefit would be to the judiciary. By legalising drugs, the judiciary would no longer have to waste time and resources on dealing with drug possession. This would reduce the length of time that people would have to wait for trials and make the whole system more efficient.

5. Furthermore, legalising drugs would benefit prisons systems. Around the world prisons are overcrowded and much of this is due to people with drug convictions. Removing drug offenders from the list of people being sent to prison would mean the pressure would be significantly reduced. It would save taxpayers money as there would be fewer new prisons built. It is also a well known fact that prison usually makes people worse criminals. Sending drug offenders to prison usually backfires as they leave prisons in a worse shape than they entered. Sending them to prison is extra stupid considering how prisons are awash with drugs.

6. One of the benefits to legalising drugs is for the users. A lot of people die from overdoses, but not always from the drug they think they are taking. They might get cheated by their dealer who sells them a cheaper alternative that is more dangerous. You also have the problem of impurities in drugs that kill or injure people. By legalising drugs and regulating them, people will know that the drug they have intended to buy is the one they have actually bought. Thereby reducing the deaths caused by cheap alternatives and impurities. I mean, when was the last time you heard of someone buying alcohol from a legitimate seller that turned out to be something else?

7. Ever heard of legal highs? These are new drugs that appear on the market every so often and are perfectly legal. Eventually law enforcement catches up and illegalises them, but by that time there is a new legal high on the market.  This creates a constant cycle where law enforcement is always one step behind the drug cartels. This further proves that the War on Drugs is a failure. To make matters worse, legal highs are normally more dangerous than many illegal drugs. If drugs such as cocaine and ecstasy were legalised, people would be more likely do take these, less dangerous, drugs than the legal highs.

-- The next three points I think are the most important reasons for legalising drugs, the big three if you will –

8.  Supposedly the only things that are certain in life are death and taxes, well when it comes to illegal drugs, there are no taxes! Legalising drugs would create a windfall for treasuries worldwide and considering the financing problems of most governments, it would be a welcome benefit. You would also have the tax on drugs higher than normal and you could use some of that money to help battle drugs by funding more drug rehabilitation centres and hospitals.

9. Freedom. Plain and simple. I don’t understand why one person gets to tell other people what they can and cannot do to their own bodies. If I want to smoke marijuana or take ecstasy, who are you to stop me? Why do you get to make that choice for me?  A lot of people argue that it is for my own good, I don’t know what’s best for me. But alcohol is legal, so is self-harm, and they damage the body. With self-harm and alcoholism we try and help people affected, why the double standard? Drug addicts need help, not a prison sentence and a criminal record.

10. Drug cartels. All around the world the drug trade is controlled by criminal gangs, mafias and cartels. They use the massive profits to fund murder, theft, torture and general lawlessness. Legalising drugs worldwide would take away most of their money, helping to reduce organised crime around the planet. This would help save lives and spread peace. If drugs were legal, organised crime would be a thing of the past.

I hope I have helped you understand why we must legalise drugs. Every day we wait, more people die, the drug cartels make more money and more people’s lives are needlessly torn apart. There are, of course, legitimate reasons for keeping drugs illegal, but while you keep alcohol legal, your argument falls flat. I have seen the affects of alcoholism on a family, and trust me, it is devastating. There should be exceptions for drugs that make you hyper aggressive, such as bath salts, as the affect on wider society is simply too great.

Thankfully the tide appears to changing in regards to drugs. In the USA 10 states have decriminalised marijuana, 17 states have legalised it for medical purposes (nine states have done both) and last year Colorado and Washington legalised it for recreational purposes. In 2012, after a yearlong inquiry, a group of MPs in the UK called for marijuana to be legalised. In the Netherlands drug laws are complex but making progress.

Most of the advancement that has been made in the War on Drugs is in regards to marijuana, this is because the drug is not dangerous at all. It reduces stress, you cannot overdose and it has medical purposes. All of these are qualities that alcohol has the opposite of.  It will be a long time before serious progress is made in regards to other illegal drugs; the argument that they damage your health too much is valid and true.

Legality of marijuana worldwide
source: www.wikipedia.org

Legalising drugs must be done across the globe for it to be effective. For example; if the UK legalises drugs then where will it get the drugs from? The climate of the UK makes certain drugs difficult to grow and so it would need to import the drugs. If all other countries keep drugs illegal then only drug cartels would be able to get drugs to the UK, meaning the affect on drug cartels globally would be minimal. Even in the UK the effect on drug cartels would not be as great as you might hope. Since the demand for certain drugs would be greater than the legally available supply, drug cartels would still be able to make profits by importing drugs from countries where drugs are still illegal but can be easily cultivated.

The War on Drugs has been a global disaster, so it requires global solutions. We must end the War on Drugs now.

Britain Won't Intervene

Syria has dominated the headlines over the past few days and for good reason. It was announced that the UN inspectors would be finished and out of Syria by Saturday, the BBC revealed a new regime-committed atrocity, and France and America will likely intervene in Syria. But the biggest news came out of the UK.

Last night the House of Commons rejected David Cameron's proposal that we should have some form of limited intervention in Syria. This was despite Cameron conceding that intervention would have to follow the UN inspectors' report, that there would be a second vote in the House of Commons and we should at least try to go through the UN. The pro-intervention side said that we must show Assad that we are serious and that intervention would be perfectly legal from a humanitarian standpoint. Unfortunately Labour won the vote, 285 against intervention, 272 in favour. This means that Britain will not be able to intervene in Syria and it sends the message to Assad that Britain will not act against him if he uses chemical weapons again.

As this vote was taking place last night, the BBC was releasing evidence of a new atrocity in Syria. A Syrian air-force jet dropped, what is believed to be, some form of incendiary bomb on a school playground. The BBC reported that the injuries from nearby victims was consistent with that of napalm. So far, ten have died.

Meanwhile the US has revealed that it is certain that Assad used chemical weapons earlier this month. The report claimed that the US knows exactly when the attack took place and where the chemicals were launched from. The report claims that 1,429 people were killed and 426 were children. So the US and France are intervening, whilst Britain sits on the sidelines and Russia raises tensions by sending a warship to the eastern Mediterranean.

Watch this space folks.

New Mexico's Complex Gay Marriage Laws

New Mexico is the only US state with no laws regarding same-sex marriage, it does not ban them, nor does it make them legal. The lack of clarity surrounding same-sex marriage means that it's up to individual county clerks to decide whether to grant marriage licences to same-sex couples. Although some country courts have demanded that their clerks issue the licenses. At the time of writing six counties in New Mexico issue same-sex marriage licenses, representing just over half of New Mexico's population. So far Bernalillo, Santa Fe and Taos issue them under court order whilst Doña Ana, San Miguel and Valencia are issuing them at the discretion of their county clerks. 

Naturally everyone in New Mexico wants some clarity on the law, and soon. This is unlikely to come from the legislative branch as although Democrats control both houses of the state legislature, the governor, Susana Martinez is a Republican and opposed to same-sex marriage. This means that all eyes are on the state Supreme Court to decide this issue. Yesterday New Mexico's 33 county clerks voted unanimously to seek the guidance of the state Supreme Court. A ruling could be several weeks away. The decision whether to make New Mexico the 14th state to legalise same-sex marriage now rests with the five justices on New Mexico's Supreme Court. 

Intervention is Coming

It looks like the world may finally take action in Syria, despite the conflict starting almost 900 days ago. The rhetoric has began to get really angry across the West as the evidence for a chemical attack became more and more concrete. On the 25th Medecins San Frontieres announced that they had treated around 3,600 people that showed signs of 'neurotoxic symptoms', later 355 died.

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, said in a press conference that the attack was "a moral obscenity that should shock the world." He also added; "make no mistake, President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people." According to current reports, the US military reaction will occur in the next few days, before Congress returns from holiday.

In Britain the reaction has been even stronger with David Cameron returning early from his holiday and recalling Parliament on Thursday. Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said in an interview that Britain would be prepared to intervene in Syria without UN authorisation - by far the strongest language so far.

In Russia and Syria, the opinion is very different. The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, called an unauthorised intervention "a very grave violation of international law." The Russians have also claimed that there never even was a chemical attack - a ridiculous claim considering the overwhelming evidence.

So we have finally arrived at the point where Western military action is not only a possibility, but likely. France and Britain seem very willing to intervene in some form without a UN resolution. The USA is certainly a lot more timid about intervening but the chemical attacks appear to have persuaded America to act. We don't know quite how the West will react, it will almost certainly be a coordinated response, most likely through NATO. Stay tuned folks, the next few days will be very important. 

Proof that Birtherism = Racism

When Obama became President, a "scandal" started brewing, people started to believe that Obama was not eligible to be President. The idea was that Obama was born in Kenya, rather than Hawaii and therefore, according to the constitution, could not be President. These people, known as 'birthers', were labelled as racist by much of the left as many felt it wasn't a coincidence that the first black president was the first to have his eligibility questioned. Eventually Obama relented and released his birth certificate, this didn't stop the birthers who claimed it was fake.

Recent murmurs that freshman Senator Ted Cruz might run for President in 2016 has re-ignited the birthers in a different way. The Tea Party had always been associated with the birther movement, due to the overt racism of much of the Tea Party. Now the Tea Party is getting excited that Cruz might run for President as he is radically conservative and would push their agenda. But wait! Cruz was not born in America. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada and he admits it. So the same people who insisted that Obama was ineligible for President for being born in Kenya (or so they say) insist that Cruz is eligible despite being born in Canada. How do they justify this double standard? Well Cruz's mother was American, so that makes him eligible. This argument falls through when you realise that Obama's mother was also American, she was born in Kansas and raised all over the US.

So let me get this straight, Cruz was born to an American mother and a foreign father (he was Cuban) and is eligible for President. Yet Obama, who was born to an American mother and a foreign father is ineligible. To many this proves that the birthers are racist and they only opposed Obama because he was black.

Chemical Weapons Must Force West to Act

The crisis in Syria has (somehow) gotten even worse with more reports that the Assad regime has allegedly used chemical weapons. The accusations come as UN inspectors arrive in Syria to inspect its chemical weapons stockpile. The chemical weapon in question? Sarin gas, the same chemical that Saddam Hussein used against the Kurds in 1988. At the moment the reports are not verified, but there has been footage showing piles of dead bodies with no wounds, indicating some form of chemical weapons being deployed. The problem for the West is that verifying the use of sarin gas is extremely difficult, in 1988 it took four years to confirm its use and the compounds break-up rapidly.

I have been writing about the Syrian crisis for over a year and a half now and I feel that most posts boil down to the same storyline: Assad does something terrible, the West condemns it, Russia ignores it, Assad denies it and nothing changes. This post largely seems similar but there is a difference; the West (and Obama in particular) could have made the entire situation worse.

Earlier this year Western intelligence agencies confirmed that they had a "high degree of confidence" that Assad had used chemical weapons. This was met by the usual condemnation by the West and denial by Syria and Russia. The big question at the time was; what would the West do? Obama had called the use of chemical weapons a red line. So when Assad, according to the intelligence community, crossed the line, what did Obama do? Well he gave us a few good speeches and possibly did some minor things behind the scenes, but nothing overt. Obama's inaction turned out to be very important as then Assad knew that he could do anything he wanted, with little fear of Western retaliation. It emboldened him to use chemical weapons, which it looks like he just has.

By now we must realise that going through the UN is useless. Russia has a veto on the United Nations Security Council and US-Russia relations are at a low point over Snowden and Syria. The chances of a deal are low. The Western powers, in particular Britain, France and the US, must act without the UN. We must create a no-fly-zone to start with. We can use Turkey and Israel as our allies to help enforce it. Britain already has a large presence in the area due to massive bases at Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus and America has massive bases in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. This could be started very quickly, and every day we wait, more people die.

Journalism ≠ Terrorism

When Edward Snowden revealed the spying the US government had been conducting, it send shock-waves through the entire world. It was revealed that the US government had handed over data to some of its allies, including the UK. As in the US the revelations have upset the government greatly as now it has been forced to defend this horrifying and unnecessary invasion of privacy. Recent revelations show that the UK government has been cracking down on journalism to show its anger at Snowden, Glen Greenwald (the reporter who revealed the story) and the Guardian in which Greenwald published.

The UK government has attempted to scare journalists out of doing real reporting. The story starts in Berlin, where American journalist Laura Poitras is currently living. Poitras, like Greenwald, has revealed many cases of government misconduct when it comes to spying on its own citizens. This has forced Poitras to move to Germany to avoid the US government stealing her data that she is using in her new documentaries. Recently she has been working in conjunction with Glen Greenwald on government spying. So last week Greenwald's Brazilian partner, David Miranda, was visiting her and on his way home to Brazil, he passed through Heathrow Airport. This is where the story gets interesting; Miranda was held for nine hours by British police and had all his electronics seized. The legal justification for the nine hour detention? Schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act. Seriously, the Terrorism Act. What Miranda, Greenwald, Poitras and Snowden have been doing is not terrorism, it is journalism.

You may not like what they leak, you may not value their contribution, but you cannot possibly believe that what they are doing is terrorism. That is insane.

The Home Office and Number 10 have claimed that neither of them authorised the detention, but had prior warning that it was going to happen. The White House has also claimed that although the British informed them of their intention to detain Miranda, that they did not pressure the British in any way to do so.

I seriously dislike the current UK government, and the attitudes to privacy of previous UK governments, but I never thought that they would try and intimidate the press like they did here. I always prided myself in the fact that we had Jeremy Paxman and not Wolf Blitzer, that we had the Guardian and the BBC. Now I realise that government pressure on journalism is just as real as it is in the US, and I fear what it may do to our democracy.

Remember Cameron, journalism does NOT equal terrorism.

David Miranda (left) arriving in Brazil after his nine hour detention
meeting his partner Glen Greenwald (right)
source: www.mirror.co.uk

2014 Senate Elections Update

I posted about the 2014 Senate elections back in February, since plenty has changed since then I decided to make another post, updating you on how things are going down.

Kentucky - A lot has changed in Kentucky since February. Ashley Judd decided not to enter the race, but all is not lost for the Democrats! The current Secretary of State of Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes, has decided to run for Senate on the Democratic side. Current polling shows her and Senator McConnell with roughly equal amounts of support. To make matters worse for McConnell, he also has to worry about being primaried from the Tea Party. This means he will have to spend time, effort and, crucially, money trying to fend off this attack, when he really needs to concentrate on the attack from Grimes.

Maine - Much to the disappointment of Democrats, incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins has decided to run for re-election. This means that Democrats will probably be unable to flip the seat unless Collins gets successfully primaried by the Tea Party.

Massachusetts - As expected, Jeff Markey won the special election in June to replace John Kerry, beating the Republican candidate 55 - 45. This puts him in a strong position for 2014.

Michigan - Carl Levin's retirement made Republicans excited about the potential pick-up in the blue state. That excitement has since dissipated as they have been unable to recruit a strong candidate, whilst the Democrats have found a good candidate in Congressman Gary Peters. 

Montana - When I posted in February, Senator Max Baucus was going to run for re-election and so I was confident in predicting that Montana would stay blue. The problem is, Baucus has decided to retire. this would not have been a problem if former governor Brian Schweitzer had decided to run, but he has declined. (this indicates to me that he will run in the 2016 Presidential election). Regardless, this opens Montana to the Republicans.

New Jersey - Senator Frank Lautenberg was planning to retire in 2014, but unfortunately he died in June. Although you might not think this affects the race much, it could have serious implications for what happens in 2014. There will be a special election held in October of this year to replace Lautenberg. This means that in 2014 it will not be an open race, as there will be an incumbent Senator. Current polling puts Cory Booker (the Democratic nominee) well out in front of Steve Lonegan (the Republican nominee). A recent Quinnipiac poll puts Booker on 54% and Lonegan on 29%.

South Carolina - I did not write about South Carolina back in February as the races were largely uninteresting. Tim Scott was expected to easily win his special election and Lindsey Graham was expected to win his normal election. Unfortunately for Graham he is being primaried by the Tea Party as apparently he is "too moderate".

South Dakota - Incumbent Democratic Senator Tim Johnson has decided to retire, which creates a real pick-up opportunity in the red state. Currently the Democrats have been unable to recruit a strong candidate, making the state more likely to flip to the Republicans. Currently four Republicans are in the primary, if Democrats can identify the weakest candidate and help him win the primary (such as what they did with Todd Akin in Missouri), then it might give them a fighting chance.

This is the map going into the 2014 Senate elections.

This would be the best *possible* scenario for the Democrats, here they retain all the seats they are defending
and also manage to pick up Georgia, Kentucky and Maine.
This would make the Senate 58 Democrats - 42 Republicans.

This would be the best *possible* scenario for the Republicans. Here they would retain al the seats they are defending as well as picking up Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia!
This would mean the Senate would be 55 Republicans - 45 Democrats

Legality of Homosexual Acts Worldwide

In li­­ght of Russia moving backwards on gay rights, I have decided to look into how the world treats gays. In 123 countries homosexuality is legal, this accounts for 5,470,620,000 of the roughly 7.1 billion humans. In 74 countries, accounting for 1,261,145,000 people, homosexuality is illegal. The reason the numbers don’t add up is that whilst homosexual acts are still technically legal, Putin’s anti-gay law makes it effectively illegal. Here is a breakdown of the countries you really should not visit if you are gay:

Homosexuality punishable by death (Eight countries, 371 million people)

Afghanistan	Mauritania*1	Sudan
Iran	Nigeria*2	Yemen
Maldives*2	Saudi Arabia

Homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment (Six countries, 140 million people)

Barbados*4	Guyana*3	Tanzania
Burma/Myanmar	Sierra Leone*3	Uganda*2

Homosexuality punishable with a lesser punishment (60 countries, 890 million people)

Algeria	Kenya	Samoa
Angola	Kiribati*3	Senegal
Antigua and Barbuda	Kuwait*3	Seychelles*3
Bangladesh	Lesotho*3	Singapore*3*4
Belize*3	Liberia	Solomon Islands
Bhutan*4	Libya	Somalia
Botswana*4	Malawi	South Sudan
Brunei	Malaysia	Sri Lanka
Burundi	Mauritius*3	Swaziland*3
Cameroon	Morocco	Syria
Comoros	Namibia*4	Togo
Dominica	Nauru*3	Tonga*3
Eritrea	Oman*4	Trinidad and Tobago*4
Ethiopia	Pakistan	Tunisia
Gambia	Palau*3	Turkmenistan*3
Gaza*3	Papua New Guinea	Tuvalu*3
Ghana	Qatar	UAE
Grenada*3	Saint Kitts and Nevis*3	Uzbekistan*3
Guinea	Saint Lucia	Zambia
Jamaica*3	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	Zimbabwe*3

*1 no executions since 1987

*2 Varies

*3 Female legal

*4 Unenforced

In these countries homosexuality is legal, but there may be other reasons why you don’t want to visit if you are gay:

Albania	Estonia	Mozambique
Andorra	Fiji	Nepal
Argentina	Finland	Netherlands
Armenia	France	New Zealand
Australia	Gabon	Nicaragua
Austria	Georgia	Niger
Azerbaijan	Germany	Norway
Bahamas	Greece	Palestine
Bahrain	Guatemala	Panama
Belarus	Guinea-Bissau	Paraguay
Belgium	Haiti	Peru
Benin	Honduras	Philippines
Bolivia	Hungary	Poland
Bosnia Herzegovina	India	Portugal
Brazil	Indonesia	Romania
Bulgaria	Iraq	Rwanda
Burkina Faso	Ireland	San Marino
Cambodia	Israel	São Tomé and Príncipe
Canada	Italy	Serbia
Cape Verde Islands	Japan	Slovakia
Central African Republic	Kazakhstan	Slovenia
Chad	Kosovo	South Africa
Chile	Kyrgyzstan	South Korea
China	Laos	Spain
Colombia	Latvia	Suriname
Congo (Democratic Republic of)	Lebanon	Sweden
Congo (Republic of)	Liechtenstein	Switzerland
Costa Rica	Lithuania	Taiwan
Côte d’Ivoire	Luxembourg	Tajikistan
Croatia	Macedonia	Thailand
Cuba	Madagascar	Timor-Leste
Cyprus	Mali	Turkey
Czech Republic	Malta	UK
Denmark	Marshall Islands	Ukraine
Djibouti	Mexico	Uruguay
Dominican Republic	Micronesia	USA
Ecuador	Moldova	Vanuatu
Egypt	Monaco	Vatican
El Salvador	Mongolia	Venezuela
Equatorial Guinea	Montenegro	Vietnam

As you can clearly see, the world has a long way to go on the issue of gay rights. Yet the world 50 years ago looked very different, with only a handful of countries allowing homosexuality. At the start of the last decade homosexuality was illegal in the US state of Minnesota, today there is legal same-sex marriage. This issue is rapidly advancing, and although there are a few Russias, most countries are moving in the right direction.

Green - countries where homosexual acts legal
Red - countries where homosexual acts are illegal (and Russia)
Grey - North Korea, where the law is unclear
Source: Me