Comment: My thoughts on Cheerleading

Firstly... again apologies for not updating this more often. My life appears to have been taken over by work. I had my first day off on Friday and haven't done anything but work since then. I've been at the Brighton Centre and the Pavilion (more of which later), however I wanted you all to know the program I helped to make is set to be screened on the BBC soon. 'The Death of Respect' presented by John Ware is set to show on BBC2 at 11.20pm on the 16th and 23rd July. Tune in to see some research I did (although it might have been excluded from the final edit) and possibly see my name in the credits as they are half-screen and talked over.

Anyway....

Today I worked at the Brighton Centre for a conference called Future Cheer. It was strange. Whilst I don't want to bite the hand that feeds me (or the corporate hire that pays my wages), I can't help but be slightly disturbed by an odd event.

Future Cheer celebrate the small, but sizable minority of people across the UK into the US sub-sport (it is the female bit before the 'real business' of American Football/Baseball/Basketball matches take place). I find it disturbing in several ways. Firstly, it is a hugely obvious example of cultural imperialism. Whilst I am in no way a nationalist (indeed I believe a world without nation states would be better than today's system) I feel this is a blatant erosion of culture by an unpleasant Yankee import. It is crude, bitchy and heavily sexualised. Girls from 5-18 dress in unpleasantly skimpy outfits and prance about to songs about blow jobs by Flo Rida (lyrics: You spin my head round baby when you go down). I believe sexuality is an important part of growing up and people should not be naive about such issues. Children of 12 should at the very worst know how sex works, that it is natural and that it is not morally wrong and should really be helped to know how to handle their hormones, but this event strikes me as highly sexist. The boys that do it are dressed in t-shirts and long trousers but the girls wear short skirts. It seems to mirror society in some disturbing ways. Women are on the back foot to be the more overtly sexual of the two genders.

I don't mind this sort of event occurring, indeed it seems to bring people together, it just unsettles my views of society. To me 'cheerleading' is a celebration of oppression - both in terms of gender and social status (below 'real sports').

What annoys me about the reaction to the £150k tax rate

I can't help but feel somewhat annoyed at the reaction to the budget by the press. In an otherwise rather dry non-event the biggest issue appears to have become the 50% tax on earnings for those on over £150,000 a year. 

There are three things that really anger me about the reaction of the press. Firstly, the changes don't apply until this time next year, so it's not exactly the most pressing economic issue and thus is distracting from the huge economic issues, like the the fact the UK economy will be shrinking by 3.5% this year or that 2.1 million people are now unemployed. Which are infinitely more worrying than the salaries of people who are very well paid.

Secondly, these people earn £150,000 a year. They protest about being taxed half their income, but they can only earn these hugely inflated wages because of where they work and so surely the state facilitates their wages and deserves a hefty cut. Also to think that other people (those who earning much less) should have to fit the bill at a time of economic crisis while they go on earning comparatively obscene salaries. 

Don't get me wrong, I understand the argument that entrepreneurs need an incentive, but to me that doesn't hold much weight. If these people are purely driven by the zeroes on their bank balance, then their company is unlikely to be doing a great service to society and is likely to be ripping people off and taking advantage or exploiting someone. Sure hard workers deserve to be paid more than not so hard workers and really hard workers should be paid considerably more than those who put no effort in, but a company that is purely driven by financial incentives is likely to skimp on quality if they can make larger profits and frankly if these kind of entrepreneurs will leave the country or not do it any more then surely that is a good thing. Real entrepreneurs who create business opportunities that are needed or useful to society are likely to be driven by a desire to be useful and help society alongside the quality of life that earning say £100,000 can give you. So the argument that it will hurt us all is contrived at best. If there is a finite amount of money, high wages for one person means someone else is on a lesser salary. Also lots of people work hard. I have worked very hard all this last week doing research, a bit of writing and sorting the post at a tabloid newspaper, I haven't been paid a cent and had to outlay about £90 for the pleasure. There are many people in much harder financial situations, who work much harder than me or law partners or big money auditors and struggle to put food on the table. The superwealthy don't realise how good they have it. The saddest element of all this is that much of the money will be used to soak up the debts accrued for solving this financial crisis, rather than redistributing it as public money or relief to poorer people.

Finally, the most frustrating element of the whole thing is the allegation, especially prevalent in today's right-wing press, that Labour have gone back to their socialist roots. Come off it!!! The last time Labour were socialist was in the late 1980s. The whole party is full of career politicians with no sense of right or wrong and conservatives thinly veiling themselves in Labour's torn and worn clothing. Government Ministers are manipulated by their unaccountable and highly paid consultants and media advisors (see In The Loop). They are not going left, they are trying to desperately trick the conservatives into opposing the budget and look like they are blocking a resolution to the economic crisis, to try and attempt to score a cheap political victory in their slow and dreadful decline ahead of their upcoming election defeat. It really depresses me if this is the compassionate socialist party in our country. We need another choice for our politics. Usually this would be the point to make a hopeful remark like "bring on the revolution" but I personally can't see that happening at all.

How depressing...

Comment: One positive, one negative

Today there have been two major developments in the Middle East conflict, one positive, one negative.

The good news is that there is an ever so slight chance that Hamas and the US government may soon talk to each other. Hopes of a dialogue were raised after Senator John Kerry, chairman of the US senate's Foreign Relations Committee was reported, by the BBC, to have been given a letter by Hamas officials.



If Hamas was able to get access to Kerry on his visit to Gaza, one might suspect that covert talks are already in place. The story seems credible as it originates from Karen Abu Zayd, the UNWRA commissioner-general.

While this potential olive branch for peace was being outstretched in Gaza, a damaging development was occurring in Tel Aviv. The Guardian believes Binyamin Netanyahu is to become the next Prime Minister of Israel. He seems to have been able to create a large enough majority to govern and opponent Tzipi Livni, who's Kadima Party recently won the election against Netanyahu's Likud by one seat, accepted that her party will form the opposition.



Netanyahu has been PM before, when the peace process had reached its most positive stage. The Oslo Accords had been signed. Netanyahu rolled back the agreements and let the peace process stall. He now opposes negotiations with the Palestinians and his government is likely to be heavily dependent on the nationalist and extreme right Yisrael Beiteinu party of Avigdor Lieberman.

The positive development of this is that this government is unlikely to last long. They look as though they will have a slim majority of 5 and they will come under considerable pressure from the increasingly leftist US administration and the relatively liberal regimes in Europe.

One positive thing happens, one negative thing happens.

Comment: Zimbabwe situation - In need of attention

While Zimbabwe’s political crisis filled the headlines last year, the most recent twists in the ongoing power struggle have barely registered in the mainstream media. Daily updates of President Obama’s first days in office, the delicate peace settlement in Gaza and the constant stream of job losses have pushed the Zimbabwean situation down the news agenda, just as the crisis reaches a pivotal moment.

Contrary to the power-sharing agreement he made with opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai last September, President Robert Mugabe refuses to concede the ministries with which his government has oppressed and coerced the Zimbabwean people, like the Home Affairs and Information ministries. Mugabe has also been reluctant to hand over the Finance ministry, currently overseeing the country’s dire financial crisis.

As we in the UK worry about the value of the pound against the Euro, the Zimbabwean dollar’s inflation continues to spin out of control. This month saw the introduction of the Z$ Trillion note, worth around £20, which would have bought Z$ 100,000 six months ago. The currency is now so unstable that US dollars and South African rand have become legal tender.

The day before Obama was sworn in, Tsvangirai and Mugabe held an inconclusive crisis meeting which ended no closer to an agreement on who should hold which portfolios.

While the political chess game continues, people suffer. The recent Cholera outbreak has now killed over 2,000 and infected over 39,000 according to Human Rights Watch estimates made two weeks ago.

The political process now moves onto a specially convened SADC (Southern African Development Community) summit this week. However, early indications aren’t promising. After Monday’s meeting, one MDC official told Reuters, "We are worlds apart. If we were (inches) apart, we are now miles apart".

South Africa could be a key actor as SADC’s largest member, but it currently faces a complex transition in leadership with presidents past, present and future all exerting influence. Thabo Mbeki who was ousted as President last September has been a key figure in the negotiations so far and continues to act as mediator. Kgalema Motlanthe, the country’s acting President is hosting the current summit, yet his influence is undermined by the fact he will soon, in all likelihood, be replaced by ANC leader Jacob Zuma.


Despite the governments of Zambia and Botswana taking a strong line against Mugabe, it seems unlikely that SADC as a whole will pressure Mugabe into conceding the key ministries to the MDC. Perversely, this SADC conference may be the last chance the MDC has to be included in the cabinet, with Zimbabwean Deputy Information Minister Bright Matonga telling South African public broadcaster SAfm, "whether there is an agreement or there is no agreement, President Mugabe is going to form a Cabinet". If no agreement is made, it looks as though Mugabe will ignore international pressure and struggle on as President, without the MDC, as he has done for the last 21 years. At this crucial point, more than ever, Zimbabwe needs the world’s attention.

Comment: Last Chance for a two-state solution?

In my internet surfings, I found this rather interesting post by Bernd Debusmann. Debusmann suggests that the Obama Administration is the last opportunity for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think he has a good point. As the Palestinian situation gets more and more desperate, the idea of a united Palestinian state becomes less and less likely. We already have effectively two Palestines, with Fatah and Hamas governing the West Bank and Gaza respectively.

More and more people are suggesting a one-state solution which sounds like the most positive solution to the conflict. See: (Haaretz: 'Is the two-state solution in danger?' and 'Which kind of bi-national state?', Alternative Palestinian Agenda: Peace Initiative).

While the idea of a federalised but equal state is appealing, it is also unimaginable. Israel is a unique country in that its sole reason for existence is the because of its religious separateness from other countries. If an agreement was made which included a considerable population of Muslims or Christians having political and social parity with the Jews in Israel, this would contradict the purpose of the Israeli state and render the Jewish state pointless. Why have a Jewish homeland if it is not exclusively Jewish? Israel's original purpose was to protect Jews and give them a homeland where they would be safe from the persecution they recieved in Europe. While I don't agree with the idea of an exclusive state for one religion, many in Israel do and the Israeli political lobby as well as the majority of the population would never accept Israel becoming a religiously plural society, where being Jewish wasn't a key element of National identity.

If the Israeli state is unable to give up some of its war-acquired land for the foundation of a Palestinian state, it is certainly not going to give up the whole of its country to what would quickly become a majority Arab population. In any one-state solution, Jews would become a minority group and it would become totally unjustifiable for them to rule over an Arab minority, as the white population did over the black population in South Africa. The one-state solution was needed in 1947, before Israel became an exclusively Jewish land and when a multi-ethnic Palestine was still possible.

Over 60 years of violence and bloodshed make it impossible for a just and fair society to be built as if nothing ever happened in 2009. The current Israeli regime and political establishment would also attempt to co-opt the moderate Palestinians, while most Palestinians would expect a lot from their new state. This is likely to accentuate divisions between the Palestinian elite and the Palestinian people which Israel has already caused. Such a scenario could be far more dangerous than it is now for Jewish and Arab citizens in this new country.

A two-state solution is the only viable solution to the current situation and this can only be achieved with the political support of a US Administration. The Obama presidency is certainly going to take a more balanced view of the conflict than the Bush administration did.

Obama obviously cannot ignore the US Jewish lobby and the rhetoric of democratic Israelis against 'terrorist' Palestinians that has been allowed to pervade the Western media. While this is an extremely crude and untrue representation of the situation, it has become the accepted belief of many. However, Obama has at least as much political capital in this situation as Bill Clinton did, and Clinton got the two parties talking and even got them signing agreements in Washington. I also believe that if Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had not been assasinated at the rally for peace and Netanyahu and Sharon come in and rolled back the peace process by years, we might today have a Palestinian state.

According to wikipedia, Obama is just as reliant on Jewish voters as Clinton was (both gained around 80% of the Jewish vote in the Presidential elections. (For more details go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992)), and his rhetoric does not necessarily suggest he will tackle the solution head on, at least not immediately. He does have the financial crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, Global Warming, Iran, India-Pakistan and all the other smaller issues to deal with as well.

I hope that he can get round to it soon though, as time and hope is running out for this generation of Palestinians and the US's leverage in world politics decreases every year.

Comment: Smith is a dangerous politician

Following the continued Damien Green arrest affair, the most surprising and worrying development has been the actions of the Home Secretary.

Jacqui Smith continues to defend what seems an undefendable position by rolling out her stock answers and avoiding Andrew Marr's somewhat generous questions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7757208.stm). Notice how she fails to clarify whether she actually signed the warrant for his arrest and the issue is skirted over. I think at best, she is being liberal with the truth and at worst is flat out lying.

Damien Green's arrest appears to have been an act of censorship by the government and it is an extremely worrying development for freedom of speech in this country. Freedom of speech appears to be something Smith holds in extremely low regard.

Most of my news-conscious life I have been ruled by a Labour government. While I understand that the veer to the right that New Labour made was a necessary evil for it to capture 'Middle England', I have never been a fan of its politics. Having said that I have never had much reason to hate New Labour in the way people hated Thatcherism. Now, however, as Labour struggle on through their poor third term, civil liberties and human rights are paid minimal lip service and are considered secondary to an ill-defined and unexplained threat. One that is so sensitive we cannot be told about it.

Whenever the government chips away at our liberties, there is Jacqui Smith with her pick axe swinging the hardest, directing operations. Whatever she says, Smith is no friend of freedom of expression and every measure she sponsors hacks away at our rights. Her obsessional promotion of ID cards and 48 days arrest without trial give an insight into her position on our liberties. The fact she could not even identify with the way Marr explained the trauma Green's arrest caused for his family must worry Gordon Brown.

I guess the best we can hope is that he finally loses patience with this dictatorial Home Secretary and gets rid of her once and for all.