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.