About time I set one thing straight
|
Posted:Jun 20, 2015 4:48 am
Last Updated:Jun 22, 2015 10:35 am 13123 Views
|
I have been accused several times of maligning the USA as a country and with hating your government and people. Let me put this as clearly as I can; I think the American people are a mixed bunch (like anywhere else) but they are generally warm hearted, sincere and generous people.
I applaud the way in which the American people have welcomed the 'poor and downtrodden' of the world over many years and I am sure they will continue to show the vibrant can-do attitude which has epitomised your nation since its birth. I fervently hope that the inner divisions will be healed as I hate to see the image of so many good people tainted by the few who peddle their bigotted agenda and trumpet their intolerance so loudly.
I think that the ACA is something the people of a truly great (and rich) advanced western democracy has deserved for a long time and I am glad to see it working so well even if I believe it should (and will) go further. I support your present government and I think it has made great strides in the past 6 years along with some big errors in the last 20+ years - errors in which the UK government has been equally complicit.
It is also my opinion that a great people has been severally (and I mean severally not severely) let down by the insistent propaganda and misinformation promulgated by the gun lobby and by Rupert Murdoch's one man campaign to distort the psyche of so many truly good people whom he incessantly bombards with invocations to hate and fear their neighbour. (By neighbour I use the same definition as is encapsulated in the parable of the Good Samiritan). In my opinion a constant diet of barely disguised racism, intolerance of anyone who is not 'one of us' and incitement to fear is a cancer with which there has been and continues to be an attempt to poison the very fibre of your nation.
I am saddened to see the number of incidents in which innocent, upright and law abiding citizens are murdered and maimed by crazy people with guns. Like most people in Europe I am passionately against the proliferation of guns and I believe that all gun owners should be licensed in the same way that all car drivers are liciensed. To take the analogy futher I also can see a strong argument for progressive licensing of weapons so that the more powerful the weapon the more stringent the licensing requirement - just as Bus and Lorry drivers have to undergo extra training and fulfill stricter criteria than car drivers. No one disputes the fact that you need a licence and insurance to drive a vehicle as vehicles in the wrong hands kill people. What is the difference between compulsory licences for driving a potentially lethal vehicle and compulsory licences for owning a purposely lethal weapon?
I make no apologies for being a socialist and I have worked all my life in organisations (unions and civil rights organisations, voluntary work with young people ) which have promoted the rights of minorities and sought to protect the living conditions and working conditions of working people. If my views are unpopular with you as an individual then it is your right to challenge them but I do ask that you do so in a spirit of discussion and without rancour. I do not call anyone names or make disparaging remarks about them and I would appreciate the same in return. Offensive remarks and personal insults will be removed as they have no place in a mature discussion.
After 5 years on SFF and over many more years in which we, as a family, have hosted teachers and pupils from American schools I hope I can say I know many ordinary Americans well enough to say that the vast majority are wonderful people, just as I would say the same about the German people we have hosted, the Austrian people we meet as friends every year and the multitude of people of all nationalities, religions, political persuasion and walks of life my wife, and I have met in our professional and personal lives.
I am a lover of people and I find them endlessly fascinating and immensely uplifting. The capacity of people to give of themselves never ceases to amaze and humble me. I hate polemic when it is directed at individuals (although I admit I do occasionally direct it at large organisations which can fend for themselves ) but enjoy a frank exchange of views.
I hope I have made my views clear and I hope I am never again accused of hating the USA or of belittling its government or people. If I believe that the policies pursued by my government are more to my liking than those pursued by the governments of other countries I will say so - and I will also say when I believe thay are not. When I compare the policies implemented by the Tory government of the UK with the enlightened governments of the Scandinavian countries and even with Angela Merkel's supposedly right wing German government my blood boils. I do not believe that my country is doing the right thing in many areas at present and if anyone wants to criticise them for it feel free - I will probably concur.
I am however, strong and proud supporter of British values. If that is offensive to you as an American then I can do nothing about it. I do not find the, in my opinion, rather excessive jingoism of some ultra patriotic Americans offensive and I do not take offence when my views are challenged; but I will argue my own corner and I will not back down if I am convinced I am right - especially when I think I have strong evidence to support my view. I look forward with interest to hearing what others have to say about all that. Perhaps I should erect my flak shelter early?
|
|
|
3
Comments
|
|
An excellent analysis from someone who knows what she is talking about
|
Posted:May 26, 2015 2:07 pm
Last Updated:Jun 20, 2015 4:48 am 11703 Views
|
A senior member of the Qatar royal family has warned that Muslims are being "dehumanised" by the coverage of violent extremism in the Middle East.
"Why do Muslim lives seem to matter less than the lives of others?" asked Sheikha Moza bint Nasser in a speech at Oxford University on Tuesday.
The division between east and west was creating a "fear and suspicion of all things Islamic", she said.
Sheikha Moza also warned against "violent repression" in the Arab world.
Widely seen as one of the most influential women in the Middle East, Sheikha Moza warned an audience at Oxford University of the dangers of negative stereotypes in the West.
And the failure of progressive politics in the Middle East was fuelling "distorted and perverted" interpretations of Islam, she added.
Speaking at the opening of the Middle East Centre at St Antony's College, Sheikha Moza warned that while there was an "intellectual curiosity" in the West about Islamic culture, individual "real, living Muslims" faced growing distrust.
She described this as being "Muslim-phobia", as distinct from claims of "Islamophobia".
And she questioned whether globalisation was really achieving more "pluralistic" societies.
"Intellectual curiosity" for Islamic art, not much respect for Muslims, says the Qatari royal
"A Muslim is first and foremost identified as a Muslim, rather than simply a human being.
"Whether they are Pakistani, Malaysian, Senegalese, or even British born, their multiple identities are levelled under a constructed monolith of Islam," she said.
This collective identity was seen as something "fearful and unknowable", said Sheikha Moza, mother of the current Emir of Qatar and wife of the previous ruler.
The consequence was "double standards" in the reaction to the casualties of conflict, said Sheikha Moza, a senior political figure in the oil and gas-rich Gulf state.
"Only silence follows when innocent Yemeni and Pakistani and civilians," are killed by drones, she said.
She challenged the increasing use of the word "medieval" to describe the actions of radicals in the Middle East.
"Global media, both western and Arab, often claim that Islam does not believe in freedom of expression and is stuck in medieval times," said Sheikha Moza.
But she said it was a failure of "our collective responsibility" not to admit that the violence of groups such as the so-called Islamic State were the result of our own modern era.
"Isis is as modern as Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. They are all products of our age."
She also challenged the political culture in Muslim countries that had produced radical militants whose version of Islam is "nothing more than a violent political slogan".
The wave of upheavals of the Arab Spring had "planted the seeds of freedom", but she said these ideals had been "crushed underfoot" and such "dreams might find another, more aggressive channel of expression".
"This is the price we are paying today for our lack of courage when it mattered. Every act has a consequence but so does every inaction.
"Activism can quickly change to militancy when there is no recourse to democratic change."
She argued that such a failure to dismantle violent autocracies in the Middle East could be a reason why Muslims have "lost confidence" in being able to apply positive, peaceful Islamic traditions.
The Gulf state has itself faced criticism over the working and living conditions of migrant workers on construction projects for the 2022 World Cup.
Sheikha Moza told her audience that young Muslims needed to be able find a "new modernity" showing their religion as a "rich, living moral tradition".
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
Pause for thought
|
Posted:May 1, 2015 2:30 am
Last Updated:Sep 2, 2015 9:29 am 9908 Views
|
A blog post which eloquently sums up a situation on which all of us could spare a few minutes to ponder.
Dear White America,
It is somewhat strange to address this to you, given that I strongly identify with many aspects of your culture and am half-white myself. Yet, today is another day you have forced me to decide what race I am — and, as always when you force me — I fall decidedly into “Person of Color.”
Every comment or post I have read today voicing some version of disdain for the people of Baltimore — “I can’t understand” or “They’re destroying their own community” or “Destruction of Property!” or “Thugs” — tells me that many of you are not listening. I am not asking you to condone or agree with violence. I just need you to listen. You don’t have to say anything if you don’t want to, but instead of forming an opinion or drawing a conclusion, please let me tell you what I hear:
I hear hopelessness
I hear oppression
I hear pain
I hear internalized oppression
I hear despair
I hear anger
I hear poverty
If you are not listening, not exposing yourself to unfamiliar perspectives, not watching videos, not engaging in conversation, then you are perpetuating white privilege and white supremacy. It is exactly your ability to not hear, to ignore the situation, that is a mark of your privilege. People of color cannot turn away. Race affects our lives every day. We must consider it all the time, not just when it is convenient.
As a person of color, even if you are privileged your whole life, as I have been, you cannot escape from the shade of your skin. Being a woman defines me; coming from a relatively affluent background defines me; my sexual orientation, my education, my family and my job define me. Other than being a woman, every single one of those distinctions gives me privilege in our society. Yet, even with all that privilege, people still treat me differently.
For most of my childhood, I refused to allow race to be my most defining feature. I actually chose for most of my childhood to refuse race as my most defining feature. But I found that a very hard position to maintain, given the way the world interacts with me and the people I love. Because I have to worry about my brother and my cousins getting stopped by the police. Because people react to my wonderful, kind, intelligent father differently, depending on whether he’s wearing a suit or sweat pants. Race has defined the way I see the world like no other characteristic has.
This can be hard to understand, if you never experienced it firsthand. So again, for just one more moment, reserve your judgments and listen. This is what you might come to realize, if you spent your days in my skin.
In childhood: People regularly ask “What are you” instead of “Who are you?” This will not end, either. In high school, one even asks if you are “Mulatto,” which, according to some scholars, originally meant “little mule.”
A few years later: Go on a road trip with your mom. Refuse to get out of the car at a gas station in the boondocks, because you are sure the person with the Confederate flag bumper sticker is going to realize your white mother married a black man and hurt her (and you too, being the byproduct of said union). He’s carrying a rifle on a gun rack. Now even more terrifying.
As a : Be the only person of color in the majority of your Advanced Placement classes, even though there are a decent number of brown and black people at your school. For years following 9/11, get “randomly” selected for the additional screening at the airport.
In college: People assume you got into Princeton because of affirmative action. They refuse to believe it could be because you are smart.
In adulthood: Your younger brother has been stopped in his own neighborhood — the neighborhood he has lived in all his life – and asked what he could possibly be doing there.
At your workplace: For two years in a row the NYPD shows up randomly at the school you work at, which has a 100 percent minority student body. The first time the police don’t even tell the school beforehand. The cops just show up early in the morning, set up a metal detector and X-ray scanner, and fill the cafeteria with dozens of policemen. As your young students file in in the morning, the NYPD scans them like they’re going through airport security right after 9/11. They confiscate cellphones, and pat some of students down, particularly the older-looking boys. As you watch this, you feel anger welling up in your chest and almost start to cry. You think, “Why are you treating my like criminals?!” are in tears. The screenings are not due to any specific threat, but rather as part of a “random screening program” — but one that never seems to make its way to the Upper East Side. White America’s are told they can go to college, be anything. These students are treated like suspects. And that is exactly what society will tell your one day, unless something changes.
Today, tomorrow, every day: White people around you refuse to talk about what is happening in this country. The silence is painful to experience.
These are my experiences. They have deeply affected who I am. And I am SO PRIVILEGED. Mine has been a decidedly easy life for a person of color in America. I try to conceptualize what it is like for my students who got wanded by the NYPD, my students who have been stopped and frisked, my students whose parents work multiple jobs, my students on free and reduced-price lunch, my students whom white adults move away from because they look “scary.
I try, when I can, to listen to them, because only by validating their feelings can we begin to find a way to overcome the challenges they face. That doesn’t mean I let them off easy when they do something wrong. But I try to understand the why.
I don’t need you to validate anyone’s actions, but I need you to validate what black America is feeling. If you cannot understand how experiences like mine or my students’ would lead to hopelessness, pain, anger, and internalized oppression, you are still not listening. So listen. Listen with your heart.
If you got this far, thank you. By reading this, you have shown you are trying. Continue the conversation, ask questions, learn as much as you can, and choose to engage. Only by listening and engaging can we move forward.
Black is Beautiful and Black Lives Matter,
Julia
Julia Blount was born and raised in Washington, D.C. An alumna of Princeton University, she is currently a middle school teacher.
|
|
|
8
Comments
|
|
|
|
"Too many people have died" Dylan
|
Posted:Mar 10, 2015 5:36 am
Last Updated:Jan 26, 2020 3:53 pm 7508 Views
|
In the UK last year the small percentage of police officers who carry guns fired their guns 3 times in the whole year - no one was killed. The last time anyone was killed in a police shooting in the UK was 2010.
The number of police officers killed by people they were trying to arrest in the UK last year was ZERO, in 2013 it was ONE (hit by a speeding driver trying to escape), in 2012 the number was THREE , (two in one incident), in 2011 it was ONE (killed by a terrorist bomb under his car in N Ireland).
These figures can be verified by checking the police forces' own roll of honour at policememorial.
The population of the UK is over 60 million.
In the USA an average of 400 people are killed by police in 'justifiable homicides' and an unreported number more which is not known (although it is unlikely to be more than 100).
Since 2010 an average of around 70 police oficers have been killed by being shot each year.
The population of the USA is 315 million.
Am I missing something?
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Sometimes the depth of ignorance is astounding - you have to laugh or you would cry
|
Posted:Feb 24, 2015 11:39 am
Last Updated:Mar 10, 2015 7:45 am 8036 Views
|
In perhaps the most amusing effort to discredit US President Barack Obama's plan for nationalized health care - if not the most ridiculous - US financial newspaper Investor's Business Daily has said that if Stephen Hawking were British, he would be dead.
"The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof, are legendary," read an editorial from the paper. "The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror script...
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
The paper has since been notified that Hawking is both British and still among the living. And it has edited the editorial, acknowledging that the original version incorrectly represented the whereabouts of perhaps the world's most famous scientific mind. But it has not acknowledged that its mention of Hawking misrepresented the NHS as well.
"I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS," Hawking told The Guardian. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
The best you can say about Investor's Business Daily is that unlike US radio talk host Rush Limbaugh, it has not compared Obama's health care logo to a swastika
|
|
|
11
Comments
|
|
An interesting article from The Economist Newspaper
|
Posted:Dec 9, 2014 7:17 am
Last Updated:Dec 11, 2019 11:30 pm 7622 Views
|
THE shooting of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American, by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, is a reminder that civilians—innocent or guilty—are far more likely to be shot by police in America than in any other rich country. In 2012, according to data compiled by the FBI, 410 Americans were “justifiably” killed by police—409 with guns. That figure may well be an underestimate. Not only is it limited to the number of people who were shot while committing a crime, but also, amazingly, reporting the data is voluntary.
Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.
The explanation for this gap is simple. In Britain, guns are rare. Only specialist firearms officers carry them; and criminals rarely have access to them. The last time a British police officer was killed by a firearm on duty was in 2012, in a brutal case in Manchester. The annual number of murders by shooting is typically less than 50. Police shootings are enormously controversial. The shooting of Mark Duggan, a known gangster, which in 2011 started riots across London, led to a fiercely debated inquest. Last month, a police officer was charged with murder over a shooting in 2005. The reputation of the Metropolitan Police’s armed officers is still barely recovering from the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist bombings in London.
In America, by contrast, it is hardly surprising that cops resort to their weapons more frequently. In 2013, 30 cops were shot and killed—just a fraction of the 9,000 or so murders using guns that happen each year. Add to that a hyper-militarised police culture and a deep history of racial strife and you have the reason why so many civilians are shot by police officers. Unless America can either reduce its colossal gun ownership rates or fix its deep social problems, shootings of civilians by police—justified or not—seem sure to continue.
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
An interesting article from The Economist Newspaper
|
Posted:Dec 9, 2014 6:36 am
Last Updated:Feb 24, 2015 11:44 am 5776 Views
|
THE shooting of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American, by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, is a reminder that civilians—innocent or guilty—are far more likely to be shot by police in America than in any other rich country. In 2012, according to data compiled by the FBI, 410 Americans were “justifiably” killed by police—409 with guns. That figure may well be an underestimate. Not only is it limited to the number of people who were shot while committing a crime, but also, amazingly, reporting the data is voluntary.
Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.
The explanation for this gap is simple. In Britain, guns are rare. Only specialist firearms officers carry them; and criminals rarely have access to them. The last time a British police officer was killed by a firearm on duty was in 2012, in a brutal case in Manchester. The annual number of murders by shooting is typically less than 50. Police shootings are enormously controversial. The shooting of Mark Duggan, a known gangster, which in 2011 started riots across London, led to a fiercely debated inquest. Last month, a police officer was charged with murder over a shooting in 2005. The reputation of the Metropolitan Police’s armed officers is still barely recovering from the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist bombings in London.
In America, by contrast, it is hardly surprising that cops resort to their weapons more frequently. In 2013, 30 cops were shot and killed—just a fraction of the 9,000 or so murders using guns that happen each year. Add to that a hyper-militarised police culture and a deep history of racial strife and you have the reason why so many civilians are shot by police officers. Unless America can either reduce its colossal gun ownership rates or fix its deep social problems, shootings of civilians by police—justified or not—seem sure to continue.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Some Chinese- English fun
|
Posted:Nov 15, 2014 5:39 am
Last Updated:Nov 25, 2014 8:04 am 5389 Views
|
Acquaintance of mine just arrived back from Beijing on business. She brought a copy of the hotel brochure home as it was so well translated. I am sure some of this is a little contrived - but funny nonetheless.
Getting to the hotel: Our representative will make you wait at the airport. The bus to the hotel runs along the lake shore and you will feel the pleasure of passing water. You will know you are nearing the hotel when you go round the bend. The manager will await you in the entrance hall as he always tries to have intercourse with guests.
The Hotel: This is a family hotel and are very welcome. We are also quite happy to accept adultery. Guests are invited to conjugate in the bar in order to expose themselves to other guests but ladies are not allowed to have their babies in the bar.
The Restaurant: Our menus have been carefully chosen to be ordinary and unexciting. During dinner our string quartet will circulate round the tables and fiddle with you.
Your Room: Every room has excellent facilities for your private parts. In winter every room is on heat. The balconies all have outstanding views with beautiful obscenity.
The Beds: Your bed has been made in accordance with local tradition. If you have any other ideas please ask the chambermaid. Please take advantage of her. She will be pleased to squash your shirts, blouses and underwear. She will also squeeze your trousers if you ask.
|
|
|
3
Comments
|
|
Legalistic musings
|
Posted:Nov 10, 2014 10:41 am
Last Updated:Nov 17, 2014 10:32 am 5072 Views
|
A man enters another sovereign country carrying weapons for which he has no authorisation. He is arrested and held in prison awaiting trial. He is detained for 214 days -- not an unusually long time for most legal systems throughout the world. At that trial his plea that his crime (for such it is as he has broken the law) was a sin of omission and caused by his PTSD, which was the reason for his mistake. The judges allow his defence and he is set free.
Would anyone care to comment about this story?
Was the man fairly treated? In my opinion I think he was.
Was his release justified? I would argue that it shows the fairness of the legal process and was justified in the circumstances - but this case could easily have resulted in a prison sentence in many countries.
Should he have been convicted af a crime? I am happy that he was not convicted but I would consider myself quite lucky to have been released without charge if I had been in similar circumstances.
|
|
|
6
Comments
|
|
This is the poll graphic as published by Quinniac Uiversity on 9th March 2015
