It's currently Global Week at NTU. Essentially, each day of the week, students from various countries can set up stands in the Pavilion to represent their respective countries and show off aspects of them, such as food, culture and/or landscapes. Yesterday, it was the African nations who had the floor (I sampled some Somalian desserts - very sweet but very tasty!) whereas today the European nations were present.
I had intended to go in to see a particular stand I'd been told to check out but in addition to that one, I visited the Ireland stand. The latter was being hosted by a friend of mine - a third year student I met on my move-in day - and she was happy to see me; she invited me to help her out and I happily did so. For about two hours I helped my friend represent her country until I had to leave to attend a student forum meeting.
Having the chance to actually participate in Global Week - rather than just sample foods from stands - was a highly enjoyable activity and I'd like to be able to do it again.
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Wednesday, 1 March 2017
Friday, 5 August 2016
Most common last names in Europe
I came across this article in The Independent; it shows a map of the popular common last names in Europe and what their meanings are:
It made me smile that on both maps, the United Kingdom had "Smith" as its most popular last name! To my knowledge, Smith is still the most common last name in America, too.
It made me smile that on both maps, the United Kingdom had "Smith" as its most popular last name! To my knowledge, Smith is still the most common last name in America, too.
Thursday, 11 February 2016
Churchill's praise of Chamberlain
History has been deeply unkind the Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister during the start of World War II. He is portrayed as a coward, as somebody who should have pre-emptively attacked Germany and defeated Adolf Hitler before the Third Reich could spread across Europe; Chamberlain appears to receive almost as much blame for the war as Hitler himself, even though he didn't initiate it. The man who succeeded Chamberlain, Winston Churchill, had these words to say upon his death:
"Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible,
tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with
perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of
his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from
the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone
will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of
history is concerned."
History has the benefit of hindsight, which is something Chamberlain was not privy to. The entirety of Churchill's eulogy can be read here.
Tuesday, 2 September 2014
"Self Control" - Laura Branigan
In the mid-2000s, I was introduced to this song from the 1980s, which was in my parents' record collection:
It's "Self Control" by Laura Branigan, which comes from her third studio album, also called Self Control. The song was a major hit in Australia, Canada, across Europe and in the United States in 1984. "Self Control" was co-written by Raf, an Italian singer; he co-wrote it with Giancarlo Bigazzi and Steve Piccolo. Raf's and Branigan's versions of "Self Control" were hits simultaneously.
"Self Control" and "Gloria" are Branigan's best-known songs. In 1993, Branigan released Over My Heart, her final studio album. Sadly, Branigan died over a decade ago on August 26th, 2004, at the age of 47. The cause of her death was a cerebral aneurysm.
Interestingly, an instrumental version of "Self Control" was used in a modded version of an ancient (by computer standards) DOS game. I heard Branigan's original before I heard the game instrumental.
It's "Self Control" by Laura Branigan, which comes from her third studio album, also called Self Control. The song was a major hit in Australia, Canada, across Europe and in the United States in 1984. "Self Control" was co-written by Raf, an Italian singer; he co-wrote it with Giancarlo Bigazzi and Steve Piccolo. Raf's and Branigan's versions of "Self Control" were hits simultaneously.
"Self Control" and "Gloria" are Branigan's best-known songs. In 1993, Branigan released Over My Heart, her final studio album. Sadly, Branigan died over a decade ago on August 26th, 2004, at the age of 47. The cause of her death was a cerebral aneurysm.
Interestingly, an instrumental version of "Self Control" was used in a modded version of an ancient (by computer standards) DOS game. I heard Branigan's original before I heard the game instrumental.
Tuesday, 27 May 2014
Results summary of the European Parliament election, 2014
The European Parliament election is over and all of the results have been declared. Across Europe, eurosceptic and anti-establishment parties, made the most gains; these parties can be left or right-wing (or neither). This was the anticipated result.
In the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom Independence Party (one of the strongly eurosceptic parties), Labour, and the Green Party of England and Wales were the winners. UKIP won 24 Members of the European Parliament (+11) and 27.5% of the vote, and Labour won 20 MEPs (+7) on a 25.4% popular vote share. The Greens, while experiencing a minor vote share decline and coming in fourth place behind the Conservatives in MEP count and the popular vote, won an additional MEP, which brought their count up to three. The British National Party, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were all defeated: they lost two, seven and ten seats, respectively.
In the continental European Union, mainstream parties lost ground while several far-right parties performed strongly; the most notable of the latter was the Front National in France, which topped that country's poll. At the same time, several left-wing parties also made gains, such as SYRIZA in Greece and Feminist Initiative in Sweden; on the other hand, the Green parties experienced some moderate losses in the European Parliament. Anti-austerity and eurosceptic parties from every shade of the political spectrum increased their presence in said parliament. The overall turnout was estimated at slightly over 43%.
The rise of the far-left and far-right parties across Europe can be attributed to several governments' use of austerity as a response to economic crises and the perceived failure of politicians from the major political parties to listen to people, as well as increasing opposition to European Union bureaucracy. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about politics outside the US and UK, but to me the best way to halt the progress of these other parties is for the mainstream parties to listen to people and address their concerns.
In the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom Independence Party (one of the strongly eurosceptic parties), Labour, and the Green Party of England and Wales were the winners. UKIP won 24 Members of the European Parliament (+11) and 27.5% of the vote, and Labour won 20 MEPs (+7) on a 25.4% popular vote share. The Greens, while experiencing a minor vote share decline and coming in fourth place behind the Conservatives in MEP count and the popular vote, won an additional MEP, which brought their count up to three. The British National Party, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were all defeated: they lost two, seven and ten seats, respectively.
In the continental European Union, mainstream parties lost ground while several far-right parties performed strongly; the most notable of the latter was the Front National in France, which topped that country's poll. At the same time, several left-wing parties also made gains, such as SYRIZA in Greece and Feminist Initiative in Sweden; on the other hand, the Green parties experienced some moderate losses in the European Parliament. Anti-austerity and eurosceptic parties from every shade of the political spectrum increased their presence in said parliament. The overall turnout was estimated at slightly over 43%.
The rise of the far-left and far-right parties across Europe can be attributed to several governments' use of austerity as a response to economic crises and the perceived failure of politicians from the major political parties to listen to people, as well as increasing opposition to European Union bureaucracy. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about politics outside the US and UK, but to me the best way to halt the progress of these other parties is for the mainstream parties to listen to people and address their concerns.
Thursday, 22 May 2014
European Parliament election, 2014
The European Parliament election of 2014 has begun and will end on 25th May. The European Parliament is the only legislative chamber of the European Union that is held accountable to the people; it has 751 members and the citizens of the 28 nations within the European Union will be voting to either re-elect or replace their respective Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). While the election lasts for four days, every country but one has a day to vote; the exception is the Czech Republic, which votes on two of the four days.
How are MEPs chosen? Each country is a component of the election and there are regional constituencies within each country. For example, the United Kingdom has 12 constituencies and 73 MEPs allocated to it; my family and I live in the East Midlands constituency, which has five MEPs. MEPs are elected through proportional representation: this means that when a political party reaches a certain percentage of the vote - say 10% - they will win seats. By using this method of electing candidates, each constituency is often represented by several parties.
What's the predicted outcome for this election? From what I've read and from what my brother has told me, political parties that are either against the European Union or want its power over member countries reduced are set to perform strongly; many of these parties as regarded as far-left or far-right. People are voting for such parties because many Europeans feel as though the European Union is compromising each member nations' sovereignty and/or has not done enough to help regular Europeans; they think that the main parties in their respective nations have failed to tackle the European Union's problems. Also, over the past few years several European governments have used austerity to handle the economic crisis (unlike the United States, which chose to spend money on its economy); people now feel that the austerity has gone too far and many of these other parties are capitalising on this.
As for how the United Kingdom will vote, like I wrote in yesterday's post, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are expected to perform poorly in the local elections; that expectation holds for the European elections, too. Again, Labour and the United Kingdom Independence Party are expected to gain the majority of the MEPs; the Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish National Party aim to secure additional seats, while the British National Party is hoping to keep its sole MEP, although that is extremely unlikely. In this country, 39 parties are participating and they are fielding 747 candidates (not in every constituency, though, as some parties are regional, such as the Social Democratic and Labour Party, which is only on the ballot in Northern Ireland).
This is the first time since 1994 that my family and I have been in the United Kingdom while a European Parliament election has occurred; the European Parliament elections that took place between then and now were in 1999, 2004 and 2009.
How are MEPs chosen? Each country is a component of the election and there are regional constituencies within each country. For example, the United Kingdom has 12 constituencies and 73 MEPs allocated to it; my family and I live in the East Midlands constituency, which has five MEPs. MEPs are elected through proportional representation: this means that when a political party reaches a certain percentage of the vote - say 10% - they will win seats. By using this method of electing candidates, each constituency is often represented by several parties.
What's the predicted outcome for this election? From what I've read and from what my brother has told me, political parties that are either against the European Union or want its power over member countries reduced are set to perform strongly; many of these parties as regarded as far-left or far-right. People are voting for such parties because many Europeans feel as though the European Union is compromising each member nations' sovereignty and/or has not done enough to help regular Europeans; they think that the main parties in their respective nations have failed to tackle the European Union's problems. Also, over the past few years several European governments have used austerity to handle the economic crisis (unlike the United States, which chose to spend money on its economy); people now feel that the austerity has gone too far and many of these other parties are capitalising on this.
As for how the United Kingdom will vote, like I wrote in yesterday's post, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are expected to perform poorly in the local elections; that expectation holds for the European elections, too. Again, Labour and the United Kingdom Independence Party are expected to gain the majority of the MEPs; the Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish National Party aim to secure additional seats, while the British National Party is hoping to keep its sole MEP, although that is extremely unlikely. In this country, 39 parties are participating and they are fielding 747 candidates (not in every constituency, though, as some parties are regional, such as the Social Democratic and Labour Party, which is only on the ballot in Northern Ireland).
This is the first time since 1994 that my family and I have been in the United Kingdom while a European Parliament election has occurred; the European Parliament elections that took place between then and now were in 1999, 2004 and 2009.
Wednesday, 21 May 2014
Local elections, 2014
The United Kingdom's local elections are upon us once again; all day tomorrow, thousands of councillors will be up for election across the country. The regions that will be voting are: all London boroughs, all metropolitan
boroughs, 74 second-tier district authorities and 20 unitary authorities; some new councils in Northern Ireland are also up for a vote this year. In addition to the local elections, the United Kingdom will also be participating in the European Parliament election, which occurs across the European Union every five years. For this post, I'll cover the UK's local elections only and will write about the European Parliament election tomorrow.
What is the predicted outcome of these local elections? The two ruling parties, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, which both form the coalition government in the UK Parliament, are again expected to lose councillors, much like they have done for the past two elections (the Liberal Democrats also lost councillors in 2011); the losses are again expected to be in the hundreds for both parties. Once again, the Labour Party is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of those seats; however, since 2013's locals the United Kingdom Indpendence Party (UKIP) has improved its standing among non-Conservative Party voters, which has made this batch of local elections harder to predict than the last. UKIP's gains can be attributed to significant public fatigue with the three main parties and their unwillingness to hold a referendum on the UK's membership in the EU.
As for some of the other parties, the Green Party of England and Wales seeks to increase its amount of councillors nationwide; the Greens are effective at winning small amounts of new councillors and have a good record of re-electing their existing ones. The British National Party, which was expanding and regarded as a problem five years ago, is as irrelevant in these local elections as it was in 2013's; the party is not expected to gain anything. There are also a few tiny regional parties and independents running in some areas; how these candidates perform is based on the strength and characters of the individuals themselves.
The next general election, when the UK Parliament itself will be up for a vote, will take place in May 2015. While council elections aren't always an accurate predictor of how the public will vote in a general election, they can indicate overall national mood; both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will be in serious trouble in 2015 if their heavy losses continue.
What is the predicted outcome of these local elections? The two ruling parties, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, which both form the coalition government in the UK Parliament, are again expected to lose councillors, much like they have done for the past two elections (the Liberal Democrats also lost councillors in 2011); the losses are again expected to be in the hundreds for both parties. Once again, the Labour Party is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of those seats; however, since 2013's locals the United Kingdom Indpendence Party (UKIP) has improved its standing among non-Conservative Party voters, which has made this batch of local elections harder to predict than the last. UKIP's gains can be attributed to significant public fatigue with the three main parties and their unwillingness to hold a referendum on the UK's membership in the EU.
As for some of the other parties, the Green Party of England and Wales seeks to increase its amount of councillors nationwide; the Greens are effective at winning small amounts of new councillors and have a good record of re-electing their existing ones. The British National Party, which was expanding and regarded as a problem five years ago, is as irrelevant in these local elections as it was in 2013's; the party is not expected to gain anything. There are also a few tiny regional parties and independents running in some areas; how these candidates perform is based on the strength and characters of the individuals themselves.
The next general election, when the UK Parliament itself will be up for a vote, will take place in May 2015. While council elections aren't always an accurate predictor of how the public will vote in a general election, they can indicate overall national mood; both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will be in serious trouble in 2015 if their heavy losses continue.
Wednesday, 10 July 2013
Purple thistles
I photographed these purple thistles a couple of afternoons ago:
My brother reckons that there has been a decline in the amount of these purple thistles this year, which is a shame if that is the case. The plants remind me of the teazels we had in Oregon, although those are native to Europe and are considered an invasive species in the United States
Friday, 12 April 2013
Missing 30 St Mary Axe and The Shard
In April 2011, my family and I visited the counties of Surrey and Hampshire, the former of which borders London. I then visited London in June 2012, and, as I wrote about recently, I went to London again in March 2013. On only one of those occasions did I spot the iconic and infamous 30 St Mary Axe ("The Gherkin"), and on none did I see The Shard; furthermore, I never saw 30 St Mary Axe on the two times I was in the city: I glimpsed it for about two seconds when we were on the motorway to Surrey.
Why is this notable? Well, because both buildings help define the London skyline: 30 St Mary Axe because of its unique shape and The Shard because it is the tallest building in the United Kingdom and the second-tallest in Europe. Despite their highlights, I missed spotting these two prominent towers...and on my recent visit I was actively looking out for them, too, but my view was obscured by other structures. Seriously, I missed them both!
I am an admirer of both towers; I'll have to have another go at spotting them on my next trip to London!
Why is this notable? Well, because both buildings help define the London skyline: 30 St Mary Axe because of its unique shape and The Shard because it is the tallest building in the United Kingdom and the second-tallest in Europe. Despite their highlights, I missed spotting these two prominent towers...and on my recent visit I was actively looking out for them, too, but my view was obscured by other structures. Seriously, I missed them both!
I am an admirer of both towers; I'll have to have another go at spotting them on my next trip to London!
Monday, 5 November 2012
On my support for President Barack Obama
For today's post I am taking a break from writing about my recent visit with family to cover something I haven't gone into a lot of detail about before: some insight into why I support Barack Obama for re-election as President of the United States. Tens of millions of people will be voting tomorrow and tens of millions more have participated in early voting: it seems fitting for me to write this today.
My support for Mr. Obama in 2012 dates back prior to his initial election in 2008. After eight years of George W. Bush in office (whom I supported in 2000 when I was nearly ten years old, but not in 2004) I was eager for a change in the White House. Before the primaries began I thought that former North Carolina Senator John Edwards would have a shot at winning that time, and I even thought that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wasn't that terrible despite me not supporting his party; however, Mr. Edwards crumbled in the primaries, and I disliked the infamous incident with Mr. Romney's dog Seamus.
When Mr. Obama scored early primary victories I decided to learn more about him, and before long I supported him for president; besides Mr. Edwards I did not trust, like or know much about the rest of the candidates on either side, and so Mr. Obama was my clear choice. Pleased with the prospect of a black president, tired of the wars the United States was involved in, and being disillusioned with and distrusting of the Republican Party, I thought that Mr. Obama should serve two terms.
Now that we are less than 24 hours from election day 2012, my opinions have not changed: I support Mr. Obama, and I trust the Republican Party even less than before. I will admit that there are issues on which I do disagree with Mr. Obama, but I've come to conclude that he is the preferable choice over the current Republican nominee, the aforementioned Mr. Romney.
Among the reasons for my endorsement are as follows:
1. Foreign policy
I mentioned before about being tired of the wars the United States has been involved in. I congratulate Mr. Obama for ending the war in Iraq and for winding down the war in Afghanistan, albeit I wish the latter was being wound down more rapidly. I am pleased that he has not launched a military strike against Iran, and that he thinks patience is necessary in giving diplomacy and sanctions the chance the resolve the situation, rather than resorting to recklessly bombing or invading. The United States should not get itself involved in more costly, lengthy wars - for both moral and financial reasons - and Mr. Obama looks to be keeping in line with that view.
The "reset" with Russia and the signing of New START, despite the re-election of Vladimir Putin, are still good decisions in the interests of international peace and co-operation; Mr. Romney's statement that Russia is the United States' "number-one geopolitical foe" reveals both poor judgment and him being trapped in the mindset of a long-gone era when the two nations were rivals.
I do, however, disagree with Mr. Obama's expanding of wars in other places, such as Pakistan, even with the use of drones, which seem to cut down on the amount of casualties. I am also slightly worried that he could still go ahead with military action against Iran, but both he and Vice President Joe Biden have been adamant that they do not want this scenario to ever become a reality, and there is a growing chorus of people around the world who oppose an attack on Iran, believing that it would be a disaster. Mr. Romney's "similar" position to Mr. Obama's in the final presidential debate would be more believable if not for his flip-flopping on various issues and the selection of several neo-conservative warmongers to his foreign policy advisory team.
2. Social issues
Mr. Obama has strongly defended women's rights throughout his first term. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was the first piece of legislation he signed into law, and he considers it necessary for women to have access to contraceptives and safe abortions. He wants his daughters to grow up in a fair world for everyone, and one where they have control over their own bodies; he is not a woman, and doesn't consider it his place to restrict what women can do and achieve.
As for Mr. Romney, he has advocated protecting women's rights in the past, but over the course of the past year or more he has changed his position on the issue, although at the end of the day I do not think what his current opinion on the subject will matter. After the Republicans took control of the House and several governorships and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections they passed numerous pieces of anti-women legislation; the bills passed in the House were blocked by the Democratic-controlled Senate, but in some individual states little has been able to stop the Republicans there, with places such as Wisconsin repealing a piece of equal pay law. If Mr. Romney were to win, and the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, I don't think it's a stretch to say that he would sign legislation aimed at curtailing the rights of women. Comments from some Republicans running for Congress, such as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, do not instill any confidence that Mr. Romney would merely be a net-neutral on women's rights.
On the subject on LGBT rights, I think it's great that Mr. Obama is the first sitting president to openly support gay marriage. At best, I think that Mr. Romney would do nothing either way for gays and lesbians, but his and the Republican Party's outspoken opposition to their cause over the course of the campaign leads me to believe that he would be a net-negative for them. At some stage I will have to write a post about my opinions on marriage equality.
I support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for a variety of reasons, such as it forbidding health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or charging higher rates for women. There is also a clause in the bill that will come into effect allowing states to opt-out, provided they implement a better system in its place; I think that this will give states that want universal health coverage for their populations the chance to enact that type of care.
3. The economy
The recent jobs report revealed that unemployment had increased slightly to 7.9% in October, primarily due to a rise in people entering/returning to the workforce, and that the economy had added an extra 171,000 jobs. Before then another report had stated that the economy had grown by 2% in the third quarter. While 7.9% unemployment is still high, considering what Mr. Obama inherited from the previous administration the economy has done well and has been recovering gradually; the United States is in a far stronger position economically than most if not all of Europe, where a lot of countries have meager or non-existent growth, and in some cases are in recessions.
Granted, there is more work to be done to help the unemployed, but with Congress having given minimal help since the midterms the economy is in better health than it could be. As for underemployment, while it is an important issue to address I have not yet read anything to suggest that this was a significant factor in previous presidential elections, and I do not believe that Mr. Obama should be singled out for something hardly discussed in the past.
While I support the PPACA, I will admit that Mr. Obama should have focused more on the economy beyond the stimulus before the midterms. If he had done so the Democratic losses in 2010 would have been far fewer, and there would be little talk of him not being re-elected.
4. Uncompromising opposition
The Republicans have been opposed to nearly everything Mr. Obama has done, tried to do and still wants to achieve. I believe that if he loses this election, it will signal that all the opposition needs to do in the future is sabotage the current president to win next time. There would be no incentive to work with anyone from the other side if obstruction and disruption are key to victory.
5. Racism and disrespect
It is ridiculous to think that racism does not have a part in this election. A significant amount of Mr. Romney's supporters are only voting for him because they do not want a non-white person in the White House. This is not to say that all people voting for Mr. Romney or against Mr. Obama are racist. I know at least one person voting for former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and another person who is thinking about writing someone else in: they voting against both main candidates, and I know for a fact that neither of them are racists and would be horrified to be given the label.
Still, I think that a defeat for Mr. Obama would be both a victory for racists and a demoralizing factor for minority communities, in particular among African-Americans. I would not be surprised to see an increase in discrimination against minorities by those emboldened by the defeat of a non-white president.
I wrote about the amount of disrespect and vitriol that the president has received prior to and since his election. While elections should not be about "wiping the smile off someone's face", I would be delighted to see all the people who are only against Mr. Obama because they are racist fail in their goal of making him a one-term president. Similar to point four, if he does not win then being insulting and disrespectful to the president and people with different political opinions will become the norm.
Final thoughts
Again, there are issues on which I disagree with Mr. Obama, but he has been my choice for president in this election before the last one concluded. As I have only covered some of the reasons for why I support him and have not expanded much on where I don't agree I am happy to provide further explanation upon request.
One might say to me "you can't vote in the election, so your opinion is irrelevant. Go away/keep out of it.", but as I have made fairly clear several times on my blog I used to live in the United States, and did so for over 14 years. I was there under three different presidents, and during four presidential and three midterm elections. I may not be living in the United States now, but its politics interest me and should concern everyone given the nation's influence on the rest of the world; I should also note that I wasn't able to vote in the 2008 election, which took place while I lived there.
Yes, I have been a spectator in all presidential elections that I have followed, and this one is no different. Besides talk to a few people and write this piece, I can do nothing more than wait for the result.
My support for Mr. Obama in 2012 dates back prior to his initial election in 2008. After eight years of George W. Bush in office (whom I supported in 2000 when I was nearly ten years old, but not in 2004) I was eager for a change in the White House. Before the primaries began I thought that former North Carolina Senator John Edwards would have a shot at winning that time, and I even thought that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wasn't that terrible despite me not supporting his party; however, Mr. Edwards crumbled in the primaries, and I disliked the infamous incident with Mr. Romney's dog Seamus.
When Mr. Obama scored early primary victories I decided to learn more about him, and before long I supported him for president; besides Mr. Edwards I did not trust, like or know much about the rest of the candidates on either side, and so Mr. Obama was my clear choice. Pleased with the prospect of a black president, tired of the wars the United States was involved in, and being disillusioned with and distrusting of the Republican Party, I thought that Mr. Obama should serve two terms.
Now that we are less than 24 hours from election day 2012, my opinions have not changed: I support Mr. Obama, and I trust the Republican Party even less than before. I will admit that there are issues on which I do disagree with Mr. Obama, but I've come to conclude that he is the preferable choice over the current Republican nominee, the aforementioned Mr. Romney.
Among the reasons for my endorsement are as follows:
1. Foreign policy
I mentioned before about being tired of the wars the United States has been involved in. I congratulate Mr. Obama for ending the war in Iraq and for winding down the war in Afghanistan, albeit I wish the latter was being wound down more rapidly. I am pleased that he has not launched a military strike against Iran, and that he thinks patience is necessary in giving diplomacy and sanctions the chance the resolve the situation, rather than resorting to recklessly bombing or invading. The United States should not get itself involved in more costly, lengthy wars - for both moral and financial reasons - and Mr. Obama looks to be keeping in line with that view.
The "reset" with Russia and the signing of New START, despite the re-election of Vladimir Putin, are still good decisions in the interests of international peace and co-operation; Mr. Romney's statement that Russia is the United States' "number-one geopolitical foe" reveals both poor judgment and him being trapped in the mindset of a long-gone era when the two nations were rivals.
I do, however, disagree with Mr. Obama's expanding of wars in other places, such as Pakistan, even with the use of drones, which seem to cut down on the amount of casualties. I am also slightly worried that he could still go ahead with military action against Iran, but both he and Vice President Joe Biden have been adamant that they do not want this scenario to ever become a reality, and there is a growing chorus of people around the world who oppose an attack on Iran, believing that it would be a disaster. Mr. Romney's "similar" position to Mr. Obama's in the final presidential debate would be more believable if not for his flip-flopping on various issues and the selection of several neo-conservative warmongers to his foreign policy advisory team.
2. Social issues
Mr. Obama has strongly defended women's rights throughout his first term. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was the first piece of legislation he signed into law, and he considers it necessary for women to have access to contraceptives and safe abortions. He wants his daughters to grow up in a fair world for everyone, and one where they have control over their own bodies; he is not a woman, and doesn't consider it his place to restrict what women can do and achieve.
As for Mr. Romney, he has advocated protecting women's rights in the past, but over the course of the past year or more he has changed his position on the issue, although at the end of the day I do not think what his current opinion on the subject will matter. After the Republicans took control of the House and several governorships and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections they passed numerous pieces of anti-women legislation; the bills passed in the House were blocked by the Democratic-controlled Senate, but in some individual states little has been able to stop the Republicans there, with places such as Wisconsin repealing a piece of equal pay law. If Mr. Romney were to win, and the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, I don't think it's a stretch to say that he would sign legislation aimed at curtailing the rights of women. Comments from some Republicans running for Congress, such as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, do not instill any confidence that Mr. Romney would merely be a net-neutral on women's rights.
On the subject on LGBT rights, I think it's great that Mr. Obama is the first sitting president to openly support gay marriage. At best, I think that Mr. Romney would do nothing either way for gays and lesbians, but his and the Republican Party's outspoken opposition to their cause over the course of the campaign leads me to believe that he would be a net-negative for them. At some stage I will have to write a post about my opinions on marriage equality.
I support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for a variety of reasons, such as it forbidding health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or charging higher rates for women. There is also a clause in the bill that will come into effect allowing states to opt-out, provided they implement a better system in its place; I think that this will give states that want universal health coverage for their populations the chance to enact that type of care.
3. The economy
The recent jobs report revealed that unemployment had increased slightly to 7.9% in October, primarily due to a rise in people entering/returning to the workforce, and that the economy had added an extra 171,000 jobs. Before then another report had stated that the economy had grown by 2% in the third quarter. While 7.9% unemployment is still high, considering what Mr. Obama inherited from the previous administration the economy has done well and has been recovering gradually; the United States is in a far stronger position economically than most if not all of Europe, where a lot of countries have meager or non-existent growth, and in some cases are in recessions.
Granted, there is more work to be done to help the unemployed, but with Congress having given minimal help since the midterms the economy is in better health than it could be. As for underemployment, while it is an important issue to address I have not yet read anything to suggest that this was a significant factor in previous presidential elections, and I do not believe that Mr. Obama should be singled out for something hardly discussed in the past.
While I support the PPACA, I will admit that Mr. Obama should have focused more on the economy beyond the stimulus before the midterms. If he had done so the Democratic losses in 2010 would have been far fewer, and there would be little talk of him not being re-elected.
4. Uncompromising opposition
The Republicans have been opposed to nearly everything Mr. Obama has done, tried to do and still wants to achieve. I believe that if he loses this election, it will signal that all the opposition needs to do in the future is sabotage the current president to win next time. There would be no incentive to work with anyone from the other side if obstruction and disruption are key to victory.
5. Racism and disrespect
It is ridiculous to think that racism does not have a part in this election. A significant amount of Mr. Romney's supporters are only voting for him because they do not want a non-white person in the White House. This is not to say that all people voting for Mr. Romney or against Mr. Obama are racist. I know at least one person voting for former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and another person who is thinking about writing someone else in: they voting against both main candidates, and I know for a fact that neither of them are racists and would be horrified to be given the label.
Still, I think that a defeat for Mr. Obama would be both a victory for racists and a demoralizing factor for minority communities, in particular among African-Americans. I would not be surprised to see an increase in discrimination against minorities by those emboldened by the defeat of a non-white president.
I wrote about the amount of disrespect and vitriol that the president has received prior to and since his election. While elections should not be about "wiping the smile off someone's face", I would be delighted to see all the people who are only against Mr. Obama because they are racist fail in their goal of making him a one-term president. Similar to point four, if he does not win then being insulting and disrespectful to the president and people with different political opinions will become the norm.
Final thoughts
Again, there are issues on which I disagree with Mr. Obama, but he has been my choice for president in this election before the last one concluded. As I have only covered some of the reasons for why I support him and have not expanded much on where I don't agree I am happy to provide further explanation upon request.
One might say to me "you can't vote in the election, so your opinion is irrelevant. Go away/keep out of it.", but as I have made fairly clear several times on my blog I used to live in the United States, and did so for over 14 years. I was there under three different presidents, and during four presidential and three midterm elections. I may not be living in the United States now, but its politics interest me and should concern everyone given the nation's influence on the rest of the world; I should also note that I wasn't able to vote in the 2008 election, which took place while I lived there.
Yes, I have been a spectator in all presidential elections that I have followed, and this one is no different. Besides talk to a few people and write this piece, I can do nothing more than wait for the result.
Saturday, 23 June 2012
Rutland Water
On Wednesday we went up to Rutland Water, a reservoir for Anglian Water and one of the largest artificial lakes in Europe. It is also the location of Normanton Church.
We spent the afternoon there and walked all the way to the reservoir's dam before returning to the car. While our main activity was walking, there were other things to do at the eastern side of the lake: there is a cafe, at least one restaurant, a hotel, areas to hike, and boat rides. We only saw a part of the lake, and did not even get to explore all of that area, so Rutland Water is definitely a place we will be visiting again.
In the meantime, here are some of the pictures I took (all were done with my phone as I forgot to take my main camera with me):
A view of the lake taken from near the parking area. We were on the eastern side of Rutland Water for the duration of our visit.
Another view of the water, taken from the vantage point at the mini-peninsula Normanton Church is located on.
This is Normanton Church; I have read that it is a museum nowadays but the doors to enter the building were locked. It looks a fairly large structure from a distance but up close it is not that big at all; from the outside it looked like there were two, perhaps three, rooms in there.
Another shot of Normanton Church; I like taking pictures of buildings at this type of angle, providing that I have a head-on capture of the structure as with the previous image.
Believe it or not, this fancy building is a Best Western hotel. I was surprised to learn this myself, as I am still used to United States-style Best Westerns!
Along part of the path was an area for sheep to graze; at night they sleep underneath this tree. Looks like a fun little hideout!
This ewe allowed me to get several pictures of her and even decided to follow me for a little bit as shown in this image. She did not come too far, though, and as I walked further along she stopped, stared, then went to re-join the other sheep.
Another shot of the lake, taken from the dam end of the path.
When the weather is much more clear we will go up to Rutland Water again. It is a good place to walk and the cruise boat that travels around the lake looks fun. If you are ever near Rutland I recommend paying Rutland Water a visit!
We spent the afternoon there and walked all the way to the reservoir's dam before returning to the car. While our main activity was walking, there were other things to do at the eastern side of the lake: there is a cafe, at least one restaurant, a hotel, areas to hike, and boat rides. We only saw a part of the lake, and did not even get to explore all of that area, so Rutland Water is definitely a place we will be visiting again.
In the meantime, here are some of the pictures I took (all were done with my phone as I forgot to take my main camera with me):
When the weather is much more clear we will go up to Rutland Water again. It is a good place to walk and the cruise boat that travels around the lake looks fun. If you are ever near Rutland I recommend paying Rutland Water a visit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)