tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-50219274292630161842024-03-13T07:29:50.212-07:00thisisNOTablogJonny Brighton, 22, London.JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-77726659418457776232018-03-29T05:19:00.000-07:002018-03-29T05:19:11.770-07:00Top 5 Cheapest Supercars You Can Buy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-I7y7DgFqTHg/WrzYUP2jZ_I/AAAAAAAAAMQ/LDrQCnfBDk8IiRQ0tP-ks9vtRO1KoQNfgCLcBGAs/s1600/YTTHUMBcheapsupercar.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-I7y7DgFqTHg/WrzYUP2jZ_I/AAAAAAAAAMQ/LDrQCnfBDk8IiRQ0tP-ks9vtRO1KoQNfgCLcBGAs/s1600/YTTHUMBcheapsupercar.png" /></a></div>
<br />
Interested in buying a supercar but don't have supercar levels of money? No problem. These 5 supercars are all below £40,000, and considering the average price of a new car in the UK is more than £28k these are an absolute steal!<br />
<br />
Watch the video below, and make sure to subscribe to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXZbsp5LHpVNia7NnGhKoiQ" target="_blank">Cars With JB</a> on YouTube for more weekly car content.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-kqY3KPRYPI/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-kqY3KPRYPI?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-77810216696984187192018-03-21T11:56:00.001-07:002018-03-21T11:56:51.050-07:00Top 5 Cars to Invest in for 2018<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b5gKfbzMgA4/WrKqbkNTnOI/AAAAAAAAAMA/nIaK5IAY6FUj1u1ialG4Uumsb4MM40QXACLcBGAs/s1600/YTTHUMBinvest.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b5gKfbzMgA4/WrKqbkNTnOI/AAAAAAAAAMA/nIaK5IAY6FUj1u1ialG4Uumsb4MM40QXACLcBGAs/s1600/YTTHUMBinvest.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Which cars will gain in value moving into 2019?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /><br />
Looking for info on which cars are the best bets when it comes to investing? Check out my new video (below) to hear my thoughts on the top 5 cars you should consider putting your money into, as they have the potential to increase in value over the coming years.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/i4Jr-8zAqII/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i4Jr-8zAqII?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-45436176030033735752018-03-15T09:17:00.000-07:002018-03-15T09:17:10.784-07:00Top 6 Fastest Cheap Cars Under £5,000 - My New YouTube Channel<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6BSJfqxQ4oY/WqqcMm2JxaI/AAAAAAAAALs/cjzySeKIwNsZ6gvfl9E6knvX8ZEJEtAAgCLcBGAs/s1600/YTTHUMBunder5k.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="360" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6BSJfqxQ4oY/WqqcMm2JxaI/AAAAAAAAALs/cjzySeKIwNsZ6gvfl9E6knvX8ZEJEtAAgCLcBGAs/s640/YTTHUMBunder5k.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">An Audi S3 is my 5th pick, what would yours be?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
I promised I'd be working on new projects this year (and not just my dissertation) and my YouTube channel is probably the most important one to me...<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you wanna check it out and subscribe, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXZbsp5LHpVNia7NnGhKoiQ" target="_blank">click this link</a>, otherwise watch the video below to find out what my picks are for the fastest/best cars you can buy for under £5,000.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qW31KpUCgF8/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qW31KpUCgF8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Hope you enjoy - make sure to comment, like and subscribe if you like this kind of content!</div>
JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-39304552805465216162018-01-04T16:31:00.003-08:002018-01-04T16:33:16.933-08:00Big Things in the Making...<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iiKj-q5-9cs/Wk7GmPBRmgI/AAAAAAAAALU/LSkrV20fqaoYjd_N2lWMqUfmZuZbIXNTgCLcBGAs/s1600/28%252C000%2Bviews%2B-%2BCopy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="447" height="161" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iiKj-q5-9cs/Wk7GmPBRmgI/AAAAAAAAALU/LSkrV20fqaoYjd_N2lWMqUfmZuZbIXNTgCLcBGAs/s320/28%252C000%2Bviews%2B-%2BCopy.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Returning just in time to celebrate this milestone - thanks for all the views since I've been gone!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Hi again all...<br />
<br />
I disappeared for a little while basically due to life being life.<br />
<br />
No promises that I'm entirely back, but I have plans for 2018 that I aim to see through - I've got YouTube plans, Blog plans, job plans, uni plans - all the plans (hopefully if I make enough plans I'll actually finish some of them so that I feel at least slightly successful!)<br />
<br />
I bought the domain for a second blog as well, where I'll post more personal things. For this blog, I want to maintain the same kind of articles I've written in the past, as they're my favourite kind to write.<br />
<br />
Stay tuned.<br />
<br />
FYI, you can now <a href="https://www.bloglovin.com/blog/19239093/?claim=wrdn6dfqx6r">Follow my blog with Bloglovin</a> - it's a great place to find and follow new blogs, as well as keep up-to-date with your favourites.
<br />
<br />
JBJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-4292579568894404162016-03-25T14:40:00.004-07:002016-03-25T14:40:53.310-07:00Do athletes deserve high rates of pay?<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-p_m4OHld6ys/VvWvkNHs4oI/AAAAAAAAAJg/8BHySQJZMtkC13RnFHD6tnU89GpfkEpcA/s1600/Floyd-Mayweather.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-p_m4OHld6ys/VvWvkNHs4oI/AAAAAAAAAJg/8BHySQJZMtkC13RnFHD6tnU89GpfkEpcA/s1600/Floyd-Mayweather.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Money Mayweather - is he worth it? (photo from the Mirror)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This year, according to Forbes list of highest paid
athletes, Floyd Mayweather’s earnings from both his salary and sponsors will be
$300 million. Messi will earn $73.8 million, Federer $67 million, Hamilton $39
million and Bolt $21 million. All of these men are unbelievable athletes who
put in, and have put in, hours of hard work and dedication to become some of
the best in their respective sports, but do they really deserve or need that
much money for what they’ve achieved?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If we compare Mayweather’s salary, $285 million, to the
salary of an average London tube driver, $76,000, or to an average NHS doctor,
$107,075, or to an average police officer in the UK, $40,502, then we
definitely see a massive inequality. But these statistics aren’t the whole
story, considering Mayweather is not an ‘average’ boxer, he’s regarded as the
best – hence the pay, so comparing him to the ‘average’ of other jobs seems
unfair. If we instead compare him to the best/most highly paid of the same
three jobs; $92,673, $156,696 and $83,210 respectively, then we get a more fair
perspective on the salary differences. Per year, for beating someone up in a ring,
which he barely does anyway with such a defensive game, and for all his
training and hard work, Mayweather’s salary is 1,819 times that of the most
highly paid doctors in the UK.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Returning to the average salaries for a moment, the average
weekly pay in the Premier League is £25,000 per week, which means the average
salary is around £1,050,000 when you take the length of the league and off
season pay into account. A highly paid NHS doctor earns £69,325 per year – less
than the footballer makes in 3 weeks.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So the question that needs to be answered before we can
decide whether athletes deserve their high rates of pay is ‘what is worth
paying for?’ <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let’s assume pay is based on how hard people work;
Mayweather is renowned for being an unbelievably hard worker – commentators on
boxing suggest it is this factor which has kept him at the top for so long.
According to his training, he trains between 8-10 hours a day on the weeks
leading up to a fight, slightly less when just training normally, but it must
be said the actual training he does looks disgustingly difficult for the mere
mortal – he definitely works incredibly hard. Similarly, the average GP will work
a 9-10 hour working day, however the work does not appear quite as physically
strenuous as Floyd’s training. From this it might be plausible to argue that an
athlete may deserve a high rate of pay because of how hard they have to work to
be in their positions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If we follow this line of debate however and presume that
athletes have exceptional workloads, the argument fails when you compare
athletes’ pay to each other’s. Both Serena Williams and Novak Djokovic are
number 1 for women’s and men’s tennis, yet Djokovic brings in $48.2 million a
year while Williams only gets $24.6 million. Both players have a large point
margin over second place, and it’s safe to assume that they have similar
training regimes being tennis players, and yet Djokovic earns more than $20
million more – how is this fair? Similarly, as Djokovic is number 1 in tennis
we can compare him to the number 1 in a different sport such as athletics;
Bolt, despite a horrendously tough training regime, earns a measly $21 million
– all of that money comes from sponsorships as his salary is absolute $0,
whereas Djokovic’s salary comes to $17.2 million. As someone who has done
sprinting training at a BUCS level, and loves playing tennis too, I can
honestly tell you that athletics training is brutal on the body. So if we’re
suggesting that they deserve their pay because of how hard they work, there
needs to be a severe overhaul of which sports get the highest pay.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We can’t even remedy this issue based on how good they are
at their jobs – if people are paid fairly based on how good they are at their
individual jobs, then the top in every sport should be paid similarly, as
should the average, as should those in non-sport jobs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If we instead base the pay on how important they are for
society as a whole, the debate becomes a little more heated and convoluted. It
can be argued that professional sport has a positive impact on society;
sportspeople, who aren’t getting in trouble all the time, can be regarded as
good role models; sports events are good for local economies, pubs putting on
matches for example, as well as for simply giving people something to look forward
to and to socialise around; they provide a window in which we can define morals
and ethics to all of society, bettering issues of racism, sexism, homophobia
and the likes. It would be foolish to argue that professional sports are
completely useless to society. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, doctors save lives on a daily basis, rubbish
collectors ensure we have clean streets – if they go on strike at any point
then we’ll all be screwed, police ensure we have a society in which we can feel
safe, even politicians do important work for society sometimes. It might also
be foolish then to suggest that professional sports are 1,819 times more
important for society than those who make society work outside of sports, and
allow for a society in which professional sports can exist. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 107%;">If this article was written in a country like
Brazil, the salaries of important figures that make society work would be
vastly lower, and the issue would be far greater. Athletes are exceptional in
their respective sports, and if we as a society regard sports as being worth
paying for, then they deserve pay. However, personally, I can’t see any reason
why some athletes will earn more from sponsorships and endorsements, like
appearing in a few Gillette adverts on TV, in one year than the majority of
people will earn in their lifetime – similarly with their salaries, the average
footballer in the Premier League has worked hard to be in their position, but
£25,000 per week hard..? That’s far more </span><span style="line-height: 15.6933px;">debatable</span><span style="line-height: 107%;">. </span></span>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-54494354259544764502014-12-02T08:11:00.000-08:002018-01-01T16:39:55.058-08:00Long Live Southbank: Long Live Skateboarding<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.llsb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1960s-owner_photographer-unknown.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.llsb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1960s-owner_photographer-unknown.jpg" data-original-height="484" data-original-width="800" height="193" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The glorious Southbank. (Photo from llsb.com)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
One year ago today I wrote a blog outlining my arguments
backing the Long Live Southbank campaign, which I think makes this a pretty
good time to review its progress. (You can read that article here: <a href="http://www.thisisnotablog.org/2013/12/LongLiveSouthbank.html">http://www.thisisnotablog.org/2013/12/LongLiveSouthbank.html</a>)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To put it briefly, the campaign was a massive success.
September this year saw this statement put out on the LLSB website:<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Following talks that have taken place over the last three months, Long Live Southbank and Southbank Centre are delighted to have reached an agreement that secures the Queen Elizabeth Hall undercroft as the long-term home of British skateboarding and the other urban activities for which it is famous.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The agreement has been formalised in a binding planning agreement with Lambeth Council. In the agreement, Southbank Centre agrees to keep the undercroft open for use without charge for skateboarding, BMX riding, street writing and other urban activities.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On the basis of the protections secured by the planning agreement, Southbank Centre and Long Live Southbank have withdrawn their respective legal actions in relation to the undercroft. These include Southbank Centre’s challenge to the registration of the undercroft as an asset of community value, Long Live Southbank’s application for village green status for the undercroft, and a judicial review of Lambeth Council’s decision to reject the village green application.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Long Live Southbank is pleased to support Southbank Centre’s Festival Wing project for the improvement of the Queen Elizabeth Hall, Purcell Room and Hayward Gallery, on the basis that the plans will now no longer include any redevelopment within the skate area of the Queen Elizabeth Hall undercroft.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Cllr Lib Peck, Leader of Lambeth Council said; “I’m pleased that Lambeth Council was able to work with both sides and find an imaginative solution to resolve this. Shared public space in London is precious and Southbank Centre is a great asset to the country’s cultural life. This agreement is a sensible way of protecting both and we can all now look forward.”</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To me, this appears to be an agreement based wholly on
LLSB’s terms, which were, in my opinion, the only acceptable terms to agree on.
The lack of compromise displays the triumph of the campaign; had there been,
for example, a clause suggesting we would have to pay for entry to undercroft,
or that street art was no longer permitted, or any other limitations or
exclusions, the extent of its success would be capped. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The organisation and leadership of the campaign must be
applauded for professionally and effectively directing LLSB, as without them
this success wouldn’t have been possible. It is easy to see campaigns such as
the ‘Occupy’ movement falter with a lack of effective organisation and
direction, remaining in history as idealistic movements with no real success or
solidification. LLSB’s leadership never lost sight of the target, thus effectively
mobilised the membership in the right direction, displaying the professionalism
of an interest group far more established.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In addition to this, the campaign was professional in
regards to its media and PR. Having watched plenty of the LLSB videos on YouTube,
purchased LLSB merchandise from the website and followed the Facebook and
Twitter, I for one commend those who played a role in all of these areas. The
videos are of a high standard, and gave a sense of legitimacy to the campaign,
as did the posts on social media, which displayed utmost decorum; perfect for
PR. Even the merchandise was of satisfactory quality; the whole production of
LLSB was enough to give it a high level of legitimacy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Long Live
Skateboarding.<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, less brown-nosing of the LLSB campaign, more ranting. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In May this year, Norwich City Council proposed a ban on
skateboarding in the city centre, vilifying those who take part in the pursuit,
claiming that it causes extensive damage to public property and is a
‘nuisance’.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Their ignorance amazes me.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Firstly, whether skateboarding is a hobby, an interest, a
way of life or whatever for those who do it, it is always an expression of
oneself, and a source of fun for more than 11 million people worldwide. It is
certainly not an example of ‘anti-social behaviour’. If anything, it is the
total opposite; skateboarding, as with other pursuits, brings people together
and gives people the opportunity to socialise, make friends who share their
passion, and progress with their art together. It does not endanger the general
public (barring any horrifically unfortunate, unlikely events), and does not
aim to do so; skaters tend to want to enjoy skating, not causing havoc. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Secondly, skateboarding does not misuse public property. The
term ‘public property’ directly implies that property is owned by the people,
thus the people have the option to utilise it as they so please. For example, the
existence of a rail does not have an explicit suggestion that it must be used
as an aid for people to walk up a staircase, in fact people may wish to slide
down rails on their backsides, or balance on it for the purposes of parkour, or
ultimately grind on it with their skateboards. It takes those with creativity
to see the rail as more than just the stair-climbing aid it was designed as; why
should we perceive creativity as a criminal offence? (So long as it doesn’t actually
hurt people, of course). Can it not be said that creativity is what gives us an
interesting, diverse society? Banning skateboarding because it scratches a park
bench or a rail outside a shop or a ledge on a bed of flowers is a gross
overreaction. Any possible minor damages to such are a small price to pay to
have a community of people both young and old enjoying the same pastime
together. In fact, the art of skateboarding attracts far more viewers than any
railing would on its own; the amount of times I’ve seen crowds of people
watching as skaters utilise public property in an interesting way certainly
evidences this. Not everyone is like this guy:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6vjjouJryBI" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
And that’s pretty much how Norwich City Council looks to me.
As if they’re saying ‘SKATEBOARDING IS BAD BECAUSE IT JUST IS SO THERE’, as if
participating in a primary school playground argument. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Leading on from this, my final point. Skateboarding is the
total opposite of a nuisance, as I think has already been implied in this
article. It is a well-respected, established sport with a huge following. One
of the leading arguments I made for the LLSB campaign was that undercroft is a
cultural hub for thousands of people; skateboarding itself is that culture. It
adds to a diverse society of interests, allowing for people to see the world as
they want to see it. But more practically than that, it’s a well-known
expression used by officials that they wish to ‘keep young people occupied’ and
stop them from ‘hanging around on street corners’ and the likes; in order to
have a mobilised, occupied youth, there has to be the opportunity for young
people to actually enjoy themselves and do things to pass the time, and
skateboarding is certainly one of them. By taking away more and more pastimes
for young people, you leave them with less and less options for enjoyment. So rather
than seeing it as a nuisance, see it as a great way of giving young people an
opportunity to enjoy themselves, and a way to educate people in the importance
of being able to have fun, or in the importance of bettering themselves in
whichever pursuits they wish to take part in. I would argue that if Norwich
City Council make skating a criminal offence, they are setting a terrible precedent
of anti-enjoyment; one which suggests that harmlessly pursuing a hobby is a ‘nuisance’
to society as a whole. In fact, the majority of times I’ve come into contact
with skaters on the street, they have politely allowed people to pass to ensure
it is safe before they continue, and so as to not impact other people’s days.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So to sum up, Norwich City Council: by making skateboarding
a criminal offence, you devalue enjoyment in our society, when compared with
the well-being of a few rails.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And all this coming from someone who doesn’t even skate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
#LongLiveSkateboarding<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
You can find the LLSB campaign here: <a href="http://www.llsb.com/">http://www.llsb.com/</a><br />
<br /></div>
JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-61083461276190760392014-11-30T13:30:00.000-08:002014-11-30T13:30:23.362-08:00None of the above: why it’s a good idea<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-303K8ie0F6o/VHuJvYcJSvI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/jKPuPjy7RKk/s1600/noneoftheabove.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-303K8ie0F6o/VHuJvYcJSvI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/jKPuPjy7RKk/s1600/noneoftheabove.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">My own take on a real ballot paper. (You can find it full-size on the Facebook page)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: red;">Turnout in May 2014 local council elections: 35.7%<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: red;">Turnout in London Mayoral elections 2012: 31.0%<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: red;">Turnout in UK Parliamentary elections 2010: 65.1%</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(Courtesy of electoralcommission.org)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: red;">Turnout in 2013 Australian general election: 93.23% (usually
fluctuates between 96% and 93%)</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And yet they call us a ‘representative democracy’. From the
figures we see above, the government is currently only representative of 65.1%
of the public (I personally believe it’s representative of 0% of the public,
considering no one voted for a coalition, but that’s another blog…), with local
councils being even worse. However this is not wholly their fault, in fact the
worst part is it’s technically the fault of the public – officials in power
simply capitalise on whatever support they get, and take it as their
sovereignty.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is unfair to compare turnout rates in the UK to turnout
rates in Australia, predominantly due to Australia’s system of compulsory
voting; if you don’t vote you are asked to give a reason why, and if the reason
is deemed insufficient you may be fined up to $170 – quite a good way to whip
people into voting. However the most important part of this system of voting is
the inclusion of a ‘none of the above’ option. This gives the public who are
not enticed by any party standing in the election, or those who are adverse to
the concept of sovereign rule completely to express their views without having
to spoil their ballots, protest vote, or simply not turn up.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The inclusion of both compulsory voting and the ‘none of the
above’ option would increase participation in elections in the UK
substantially, and hopefully (as a by-product) increase interest and knowledge
in politics. Most importantly, it would make our democracy that we clutch so
dearly to work slightly better – no longer would people who hadn’t turned out
to vote, yet still insist on critiquing the government because of stories they’ve
heard from the media of which they actually have no idea about, be accused by
people like me of having invalid arguments because they didn’t actually try to
impact the election that put the government they so hate into power in the
first place. (Of course, people like me would still accuse them of having
little knowledge of the things they are pretending to be experts in, thus their
arguments remain invalid, but hopefully having compulsory voting might entice
people to actually take an active interest in politics). And governments might
actually be able to call themselves sovereign, or accountable, due to the
almost total participation of everyone making a decision on what they want.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, I would take the ‘none of the above’ option
slightly further, and treat it as if it were an actual candidate. If the option
has the most support in a constituency (in a general election), that
constituency would be subject to another election, until a winner other than ‘none
of the above’ was found. Hopefully, this would help parties to make better
policy and actually try to win people’s opinion with substantiated manifestos,
while actually interesting people in politics slightly more; I’m quite certain
people would not enjoy continuous compulsory elections due to a consistent ‘none
of the above’ victory, so rather than paddling in disillusionment, maybe the
public would take an interest – alongside the changing of party policy to
better represent their wants and needs, people may actually start to vote
rationally.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course, this view is very idealistic, and I’m sure in
practice there would be far more difficulties in implementing it, or people
simply wouldn’t behave in the way I would hope for them to in my head (the
beauty of political science is you never can really precisely predict an outcome,
and the beauty of that is that no one can ever tell you that your prediction is
wrong (until it happens) because, without it actually happening there is no
perfect precedent to go on), however in my opinion it would be a step towards a
more representative government within our representative democracy, as well as
a step towards educating the public on politics and the issues surrounding it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">(Note: If people do not become more interested in politics and actually become knowledgeable in it, I personally would love to see an
authoritarian society where power doesn’t corrupt the leaders and they do
everything in the interest of the people (due to the irrationality of so many
voters who don’t know enough about politics and issues facing our country to
really make a useful input (the problem with politics is everyone seems to have
an opinion however ill informed), however that view is far too controversial,
idealistic and near impossible, thus I’ll happily settle for the ‘none of the
above’ and compulsory voting option…)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">(Note again: I asked Richard Harrington (MP for Watford) what his views were on 'none of the above' and he stated that he agreed with it completely, as the participation of everyone in politics is utterly vital (or words to that effect.))</span>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-82101729998742041502014-11-20T03:37:00.001-08:002014-11-20T03:39:47.679-08:00The difficulty of running a consistent blog (so I've found)...<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aTOjy_9_6WQ/VG3Rk0g-d2I/AAAAAAAAAIA/CIjRafi0jS8/s1600/10623515_578734432272574_8610161122891168976_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aTOjy_9_6WQ/VG3Rk0g-d2I/AAAAAAAAAIA/CIjRafi0jS8/s1600/10623515_578734432272574_8610161122891168976_o.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Working hard in lectures, as per.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
After my sudden disappearance, which I claimed to be due to revision for my A levels when in fact I spent a fair amount of that time procrastinating, I promised myself I would return to blog writing as soon as I felt irresistibly inclined to - so I am.<br />
<br />
The main problem I've had with writing blogs this year is not actually writing the blogs, it's been writing blogs that I deem fit for others to read (despite calls from my mother and girlfriend to simply upload the blogs and leave the judging to everyone else).<br />
<br />
I'd like to just leave it to me being lazy and not writing, but that wasn't it (or at least not most of the time) - as an overly-opinionated person, writing is not a problem; writing something that my opinion doesn't then regard as a terrible waste of time is where I've struggled a tad.<br />
<br />
So I shall once again endeavor to write a consistent stream of interesting (to me at least) blogs that will distract me from doing university work and the likes, for the viewing (dis)pleasure of anyone who so happens to come across it.<br />
<br />
Let's hope I stick to it this time.JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-22747171565943297082014-01-15T06:57:00.000-08:002014-01-15T08:43:14.557-08:00What is the ‘perfect politician’?<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Politics/Pix/pictures/2010/5/18/1274186237516/A-packed-House-of-Commons-006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Politics/Pix/pictures/2010/5/18/1274186237516/A-packed-House-of-Commons-006.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A room of hated people.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Throughout the ages, the most hated people have undoubtedly
been politicians. From Hitler to Obama, not one of them has gone without
hateful cartoons, widespread discontent, and general dislike. This has led me
to wonder, what is the perfect politician? What would his/her traits be? What
would their life story be? Having studied people’s likes and dislikes of both
humans and politicians, I’ve created a list of a few of the main features this
‘perfect politician’ would need (I’m sure I’ve missed out plenty of other
massively important traits, but this is at least a foundation).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><b>1) They must be charming, charismatic and
interesting</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Probably one of the most important features of the perfect
politician. By being charming and charismatic, they can pretty much forget
about the other important features, as they can hide the majority of their
mistakes and short-fallings behind a façade of schmoozing and flirting. I’m
pretty sure if Will Smith was a politician, his smooth, charismatic side would
be more than enough to hide any public disgrace or political corruption. What
I’m basically saying is people like Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg
are not quite at that standard. Obama’s not doing too badly though, the
majority of people outside America seem to believe he’s some kind of charm
idol.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><b>2) Alongside charm, being physically attractive</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It hasn’t been a
major factor, but people generally like and react better to things that are
aesthetically pleasing, I believe politicians are no different. For example,
Paul Ryan (Mitt Romney's running mate for the 2012 election) and his fan club of crazy young women, it’s no wonder the first
suggestion on Google images is this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y6mRVe-r0As/Utaa-5TBwmI/AAAAAAAAAHM/X5fnVM50l4k/s1600/paulryan.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y6mRVe-r0As/Utaa-5TBwmI/AAAAAAAAAHM/X5fnVM50l4k/s1600/paulryan.png" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p> </o:p>Not to mention the ‘workout’, ‘p90x’, ‘working out’ and
‘body’. People don’t want policies, people want biceps, abs and a jawline (in a
male politician, obviously the criteria for a female politician would be far
more based around boobs, bums and the likes). Put Jennifer Lawrence/Aniston, or
even Lucy Pinder up for election and there would be a landslide.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>3) Must be around the pre-middle-aged stage</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If a politician is too old, they’re considered ‘out of
touch’ by the younger generations, and yet if they’re too young they’re in
prime position to be called a ‘career politician’ or simply just be too
inexperienced to the older generations. The whole concept of age in politics is
a grey area; an area with no clear middle-ground, so I’d suggest the mid-30s as
a fair compromise for both.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>4) Has worked a job in every single damned sector of employment</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Including retail, catering, business, accounting, law,
authorities, arts, sport, cleaning, public services, and all the other possible
career paths. This would create a politician with no chance of being named a
career politician (although they may not be able to keep a job), and one with some
form of experience in everyone’s career, maybe even some expertise in one or
two. Their empathy would increase tenfold. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>5) Perfect example of social mobility</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Their preferable life story would be: Born into low income
family on benefits in council housing, somewhere surrounded by different
cultures of equally poor families, gaining understanding of everyone’s
situation by childhood friendships. Going to a low-achieving secondary school
but still achieving highly, gaining at least 3As at A2, and going to a
respectable university (but not Oxbridge, all politicians are Oxbridge). Doing
well at university and leaving with a masters, and getting a job (in every
sector mentioned in the previous point) while leading a middle class life.
Becomes a politician and hits the elite life, but still has empathy for all the
other classes. Basically they need to have this as their theme tune (just with
less explicit language, and less dick-headed-ness):<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RubBzkZzpUA" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
(for the iPad/iPhone users that can't see this: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RubBzkZzpUA" target="_blank">click here</a>)<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>6) Huge racial diversity</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Not only will they have had to be brought up around multiple
cultures, to cater to as many people as possible they should have mixed raced
parents, preferably with some Asian, White, Black and Oriental, to be able to
really connect with the electorate. It’s the only way.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>7) Of course, not allowed any opinions that disagree with
anyone else’s</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Like Jim Carrey in ‘Yes Man’, the perfect politician should
be able to please every opinion by saying yes to everyone’s opinions, even with
contradictions. When the rich ask for less tax, and the poor ask for more
taxing of the rich, they have to be able to say yes to both, somehow. Of
course, that will become much easier if they’re charming and smooth, as
mentioned in point 1.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Basically what I’m trying to say is that the perfect
politician is non-existent; impossible; there will never be one that everyone
likes (or at least that everyone agrees with) simply due to the diversity of
people and their opinions around the world. And without the perfect political
model, it’s difficult for politicians to even gain a majority of people
actually liking them. Maybe hatred just comes in the job description.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com0London, UK51.511213899999987 -0.1198243999999704151.195100899999986 -0.7652713999999704 51.827326899999989 0.52562260000002958tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-47342021789091592372013-12-11T07:23:00.002-08:002013-12-11T07:23:32.263-08:00The "Selfie Scandal"<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/obamaselfie.jpg?w=940" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/obamaselfie.jpg?w=940" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">C'mon people, it's just for Insta - Photo from: news.nationalpost.com</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Since yesterday people have become increasingly upset due to Mr. Cameron's, Obama's and Helle Thorning-Schmidt (Danish PM)'s selfie during the Mandela remembrance service. I don't have a clue why.<br />
<br />
As stated in my previous article, the public constantly criticises politicians and those in power due to them being 'out-of-touch with society', some going as far as stating that they are presented as 'beyond/above human' (either in a good or bad way, take your pick). And yet, as soon as they do something that anyone normal does, it's a scandal, or a disrespecting of Mandela, or whatever else you want to call it.<br />
<br />
The death of Nelson Mandela was (and still is) hugely significant, and his remembrance service will go down as a historic event - if you're lucky enough to be there, why would you not take a few pictures? Are they not just as within their right to take a selfie as anyone else? I would suggest that many more people took selfies and the likes during the event, and none of them were out of disrespect for Mandela, rather they were acknowledgements of the enormity of the occasion and of the event.<br />
<br />
Look at the South African people during the event:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images_3/mandela-memorial-12-10-13-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images_3/mandela-memorial-12-10-13-1.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo from: judiciaryreport.com</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
They were standing; cheering; celebrating - because it was a 'celebration of the life of Nelson Mandela'. The spirit was not one of mourning, or regret, but rather of joy and happiness at what Mandela achieved; a tribute to his life and his impact. There were times where tears were shed by the crowd that I'm sure were also shared by the world leaders, judging by the pictures. And if you look at the photo you'll see plenty of people taking pictures or texting, and yet they don't get any grief for their actions. If we want politicians to be more human we have to start acting like they are.<br />
<br />
More importantly, Obama gave a particularly heart-warming speech regarding the life of Mandela at the event (alongside other speeches), why should that be overshadowed by a few harmless pictures taken with friends?<br />
<br />
Of anyone, I'm one of the first to condemn the actions of politicians and scrutinise their movements, however this is just pathetic.<br />
<br />
We should instead be focussing on things like Obama's handshake with Raul Castro, also at the event, that holds much greater significance in the grand scheme of things than any selfie could have, or on the MPs increasing wages, or China's recent comments regarding Britain as just another useless European country. These things are all significant and important, and affect things on a much larger scale. Their selfie opportunity isn't - it does not take away from their ability to be politicians or leaders (in Cameron's case that ability is pretty debatable anyway), and they are not hurting, disrespecting or harming anyone.<br />
<br />
The one thing I must say I love about the photo-set of their antics was, of course, Michelle Obama's face throughout - priceless.<br />
<br />
So to conclude, rather than flaring up about the most insignificant things, maybe we should focus on what is actually important, and allow politicians to actually be humans.<br />
<br />
JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-81717540814936518572013-12-09T12:01:00.001-08:002013-12-09T12:05:46.368-08:0018 and running for MP: a new MTV series?<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/02/article-2516792-19C74ABF00000578-195_634x400.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/02/article-2516792-19C74ABF00000578-195_634x400.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A few years too soon. - Photo from: www.dailymail.co.uk</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
You may have heard that Labour recently announced their representative in Bath as an 18 year old first year student at the University of Westminster, named Ollie Middleton; a move I believe to be both tragic and hypocritical.<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span>
(Once again I'm writing from neither side of the political spectrum here, just a logical basis)<br />
<br />
First of all I have nothing against Mr Middleton, I'm sure he's a great guy and incredibly intelligent (he has to be in order to have been selected as representative for the Labour party at such a young age). I do not doubt that he is wholly capable of doing an MPs job; as an 18 year old myself I spend most of my life wishing I could take over from MPs and get the job done properly. However, let's bring everyone back down to Earth here - he's 18. He has no life experience beyond school and uni. He's not another beam of light, like Russell Brand who I mentioned in an earlier article (<a href="http://www.thisisnotablog.org/2013/11/BrandVSLaz.html" target="_blank">here</a>), as he simply hasn't experienced any of the real world. The most extensive tax on his life is VAT (or Cameron's 'student tax', of course). He's just another well-spoken guy from a white, middle-class area, with absolutely no idea about the world around him. According to Diana Page, who oversaw the selection process:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Ollie gave a speech that was just so professional and came across as way beyond his years"</blockquote>
<br />
I'm sure he did, but plenty of people are amazing at giving speeches 'way beyond their years', my German oral exam for my AS levels, for example, is prime evidence of this fact (considering I have little/no knowledge of the German language, but got great marks for presentation and speaking). The fact that he can give a coherent, passionate speech is not that impressive, and not worthy of making him into an MP; otherwise just take anyone half decent at debating and put them in a position of power. Experience, first-hand knowledge and empathy are three key traits that this country calls for in politicians (unfortunately most politicians lack them), and Ollie just hasn't done enough in his life to have them.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, it's rather hypocritical of Labour to be giving us another career politician. Prior to George Osborne becoming Chancellor, Labour constantly named him a career politician, suggesting that he had no experience outside of politics and, more importantly, none in business at all. Yet they're perfectly happy to already have a 24-year-old MP currently in Parliament; the 'baby of the house' Pamela Nash, and are now presenting the electorate with an 18 year old, because he can give a good speech? I'm all for the voice of the youth and suchlike, considering I'm a member of the UK Youth Parliament, but this is taking it to an extreme. I would love to see my views wholly represented in government, but I'd love to see them represented by someone who has actual life experience, or a professional in some area other than politics. If he was a young man who'd come through a drug-abuse phase, or actually lived or experienced poverty, or simply had worked hard and grafted his way in a profession, maybe he would be a fair candidate, but to me he's just another student who's in way too deep. <br />
<br />
After actually doing something with his life, the fact that Labour has put him in such a position (despite it being a pretty safe seat for the Lib Dems) shows that he has great potential, but he just needs the experience or life skills to back himself up in Parliament. I may be completely wrong about him, and he might actually be perfect for a position as an MP, but even if he ever got into government at this age his points would seem wholly invalid to the majority of his peers simply because of his age, however unfair that may be, and the Conservatives would no doubt attack him and Labour for creating another career politician - as a comment on the Daily Mail article put it: 'A lamb to the slaughter?'. <br />
<br />JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-58151278221438301212013-12-02T14:19:00.001-08:002013-12-04T07:29:17.806-08:00Long Live Southbank: Long live culture<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rMF640PN1L8/Up0DOgKeOII/AAAAAAAAAGA/zmmgRs00NV0/s1600/southbank-900x500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rMF640PN1L8/Up0DOgKeOII/AAAAAAAAAGA/zmmgRs00NV0/s1600/southbank-900x500.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Beauty in culture. Image from: covanaut.com</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you haven’t already heard, one of the most culturally and
historically important areas of London is in danger. Undercroft has been a home
for skaters since 1973, and is the oldest-surviving skate spot in the world.
Generation after generation of skaters and BMXers alike have used Undercroft
for social and recreational activities, and most importantly as a free
(perfect) spot to ride/skate. All year round it attracts crowds of people, as
well as professional skaters, artists and the likes. It is a hub for ageless
activity, and unites generations under one mutual love – my dad skated it as a teen,
and now it’s my turn. It buzzes with culture and history, and has symbolic
meaning to both the skate industry and skateboarding in Britain as a whole.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
And yet, the Southbank centre (that sits above Undercroft) is
trying to get rid of it. They wish to replace it with shops similar to those
that can be seen either side of Undercroft:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wYLbeH536jQ/Up0DaLRhmBI/AAAAAAAAAGI/sYnhHRntPQY/s1600/southbank-centre-att2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wYLbeH536jQ/Up0DaLRhmBI/AAAAAAAAAGI/sYnhHRntPQY/s1600/southbank-centre-att2.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image from: www.walklondon.com</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
They have offered to build a new skatepark further down
Southbank as a replacement and as an attempt to ‘appease’ the skaters, and
claim that the new shops will increase the cultural wealth of the area; that
they are not ‘disregarding their skaters’. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
BS, rubbish, tripe, whatever you want to call it, it’s
shocking, and I shall attempt to explain why. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Firstly, the new shops - they are not going to increase the
cultural wealth of the area, and Southbank centre knows this. More shops will
simply add slightly more to the already bulging pockets of the Southbank Centre
and its management, while wholly extinguishing the real culture that literally
lies beneath them. We live in a multicultural society full of differences, and
yet big business constantly tries to make everything monotonous, simple and
faceless – and this is just another example of it. It’s as if Southbank is
succumbing to the robotic, cultureless businessmen who care more about the
amount of money in their bank account than their own lives, when Southbank is
supposed to be a pinnacle of culture and expression in London. Southbank (and
London as a whole) is full of shops and cafes, and you’re spoiled for choice of
them just a few meters away from Undercroft, why would we need anymore? Have we
really become so consumerist in our society that we need more food options than
just the Southbank Centre restaurant, Giraffe, Eat, Wagamama, Strada, YO!
Sushi, Wahaca, Las Iguanas, Le Pain Quotidien, Caffè Vergnano 1882, Feng Sushi,
Ping Pong, the Cafe in the Queen Elizabeth Hall Foyer, Skylon, Riverside
Terrace Café, Central Bar, Canteen and Concrete – to name a few? All of which
are within the same small section of the Southbank? The Southbank Centre
website says it itself:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">"If
you're looking for a place to stop for refreshment while visiting Southbank
Centre, you're spoilt for choice." - </span>www.southbankcentre.co.uk</blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
And the new £1m skatepark they have proposed, here’s a
picture of it:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y6Tqj5PC9VA/Up0EWtfy0iI/AAAAAAAAAGU/HsKptD5ZaKU/s1600/skatepark2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y6Tqj5PC9VA/Up0EWtfy0iI/AAAAAAAAAGU/HsKptD5ZaKU/s1600/skatepark2.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image from: www.standard.co.uk</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Looks great, doesn’t it? But a message to the Southbank
Centre: no one who has loved and cared for Undercroft will use it. The vast
majority of skaters and BMXers who actually care about the cause won’t even
touch it. Little kids who know no better, and those who have nowhere better to
go might use it every so often, but a 70,000 strong petition of people will not
be using it. What the new skatepark would represent is the death of culture,
the death of values and most importantly is a complete insult to everything
Undercroft represents. It would represent the disregarding of thousands of
people’s views to make way for more moneymaking rubbish that no one will share
a relationship with and will mean nothing to anyone, other than ‘just another
coffee shop’ or ‘just another stationary store’. The Southbank Centre is not
dangling a carrot in front of a donkey, it’s dangling faeces sprayed with
deodorant. By the creation of this new skatepark, you will royally anger
thousands of people, and probably lose thousands of potential customers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Moving Undercroft is like moving Britain’s traditional beverage
from tea to coffee – it’s just not supposed to happen, and if it did, people would
refuse coffee out of spite.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the changes don’t just affect the skatepark. They will
affect the music halls, the art halls and the other areas of Southbank that are
of upmost importance to people. Even parkour will be affected. It just appears
that the Southbank Centre is suggesting that the gargantuan number of people
who actually use the centre for its cultural worth are wrong, and are clearly
not as intellectual/enlightened as the centre management which obviously knows
best when it comes to culture. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a final major point, in recent years there has been
apathy and disillusionment amongst young people when it comes to politics. Nick
Clegg failed us, David Cameron pretends to care about us, and party politics
has seen a decline in real interest. However, now a movement turns up in which
thousands of young people become politically active, lobbying local MPs, Boris
Johnson and other decision makers, and yet it’s being shunned into the ground
by the Southbank Centre and its unwilling-to-cooperate-in-the-slightest
management. If the Southbank Centre gets a new face, it will be yet another
reason for political apathy and hatred by young people, as clearly nothing we
actually care about matters to those in positions of power. I would suggest
that the Long Live Southbank campaign goes further than just Southbank, it is a
beacon of hope for young people and a symbol of political activism. The centre
gets changed, and a whole load of young people lose their interest in the
system that has once again failed them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Today Southbank closed Undercroft for ‘maintenance’, despite
LLSB bringing in experts and structural engineers who have suggested nothing
needs maintaining, the lights just need fixing. Undercroft is clearly in peril,
and needs saving ASAP.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">Southbank
Centre passionately believes the arts have the power to transform lives. We
also believe that the arts must be available to all of us – and this lies at
the heart of all we do." - </span>www.southbankcentre.co.uk<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
So don’t just preach it, act like it, Southbank Centre. Listen
to us – none of us want to see this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IQy7B1nQYJc/Up0FJ8ASWeI/AAAAAAAAAGk/VFV2Nizpsm4/s1600/undercroft-retail-%25C5%25B8-side-by-side-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IQy7B1nQYJc/Up0FJ8ASWeI/AAAAAAAAAGk/VFV2Nizpsm4/s1600/undercroft-retail-%25C5%25B8-side-by-side-1.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Here's a great video from the LLSB YouTube channel, explaining the dire situation:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/iFaKN98Xg3E?list=FLmAYZx9UsC45aaj3_GNc75A" width="560"></iframe>
(For the iPhone/iPad users that can't see this: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFaKN98Xg3E">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFaKN98Xg3E</a>)<br />
<br />
You can find LLSB at: <a href="http://www.llsb.com/">http://www.llsb.com/</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
"Construction WITHOUT destruction." - Long Live Southbank</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com5London, UK51.511213899999987 -0.1198243999999704151.195100899999986 -0.7652713999999704 51.827326899999989 0.52562260000002958tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-68453143859709614032013-11-27T16:41:00.001-08:002013-11-27T16:41:22.880-08:00Why doesn't Britain care about the Prime Minister?<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2012/3/12/1331595066481/Barack-Obama-and-David-Ca-007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2012/3/12/1331595066481/Barack-Obama-and-David-Ca-007.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">One has the majority of a continent behind him, the other is wearing a blue tie.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I was reading an article in the Guardian earlier this week regarding the death of JFK and how important it was to not only Americans, but the entire world (you can read the article <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/john-f-kennedy-assassination-racial-equality-jfk" target="_blank">here</a>). It would seem that everyone and his dog remembers where they were and what they were doing at the time of his death (provided they were alive themselves, of course). What particularly interested me in this article was Allen's description of America after his death: 'All were terrified.', 'the nation [was] a collective deer caught in the headlights.' and even 'a death of hope and the certainty of a brighter future'.<br />
<br />
To me this seems completely alien. Actually having genuine, caring feelings for whoever happens to be in power? Feeling so strongly about his death that the entire nation is affected as if a close friend had died?<br />
<br />
In Britain the PM would be lucky to be missed by his own family, let alone the entire nation.<br />
<br />
This led me to beg the question: 'why don't we care about our PM while the Americans care so much about the President?'<br />
<br />
Despite their constant complaining about governmental interference, Americans are still depicted as a nation behind the President, due to the symbolic nature a President has. Whether a Presidential supporter or hater, Americans are stereotypically tremendously patriotic to what appears to be an almost ignorant degree, and will therefore stand behind the flag to defend their country from criticism regardless of their political standpoint (this is just a general stereotype, obviously). Because of this, the President takes on a role as figurehead of the nation, and is expected to impose American values on the world. By killing the President, you kill the possessor of America's ideals, the enforcer of the constitution, and the bearer of US supremacy/power.<br />
<br />
By killing the Prime Minister of England, you kill another bloke who happened to get more votes than the other bloke.<br />
<br />
In England we barely know ourselves, we don't have time to create particularly empowering stereotypes or hang our flag from everything we own. Our patriotism is one that is ever present, but hidden due to our own personal complexity. Therefore to the world we're a nation of tea and biscuits, fish and chips, and posh men in top hats discussing the weather on penny farthings. If that's all Cameron really has to embody, then it's no wonder we wouldn't shed a tear if he were to die unexpectedly. In our own nonchalant manner we would simply expect the next 'bloke' to do a better job of representing our stereotype, and suggest it might be beneficial for him that he try not to get himself killed while doing so.<br />
<br />
However, I would argue that the stereotype I suggested is both embodied and furthered by a far greater symbol than the PM, thus leading to our lack of interest in his (or her) well-being.<br />
<br />
The Queen is everything I stated previously, and some. She has the upper class, posh, tea-and-biscuits look, but also depicts a strong Britain - one with an Empire that once struck both fear and joy into the hearts of countless people of different nationalities. Her symbolic importance is so huge, I would argue that it is beyond that of the President.<br />
<br />
If the Queen was assassinated tomorrow, the whole world would shake. It pretty much did after Princess Diana died.<br />
<br />
But back to the PM. Another issue that British Prime Ministers have is that they're never particularly interesting, charismatic or fun people. Cameron, Blair and Brown are blown totally out of the water by the likes of Obama, Reagan and JFK. America is great at having strong, personable leaders that manage to form relationships with everyone, simply due to their own personal qualities. Just listen to Obama sing, can you imagine Cameron doing this?:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/y6uHR90Sq6k" width="560"></iframe>
(For iPhone/iPad users: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6uHR90Sq6k">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6uHR90Sq6k</a>)<br />
<br />
And even if he tried, he would never be able to pull it off with the charisma and charm that Obama seems to excrete. Just look at the smile Barack pulls after he sings - enough to drag a nation into another 4 years.<br />
<br />
So because of the PM's lacking abilities in the field of charisma, we are unable to form the relationship that Americans are able to form with Obama. I wouldn't be surprised if most Britons were more interested in Obama than Cameron on a solely personal level - I know I am.<br />
<br />
Finally, but still incredibly important, is our innate need to mock ourselves, our friends and our government at every waking moment. It appears almost customary in Britain to refer to a friend by using an expletive in a social context. In fact if you don't at least call them an idiot every so often they may take deep offence and inquire as to why you're acting so funny/why you have a problem with them. If we didn't constantly tease each other, we wouldn't be Britain (plus we wouldn't have anything to do). The PM takes a beating on a daily basis by cartoons and articles in newspapers, angry or disillusioned members of the electorate, and anyone else who fancies having a go at him. In some countries our actions would be punishable by torture or death, but to us it is the norm - the culture.<br />
<br />
We are such unpatriotic patriots, the Oxford dictionary has a picture of the British Flag next to 'oxymoron'.<br />
<br />
So in summation, we don't get PMs that form relationships with us, we already have the Queen to care about, our PMs are nowhere near as interesting, fun or charismatic as Presidents, and we're far too busy making fun of everything around us to be particularly worried about who the Prime Minister actually is.<br />
<br />
Sorry Dave, it's not all your fault (for once).JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com5London, UK51.511213899999987 -0.1198243999999704151.195100899999986 -0.7652713999999704 51.827326899999989 0.52562260000002958tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-20534733068535184092013-11-26T02:40:00.001-08:002013-11-26T02:40:46.840-08:00Farewell filibuster: a brief history of filibustering<p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JcxKwdG69XI/UpR6rDd6zvI/AAAAAAAAAFg/XK5dpPHeaG0/s640/blogger-image-1414305341.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JcxKwdG69XI/UpR6rDd6zvI/AAAAAAAAAFg/XK5dpPHeaG0/s640/blogger-image-1414305341.jpg"></a></div><br><p></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">For those that don't know, a filibuster is a device used in the senate (congress) in the US that allows members to delay or completely block bills from being voted on (and therefore passed). Members can stand up and speak for as long as they please on any topic they wish, often reading from books or the likes, in order to take up debate time and stretch beyond the time limit of a bill.</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Or at least they could do.</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">Thursday saw a momentous change in the ruling of the filibuster. Previously, 60/100 (or two thirds of) senators would have to vote for a speaker to stop talking (known as cloture). However under yesterday's ruling, only 51 senators (a majority) are needed to bring about cloture, thus making it slightly easier to stop a filibuster, as well as decreasing it's usage in the first place. (The Democrats have 55 senators, therefore any republican interference can be easily stopped).</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">This has already caused much debate, as many Americans are pro the idea of limited government, with checks and balances both ways. Filibustering supposedly stopped government from being too powerful.</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Ironic, considering the distress and discontent caused by the recent government shutdown - a direct symptom of such a gridlock-inducing governmental structure.</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">But where did the filibuster even come from? Let's look at the history of it:</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">1806 - senate removed the right to 'remove previous question', thus leaving the potential for filibustering as there was no other way to block a bill.</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The filibuster remained only theoretical until...</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">1837 - the first filibuster.</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">1841 - filibuster is used against Henry Clay as a threat - Clay backs down.</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">1917 - Cloture adopted - Democrats pass a bill on cloture after Republicans filibuster a bill that would have allowed weaponry on merchant ships to defend against submarines.</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">1946 - southern senators block a bill that would have removed discrimination from the workplace (Fair Employment Practices Committee)</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">1949 - rules on cloture changed so that a filibuster could only be stopped if 2/3 of all the senators vote.</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">1957 - 24 hour filibuster on civil rights by Strom Thurmond (the bill still passed)</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">1959 - cloture rules return to 2/3 majority</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">1970s - rule introduced to allow more than one bill being voted on - 'tracking' and 'two track' system</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">1975 - cloture rules change to 3/5 majority (usually 60 senators) and post-cloture filibustering eliminated.</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">2013 - cloture changed to a majority (51/100 senators)</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">So is the filibuster change a good or bad thing?</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I'm not going to write a full length, two sided essay about it, but from my perspective it's a strong step in the right direction for American politics on the whole. </span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">As previously stated, the reason people oppose it is because it speeds up government, and can increase the power of the more powerful party in congress (especially if that party holds presidency too). People worry that it may cause an elective dictatorship - which America arguably already has, so I somehow don't think they need to start waving their guns around quite yet.</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I personally believe it will be perfect for US politics as it will increase the efficiency of government. In theory, debating on bills will be kept on track, and real progress can be made with the two main parties working alongside/against each other, without deviating into readings of Dr. Seuss and recipe books. What kind of government can run smoothly when the majority of time is taken up by (often fruitless) attempts to stop legislation being passed, often seemingly out of spite and contempt for the other party and not the actual legislation?</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Maybe the government won't shut down next time they disagree on something, and instead they'll just work it out without petty, time-wasting tactics. </span></p><div><br></div>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com0Watford Grammar School for Boys Rickmansworth Rd, Watford51.65524 -0.413451tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-10243803221714293002013-11-13T15:36:00.001-08:002013-11-13T15:36:49.955-08:00'Guy gets caught cheating' video - society and its injustices<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xsw9R6JtVjk/UoQM8aE74ZI/AAAAAAAAAFI/5_j4Vt0osmo/s1600/sexism2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xsw9R6JtVjk/UoQM8aE74ZI/AAAAAAAAAFI/5_j4Vt0osmo/s1600/sexism2.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Just a short half-rant. Stumbled across this video today
that will no doubt go viral, given the amount of attention it’s already received
by big sites like ‘The Lad Bible’ and suchlike, and was wholly disgusted with
what I saw.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/dVH6khWUIiY" width="420"></iframe>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This video manifests the huge injustice of sexism within
society. In case your attention span is particularly low, the male is being brutally
beaten by two women he slept with on the same day, one using a belt, the other
using some form of inanimate object resembling a tube.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now of course, the man is completely in the wrong for
cheating and leading on these two women, however the women’s response is
totally wrong and unjustified, let alone hugely unfair.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Imagine if it had been the same situation, but two men had
been cheated on by a woman, and they had decided to respond with a similar
level of force to these women. They would have been in jail faster than this
video took to be uploaded. However in the case of it being women, it is hugely
unlikely that any further action will be taken regarding the assault. This may arguably
be due to the man being less likely to inform the police than a woman might be,
however I would question what the police or a judge might say to this anyway.
It’s quite likely that both police and the judiciary would simply call this a
domestic ‘disturbance’ or the likes, when these two women mercilessly beat this
man, to which he didn’t even lift a finger or attempt to defend himself.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Therefore in my opinion, despite the sexism women continue
to face, there are many situations in which men are handicapped due to society’s
morals and values, where women are seemingly ‘above the law’ when assaulting or
harming men.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
What’s your opinion? <o:p></o:p></div>
JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com1London, UK51.511213899999987 -0.1198243999999704151.195100899999986 -0.7652713999999704 51.827326899999989 0.52562260000002958tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-25376009596951570882013-11-11T16:09:00.000-08:002013-11-11T16:09:54.525-08:00Courtney Stodden and why she dampens my world view<div class="MsoNormal">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MzT_t1Zxsts/UoFxQg2cg5I/AAAAAAAAAE4/TTvCT0Gbcxc/s1600/article-0-194C1FCB00000578-871_634x408.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MzT_t1Zxsts/UoFxQg2cg5I/AAAAAAAAAE4/TTvCT0Gbcxc/s1600/article-0-194C1FCB00000578-871_634x408.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Recently had lip injections, to create two small balloons around her mouth.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
So it looks like teen ‘sensation’ Courtney Stodden, 19, and
her (now ex) husband Doug Hutchinson, 53, have finally done the inevitable and
broken up. The couple had a three year marriage (from the time Courtney was 16,
while Doug was 51 to now), and were supposedly an incredibly happy couple
having tremendous amounts of fun despite their massive age differences. I
realise I’m writing a generally political website here, however I believe this ‘relationship’
has social connotations that I simply cannot ignore. So with the slight fear of
looking tabloid-esque, these are a few of the many things that are bugging me
about Courtney Stodden.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1)<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->When asked what went wrong, Courtney stated ‘my
age, obviously’.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now I’m no rocket scientist, and neither is the rest of the
world, but I’m pretty certain anyone with half a chromosome can work out that a
16 year old marrying a 51 year old isn’t right, and certainly isn’t going to
work out. But that’s not the worst part of this. Courtney has been spending the
last three years of their marriage pushing away all speculation regarding their
age gap and suggesting that love has no age (etc etc), and yet now she decides
to state that ‘obviously’ the age gap was the reason – DUH world, of course it’s
the age gap, what were we all thinking for the last three years.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2)<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->She won’t go into porn because she wants to keep
her ‘dignity’.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Oh and the multiple half-naked, sexually provocative and
generally seedy videos she has on her personal YouTube account haven’t already
removed that. She likes to suggest that she is some innocent angel, yet she’s
willing to appear almost naked, cage dancing on big brother. Her music video
for her song might as well be the prelude to a porn film. She has no dignity
left to keep, especially not in the area of pornography – although I’m not
suggesting she become a pornstar, due to its moral implications, but don’t turn
your nose up at the entire industry you pretty much represent in your actions.
If this video doesn’t remove her dignity, I don’t know what does:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p><br /></o:p></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NsgN2nQluU4" width="560"></iframe>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Oh wait, I do know what does – this song is why she cannot
lay any claim to dignity:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/dOrD5kqyov0" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3)<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->She is talentless (or at least in the field she’s
trying to be talented in)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
‘Don’t put it on me girl, don’t put it on me girl no, don’t
put it on me girl, d-d-d-d-d-d-d’get out of my life. It’s not even worth my
time discussing how terrible her music is, just listening to it makes me want
to surgically remove my eardrums. Why is it that she gets fame and recognition
while real talent in the music industry falls by the wayside, or goes wholly
unnoticed? Oh yeah, because she’s got huge (fake) breasts and lacks clothing in
her music videos. Breasts are not a talent, unfortunately.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4)<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->But most importantly, people actually like and
care about her, and would defend her actions as perfect<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anyone is entitled to their own opinion, just as this entire
website is based around my opinions. Those who feel that way about Courtney are
no exception. However, I can name so many things that are far more important,
far more interesting and far more likely to affect people’s lives than Miss
Stodden. The fact that she’s all over the news today, taking time away from the
tragic stories from the Philippines, the massive social and economic disparity
this world sees, and other far more important areas of news is just another
reason why people become misanthropists. Her breakup with Doug was more inevitable
than rain in Britain, why do people care about it so much/look up to her as a
figurehead. (Obviously I’ve written an entire article dedicated to her, however
mine is simply to end three years of wanting to rant about her).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
In summation, well done for finally realising that you
change a lot between the age of 16 and 19, and also that your dad’s friend isn’t
the best person to be married to (unless of course you’re only there to leech
off of him and become famous/infamous…). And let’s be honest, Doug probably
knew it was inevitable from the day he married her, he just couldn’t turn down
the opportunity. <o:p></o:p></div>
JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com0London, UK51.511213899999987 -0.1198243999999704151.195100899999986 -0.7652713999999704 51.827326899999989 0.52562260000002958tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-83378269114977215722013-11-09T16:41:00.000-08:002013-11-09T16:43:42.280-08:00UK MP expenses scandal: That’s fine Cleggy, we’ll pay your gas bills too<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VqXBkdQdZW0/Un7V-XfDYcI/AAAAAAAAAEo/M1SR5kPEIkE/s1600/gas.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VqXBkdQdZW0/Un7V-XfDYcI/AAAAAAAAAEo/M1SR5kPEIkE/s1600/gas.jpeg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Regarding the recent MP expenses scandal, Mr Clegg defended
the MPs who had claimed expenses on gas and electricity bills at their second
homes. A very liberal approach indeed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So Nick stated that these expenses were to help MPs with the
cost of living and working in two different places. How wonderful of you Clegg,
being so allowing to those poor MPs who have to struggle along in two different
houses while the majority of the population only have one, or in some cases
none. How perfectly fair this seems.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sarcasm deeply intended.*<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I was under the impression that MPs expenses were meant to
be used on work related imperatives, such as pencils, pens, paper, travel,
publicising and at an absolute stretch clothing to wear to the debates (and
possibly for other reasons, maybe). And it’s not like they’re not well off
either. Averaging out of a few salary sites suggests that Clegg is earning
around £130,000/year, so roughly £12,000/month, which I believe is far more
than enough to pay off his family bills. Maybe he should spend more expenses on
actually making himself out to be a credible human being rather than to pay for
his 3 children’s television usage (obviously an integral part of his working
environment, without their usage of electricity he’d be unable to function as a
DPM (although arguably he can’t anyway)). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Personally, I think the fact that MPs are so willing to
allow gas and electricity bills to rise in the safe knowledge that they won’t
be paying theirs is downright disgusting. People didn’t vote for you to make
toast and use a microwave every once in a while, or for your Twining’s bills,
people voted for you to represent them politically. ‘Experts’ wonder why people
become disillusioned… It’s because MPs can’t seem to go 10 minutes without ‘accidentally’
(in the case of MP Nadhim Zahawi) causing some kind of scandal or being
generally corrupt.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Feel free to comment your opinions below, ‘tis nothing but a
short rant.<o:p></o:p></div>
JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com0London, UK51.511213899999987 -0.1198243999999704151.195100899999986 -0.7652713999999704 51.827326899999989 0.52562260000002958tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-74629061729061541342013-11-08T09:01:00.000-08:002013-11-08T09:01:47.950-08:00The 2nd Amendment debate: arguments for and against<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wf7InTs7RZo/Un0YqqvF1_I/AAAAAAAAAEY/9l6mVmg4j4A/s1600/gun+law.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wf7InTs7RZo/Un0YqqvF1_I/AAAAAAAAAEY/9l6mVmg4j4A/s1600/gun+law.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Following on from my previous article regarding my opinions
on the US gun laws and the Second Amendment, I thought it best that I write an
article with a few of the main arguments on either side of the debate – for the
sake of equality.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>For 2<sup>nd</sup>
Amendment:<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b>It is and
has been a constitutional right for hundreds of years. </b>Almost 222 years in
fact, as it was added to the Bill of Rights on the 5<sup>th</sup> of December,
1791. Many would argue that such an established right cannot be repealed, as it
has stood the test of time.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b>America
has a written, codified constitution that does not change dependent on the
times.</b> The debate regarding codified and un-codified constitutions deserves
an entire article to itself, however the point still stands: America’s
constitutional layout is not one that has to change to match the needs of the
time. It is a rigid document, and therefore cannot (and must not) be changed
(easily).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b>Not
everyone is a murderer.</b> By repealing the gun law US citizens who are not crazy
mass murderers lose a right due to the actions of very few. Some would argue
that this is unfair (alongside an infringement of their rights).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As I’m struggling to write any more for arguments that I
consider half valid, let’s move onto the against arguments.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Against 2<sup>nd</sup>
Amendment:<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 41.25pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b>Guns have
developed substantially since this was implemented. </b>I shall quote my
previous article for this: ‘<i>As I
understand, the Second Amendment was implemented at a time where guns were slow
to use, inaccurate and generally poor pieces of equipment. They took a lifetime
to reload and were therefore simply for use in times of severe distress or
danger; i.e. they would protect a citizen from harm or danger (providing he was
accurate). Now guns in the US are a well-established, $33 billion dollar
industry that produces nearly 10 million guns yearly that are well-developed,
designed and made killing machines.</i>’<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 41.25pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b>Give a
man a car, he will drive it – give a man a gun… </b>He will use it. The primary
function of a gun is to kill or injure a target, indiscriminate of its species.
The fact that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment allows the ownership and mentions
the usage of it on human beings, in the most established country in the world,
is shocking.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 41.25pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b>Mass
shootings. </b>Again, Australia, 13 mass shootings in the 18 years previous to
1996, and none since – due to the banning of guns in 1996. Mass shootings (and
shootings in general) can be stopped or massively decreased through strict gun
control.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 41.25pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b>Guns have
no place in today’s society.</b> Without guns, there are no people with guns to
be afraid of. It’s like the US is caught in a vicious circle of ‘Everyone has
guns so to protect myself I’ll get a gun’, when they could so easily remove the
guns wholly from the equation. The majority of the world gets on just fine
without them, and doesn’t have 3 in every 100,000 people dying from them (or a
monthly mass shooting).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I could go on, but I best not for the sake of a fair
argument.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Maybe we should make this a weekly thing, review one of
America’s Amendments on a Friday.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Hopefully I’ve helped a few A2 politics students with their
course too.<o:p></o:p></div>
JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com3London, UK51.511213899999987 -0.1198243999999704151.195100899999986 -0.7652713999999704 51.827326899999989 0.52562260000002958tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-56632169483550434872013-11-07T10:51:00.001-08:002013-11-07T15:49:19.803-08:00‘10 people shot at Detroit barber shop, at least 2 dead’ – how the 2nd amendment ‘protects’ US citizens.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5tPjVdgaPdk/UnvgrZfRS_I/AAAAAAAAAEI/Q4L1kIBzNdw/s1600/gun+law.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5tPjVdgaPdk/UnvgrZfRS_I/AAAAAAAAAEI/Q4L1kIBzNdw/s1600/gun+law.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">A bit of background:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Last night (6<sup>th</sup> November 2013) in a
shooting at a Detroit barber shop, gunmen in Chevrolet Impalas shot ten people,
killing two. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Lorne Carter, 48, a witness to the shooting
stated that around “30-40 shots were fired” and that they “sounded rapid”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The victims were rushed to multiple nearby
hospitals, one arriving in critical condition.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span lang="EN-US">"I
can't even imagine what would cause this type of violence," said Detroit
Police Chief James Craig.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Neither can I. How, in a country where guns
are readily available (you can open a bank account and get a free gun), would
this kind of act be caused? In a country that has been in and out of conflicts
over the last hundred years, whose constitution condones the creation of
militias, and that allows the ownership of all kinds of arms, you’d expect
better behavior really.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">*Please note my sarcasm.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The Second Amendment is at fault for the
deaths and injuries of these ten people. It is also responsible for the deaths
of the children in the Connecticut Sandy Hook shootings, the Virginia Tech
shootings of 2007, Columbine 1999… The list goes on. How can the largest,
richest and most ‘developed’ country on the planet be so backward and stubborn?
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">As I understand, the Second Amendment was
implemented at a time where guns were slow to use, inaccurate and generally
poor pieces of equipment. They took a lifetime to reload and were therefore
simply for use in times of severe distress or danger; i.e. they would protect a
citizen from harm or danger (providing he was accurate). Now guns in the US are
a well-established, $33 billion dollar industry that produces nearly 10 million
guns yearly that are well-developed, designed and made killing machines. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f"
stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_s1027" type="#_x0000_t75"
style='position:absolute;margin-left:117pt;margin-top:37.7pt;width:257.25pt;
height:149.9pt;z-index:-251658240;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square;
mso-width-percent:0;mso-height-percent:0;mso-wrap-distance-left:9pt;
mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:9pt;
mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical:absolute;
mso-position-vertical-relative:text;mso-width-percent:0;mso-height-percent:0;
mso-width-relative:page;mso-height-relative:page'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png"
o:title="" croptop="28536f" cropbottom="20165f" cropleft="16174f"
cropright="33713f"/>
<w:wrap type="tight"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype
id="_x0000_t202" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="202" path="m,l,21600r21600,l21600,xe">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Text_x0020_Box_x0020_2" o:spid="_x0000_s1026"
type="#_x0000_t202" style='position:absolute;margin-left:117pt;margin-top:192.2pt;
width:257.4pt;height:20.25pt;z-index:251660288;visibility:visible;
mso-wrap-style:square;mso-wrap-distance-left:9pt;mso-wrap-distance-top:0;
mso-wrap-distance-right:9pt;mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;
mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;
mso-position-vertical:absolute;mso-position-vertical-relative:text;
v-text-anchor:top' o:gfxdata="UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQC75UiUBQEAAB4CAAATAAAAW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbKSRvU7DMBSF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==
" stroked="f">
<v:textbox style='mso-fit-shape-to-text:t' inset="0,0,0,0">
<![if !mso]>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><![endif]>
<div>
<p class=MsoCaption>
<span lang=EN-US>Figure </span><![if supportFields]><span
lang=EN-US><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>SEQ Figure \* ARABIC <span
style='mso-element:field-separator'></span></span><![endif]><span
lang=EN-US><span style='mso-no-proof:yes'>1</span></span><![if supportFields]><span
lang=EN-US><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]><span
lang=EN-US>: Firearm related deaths by year<span style='mso-no-proof:yes'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<![if !mso]></td>
</tr>
</table>
<![endif]></v:textbox>
<w:wrap type="tight"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">Now of course not every American with
a gun is going to massacre a school or start a fight in their local
launderette, but the figures say a thousand words: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OsRZVwAvvHE/UnvfoPanTII/AAAAAAAAAD8/jCLaooWCvL0/s1600/figure1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="187" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OsRZVwAvvHE/UnvfoPanTII/AAAAAAAAAD8/jCLaooWCvL0/s320/figure1.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Number of arms-related deaths by year in the USA</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Between 8,000 and 10,000 deaths per year by
firearms? And the NRA endorse them? I’m not surprised they say ‘from my cold
dead hands’ when referring to the loss of their guns with those kinds of
figures. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Not only that, but according to an article by
the Washington Post there has been almost one ‘mass shooting’ per month since
2009. Shootings aren’t supposed to be a common, monthly ordeal, they’re
supposed to never happen – these figures are totally unacceptable for a country
that tries to be the definition of civilized. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Furthermore the way shootings are reported
makes them sound like natural disasters; as if they are just another terrible
occurrence that happens every so often and can’t be stopped. But they CAN be
stopped. Australia is the perfect case study. After <u>Conservative</u> Prime
Minister John Howard called the banning of guns in 1996 (after a shooting in
Port Arthur), there was an uproar from the gun owners and gun clubs about how
it was ‘worse for society’ and meant that they could not protect themselves.
However, they seemingly misunderstood the banning of <u>all</u> guns. All guns
means everyone’s guns, not just theirs, thus meaning there was no one with a
gun that they needed to protect themselves from (and funnily enough the
government didn't suddenly turn on the people, massacring everybody) and since
the banning of guns there hasn't been a single mass shooting in Australia. There
were 13 mass shootings in the 18 years previous to this. This is no anomaly,
America.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">So wave your guns around and state that it’s
your right to carry a fully-automatic assault rifle to protect yourself, but
let’s get one thing clear: life without guns is wonderfully relaxing. You don’t
have to worry about getting gunned-down after watching a Batman film, nor
whether or not your classmate has his dad’s handgun aiming at your head with
bullets he bought at a local grocery store, you can simply go out with the
knowledge that the people around you almost certainly don’t have firearms, thus
you don’t need to carry one either.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Here’s a great video from the Daily Show
regarding the matter:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/9pOiOhxujsE?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
(For iPhone, iPad and other mobile device users, here's the link to the video: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE</a>)</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">What’s your opinion? You can leave it in the
comments below.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com1London, UK51.511213899999987 -0.1198243999999704151.195100899999986 -0.7652713999999704 51.827326899999989 0.52562260000002958tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-32275917955654629382013-11-06T02:33:00.001-08:002013-11-06T02:33:19.613-08:00Tutorial: Favicon won't update on blogger<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FYRY01BHBhI/UnoWHybDmGI/AAAAAAAAAC0/jP6Uoa5GERo/s1600/favwontchange.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FYRY01BHBhI/UnoWHybDmGI/AAAAAAAAAC0/jP6Uoa5GERo/s1600/favwontchange.png" /></a></div>
I shall start this website with a few tutorials regarding my findings whilst attempting to create this page. An issue I encountered towards the end of formatting the page was the favicon, and it's lack of updating after I had changed it. It turns out that many users of blogger share my problem.<br />
<br />
For those that don't know, favicons are important to a site as they give it a face or a logo that people will remember. They are usually just a far smaller version of your logo, for example Facebook and Twitter have their logos as favicons. It is worth changing your one so you gain a level of individualism and stand out from the crowd.<br />
<br />
So here's a quick how-to. <i>If you have already uploaded your favicon, skip to stage five</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>Step one: </b>Go to your page layout of the site you are working on, straight from the 'My Blogs' page.<br />
<br />
<b>Step two: </b>You should see the 'favicon' widget already installed, click 'edit' on this.<br />
<br />
<b>Step three: </b>Upload the image of your choice.<br />
<br />
<b>Step four: </b>You should now have a new favicon in the widget, but if you open your site it has not changed and will continue to not change. Don't listen to blogger saying 'it may take some time to update'.<br />
<br />
<b>Step five: </b>Enter this address into your browser: <b>[your site URL]</b>/favicon.ico (changing '[your site URL]' for your own blog URL, of course. E.g. mine was 'www.thisisnotablog.org/favicon.ico')<br />
<br />
<b>Step 6: </b>You should now be on a page showing the blogger, or possibly your old favicon. Refresh this page.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Step 7: </b>Your new favicon should now be displayed on this page.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 8: </b>Return to your site and look at the favicon - it should be your new one.<br />
<br />
If this doesn't work feel free to comment, all I know is it worked for me.JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com0London, UK51.511213899999987 -0.1198243999999704151.195100899999986 -0.7652713999999704 51.827326899999989 0.52562260000002958tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021927429263016184.post-18759386985224336062013-11-06T01:45:00.000-08:002013-11-06T06:23:33.811-08:00Start here<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A5cM3WCUz_E/UnpQ2VHZfNI/AAAAAAAAADE/PD-O_BBzBKE/s1600/logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A5cM3WCUz_E/UnpQ2VHZfNI/AAAAAAAAADE/PD-O_BBzBKE/s1600/logo.png" /></a></div>
<br />
New to thisisNOTablog?<br />
<br />
Well so am I as I prepare myself to embark on this adventure of not-blogging.<br />
<br />
I don't really know what I can write here to entice you to continue following and reading my rants and suchlike, but I shall give it a go regardless.
Hopefully by the time anyone reads this I'll be well on my way to writing about political, social, economic and other areas of the world that interest me. There will be reviews, tutorials, photos and events alongside this, possibly even the odd vlog if I get anywhere. Basically all the things that interest me will accumulate on this website. If you happen to share an interest with me, hopefully you enjoy reading my words regarding the subject, whether you agree or disagree with me. I shall attempt to write on a daily basis, and come up with new and interesting content as much as possible. Maybe I'll even write a book one day, who knows.<br />
<br />
Feel free to comment or contact me, as the only way I can learn is through discussion.<br />
<br />
I hope you enjoy your time on my website as much as I enjoy writing for it..<br />
<br />
Jonny B
JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251167023092508772noreply@blogger.com0London, UK51.511213899999987 -0.1198243999999704151.195100899999986 -0.7652713999999704 51.827326899999989 0.52562260000002958