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

Spain Raises Tension over Gibraltar

In 1704 the rocky outcrop of Gibraltar was seized by British and Dutch forces during the Spanish Wars of Succession. It was later formally ceded to Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Since then the Spanish have longed for the return of Gibraltar going as far as to besiege Gibraltar in 1727 and also between 1779-1783.

The current inhabitants of Gibraltar are most certainly not Spanish and consider themselves as British as you can be. In 1967 and 2002 referendums were held regarding Gibraltan sovereignty, the Gibraltans voted 99.64% and 98.48% to remain British respectively.

The actions of successive Spanish governments has been to reject Gibraltan democracy and demand the British open talks over Gibraltan sovereignty. In response to the 1967 Gibraltan referendum, Spain, under dictator Francisco Franco, closed the border between Spain and Gibraltar until Spain's accession to the EU in 1985.

In recent days the dispute has flared up again. The Spanish have tightened security along the Gibraltar-Spain border, causing queues that last over seven hours. Unbearable in the south Mediterranean heat. To make matters worse border controls have started to charge people crossing over €50! This is in reaction to Gibraltar creating an artificial reef, which Spanish fisherman claim damages their livelihoods. Tensions were heightened as British war ships will be stopping off in Gibraltar on their way to military exercises in the Mediterranean.

It is not just the Spanish governments that believe that Gibraltar should be Spanish, it is the Spanish people. Yet the Spanish fail to understand their extreme hypocrisy, Spain has two cities on the Moroccan coast, Ceuta and Melilla, very similar to Gibraltar. A 2007 poll showed 88% of Spaniards considered the cities Spanish and 50% said that they did not understand the Moroccan claim! Now I fully support the ability of the citizens of Ceuta and Melilla to decide their own fate - but for Spaniards to claim Gibraltans have no right to decide their own fate, is pure hypocrisy.

The Rock of Gibraltar, as seen from Spain
source: www.euroreporter.co