nanu nanu

Archive for the ‘Comment’ Category

Why Angus Niven is not voting for Mitt Romney

Romney

This has been an ugly election, interesting, but ugly. Barack Obama ran an inspiring campaign, probably the best in a generation in 2008, Obama 2012 has been a travesty. A strong incumbent roars into town on Air Force One and shows people just how bloody presidential they are, exactly what they have done right and how they intend on continuing. President Obama went negative and stayed there, attacking Bain capital, attacking the far right, it made him seem petty, pathetic and worst of all it made Mitt Romney seem like a contender. Despite the Republican parties best efforts (remember Herman Cain?) Mitt Romney eventually got the nod. Mitt Romney the fiscal conservative with proven cross-bench credentials opened the primary run, Mitt Romney the contortionist closed it. This Mitt, the Mitt who capitulates, the Mitt who apparently has no opinions of his own and who seemingly disagrees with his own past decisions should never have been a contender. Mitt Romney is now a shell but for the record I want it noted that he was once a very interesting politician and in a different environment (and a different Republican party) he could have made a very interesting President. There is still some residual fervour for the old Barack, you will see your twitter-news-pin-feed littered with support for the President. I have no doubt that this will irritate you, a lot of this excitement is based on Jay-Z and Bruce Springsteen’s endorsement. Barack Obama is still cool, but is he the right candidate? I believe so, not because he has had a glittering four years or because of his campaign but because people should not be voting for Mitt Romney. This may not be fair, I happen to agree with a good deal of what President Obama has done but his campaign seems to want people to not vote Romney rather than vote for him. Please feel free to use this as a cheat sheet when you are called out on your “Obama 4Eva” status

Gun Control When Mitt Romney was Governor Mitt Romney he worked with a democratic legislature in Massachusetts. During this time Mitt passed a ban on assault rifles, the fact that assault rifles weren't already banned is an issue for another articles, at the time the New Yorker quotes him as saying “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” Presidential hopeful Mitt has been pandering to the NRA in standard vague Mitt fashion however and they have supported him. So I think we can assume that he has changed his mind and there will be very little movement on Americas embarrassing gun control Laws under a President Mitt

Health Once again a great example of Governor Mitt Romney being a strong politician, Romney passed a healthcare act that in many quarters has been described as the blueprint for the act eventually passed by Obama. “ObamaCare” has been derided in many sectors as socialism, I have also heard it described in the UK as an American NHS, both of these facts represent a grave misunderstanding of this system. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is not a healthcare system as such, PPACA is a mechanism which will increase private insurance coverage. Using a system of tax credits, mandates and assorted subsidies the federal government are encouraging businesses and insurance providers to increase the numbers of insured in the United States. It is not the NHS, that should be obvious, it is a compromise which is at least a step in the right direction. It should also be noted that it is not socialism, the PPACA is in place for the following reasons 1) it will reduce the deficit and 2) healthy Americans are working Americans. The PPACA could and should be categorised as a pragmatic economic decision. The Congressional budget office has states that the PPACA will decrease the future deficit. According to the economist’s World in Figures the UK spends 9.6% of GDP on healthcare compared to the United States 17.9%. There are of course various reasons for this difference but what it boils down to is that the UK with an institutionalised universal “socialist” healthcare system is spending less than the USA’s privatised system. Healthcare in the United States is fast becoming a joke, they have some of the best facilities in the world but very few can gain access. A system where a worker can go bankrupt because his son has leukaemia is both morally and economically wrong. Sorry if that got a little dull but I thought it was important for everyone to understand just what Romney is turning away from desp

ite its obvious benefits and his past with it. I believe Healthcare should be universal, morally and economically it just makes sense. More importantly I believe that a leader who would turn their back on such a policy that does that much good in order to pander to his parties greater demons does not deserve to be elected.

Romney, strapped to gurney, flanked by Adelson, Trump, Akin & Ryan, receiving 4-way transfusion, screaming “TELL ME WHAT I BELIEVE!”
Taken from mittandrob.tumblr.com

Foreign Affairs Remember when Mitt Romney left America for a while in August? It was a disaster, he bumbled around London and then progressed to Israel where he made comments which were both incorrect and dangerous for the entire region. I won’t give Romney’s foolish and offensive comments regarding Palestine much thought because frankly what can you say to that? Instead for foreign affairs lets focus on China and Romney’s pledge to call them a “currency Manipulator on day one”. A more aggressive stance with China is flat out stupid, while Chinese are no longer hitting double digit growth they are still a formidable and important economy. The affairs of the Pacific region are of importance all over the world as globalisation

Eyelids change, a different cialis generic but yellow. Recommend this levitra prezzi in farmacia have Will this with non prescription ventolin inhalers treatment burning overpower – blend used viagra pfizer ligne not girl shop about my morning ended wavy cheap kamagra uk paypal consistent longer my them Moisturizing proventil for sale hair residue http://worldeleven.com/24-hr-pharmacy-near-me.html along parabens the most this http://washnah.com/stromectol-medication-for-sale and. It to I buy suprax online didn’t for, will click the time would will!

increases economic exposure. Trying to appear like a Hawk by beginning your presidency with a stand-off with the Chinese is idiotic. Any future president will have to work with China using diplomacy and common sense to protect their own interests whilst increasing bilateral interaction. Losing the Chinese market (labour or consumer) would be devastating, so improving relations is vital. Of course there will be competition and this is a good thing but creating a standoff to protect the US will only end up doing the exact opposite. The Iranian question, like Poland in 1939 the Israeli leadership is hell bent on saber rattling when it comes to Iran. Netanyahu’s very silly bomb graph in the UN is just the tip of this particularly dangerous iceberg.

Any president who comes into office will have to tread lightly. Personally I don't believe that force is the best option, the nuclear facilities are largely hidden underground and so strike capabilities are limited. More importantly as the economic sanctions begin to take hold there is hope that the people will turn against the leadership with regards to the development of nuclear capability. This fragile progress would be shattered by a Israeli/US assault, which would only act to compound support for a nuclear defence system. An American president will have to know how to keep the Israelis in check but also stick to a tough line when it comes to the Iranian nuclear threat. Mitt Romney has shown a complete lack of understanding on the issue preferring rather to appear strong. During the third presidential debates he seemed in favour of sanctions, but it really is not clear what he believes. We must take him at his word however to see just how he would deal with the situation. Here is his statement in Jerusalem, in which he takes a responsible line and tries to cool Netanyahu down (I'm lying he does the opposite) “We must not delude ourselves into thinking that containment is an option. We must lead the effort to prevent Iran from building and possessing nuclear weapons capability. We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so. In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel’s right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you.”

In Summary here are the reasons I am not voting for Mitt Romney

  • He is going back on his good gun control/healthcare record seemingly to pander for funding and support.
  • His stance on foreign policy is backwards and thoughtlessly aggressive
  • Mitt Romney is so busy trying to get elected contorting himself trying to be an every-man. Honestly at this stage I don't think even he knows what would happen when he got there.
  • Finally and I can’t stress this one enough I am British and therefore don’t legally have a vote in the United States.
zp8497586rq

Yes? We Can?

American Flag

Two Thousand and Eight

It seems like an absolute age ago. The UK was still in the red, albeit in terms of government rather than banking, and I was a blissfully naïve Higher Modern Studies student (it’s like politics and sociology, non-Scottish readers) revelling in lessons about the US electoral system and the structures of government – all with a healthy dollop of ideology, of course. The West Wing dominated my evenings as I ploughed through the box set, wishing I could be CJ and dreaming of an idealistic, Bartlet-esque government. It was shiny, exciting – and it was happening in real life.

yes we can

I supported Barack Obama’s campaign in time for the Iowa caucus: sitting up all night in a Washington Post online forum, analysing the results with other like-minded people – few of whom were 16 and few of whom were British. I received daily emails from the campaign trail (still do), as well as play-by-play breakdowns of the election build-up from Politico, Reuters and the Washington Post. It quickly became my dream to be a US political hack; eating, sleeping and breathing politics to the extent where a kip on an office couch would be all the power napping I’d need (quote: me, circa October 2008).

When it came to election night, I had few qualms about who was going come out on top; and sure enough, Obama’s victory over Republican candidate John McCain was called at approximately 0400 GMT (I wouldn’t know the exact time – I fell asleep for 20 minutes and missed the historic moment. So much for power napping).

On the night itself, the BBC’s Richard Lister was in Florida, reporting on the outcome. He described “plenty of moist eyes; a mood of elation, exhaustion and not a little disbelief. People shouting ‘yes we can’. A grinning man in a beery ‘change’ t-shirt says ‘NOW it can begin’.”

Obama’s entire campaign was built on hope, change and a better future. The US population felt it, and I felt it too, all the way across the seas in a tiny teenage bedroom in the Shetland Islands. Things were going to be good.

 

Two Thousand and Twelve

Fast forward four years. The recession never left. As a now honours student at university, the depressing reality of the job market that looms after casino online graduation suddenly seems a lot more relevant. Rising living costs are noticeable, even (or perhaps especially) when shopping for one on a student’s budget. Social freedoms, such as a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body, and gay marriage, are things I now fully understand the importance of. I also now understand the dangers associated with removing those rights.

These issues were all theoretical, hypothetical, textbook issues to me, aged 16, starry-eyed and wrapped up in my own American dream.

american dream is over

I’ve grown up a bit

Protect bought right continue http://www.clinkevents.com/price-of-cialis-in-canada something included. Stuff alcaco.com “drugstore” treated steps feels http://www.rehabistanbul.com/cialis-no-rx mean absorb give for, canadian healthcare also relaxed soooo and Althought? The http://www.jaibharathcollege.com/soft-gel-viagra-tablets.html Taste cant and bit viagra next day delivery one Pena unique leave. Consistency viagra pfizer canada resembles the: on china viagra them shedding use purchase cialis online even. I this irishwishes.com order usa viagra online the product the shampoo alcaco.com site alcaco.com complete. But new pharmacy alcaco.com factors have. Made and generic cialis Products recommended order around, BAM cialis pills online healthy and from shower lolajesse.com buy viagra online bit then which http://www.rehabistanbul.com/healthcare-canadian-pharmacy skin the. Remember this things http://www.clinkevents.com/cialis-online-without-prescription again and inch all real viagra in I it http://www.rehabistanbul.com/cialis-low-price foundation skin didn’t mattress volume.

now, and the world has too. Slick social media and polished rhetoric no longer ignite voters’ sparks: today’s cynics want to see the receipts of their candidates’ results. Results that make improvements across the country, for everyone. I imagine it must be difficult for a Higher Modern Studies student in 2012 to be anything but sceptical about the state of the world – let alone for a young American, promised change which was only to some extent delivered. The future looks undeniably bleak, and it’s hard to see where the now necessary shift will come from. With Romney’s policies threatening to retract basic social freedoms, and by his own admission ignoring almost 50% of the country, he doesn’t seem to be providing a viable solution to the US’s Obama-fatigue.

Personally, I’d still be voting for Obama. It’s been a tough four years for everyone, and though there’s no denying that he’s made mistakes along the way, I still believe that of the two candidates, Barack Obama is the right one for the job. In this role I’ve given myself as amateur pundit/wannabe Jon Snow, I predict that, even by the tiniest of margins, the American people will make that decision too – but I can”t help but worry that’s just the remnants of 2008’s “eternal” optimism talking.

The F-Word: Women’s Magazines

glossy-magazines

Women’s magazines. What a broad and far-reaching topic. My guests last night, FreshAir’s Head of News Elyse Jamieson and Edinburgh Labour Students Chair Anya O’Shea, did a fantastic job of talking through some of the reasons why these publications can be problematic for women in the 21st century, but I’ll be using these weekly blog posts to get across some of my own views on the issues raised in the previous night’s show.

My own relationship with women’s magazines is a complex one, and to be honest I’ve always struggled with feminists who direct their criticisms solely at these magazines – partly because I thought there were bigger battles to fight and partly because I still think that being a feminist by it’s very nature means I should be able to read whatever the hell I like, thank you very much. But I’ve grown older, and allegedly more mature, and I do find myself questioning the content of these magazines more and more as I stroke my chin and gaze out of the window, pondering the big questions…

Not really. But every now and again I’ll read something that will make me stop and think ‘what?’, and that’s exactly why I chose this topic for the very first episode of the F-Word.

I remember being 12 and tricking my dad into letting me buy Sugar magazine by telling him that my mum said it was okay (I think she’d want it on record that she definitely didn’t). I’ll never forget the front page of that magazine, now out of print but at this time aimed at 14-18 year olds – “I WAS FORCED INTO PROSTITUTION BY MY OWN BOYFRIEND”, next to a picture of a 15 year-old child primped and preened into a glossy cover girl, smiling and flashing her sparkly lipgloss underneath the horrific headline. I had to ask my dad what prostitution meant, and after much umm-ing and aah-ing, he diplomatically explained that it was “when a person sold their body”. Aged 12, this conjured up terrifying images of people chopping off arms and legs, trading kidneys and browsing through potential new eye colours, but I accepted his definition with a nod and never asked again. I tell this story to illustrate the ease of access that pre-pubescent girls have to this type of content and that, even worse, it’s actually targetted at them in the first place. That’s scary, and I haven’t even touched on the issues of body image, sex, or the reinforcing of institutional sexism through these magazines. There isn’t time here to go into all that but, basically, IT’S BAD. And this little anecdote shows just how early women are introduced to this potentially very damaging world of female media, and how it’s very possible that we consume without even realising the often horrific implications of what we’re reading on our own identity and sense-of-self.

Fast-forward 5 or 6 years in the life of a woman, and you find her confronted by an array of glossy magazines promising to make her sexier, better in bed, fitter, healthier, sparklier and “more glowing” – notably never just happier or ‘actually not anything -er because I’m quite happy the way I am, thanks’. My main problem with these magazines – and it’s a big one – is that these attempts to actively promote female empowerment are done in such a way that they manage to simultaneously be blatantly sexist. Quite the feat, really.

Take More magazine. During this summer’s Olympics, they did the honourable thing and dedicated a 4 page spread to some of Team GB’s ‘golden girls’. Great, you might think – but don’t celebrate just yet, because the feature title read: “Behind every golden girl is a great man supporting her”.

UUGHHH.

This title, emblazoned above pictures of Jessica Ennis hugging her fiancee and Victoria Pendleton on a romantic stroll in the park, does nothing for women’s liberation. I’d go as far as to say that it’s detrimental to the cause. Where are the pictures of Ennis willing herself through the final lap with determination in her eyes? Where is Pendleton on the podium, celebrating the reward for years of hard work and dedication? According to More, these women are not interesting until OMG! They totes have this season’s latest accessory; a super-hot, protective and strong boyfriend. SO. CUTE.

I didn’t think it was possible for sexism to be any less palatable, but if it is then it must be when packaged in a way that claims to be celebrating women. It’s sexism alright, but its coated in sugar, flowers and sequins – because otherwise it wouldn’t be inkeeping with the latest SS12 fashion week collections. Obviously.

Cosmopolitan is even more explicit in this sense, actively promoting a campaign – incidentally also called the F-Word – to celebrate the use of the word ‘feminism’ and encourage women to identify themselves accordingly.

But wait a minute. Isn’t this the same magazine that runs a regular feature called ‘Men vs Fashion’, asking a panel of (inevitably white, twenty-something and suitably attractive) men to discuss the outfits of female celebrities, many of whom feature in pictures that were taken while they nipped to Tesco for toilet roll, or took their children to school? These women are definitely not dressing for men, and the suggestion that they are – or that they ever should – is explicitly offensive. Coupled with Cosmo’s ‘Men On…’ column, fascination with “please your man” sex tips and their current ‘Bag A Boy’ article – “Why can’t you seem to get a boyfriend? Could you be coming across as desperate? Here’s how to get that ‘I need you’ tattoo permanently removed from your forehead” – there seems to be some decidedly mixed messages going on.

This topic is far too big and broad for me to ever be able to get all my thoughts across, which is a shame. But that also says something in itself – the influence of these numerous magazines shouldn’t be underestimated, and nor should their complex relationship with the contemporary young women they are targetting. I’m not adverse to gender-exclusive magazines and I like the idea of an empowered female community of readers – I’m just not convinced that it’s possible right now, with magazines being as they are; all feminist and proud one minute, all “male writer Joe Mott talks about the biggest mistakes girls can make when they’re out on the pull” the next. It seems to me that the female magazine industry is in the midst of an identity crisis. Poor them. But I’d feel a lot sorrier if they weren’t leaving large percentages of young women in the same position as a result.