Guns: where the status quo is murdering children

"Heal the brokenhearted and bind up their wounds" - Psalms 147:3

The world mourns for those who are broken. The massacre in Newtown, Connecticut has left 28 people dead. 20 of those people were children, brutally murdered in their own classrooms. It is the second biggest shooting in U.S. history and the third major attack in 2012, following the Aurora cinema killings and the murder of six people in a temple in Wisconsin.

Gun control is a contentous issue in the U.S. The constitution states that individuals have a "right to keep and bear arms" and this has supported the growth of American gun culture. But the constitution was written in 1787 when "arms" were pistols, muskets, swords and bows. The Founding Fathers were not psychic - they did not know what was to ome. 

Today, pistols, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles hang from the shelves of Walmart. And it is easy to buy one with your week's shopping. If you are over the age of 18 and you pass a basic background check, you can be granted a license to buy firearms. Bread, cheese and bullets could be a typical shopping list.

The ownership of guns is on the decline, with one political scientist saying they are at all-time lows. This is promising and less guns mean less shootings. But ownership is not the key statistic. Over three quarters of the weapons used in killing sprees since 1982 were obtained legally. These future mass murderers were not declined a license. They passed the basic background checks and they were legally allowed to walk into a supermarket and purchase rifles and ammunition and then open fire on people in a mall or a cinema or a school.

I am not saying that every future mass murderer can be recognised years before they commit a crime. Nor am I suggesting that the background checks failed. No-one could ever see such atrocities coming. But they can be averted. Action can be taken to ensure that no individual having a bad week has the arsenal to murder people. 

You can start by getting guns out of supermarkets. Stocking guns in the same building as bread and milk is a recipe for disaster. If Americans are so intent on owning guns, you don't present them as a casual thing to go in the same shopping trolley as your toddler. Secondly, you remove heavy weaponry completely. The Second Amendment allows the individual to hold a gun to protect the "security of a Free state" but giving people the opportunity to own AK47's, grenade launchers and anti-tank weaponry is not protecting security. It is jeopardising public safety.

Thirdly, attitudes must change. Gun control is a moral issue and yet it is used as a political weapon. As the news of the Newtown filters in, politicians are rushing to say this is not the time to discuss gun control laws. When will it be the time? Where was the discussion after Aurora? Or Wisconsin? This is the perfect time to prevent such tragedies happening again. There is an argument that guns are impossible to legislate - no it is not. The rest of the world does it and while no country is without gun crime, it is nowhere near the level of America.

With each massacre, reaction to it follows a similar pattern. We go from shock to anger to a desire to change things, followed by nothing. America goes back to the status quo but today that status quo has murdered five year old children. Enough is enough. Politics must take a backseat and change must come about. If it does not, I fear the world will once again wake up to flags at half mast.                   

Higher turnout in 2012 is not a surprise - it was obvious

To the relief of every country in the world minus China, Barack Obama has won re-election in a tight race with Mitt Romney. 

I say tight; it certainly seemed tight going into election day but when push came to shove, it was Obama who cleaned up and won 303 electoral college votes (possibly 332 if Florida goes his way) in comparison to Romney's 206.

Obama's victory is being attributed to his "coalition" of young voters, women, Latinos and other ethnic minorities. There was a lot of noise made in the run-up to this election about whether this "coalition" would support Obama as heavily as they did in 2008, when there was a wave of euphoria around him.

There is a consensus that the "Obama-lition" not only turned out for their candidate in 2012, but they surpassed the numbers in 2008 and recorded all-time high turnouts in key districts. Some are surprised by this: the euphoria turned into disillusionment as their agent for change struggled to make his mark, battling a worldwide economic downturn, a shitstorm in the Middle East and Republicans on the Hill. Obama was never going to heal the planet and calm the oceans; he was never going to change things in just four years, instead his job was to steady the ship and that he did. But that argument did not resonate with the voting public and Mitt Romney set the stage for what he hailed as a critical point in American history.   

So to understand the "surprisingly high" turnout this year, you must understand the narratives that surrounded both 2008 and 2012. 2008 was "Obama-mania" coated in hope and change and the idea of a fresh start on greener pastures. It got the "Obama-lition" ready to go and fired up and he strolled into the White House. 

But 2012 is a different time. Unemployment is at record highs (Obama won with the highest unemployment rate since FDR), people are struggling to make ends meet and America is seemingly losing its aura as the world's economic superpower to China. Republicans were scared and convinced they needed "real change", a promise that Mitt Romney made. For the Democrats, the gross incompetence and flip-flopping of Romney perhaps scared them more the economy, so they felt the need to "get Obama's back" and give him a second term. That left us with two energised bases who believed their decision would change the course of history. They had to vote, they just had to because the race was painted as such a significant one. 

And it was. Obama has his second term and his role as President is different. The ship is steadied and his attention now turns to change. Obama will use the next four years to build his legacy and establish his vision for America.  

LIVE: Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney in the first U.S. presidential debate

[The debate is over and I am still calling it for Mitt Romney. He was a lot better than expected, more aggressive than most expected him to be and seemed to have Obama reeling at points. There were flashes of the old Obama in the last 15 minutes, especially when discussing Obamacare, but he looked a bit lost and trying too hard to be the calmer, more controlled candidate. Obama was certainly more open about policy details, effective in challenging Romney's sketchy ideas. But in terms of debate performance, Romney was more at ease, making his ZINGERS!~! (Big Bird for example) and had the right attitude. There was nothing game-changing in this, but Obama just seemed too cautious and too restrained.]  

[TWITTER: @sullydish tweets: Mitt is sounding Reagan-like & compassionate. The Etch-A-Sketch is shaking, & the old Mitt is back]

0338: Closing statements now, starting with Barack Obama. Obama thanks Romney for an excellent debate, saying that the American people should get a fair share. Obama says he said he would fight everyday for the people and he would in a second term. Romney's turn now, saying it is an election bigger than both parties. Romney talks of Obama's records, saying he would create 12 million new jobs and he would repeal Obamacare. He said he would keep America strong and he would get the middle class working again. And end.

0324: Let's talk compromise beginning with Mitt Romney, who says he would work with Republican and Democrat leaders. He says leadership from Washington is needed. Obama responds by saying Romney would have a busy first day, meeting Democratic leaders while repealing Obamacare. Obama talks of his repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the ending of the Iraq War, the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden. He says there are times when you need to say no, but there are "fights that need to be had" and Romney would not say no to the "extremes of his own party."

0318: Talking about public education, Romney says federal money should go to the children not to the states. Obama again attacks the lack of detail in Romney and Paul Ryan's economic plan. Romney says he is not planning to make any cuts, saying that $90 billion could have got two million teachers rather than investing in green jobs. Romney talks of a school grading system, so parents know what schools to go to. "I care about education for all of our kids" finishes Romney.

0313: Back to the federal government, with Obama saying it can create "ladders of opportunity" for people to start businesses and make their own ideas. He says a better-trained workplace would create jobs. Romney touts his state's schools, calling them number one in the country, before promising to maintain military spending and religious tolerance. "The path we are taking is not working, we need to take a new path" says Romney.

0311: Romney stops Lehrer from moving on to reply. He says what he did in Massachusetts could be a model for everywhere.

0308: Mitt Romney says a board of 15 people should not tell people what healthcare to have, saying the federal government should not take over healthcare. Obama responds by saying that Romney cannot say how he will replace Obamacare, the same as his loopholes to fund tax cuts and regulations for Wall Street.

0306: [TWITTER: BBC Washington correspondent, Katty Kay tweets: If twitter is the new judge of debates, Obama is definitely losing this one.]

0301: [We are two thirds of the way through and so far, Romney seems the better of the two candidates. Obama is not as confident as he was in 2008 and Romney has been the more aggressive out of the two.]

Obama says his healthcare bill was a Republican idea and how they use the same advisors. He talks of his so-called "death panels," dispelling some of the myths surrounding it.

0256: The next segment is on Obamacare; Mitt Romney tells stories of people he has met who cannot afford healthcare. Obama argues that families were worried they would go bankrupt if they were sick. He looks straight down the lens and says Obamacare means "insurance problems cannot jerk you around." Lehrer calls for an end but Obama laughs him off, saying he had five extra seconds because of Romney's interruption.  

0251: A quick conversation on regulation, with Romney saying it is good but has become "excessive" and is "harmful to the economy." Obama says the economic crisis was because of "reckless behaviour across the board" and addresses the viewers directly saying that if they think there is too much regulation, Mitt Romney is their candidate. 

0248: Romney talks of "competition in the Medicare world," an idea that came from Bill Clinton's chief of staff. Obama argues that the cost of healthcare needs to completely lowered, but Romney believes the private sector provides a better product.

0245: "If you are 54 or 55, you might want to listen" says Obama who says if Obamacare ("I like that") is repealed it would cost his grandmother and others like her. 

0242: It's the role of the federal government and social security now, as we start with Medicare.

[TWITTER: The New York Times' David Leonhardt tweets: I feel like the conservatives in my feed are unhappy with Romney's performance and the liberals are unhappy with Obama's.]

0237: Romney likes to use his hands to show a fall in rates - he is doing it a lot. He said he would like to take Medicaid money and give it to the states who can "care for their own poor."

0234: Obama talks of corporate taxs, saying that Exxon-Mobile doesn't need more money, challenging Romney to say what loopholes he will close to fund his cuts. Obama talks of a teacher in Las Vegas, using 10-year-old textbooks and how a cut to Medicaid would affect a family with an autistic child.

0232: "It's been four years" says Romney, who says the economy is growing slow and Obama's plan will kill 700 million jobs.

0226: Onto the deficit now, as Romney says it is "simply not moral" to add a trillion dollars a year. Romney would cut all programs that need to "borrow money from China" such as PBS, saying "I like Big Bird, I like you, Jim."

[ZINGER]

0223: Obama says they may have to move on before saying "math, common sense and our history" should prevail. Romney argues that he is not in favour of a $5 trillion tax cut, but to bring down rates. He talks of the last four years where 23 million people are in unemployment.

0221: "It's fun isn't it?" as Romney is stopped by Jim Lehrer who says they have long gone passed their first 15 minute segment. 

0218: Obama is explaining his position on the removal of the Bush-era tax cuts for those who earn over $250,000. Donald Trump is a small business under Romney's plans, says Obama and does not need tax relief.

0217: Romney is going on the attack, calling Obama "inaccurate" and challenges the study that Obama references. Obama can be seen smiling and takes down notes.

0214: Obama says Romney is proposing in $5 trillion tax cuts with a further $2 trillion in military spending, citing analyst's claims that it would cost the average middle income family $2,000.

0212: "Middle income families are being crushed" says Mitt Romney who says tax rates need to come down. Romney also says "I like coal" with a wish to make America energy independent.

0209: Obama responds by giving some specific policy ideas of his own. He wants to hire more maths and science teachers, talks of Bush-tax era cuts and the need for cleaner energy sources. 

0207: Mitt Romney is next. He outlines his five-point plan for promoting economic growth.

0204: We start with jobs. Obama wishes Michelle Obama a happy anniversary and cracks a joke about having it in front of 40 million people before Obama makes his case for investing in education and energy and reducing the deficit.

0200: Hello and welcome to Something Quite Witty - for a first, as I dip my toes into the water of liveblogging. It is kick off time at the Magners Arena in Denver, Colorado. Jim Lehrer is explaining the rules as Obama and Romney make their way onto stage.

The tabloid demonisation of Jeremy Forrest

Megan Stammers, the 15-year-old schoolgirl from East Sussex, was today found in the French town of Bordeaux. She was discovered along with Jeremy Forrest, her 30-year-old maths teacher after they left the UK last Thursday.

The story of this couple had sparked an international campaign to find Megan and Jeremy, encompassing both traditional and social media. For traditional media, the newspapers and television, it was a copy gold-mine. They spent the week delving into the background of Forrest, bringing up his career as a amateur musician and analysing messages he wrote on Twitter.

On the whole, the media behaved itself. It is perfectly acceptable in these sorts of stories to look into the background of a man who had become a household name. However, some media outlets took the opportunity to demonise Jeremy Forrest and slant their coverage to paint a rather negative picture of him.

The Daily Mail claimed that Forrest had "groomed" Megan Stammers for months before their disappearance, seemingly unaware that the Home Office's definition of "grooming" is "to lower the child’s inhibitions in preparation for abuse or exploitation." We do not know the details of their relationship but it is believed that Megan was happy to leave with Jeremy Forrest and did not need manipulating.

The Mail continued when a photo of the couple, arm-in-arm, was released. The caption read that Forrest could be seen with his arm "wrapped possessively around Megan's shoulder." Possessive is a bit of a stretch; when celebrity couples walk in the same way that Megan and Jeremy did, the Mail calls it "relaxed" or "affectionate."

The Mail was not alone in all of this. The Sun took the opportunity to call Forrest's tattoo of a female manga character "weird" and noted its "intricate childlike" posing. The Daily Mirror picked at another of Forrest's tattoos, a lyric from a Nirvana song, believing it "to be a tribute to Megan" and branded it as "chilling."

This is not a case of tabloid finger-pointing. If any other newspaper or media outlet had acted like this, I would have pointed them out too (if I have missed any, please feel free to comment). I also have no doubt that what Forrest did was wrong and should quite rightly face criminal charges.

But the demonisation of Jeremy Forrest from some newspapers verged on comical. Tabloids have had a history in reporting crime where they try to paint a picture of creepy villains, e.g. Christopher Jeffries. The circumstances surrounding Jeremy and Megan's relationship are still unknown and will be until the police begin their inquiries. But anyone who read the tabloid coverage might think they knew it all: the possessive, weird, chilling maths teacher who abducted the care-free 15-year-old. Slightly prejudicial? I certainly think so.

Mitt Romney vs the World

Lord help us, the next President of the United States might just be an idiot. Not the kind of bumbling idiot like Hugh Grant or Mr Bean, which is the type that we enjoy. The next President could be a genuine, gurgling idiot who cannot visit a country without angering every single person in it. I am talking about Mitt Romney, who is currently travelling the globe in an attempt to spread bad-feeling.

Romney began in Britain, after making comments to NBC that the problems leading up to London 2012 were “disconcerning” and questioning whether we could “come together and celebrate the moment.” Cue a media stoning, labelling him as “Mitt the Twit” after our opening ceremony was hailed as one of the best of all-time and the atmosphere at the Games reached fever-pitch.

Next, the Twit went to Israel, where he announced to the world that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel – unaware of their conflict with Palestine. Romney also cited “cultural” differences as the reason for Israel’s greater economic successes when compared to Palestine. So far, so bad for Romney but surely he was done, right?

Wrong. Romney is set to bring back that old American pastime of Russian bashing, during a speech to the Warsaw University in Poland. Mitt has previously said Russia is America’s “No 1 geopolitical foe” and he seems ready to fan the flames of conflict and encourage Vladimir Putin to bring it.

The trip has been branded a “Romneyshambles” but it is far from that. The Twit certainly angered a lot of people but for him, it was a resounding success. The important thing for Romney is the money he raised on the way. The event in Israel, for example, was a $25,000-a-head fundraiser with guests such as the owner of the New York Jets, Woody Johnson and Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate. There was a similar event in London too, where tickets cost between $50,000 and $75,000 and featured a number of executives from everyone’s favourite bank of the moment, Barclays, who have donated more than $1 million to Romney’s campaign.

Such is the nature of politics, that a trip so disastrous can actually benefit a candidate. In what is being called the most expensive presidential campaign of all-time, the battle for money between Romney and Obama is becoming a global operation. And in a race where the polls are so tight, it will be advertising and campaigning that will win the White House.

However this trip has shown me that Mitt Romney is not ready for the presidency. If the leader of the free world cannot travel it without offending everyone he comes across, how could he possibly represent the U.S. on the national stage? When foreign media describe him as “rude” or “graceless” perhaps he has a lot of work to do. Before people say that I am biased, yes, I am. I pray that Obama keeps the presidency because I believe he is one of the best presidents in modern history. Yes, it is a bit unfair to criticise Romney for one bad trip. But when you come to Britain as a Presidential candidate, a country that you have previously praised for the special relationship it shares with your homestead, it is not a great sign when you leave looking ridiculous.

As the days go by, the prospect of President Romney is looking more and more realistic. Obama is being punished for a sluggish economy and gloomy unemployment figures. All Romney has to do is keep his mouth shut and come November, he could ride the wave of recession all the way to the White House. After that though is anyone’s guess. He will have control of the big red button and I do not know who I would trust more: Mr Bean or the Twit.   

Olympics security is in the hands of good-natured but possibly inept individuals

In my review of the week for LOUDMOUTH, I touched upon the crisis surrounding Olympics security and G4S, the private company contracted to provide 13,700 guards for a fee of £284 million. But one paragraph could not explain how much trouble the Home Office is in over this, resulting in the deployment of 3,500 troops to fill the void left by G4S.

So what is G4S?

They are “the world’s leading provider of security solutions”, running operations in more than 125 countries and employing over 650,000 people. They were contracted by Locog in 2010 to provide 2,000 personnel for the London Games, before their stake was upped to provide another 10,000 guards including unpaid volunteers and students.

How good are they?

According to themselves, they are a “global leader” and they have a presence in worldwide bank security, border patrol and airport security, including Heathrow. But they have met criticism for their managing of major events in the past; BBC’s Newsnight found that an internal investigation was launched after security lapses at last year’s Wimbledon. The Guardian has revealed more recent trouble with G4S, saying how:

“Guards told how, with 14 days to go until the Olympics opening ceremony, they had received no schedules, uniforms or training on x-ray machines. Others said they had been allocated to venues hundreds of miles from where they lived, been sent rotas intended for other employees, and offered shifts after they had failed G4S's own vetting.”

If guards have not received proper training, what are G4S doing about it?

Well, nothing. GHS’ Facebook page for new recruits called “Securing London 2012” has a huge number of people complaining about their lack of training, calling it a “cock up” and a “shambles”. One person, a Sam Aston said:

“I still have no accreditation and no training. Wisely, G4S recognised this and offered me 3 more training days... After my first shifts. Now I'll be working as a team leader and if I have no role specific training at all, I feel sorry for those I manage because I will be worse than useless. This has gone beyond a simple G4S cock up. If something happens at the Games, this is probably criminally negligent.”

Another recruit, Daniel Sedgeley Broadbent said:

“The training & administration has been appalling, as well as promising certain positions & not fulfilling it. Still waiting for the SIA badge from the course completed start of March. G4S can stick there poxy job where the sun don't shine! Good luck to those who are continuing, this unorganised mess is just the beginning...wait till you start!!””

So if a number of guards have no training or experience, how safe are the Games going to be?

This is where the Home Office stepped in. Theresa May announced on Thursday the deployment of 3,500 soldiers to man the Games, on top of the 10,000 already promised by the Ministry of Defence. Some number of these soldiers has had to leave combat in Afghanistan and head to the London Games for their summer leave, before going back for another tour of duty. Brigadier Alister Davis, a former British Army commander, said it best: “Some things are simpler in the desert.”

With two weeks until the Games, is London ready?

The stadiums are built, the tracks are flattened and the sun is shining (not); the stage is set for a glorious Olympics games. But behind the gloss and the flamboyance is a real, genuine problem. G4S have failed to fully securitize the Games in a job they were paid £284 million to do. Their poor management of recruits, shoddy selection of candidates (some, who according to one recruit, could not spell their own name: “the staff were having to help them.”) and overwhelming incompetence has led to the drafting in of troops from their summer leave, already demoralised by cutbacks to battalions and poor conditions and pay. It may sound cliché in this current political climate, but this has been a complete shambles. But this is not a bureaucratic one which might affect something minor or trivial; this is the safety and security of real people in the hands of good-natured but possibly inept individuals. And that is not their fault. It is that of G4S, a company who bit off more than they could chew and who I hope might feel the slice of an axe through their neck at the end of it (although an athlete might feel it first).          

The horror of "the Hollywood coming out"

Coming out: Johnny favours the ukelele, potentially ruining his film career.

The idea of a "coming out" is one I have always hated, particularly a Hollywood one. The tradition was for the celebrity in question to give an intimate interview to a generic, waxwork model of a host, who would nod sensitively, as the celebrity talks about their long, personal journey and the battles they faced in being gay/lesbian. The family of said celebrity are there, holding each other hands in a daisy chain and fighting back the tears.

Now, the norm is no longer. More and more celebrities have decided that sexuality is.. well, their sexuality. Zachary Quinto (Spock from Star Trek and Sylar from Heroes) came out in an interview with New York Magazine, saying:

'"As a gay man, it made me feel like there's still so much work to be done, and there's still so many things that need to be looked at and addressed."

In just four words, Quinto caused a celebrity shit-storm. Some were praising Quinto's bravery whilst others said he should of done it "louder and prouder". More recently, Jim Parsons (Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory) was "outed" in an interview with the New York Times. This time, it was not even Parsons who said it. It was in a throwaway line at the bottom of the page which said:

"'The Normal Heart' resonated with him on a few levels: Mr. Parsons is gay and in a 10-year relationship, and working with an ensemble again onstage was like nourishment, he said."

Again, reaction to Parsons has been mixed. A columnist for Out magazine, Michael Musto to be come out "louder because it was the honourable and sensible thing to do". Musto's words send a chill down my spine, casting my thoughts back to a Hollywood-pleb host and crying family.

Being "loud" about homosexuality only hurts the cause. It emphasises sexuality as an issue, one that should be shouted from the rooftops. I know several gay people and they do not feel the need to scream about it. I am not suggesting that gay/lesbian people should stay quiet and never mention it. I am just against the Hollywood-style of coming out. If an actor/actress is gay, so what? It does not affect their talent, their ability to make us laugh or cry. It just means they hug another man or woman at the awards shows.

Being openly gay like Ellen DeGeneres or Neil Patrick Harris is perfectly OK. They are reverting stereotypes about gay people, by being normal, funny, happy human beings. Campaigning for gay rights is an admirable cause too. The battle for legalised gay marriage was twisted on its head when Barack Obama announced his approval, despite the difficult political and social climate for the proposals. But there is a difference between legal recognition and social acceptance. Homosexuality should not be made into an issue and the horror of the sit-down interview should be a warning to those who think it should.

Spotlight: America's murderous drone campaign is fuelling terror by Suemas Milne

"In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason." - Ernest Hemingway

Suemas Milne has given us a chilling look into the new brand of modern warfare, in his piece for the Guardian on Wednesday 29 May 2012.

Milne talks about the U.S. army's use of Hellfire drones and Predator missiles to target terrorists in the Middle East, typically Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan. The campaign, which Barack Obama has called "overseas contingency operations", is brutal and relentless. The Bureau for Investigative Journalism estimates that 2,464 to 3,145 Pakistani people have been killed by drones since 2004. Of that number, up to 828 were civilians: 175 were children. Ironic in a week where the U.S. and other world nations have heavily condemned the massacre of 49 children in the Syrian town of Houla.

The Houla massacre and the U.S. drone killings should not be considered the same: one appears to be the work of a vicious civilian militia whilst the other is a campaign against extremist cells. But it does show the effects of two different types of war. Houla was door-to-door, slitting throats and executing people on the spot. The drone killings are intensely calculated and designed to eliminate targets with a minimum risk to innocents - sometimes not enough.

Warfare has become an exercise in risk management. The use of new technologies and unmanned drones are an effort to make precise killings, to destroy targets in urban centres with the minimum of fuss and to avoid innocent people dying like dogs. Has it worked? To a degree - yes. But if you asked that same question to the families of the 175 children, they would not speak kindly of the missiles raining down on them from a land across the other side of the globe.

This is the view that Milne suggests is growing in these areas. A Ministry of Defence study in 2011 called "The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems" found that:

"The ill-considered use of armed unmanned aircraft offers an adversary a potent propaganda weapon…[enabling] the insurgent to cast himself in the role of the underdog and the West as a cowardly bully - that is unwilling to risk his own troops, but is happy to kill remotely."

Suemas Milne believes that the drone war "is feeding hatred of the U.S. - fuelling terror, not fighting it" and it is a legitimate point. Extremism is often fuelled by a hatred of the state, through their own personal experience. A dead son or daughter or brother at the hands of drone operatives a thousand miles away could push these people further into the arms of extremist groups. Anti-American sentiment could be spreading and the threat grows larger, so Obama authorises the use of more drones to curb this threat - a never-ending cycle with increasingly large death tolls.

But what is the alternative? If unmanned drones are seen as the safest, most efficient method of conducting this campaign, surely the only way is backwards. Men on the ground to eliminate terrorist threats in the same way that Osama Bin Laden was. But this is costly, inaccurate and can be dangerous for both the troops and civilians, who could become caught in the crossfire.

It seems that the nature of war means the innocents will always perish. But the seemingly safe drone war is a dangerous one, that might be causing more problems than it solves.

Using pen knifes to carve smiles onto teddies

Coalition assemble: Cameron chillaxs with the Avengers in a battle-torn New York City.

A new book by Francis Elliott and James Hanning has painted a very personal picture of David Cameron. Entitled "Cameron: Practically a Conservative", it details Cameron's childhood, his rise through the Tory ranks and gives a rare insight into the personal life of Britain's most important man. However it is also given ammunition to both the Labour opposition and the media to accuse Cameron of too much "chillaxing", claiming that he is not as dedicated to the premiership as he should be. Couple this with the claim from Barack Obama that Cameron "sneaked off" from the recent NATO summit in Chicago for a spot of sight-seeing, and it does not look good for Dave.

For a while now, there has been an effort to make politicians look more human and more cuddly, like using a pen knife to carve a smile onto a battered teddy bear. This is something I picked up on during the London mayoral election and my views are the same now as they were then: stop criticising politicians for being normal human beings.

I hate the idea that politicians should be painted as some kind of saint because they are an elected representative. If they are acting unlawfully, this is ok: judge them and take them to the stocks. But mocking Cameron for his lazy Sundays? Or as Labour quipped today in the Commons, Cameron's three or four glasses of wine with Sunday lunch? The man is running the country so give him some breathing room. If I was running the country I would probably drink three or four bottles before breakfast.

My favourite quote has come from Labour backbencher, John Mann who said to the Guardian:

"The prime minister should be totally focused on a plan for jobs and growth rather than playing computer games on his iPad." 

Economic opinions aside, Mann seems to have this idea of an eight-year old boy being given the keys to Chequers and asked to be the prime minister. Sitting up in his lush countryside bedroom, furiously slashing his fingers across his iPad screen whilst shouting "I AM FRUIT NINJA".

There was even an attempt to point fingers at Cameron for having a weekly date night with his wife Samantha. God forbid that Dave is a human being in a relationship with a woman. Damn him for spending some time with the mother of his child. Kick him, kick him in the nads!

One day, I pray the world will wake up and stop being stupid. In a week where the G8 held important talks over the future of Afghanistan, the Eurozone crisis continues to rumble on and the Beecroft Report proposals to allow companies to "fire people at will", Cameron's love for singing My Way by Frank Sinatra is completely irrelevant. Criticise him for a genuine reason, please?

Fortune favours the brave for Di Matteo?

Held aloft: Di Matteo is lifted by the victorious Chelsea team - an honour Villa Boas would have killed for.

In terms of drama, last night's Champions League final might be high up the list, with the likes of Milan & Liverpool and ironically Bayern & Manchester United in 1999. But in terms of footballing quality, it was a bit tame.

The stats paint a pretty good picture of the final: Bayern with 55% of the possession compared to Chelsea's 45%. When it comes to shots, again it was Bayern who were superior, getting 34 shots to just 9 that came from Chelsea. Some have said that Chelsea were lucky; they spent most of their time on the back foot, withstanding a Munich offensive that could be likened to blitzskrieg. Yet when Bayern did break through in the 83rd minute, it took just five for Chelsea to equalise from their first and only corner of the game, whereas Bayern had 20. To me, that figure is perhaps the best way of describing the match. Munich failed to take their chances and Ribery, Robben and Gomez should be disappointed not to have finished it early when they were tearing the Chelsea back-line to shreds in the first 30 minutes.

Such is football though, where the strongest of teams cannot make it count and the heroes could have easily been the villains. Take Didier Drogba for example, who was awarded the man of the match (personally I would given it to Ashley Cole). His foul on Franck Ribery was clumsy and if it was not for Petr Cech, Drogba could have been leaving Stamford Bridge in flames not fanfare.

The biggest question now is that of Roberto Di Matteo's future. He has certainly brought together a team that was cracking down the seams in the wake of Andre Villas Boas' departure. When Di Matteo took charge, Chelsea were adrift in the Premier League, packing their bags for a early exit from the Champions League and lacked the confidence, losing the aura that Chelsea had made for themselves. They looked like men: tired, old men struggling to keep it together. A Champions League and a FA Cup win later, they are playing with energy and a passion that was lost in the fray.

Di Matteo's style is not a beautiful one. He focuses on defence, allowing the back-line to take a battering, shake it off and counter. For Chelsea, it has worked and he has a win record of 61.90%. But to judge Di Matteo on his time at Chelsea is not looking at the bigger picture. His managerial career has spanned 156 games at MK Dons and West Brom, where his overall win percentage is 51.28%. It is still a good record, beating that of the newest Chelsea candidate, Harry Redknapp (40.82% over 1,274 games). Di Matteo is still behind Jose Mourinho (69.49% over 567 games) and Pep Guardiola (72.65% over 246 games). The strongest choice looks like Guardiola, but he has since ruled himself out.

So it comes to Di Matteo, Redknapp or Mourinho. Redknapp is unlikely to move to Chelsea, despite his apparent yearning for a new challenge, a change of scenery (5 miles down the road). The head says a return for "the Special One" Jose Mourinho. He is a proven winner, having won trophies in the top four European countries: England, Spain, Italy and Portugal. But is it perhaps too late for Mourinho to make his spectacular return? Would he rather stay at Real Madrid and capture the Champions League? It is the one trophy that has eluded him at Madrid and he has built a solid team of modern-day Galacticos that could make that step.

The heart says Chelsea should take a risk and go with Di Matteo. In the Abramovich-era, they have always seeked out the big-name option to go into the dugout: Mourinho, Luis Scolari, Guus Hiddink, Carlo Ancelotti. Some had success, but most did not. Villas Boas was a step in the opposite direction, hiring someone with less credentials than those previous. But he could not manage the dressing room and it cost him, in my opinion, unfairly. Di Matteo has what Villas Boas did not: control. He has earnt the respect of the team and now has some of the credibility needed to take them forward. Fortune favoured Roberto in Munich and it could favour him again.   

A day in the life of Mark Zuckerberg

Today has been a good day for Mark Zuckerberg. But I imagine everyday is a good day for Mark Zuckerberg. Imagine being him, imagine it for a second. Stop reading this and just think. You wake up next to your beautiful girlfriend, eat a bowl of cereal (probably Golden Nuggets) and head off to work. When you get to your HQ in Menlo Park, California, you sit at your desk for a bit, poke a few people then head off for a meeting. You walk into the board room and you notice everyone is looking at you a bit funny, presumably because you are still in your pyjamas. Yet no one stops the meeting, they just carry on and trot some numbers. They just do not care, because "you are the CEO bitch!"

That is a normal day for Zuckerberg. So imagine the bounce in his step today, as Facebook went through its IPO (initial public offering). An IPO is when a private company goes public, creating shares and selling them on the stock market, so anyone can own a bit of Facebook. Today those 421 million shares were valued at $34 to $38 each, giving Facebook a total value of $104 billion dollars. To put that into perspective, Facebook is now the highest valued company at the time of its IPO in U.S. history, beating Google and Amazon. But it could be somewhat of a poisoned chalice for the company, because there are now astronomically high expectations of Facebook to make big returns for its shareholders.  

For Facebook to be a successful public company, it must achieve three things. First of all, it must conquer China. Not by raising an army of similarly under-dressed Zuckerberg clones and marching into Beijing (although looking at its vast audience, it probably could). At the moment, China has nearly 500 million internet users and Facebook has a 0% share of that bulk. Facebook needs China, but it is a notoriously hard market to crack and some experts have said that the longer Facebook takes to enter China, the less successful it will be in terms of revenue.

The second is to increase revenue. The historical valuation of the company is going to put a lot of pressure on them to produce results, especially from its advertisers. Advertising is a main source of income for Facebook, and yet they are not doing that well. This is why: I assume you reading this has a Facebook. If so, be brutally honest and think how many times you click the links at the side of the page, telling you to visit so-and-so. No, I don't either. That is why Facebook makes just $5 a year off of each user and for a website with 900 million users, $5 is feeble. It needs to increase its revenue tenfold if it is to live up to expectations.

The third and final point is perhaps the most difficult: stay relevant. When I first dipped my toes into the somewhat tepid water of social networking, everyone was using a site called Piczo. Within a few years, everyone had upped sticks and moved to Bebo. Then it was MySpace and now it is Facebook and/or Twitter. This is the 104 billion dollar question: is Facebook a fad? Or will it stay forever? I am not even going to guess. Facebook is trying its hardest to stay fresh and engaging for its users, but it seems like the now cool thing to hate Facebook. Timeline, for example, is universally-panned for being a useless eyesore that reminds me of a "for sale" board in the window of the local newsagents.

Facebook has the potential to be a truly-historical company, a symbol of the Web 2.0 movement and a genuine rags-to-riches story. It must keep its momentum going though and that is perhaps easier said than done.

LOUD MOUTH: a new network of unique student bloggers

I would just like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to a new project, launching on the 1st June 2012.

It is called LOUD MOUTH, a network to combine the most unique student bloggers from university campuses in the UK and America. Oh and me. The subjects covered include politics, technology, business, food, drink, music, clothes and general university life, along with a healthy dosage of art, photography and comedy. It sounds too good to be true, perhaps it is, but we wait with baited breath to see what the Collective (the name us writers are given, sort of like a nerdier Avengers) can produce.

I hope you check it out, because the writers are some of the best around and they deserve a tiny bit of attention. If you do not, they will crawl away into a corner to wither and die. Links are below:

The LOUD MOUTH main site: http://theloudmouths.org/
The biographies of the Collective: http://theloudmouths.org/our-writers/
The Ethos (the Collective's Code): http://theloudmouths.org/the-loud-mouth-ethos/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/THE_LOUDMOUTHS
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/loudmouthcollective

Will gay marriage cost Barack Obama the presidency?

Politics is a cynical trade. When the President of the United States makes a historic announcement that he is in favour of gay marriage, the first reaction is not one of celebration. Instead it is fear of what the polls will say. On Monday night, a New York Times/CBS poll gave Obama these hard numbers: 67% of those polled thought his endorsement of gay marriage was for "political reasons".

It shows the cynicism in politics when two thirds of the public believe Obama was only doing it for the sake of doing it. Twitter was an interesting place to be in the aftermath, the perfect place to gauge this reaction. All kinds of theories were flying about, ranging from the idea that senior Democrats pushed Obama into accepting gay marriage to the announcement being a vote-winning tactic before the general election. 

I am not naive, I know how politics works. The upcoming election was likely a factor in Obama's decision to make the announcement, in order to try and win back those on the Left who were still feeling "short-Changed". But accepting gay marriage as a vote-winner? In America? Those who believe this should look at the numbers. 57% of those polled feel no different about Obama than they did before his announcement, but 26% said they were now less likely to vote for Obama. If it was intended a vote-winner, they royally screwed that one up, didn't they?

I am inclined to think that the announcement was a genuine change of opinion from Obama - albeit quite sudden and rushed. It was certainly a risky move from him and one that could cost him the presidency. As the polls show, Obama just lost 26% of votes. But to be fair to him, there is no data to suggest who that 26% of people are. They could be Republican voters, who see the announcement as further evidence that he is not their man. However in what is proving to be an already tightly-contested election, it is possible that even the slightest swing away from Obama to Romney could hurt the incumbent's chances. 

The good news for Obama is only 7% of those polled view gay marriage as the most important issue. The majority are still regarding this election as an economic one. Jobs and unemployment levels are what Obama and Romney will be jousting over in the coming months. But it was a bold move for Obama to say what he did. He is playing Russian Roulette with his electoral chances, a game that I personally respect him for.

The Lib Dems will always be "traitors" to this generation

As Bruce would have said: "didn't they do well?" No, no, they did not Bruce. The Lib Dems took one hell of a beating in the local elections, waving goodbye to over 300 councillors and falling to their lowest level since the party formed in 1988.

It seems like forever ago when orange-and-white "Cleggmania" swept the country. Everyone agreed with Nick, including then Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who seemed to nod along with everything Clegg said, perhaps forgetting who it was he was fighting an election against. Maybe the combination of bright lights, Cameron's forehead glistening and Alistair Stewart's bark confused Brown and threw him off his game - a game he did not really have to begin with. Cut forward two years and the scene is very different. Cleggmania is a lot like Fenton the dog. It has run quickly into the distance whilst the party chases after it, desperate to have back in its grasp, screaming its name in the hope it will come sprinting back.

There is one difference: Fenton came back, Cleggmania will not. Lots of reasons have been thrown about for the Lib Dem-olition. The main one from the party is "mid-term blues". And to be fair, this is a factor. Mid-term elections act as a referendum on a party's performance in government, a reminder that the electorate is still here and watching (made awkward with a 30% turnout). Another argument is the "we are an austerity government and people won't like us". Again, there is some truth here. The harsh economic climate has resulted in a higher cost of living, unemployment and cuts which people tend not to enjoy, so they make their feelings known at the ballot box. But these two arguments have a flaw: we have a Coalition. The Conservatives also got a kicking, but it was the Lib Dems who bore the brunt of our boot up their ass.

One Lib Dem spoke to the BBC and defended this, saying where the Conservatives were not standing; it was the Lib Dems who were beaten. But this is not true. The Lib Dems were beaten everywhere. They gained just 16% of the national share of the vote, light-years away from the 34% the Lib Dems were polling after the first television debate of the 2010 general election. This raises a question. Yes, it is normal for the polls to turn against a government but why the Lib Dems? And why so much?

To quote my own dad, it is "that bastard Clegg who sold the students out". Tuition fees are the Lib Dem's kryptonite and something the public has not forgotten. It looked so promising when Clegg appeared in a video, pledging to battle against any increase in fees before abandoning that pledge.

Now it is fair to say that not all of the public disagreed with Nick. But if you throw shit at a wall hard enough, it will stick and the label of the "traitor" Lib Dems has not disappeared. In fact it has stuck so well that when it does eventually peel off the wall, a lovely brown mark will be visible. The good work of the Lib Dems in government, such as the increase on the rate of income tax, cannot paint over the sticky mark on the wallpaper until it gets a good painting over.

Ridiculous analogy aside, it will take some time for the Lib Dems to shake off their tag as the "traitorous bastards". But heir main problem is who they decided to alienate. Whilst it is typically known that students do not turn out in their droves to vote, when they grow up, marry, have children and start to take a bigger interest in who they pay their taxes to, they will look at the Lib Dems with an air of distrust. Like the older generation of today, who still see Conservatives not for their green policies but for Thatcherism and privatisation, the Lib Dems will be seen as the party who traded ideology for power. For a party that wishes to brush off their time in Coalition and fight independently in 2015, it is not a good sign. It is hard to imagine the Lib Dems play the role of an honest, genuine third party like they did in 2010. When this generation turn out to vote, they will look down the ballot, see Liberal Democrat and think just one word: "bastards".

People who make death threats are fuck-witters

I apologise in advance but this post could edge into rant territory. I try not to rant, but sometimes I do. Forgive me, but a blog is for blogging my insignificant thoughts and I certainly have a lot to get off my chest.

It concerns someone who has attracted quite a bit of interest, both in print and on Twitter: Sara Malm. I will not repeat her story or link to her i piece, because the content of her piece is not relevant. Instead I want to point to the ever-growing trend of death threats. Malm’s piece has proved controversial and spurned abuse, insults, response posts and messages threatening her life. Malm tweeted about the threats, saying:

“I'm done explaining myself. If you didn't understand it on Friday I doubt you will now. Stop sending me death threats, they're pathetic.”

“Although some of the personal ones are quite terrifying. Some douchebag tracked down my baby sis on fb and threatened me through her.”

People who read opinion writing, then disagree with it and then tell the writer they will kill them need to understand something. One, everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how much you disagree with it. Two, threatening to kill someone because of their beliefs is a sad indictment of some members of the human race. Three, going so far as to use the Internet to track down people’s family, just to use them as a way of threatening someone is.. is.. no words. No words can describe the stupidity of some people. Stupidity is not a strong enough word. Completely moronic, fuck-wittery is a bit closer I suppose.

Here is a simple life lesson that these fuck-witters should read, digest and adapt: people should be allowed to have an opinion without you wanting to kill them for it. Call me a revolutionary, hey, call me crazy, but that is my opinion. No doubt someone read that and disagreed. In which case, I will be sleeping tonight with an eye open and a nail gun underneath my pillow. 

      

I have used Malm as an example because it is a recent example. But the sad thing is there seems to be a growing number of people, who receive death threats. Some journalists in volatile areas receive threats from gangsters, corrupt police officers and military chiefs for revealing their wrongdoings. Some are Sara Malm or Samantha Brick. I am not lumping the two together, but they both had an opinion and both had their lives threatened. Is it me or should people be allowed to have a view without that fear? And this is not just a journalistic thing. Look at Rebecca Black, Alan Davies, One Direction from America, the Top Gear team, Alexandra Burke, Anton Ferdinand. Each has had death threats because of one reason or another and they happen so often now that it is hard to list all of them. I cannot believe I just wrote that sentence. It is difficult to comprehend but death threats are now the norm. That is the reality and it does not matter if it is genuine threats or Internet trolls. That is still a person, being told they are going to be killed.

Welcome to the human race, where we kill those we disagree with. R.I.P, sanity.