tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38012276712938764322024-03-13T17:27:01.902+00:00Obama LondonBarack Obama supporters in the UK.Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comBlogger568125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-40279262752851061702017-01-11T18:28:00.000+00:002017-01-11T18:35:40.624+00:00The Obama Mug<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiBj7OXQC66tE6YGVmlVORi3LhZp3kpZz28BQfA0srOd01dA62Kln-4BbWVkET7z92P6CcY5H3c72_MqRPMh8oifiprEl9ATDYAUA3dSAQS5VnEQ2Lvfbdtt04UDAUfsd1WpFdkP0BH0w/s1600/Obama+Mug.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiBj7OXQC66tE6YGVmlVORi3LhZp3kpZz28BQfA0srOd01dA62Kln-4BbWVkET7z92P6CcY5H3c72_MqRPMh8oifiprEl9ATDYAUA3dSAQS5VnEQ2Lvfbdtt04UDAUfsd1WpFdkP0BH0w/s320/Obama+Mug.jpg" width="240" /></a>This is my Obama mug.<br />
<br />
I bought it almost exactly 8 years ago today. It's an official Obama/Biden Inaugural mug. When I bought it, it had a gold seal on it commemorating the 2008 inauguration. I was in DC with a ticket to the ceremony, and to the Ball. I thought it was cool.<br />
<br />
It was cool.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, it didn't take long for the shiny gold to wear off - someone put it through the dishwasher, and the mug lost it's sparkle. It became just another mug.<br />
<br />
But over time, I came to see that it was NOT just another mug. Did you ever buy something and find that it is just... quality? Somehow better made than other items in its category? A wool coat that's just warmer and yet softer and yet more sturdy than others you have owned? A particular pen that just flows its ink more elegantly than any other? This mug was like that.<br />
<br />
The mug was heavy in the hand. Thick and pleasant to drink out of. Just the right size for the right amount of coffee. Shorn of its shiny gold trappings, it got on with the job of being a mug and it did so exceptionally well.<br />
<br />
It became my favorite mug. I drank from it almost every day of my life, and almost every day of my life it made me subtly happier. I had good days in that time. And I had bad days in that time. The mug didn't solve all my problems. I didn't expect it to.<br />
<br />
But, by God it is a good mug.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, mugs are not subject to term limits, so hopefully I will be able to drink from my mug for many years to come.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QDyjUIsD-wQ" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<br />Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-90682211146602418152016-11-08T10:32:00.004+00:002016-11-08T10:34:06.463+00:00Hope is a choice.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp9139PaFGhOrtpi41PzAUOG8jpoKyGwTTsmwNRX-GozixmtTK-ypMfS-bxs11u8WOLcGlrDUEGs9_7M1FPwqgQblo-C7dk2SEmRSt4NebbXkDXsYBbdn_1Nx6Dkne_GEwKpCFYxj_iqY/s1600/Hillary+Rainbow.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="99" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp9139PaFGhOrtpi41PzAUOG8jpoKyGwTTsmwNRX-GozixmtTK-ypMfS-bxs11u8WOLcGlrDUEGs9_7M1FPwqgQblo-C7dk2SEmRSt4NebbXkDXsYBbdn_1Nx6Dkne_GEwKpCFYxj_iqY/s200/Hillary+Rainbow.png" width="200" /></a></div>
I don't know about you, but I have not been enjoying 2016 so far. It's been a pretty hard slog for me, personally and professionally. My husband and I have both had some health problems. (Don't worry, we're fine.) <a href="https://www.facebook.com/karin.robinson/posts/10153964993647199">My Gramma died</a>. Here in the UK, people voted narrowly to leave the European Union, which actually affects me a fair amount since I've been living here since 1999 under my husband's EU treaty rights.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And, of course, there has been the US Election. Which has felt like a slogging grimly uphill through a thicket of brambles while being repeatedly punched in the face. If I made the mistake of turning on the news, odds were good that I would be watching violence break out at a political rally. In America! All over social media I was watching minority groups be attacked, called rapists, being threatened with banning from even entering the country based on their faith. In America! If I read a newspaper, I might be reading about the possibility that one of the major party candidates was being directly supported by a totalitarian out of Russia. In America! And then I see that the Ku Klux Klan has openly and excitedly come out in support of one of the candidates, embracing his slogan as their own. Ah, yes. In America. In 2016 America. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And the things we do to women. I've had to listen over and over again to one of the candidates talk about how he likes to sexually assault women. I've had to listen over and over again to insulting, demeaning, and outright cruel things said to and about women by one of the candidates. His words blown up so large and playing on repeat so often that these insults overwhelm any words that have ever been spoken by the other candidate. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The candidate who is a woman. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The candidate who is a brilliant, hard working, determined woman. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The candidate who has been working her tail off to make America a better place her entire life. The candidate who got herself elected to the US Senate, where she took her seat alongside Republican men who had been attacking and insulting her for years. The candidate who astonished these men by being hard working, smart and good at her job. The candidate who somehow found the mental toughness within her to work with those men and do some good in the world. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The candidate who in 2008 won more votes in the Democratic primary than anyone ever had before... and still lost. The candidate who went to work for the man she lost to and set out to travel around 170 countries as Secretary of State, laying the groundwork for the Iran nuclear deal, for the end of the Cuba embargo, and <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/06/this-lifetime-gop-voter-is-with-her-why-republicans-should-vote-for-hillary-clinton/">earning the respect </a>of world leaders and foreign policy specialists alike. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The candidate who stood onstage what that other guy - the guy with the insults and the attacks on minorities, and the hotline to Russia, and the endorsement by the Ku Klux Klan, 3 times for 90 minutes each, and crushed him beneath her heels, with a smile and a calm demeanor, and a command of policy that no one could ignore. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So today, on election day, 2016, I am done with feeling bad. I am done with feeling anxious or angry or scared. I'm done with doubt and defensiveness and doom-mongering. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Today I have realised that we do not HAVE to feel this way. It's up to us whether we spend time with the ignorant bully who doesn't believe our country is great, or with the smart, hard working woman who knows that when we work together, all things our possible. It is our choice.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As Americans go to the polls today, I am putting aside my anxiety and choosing to feel the love and admiration that I have for the American people, who I know to be decent, kind and inclusive people. Republicans, Democrats or Independent - I know that we a nation of people who pitch in when our neighbour needs a hands. People with a passion for fairness and justice. People who are full of optimism and belief in our future. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Today, I choose to feel hopeful. Because I am so excited that starting tomorrow, we can pu taway all this ugliness and we can get to work. Just imagine it. Believe in it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm ready. Vote well, America. </div>
Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-54075829454492695592016-04-21T12:42:00.001+01:002016-04-21T12:42:40.971+01:00What should Bernie Sanders supporters do if he does not win the nomination? Senator Sanders likes to talk about a political revolution in this country. I suspect a lot of the folks who aren't supporting him for President still agree that some of these broken systems need root and branch reform, and that we should be bolder about tackling them.<br />
<br />Or maybe <a href="http://obamalondon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/if-you-are-choosing-between-two-great.html">that's just me</a>.<br />
<br />
Anyway, one of Senator Sanders more avid supporters popped up on Facebook to say that "He said that the "party needs to pay attention to the people and not the other way around." He says that he is feeling less committed to the Party now than ever before - despite being a lifelong Democrat.<br />
<br />
I think this person has got it exactly backwards. If Team Sanders wants change, let them stay in and fight for it. In the country at large, they face nearly insurmountable obstacles to realising some of these objectives (although one or more Democratically appointed Supreme Court justice could some of them quite a bit easier). But in the Democratic Party, the door is wide open to them - not only do they have the existing support of a huge swathe of Democratic voters and leaders, they also would have a Clinton campaign team eager to bring those voters with her and willing (I suspect) to find common ground ahead of the general election.<br />
<br />
There has never been a better time for a Democratic Socialist to commit himself to the Democratic party.<br />
<br />Which is no doubt the reason why Senator Sanders himself (who is no fool!) just <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democrat-independent-222228?cmpid=sf">did exactly that</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
“If Sen. Sanders is not the nominee, will he stay in the Democratic Party forever now,” Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin asked.<br />“Well, he is a Democrat. He’s said he’s a Democrat, and he’s gonna be [supporting] the Democratic nominee, whoever that is,” Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told Bloomberg Politics’ “With All Due Respect.”<br />“But he’s a member of the Democratic Party now for life?” Halperin pressed.<br />“Yes, he is,” Weaver said. “Yes, he is.”</blockquote>
Or, as I told my Bern-feeling friend:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV-Y6dJJxEaf4FpL2LrtD9MsCSuFt8Ecnq1bzIbdbWpNdhP1TlcSIoeMpbMbxV4_fWOfGRPdw1Kmcn98owoO4oQWcvXZYgWkAglneRLVjt6LgnIwjicRRDxw0s-t5NB2iVdySv6gd5WcY/s1600/Bernie+FB.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV-Y6dJJxEaf4FpL2LrtD9MsCSuFt8Ecnq1bzIbdbWpNdhP1TlcSIoeMpbMbxV4_fWOfGRPdw1Kmcn98owoO4oQWcvXZYgWkAglneRLVjt6LgnIwjicRRDxw0s-t5NB2iVdySv6gd5WcY/s320/Bernie+FB.PNG" width="304" /></a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.08px;">That's your prerogative, of course</span><span style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.08px;">, but it's not an attitude that's likely to win you much support amongst Democratic primary voters. Anyway, I don't understand this false dichotomy you have created here: there is "the people" and then there is "the party"? Nonsense. There is ONLY the people, and some of them - many of them the people who care most passionately about a progressive future - join and work for the party. Some of those people run for office. And if some of the people don't like the things that those people running for office for their Party say and do, they get to make their case - by campaigning or speaking up, or running against them. If those people don't happen to win it's not because "the people" are being shafted by "the party", it's because the people in the party disagree with them. That's the breaks. And Hillary knows that better than anyone, because having lost crushingly after earning a ridiculously large number of votes last time around, she didn't hesitate to throw herself body and soul behind supporting the person who beat her. I expect no less of Bernie if he should lose (as looks likely) and would expect Hillary to do just the same again if she should lose (as is still possible). If your position is that Bernie (for instance) would be winning the race hands down if only Independent voters could vote in this election, then it seems to me the more logical approach is to spend the next 4 years moving heaven and earth to get those Independents INTO the party - because a small shift in party activists can make a huge impact on the party's positions. But if, instead, Bernie supporters are so frustrated with a losing outcome that they leave the party and start running third party bids, then that's certainly their prerogative, but it leaves the Party entirely in the hands of the folks they disagree with and excludes them from power more or less indefinitely. Which is a choice you can make, but it seems contrary to your stated objectives here.</span></blockquote>
Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-21867030758140074212016-04-14T10:40:00.001+01:002016-04-14T10:42:28.791+01:00The Reason Donald Trump Would be the Worst Imaginable President. No, the OTHER Reason...<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Image result for donald trump violence at rallies" border="0" src="" style="cursor: move;" /></a>You may have been noticing lately how Donald Trump's casually violent rhetoric and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83">eager embrace of racism and xenophobia</a> is (surprise, surprise!) inspiring an <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/a_list_of_violent_incidents_at_donald_trump_rallies_and_events.html">unseemly amount</a> of <a href="http://www.thewrap.com/fight-breaks-out-at-donald-trump-rally-again-video/">casual</a> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12191882/Donald-Trump-cancels-Chicago-rally-amid-protests-live.html">violence</a>, <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wisconsin-students-trump-wall-chant">racism</a> and xenophobia.<br />
<br />
That's what makes him almost the worst imaginable person to be a Presidential candidate, let alone his Party's nominee, let alone actually serving as Head of State to the most powerful nation in the world. Just the reality of this man travelling around the country stoking up violence and hatred everywhere he goes is already making his candidacy something pretty close to a security threat.<br />
<br />
But that's not even the most fundamental reason why Donald Trump would be a unprecedentedly terrible President.<br />
<br />
The most fundamental reason is that he has no interest in, capacity for, or understanding of any of the elements of actual job description for "President of the United States".<br />
<br />
You can get an early glimpse of how profoundly true this is, by reflecting on this fact:<br />
<br />
His team are losing delegates because the don't understand how the delegate selection process works.<br />
<br />
In a number of states, and in a number of different critical ways, Team Trump has been spectacularly behind the ball on actually securing delegates. For background - you need to know that winning a state primary or caucus is only step 1 of the Democratic Delegate selection process. Step 2 is getting your supporters elected to fill those pledged delegate seats in state party conventions.<br />
<br />
But Trump has not got his eye on this ball.<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-made-a-mistake-by-overlooking-colorado/?ex_cid=538twitter">Colorado</a>, they forgot to tell their supporters which delegate candidates to vote for, and it cost him delegates.<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-voters-aversion-to-foreign-sounding-names-cost-him-delegates/">Illinois </a>and Texas, Trump supporters refused to vote for Trump-supporting delegate candidates with minority names, costing him delegates.<br />
<br />
And in many other states, Team Trump doesn't seem to have showed up to the party conventions, leaving supporters of other candidates to be elected as delegates - which matters enormously because although they are pledged to vote as per the statewide vote on the 1st ballot, they can do whatever they like on the 2nd. It will cost him delegates.<br />
<br />
To be fair, the Democratic Party Delegate Selection process is hard work. It's a byzantine, complicated process rife with insider-y rules and obscure pitfalls.<br />
<br />
But you know what? So is the Presidency. In fact, that's MOSTLY what the Presidency is. Most of that job is about appointing a Deputy Secretary of Agriculture who will submit annual reports in compliance with Congressional Mandates. It's on very rare occasions about taking bold moves to shake up the international system, but far more often it's about carefully calibrating your foreign policy organisation to not pointlessly offend an ally or unintentionally trigger tariffs against our imports. On a good day, it might mean opening up markets to more of our goods, or moving forward a piece of legislation that furthers your agenda.<br />
<br />
But most of the job is... a JOB. A management task, that requires leadership of a detailed, highly constrained, limited organisation (the US Federal Government) that operates in this way precisely because it is massive, because every action it takes has huge consequences, and because the many many stakeholders involved have diverting, often diametrically opposing interests.<br />
<br />
Does that sound like something that Donald Trump, given what we know of him, would be any any way minimally competent at doing?<br />
<br />
Of course not. So, although we must keep pointing out that this man is a dangerous xenophobe whose contribution to the national debate has been almost entirely defined by being spectacularly wrong (ahem: remember that Trump got into politics in the first place to demand the President's birth certificate - because he never met a loopy conspiracy theory he didn't like) it's also worth noting that he transparently has none of the minimal qualifications of the job. Including, apparently, even a basic understanding of how it works.Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-87312823078714973422016-03-07T21:54:00.000+00:002016-03-07T22:08:34.050+00:00The case for Bernie... a few words from our friends on the other side<i>Note: As you may have seen in my previous post, I <a href="http://obamalondon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/if-you-are-choosing-between-two-great.html">recently declared my intention </a>to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary. I feel good about that decision, but I know a lot of people that I like and respect wound up coming to a different conclusion. One such person is my former Obama London co-chair Rob Carolina, who became Chair of Democrats Abroad during my second term as Vice-Chair of that organisation. Rob is not only a very smart guy but also a good friend. For that reason I wanted to give him the opportunity of representing the many thoughtful and dedicated Democrats I've spoken to this year who are Feeling the Bern. </i><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmxNrVveXTxXpYbXbWcQmj2m2Coc1Qg9QdugyKpfS7Y5d52vjxfbz-8MdGwuG61kc3omYp43wXUB8bul5HPtr0mxAJCWBR_N3fgG-6tg-VItBrTd-_dOtirk0e65fe9sOj6rtdrcQAyLs/s1600/BernieSandersSmiling.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="270" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmxNrVveXTxXpYbXbWcQmj2m2Coc1Qg9QdugyKpfS7Y5d52vjxfbz-8MdGwuG61kc3omYp43wXUB8bul5HPtr0mxAJCWBR_N3fgG-6tg-VItBrTd-_dOtirk0e65fe9sOj6rtdrcQAyLs/s320/BernieSandersSmiling.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Guest Article: Why I Voted For Bernie<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
By<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rob Carolina<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democrats Abroad Global
Primary. I feel it's important to explain my reasons to the many friends I made
within the Obama campaign and Democrats Abroad UK.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Like everyone in the Democratic Party, I found myself
confronted with two very competent, experienced, and viable candidates for the
office of president. Secretary Clinton's accomplishments are many. Her wide
experience includes the White House, the US Senate, and the State Department. A
talented lawyer, over her years of public service she has taken each brief,
mastered its complexities, and delivered positive results.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Senator Sanders, in contrast, has spent a large amount of
his time in politics as an isolated voice advocating the merits of democratic
socialism. He spent decades warning of the consequences of America's emerging
winner-take-all culture and the slow drift away from the New Deal crafted by
President Franklin D Roosevelt in the 1930s.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This distinction is the key to my decision. Our nation, and
the grand experiment begun at its founding in the 18th Century, faces a new
existential crisis. Our country increasingly resembles the dysfunctional countries
that my late father visited as the international finance director for a large US
multinational firm in the 1970s. Returning to our Midwestern suburban house from
trips abroad, my father (a life-long Republican) would often lament that the
society he had visited was "one of those places where 1% of the people own
99% of everything". He felt there were few good prospects for such places
where the vast majority of the population was virtually powerless. He
celebrated the America that he knew – as a World War II veteran, beneficiary of
the GI Bill, and Ohio factory worker who moved from his blue-collar assembly
line job to a senior management role – as a more equitable society with
meaningful prospects for social mobility.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Four decades after my father's international travels, and
two decades after his death, many of the places he visited have made tremendous
strides in building a middle class and strengthening democratic institutions. In
that same time the United States has also changed. A small circle of the truly rich
have grown more distant from their fellow Americans while accumulating for
themselves a massive increase in the percentage of our nation's wealth. We have
more or less abandoned any pretence of asking people to consider "what you
can do for your country". We've adopted a winner-take-all approach to
every aspect of our lives and careers, providing ever-growing rewards to an
ever-diminishing group of "winners", while classifying anyone who
fails to reach the top of the pyramid as a "loser" – saddling them with
crushing student debt, or crushing medical debt, or both, and with no viable opportunity
to try again. The social safety net that remains is so filled with holes, and exists
so close to rock bottom, that even people who are caught in its grasp often do
not survive the fall.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I've already attended the funeral of one friend from my
generation (Generation X) who was crushed by our society's newfound
heartlessness. I've read the obituaries of others.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of the most important jobs of the President of the
United States is to offer a hopeful vision for the future of our nation. The successful
candidate must then rally our nation, move closer to that vision, and defend that
vision against those who wish to deny us that same dream. This ability to offer
a compelling vision is what distinguishes great leaders from great managers. As
many others have written, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr captured the national
imagination and changed the political landscape by proclaiming, "I have a
dream." He did not announce, "I have a plan". This is the
difference between leadership and management. Leaders inspire our collective
devotion to reach the promised land, even if they don’t yet know how or when we
will get there.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have no illusions that any Democratic president taking
office in 2017 will have the magical ability to sway the US Congress into some
semblance of rationality or even reasonability. President Obama began his time in
office attempting to find accommodation with the Republican Caucus. This is one
of the many reasons I supported him. But he was rebuffed time and again by those
who engage in hostage-taking politics. Witness the recurring threats of falling
from fiscal cliffs, the resulting downgrade of US sovereign credit rating,
failure to hold confirmation hearings for multiple executive branch
appointments, and a growing logjam of judicial appointments that wreaks havoc
with our criminal and civil justice systems.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
President Obama discovered that he was not negotiating with
a disciplined and principled group of people sharing a core of common values.
Rather, he found himself sitting opposite an unruly mob who were uninterested
in compromise and happy to allow harm to our nation for the sake of personal political
expediency. His negotiating tactics changed. The new reality demanded a harder
line, and our president moved to take it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Any Democratic president taking office in 2017 must be
prepared for the worst political ride in US history. But to make a difference, that
president cannot fail to keep faith with the core values that carry them into
office. Our current national nightmare of unprincipled gridlock caused by
unprincipled demagogues will only come to an end when the Republican Caucus
decides to clean its own house, bringing a renewed vigour to discussing the health
of our nation as a whole – or when it is replaced by something else. It will not
be fixed by more rigorous discipline within the Democratic Party. Nor will it
be aided by a policy of "triangulation" that merely confuses the
inequitable with the inevitable.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Senator Sanders has spent his career giving voice to a
vision for the future of America. When he started, this was a message that most
Americans were not ready to hear. In those days, the most pressing existential
threat to America was the Cold War and the potential for nuclear annihilation.
Most of us at that time simply did not have a clear sense of the economic and
social future of our country and the long-term damage that was about to be created
by the "Reagan Revolution". Americans of my generation, born in the mid-1960s
and 70s, have witnessed both the birth of Reagonomics and the terrible toll
that it has taken on our society. American generations younger than mine are also
worried about the bleak prospects for their future. They are right to worry.
It's been a rough ride for my generation. It is already worse for theirs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The key to winning a presidential election is not only
mobilising the base of one's own party. It is equally important to persuade outsiders.
What America needs is a political leader for all of the people of the United
States. Yes, someone who can rally the support of the Democratic base by
demonstrating adherence to our shared set of values. But also someone who can
gather support from the growing plurality of Americans who do not identify
strongly with either major US political party.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A vast and growing part of the American population has begun
to fear, with justification, that their future is bleak. That those comfortable
with the status quo are leaving them
behind, voiceless and unprotected. That their concerns are ignored by the
establishment represented by both major US parties.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
An America with little hope for the future is not America at
all.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Donald Trump has already exploited this fear to drive a
wedge through the heart of the Republican Party. Mr Trump's powerful appeal to
the powerless can only be defeated by a passionate, intrepid champion with a
better inclusive vision for America's future. Unless we promote a candidate who
can passionately advocate a vision that restores this same hope of an America
in which everyone can enjoy a better future, then we have failed to lead and we
risk failure at the polls in November.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is not the time to move to the centre. We are at one of
those turning points in history where, as Yeats wrote, "<span lang="EN-US">Things fall apart; the centre cannot
hold." </span>We (as a party) must confront the reality that this is not
merely an election of left versus right as we traditionally define these terms.
The "centre" of that 1-dimensional axis is a political desert. A
place that exists on a map, but nobody lives there. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here now is the new American politics. Those who can
articulate and respond to the fears (and hopes) of the rising tide of the
powerless and politically unmoored will find success in our democracy. Those
who believe that the simple left-right labels continue to define us as a nation
will struggle as this once accurate barometer no longer forecasts the political
weather.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nine years ago when I started my support for Barack Obama,
foreign observers who had lived in the US in the 1970s and 80s told me with confidence
that America could never elect a black man as President of the United States. As
we saw in 2008 and 2012, America has changed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Today some tell me that America will never elect a president
who openly promotes a vision of democratic socialism. (They seem to ignore that
we already did this in the 1930s, 40s, and 60s.) I agree that in the 1970s, 80s,
and 90s, America was not ready for a president like Bernie Sanders.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But once again, times have changed. America is ready for
Bernie. So am I.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rob Carolina<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Co-Chair, Obama London (2008- )<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Chair, Democrats Abroad UK (2011-15)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
P.S. In voting for Bernie, I find myself (for the first time
in many years) disagreeing with my good friend and Obama London Co-chair, Karin
Robinson. Karin has already written <a href="http://obamalondon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/if-you-are-choosing-between-two-great.html">a
heart-felt article about her choice to vote for Hilary Clinton</a>. I respect
her views, as always, and thank her for consenting to my request to publish
this essay here on the same pro-Obama blog she founded so many years ago when
we first campaigned together.<o:p></o:p></div>
Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-48389750565559215772016-02-29T12:01:00.001+00:002016-02-29T14:13:01.746+00:00If you are choosing between two great candidates, choose the Democrat. Or: How I stopped worrying and learned to love Hillary Clinton<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEir73CMILvLVwoI-APIZ5J_aM3iUDCrM00dbI91nCAaLLboFpKN3fsp6rdfwpQGLw3AnYSoWe9qCN_V4hgZVVrmVK-BSa08gm0LQHyiTnjiZFuJc5vzkuAQmxvurtlEav2kW8yi-styQadfwae50MhUHa3Ko68ml62b5uVAjHbVV4Fm2wOaDP9H=" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.betches.com/sites/default/files/article/list/images/hiltv.jpg" height="192" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">This is the Hillary Clinton
endorsement that I was never sure I’d write. Getting myself to the point
where I was certain enough of my vote to be able to write it has been the most
complex and, frankly, emotional political journey that I’ve even been on. And,
I suppose, in a real sense, we are only at the beginning of that journey –
paddling though the last stretch of calm waters and catching our first glimpse
of the waters ahead.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Now, this essay will only be
relevant to those of you who are convinced progressives. If you are a wavering
general election voter, looking to be convinced that the Progressive vision of
America must be our future, then look away now – but come back later, I will
have much more to say to you in the run-up to November. (I’m looking at you,
Dad.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">So, fellow progressives, now that
we’re among friends… let’s talk. It’s been a roller coaster the last 7 and a
bit years, hasn’t it? On the one hand, if you’re anything like me, you wake up
every morning a little bit grateful that Barack Obama is in the White House,
but your heart sinks every time you turn to the news and see how they treat
him. If you’re anything like me, you thank your lucky stars that we managed to
do so much (a pretty effective stimulus package… intergalactic leaps in LGBT
rights… health care reform! Hosannah in the highest, the first comprehensive
health care reform package anyone’s been able to deliver in the 100+ years that
we’ve been trying!) before Congress was taken over by a cavalcade of outrage merchants
who hate the government they serve in. (Selfloathing, thy name is Tea Party.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">And now, you look at the unseemly
freak show that is the Republican primary, and wonder when someone is going to
shout April Fools and admit that it’s all an elaborate and, frankly, tasteless
practical joke. President Donald Trump. No. It can. Not. Happen. Apparently, it
falls to us not only to save the nation from this angry-without-a-cause mob,
but actually to save them from the consequences of their own actions. So be it.
It won’t be the first time life was unfair to progressives. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">OK, enough background. We know what
the stakes are, and we know that they are vast.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We also know that failure is not an
option, except that it is. Losing is inconceivable, but plausible. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">On the Democratic side, we are
divided. Divided on substance. Divided on a sincere and well-considered
difference of opinion that is not at all easy to resolve, and that I find
splits my own convictions down the middle. On the one hand, Hillary Clinton and
her supporters are arguing for a politics of pragmatism. They suggest, and not
without foundation, that holding on to the considerable gains progressives have
made recently is already a form of victory. They say that safety is radicalism
here, because we are about to see the tipping of the Supreme Court, the locking
in of health care reform, and demographic trends favour our case for
immigration reform. They stipulate that we are in an era of political gridlock,
and they promise to do everything in their power to 1) hold the line and 2)
make incremental advances where we can. I find that to be a compelling
analysis, and thus a fairly appealing promise. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">On the other hand, Bernie Sanders
and his supporters say that the problems of this country go beyond what we have
yet begun to solve. They point out – rightly – that to our shame, economic
inequality is becoming crippling, that the richest are getting richer, and the
middle class is being squeezed out of existence. They argue that we need a
bolder politics, a genuine revolution that can begin to reverse these trends,
and they further argue that there are entrenched interests even within our own
party system that must be combatted if we are going to make progress. I also
find that to be a compelling analysis, and at least an INTRIGUING promise. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">If we combine these two analyses
(because they CAN be combined), we arrive at vision in which much change is
needed, but very little change is possible. In which gridlock is inevitable,
but devastating. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I’ve spent months wrestling with
this choice of candidate, and in the course of that consideration the big
surprise to me has been how much I have come to like and admire Bernie Sanders
as a person. I fully expected in the course of this race to find that he was a
bit kooky, a bit unserious, a bit starry eyed. He’s none of those things. In
fact, he’s got an amazing record for being right about things progressives care
about long before America comes around to our point of view. He’s been right on
civil rights and segregation, he was right on LGBT rights (watch </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAFlQ6fU4GM" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">this amazing video</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> of him standing up for LGBT
soldiers back in 1995), he was right about the war in Iraq. He’s never
compromised his principles, and bless him for that. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But here’s the thing... Bernie’s not
saying that you should vote for him for President because he’s been pure in his
ideals through all or his career. He’s arguing you should vote for him for
President because he is in the best position to lead a movement that will
fundamentally change the nature of politics and economics in this country. And
he needs to do that in a world where it is not conceivable that any Republican
or right-leaning public official of any kind will cooperate in any way with any
efforts in this direction that any progressive might make. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Here in the UK, we have recent
experience of what happens when the Left throws it’s support to an ideologically
unimpeachable maverick. Jeremy Corbyn, the new leader of the Labour Party, is a
lifelong rebel against the compromising instincts of his own party, a perfectly
uncompromised and consistent man who has always been well liked by his party
and whom even his opponents agree is a man of integrity and principle. He’s
also led Labour so far from the possibility of being elected that the
Conservative government has decided it is fully inconstrained. Jeremy Corbyn
promised that he could leverage his Party leadership into a transformation of
this small-c conservative country into the Socialist utopia of Labour’s dreams.
There is evidence that instead of his promised political revolution, he has
secured an unbreakable Tory majority for the foreseeable future. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It’s a cautionary tale, and
reinforces my belief that there is no secret path to peaceful revolution laying
behind the door marked, “Authenticity of the Left”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">So, let’s leave aside for the moment
the question whether a political revolution is even possible. Let’s talk first
about business as usual – What will it take for the next President to do the
job of President? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Well, it will take ruthless Party
discipline, for a start. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But Bernie Sanders is not even a
member of the Party he seeks to lead. His purity of principle, which I admire,
prevented him from joining the compromised, imperfect Democratic Party. As a
self-described democratic socialist, he was the only socialist in Congress. 26
years after he became the first, he is still the only socialist in Congress.
Put bluntly, that doesn’t sound like a record of creating transformative
progressive political movements. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Does Hillary Clinton have a record
of leading progressive movements? Well, she has a record of leadership, for
sure. In the Senate, in the White House as First Lady, and as a powerful
Secretary of State – everywhere she’s gone, she seems to have accrued to
herself a roster of highly loyal, highly capable people. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I don’t think she’s the right person
to lead a political revolution. I don’t think SHE thinks she’s the right person
to run a political revolution. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But she’s a great person to lead
Democrats. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Look, I’m a member of this Party.
I’m a proud member of this party, even on the days when this party does not
make me proud. I was a member of this Party even when many of its members were
to the right of me on LGBT rights, even when its leaders voted for a war I thought
was a terrible mistake, because I believe that creating a coalition of people
with enough shared values to work together for the general interest is how
political change happens. I do not believe it happens overnight, I do not
believe it happens simply or easily. And I really, really, don’t believe it
happens by transitioning the one and only avowedly socialist member of
government directly into the White House. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Hillary Clinton also believes that
political change happens through hard work, and within the coalition of the
Democratic Party. And she’s been in the dirt negotiating towards that change
for decades. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">On a personal level, I always say
that when I vote for President I want to vote for someone who is better than
me. Smarter than me, tougher than me, with better judgement than me. One way in
which I know Hillary Clinton is a better person than I am is how insanely
relentlessly she perseveres. I’ve watched her over the years work with
Republican Senators who called her insulting names during her husband’s
impeachment. I watched her go to work with the man who beat her in the 2008
Primary, I’ve watched her go back and face the same electorate again. She’s not
a natural politician – she’s <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe">said so
herself</a>. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">So why is she doing it? Why face so
much punishment and loss of dignity? I think that if you apply Occam’s razor,
the simplest explanation is her own: she says she has always felt called to
service. She says she’s been fighting for a vision of a better, fairer America
since she was a young woman at Wellesley. Her path to that America hasn’t
always matched up step by step with the path I would have taken. But I am
entirely aligned with her about the mode of transport (if you’ll forgive the
analogy…) – change within, and THROUGH the institution of the Democratic Party.
Being in the room when hard decisions are being made within a coalition is
important. Some of the most powerful changes that can be made in politics
happen at the local, state and national party level, when activists show up to
canvass and call, but call out their leaders for not being good enough on the
issues they care about. When activists and make things tough for the Party
leaders until those leaders finally GET that they have to take these activists
concerns seriously. Hillary’s been in those rooms for longer than I’ve been
alive, and she’s been on both sides – she’s been the activist fighting for
feminism, and children’s rights, and reform. And she’s been the party leader,
listening and adapting. I respect that process. We need more of it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Bernie Sanders has clean hands, the
utmost integrity, and no credible way to deliver what he promises. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">My vote for Hillary Clinton is a
vote of respect for her personally. But it’s also a vote of confidence in the
Democratic Party – in the ideas of the Democratic Party, but also the idea of
the Democratic Party. Under all circumstances, the next President must be a
Democrat. My preference is that the next President has always been a Democrat. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="msocomtxt" id="_com_2" language="JavaScript">
<!--[if !supportAnnotations]--></div>
<!--[endif]--></div>
</div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.betches.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Farticle%2Flist%2Fimages%2Fhiltv.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEir73CMILvLVwoI-APIZ5J_aM3iUDCrM00dbI91nCAaLLboFpKN3fsp6rdfwpQGLw3AnYSoWe9qCN_V4hgZVVrmVK-BSa08gm0LQHyiTnjiZFuJc5vzkuAQmxvurtlEav2kW8yi-styQadfwae50MhUHa3Ko68ml62b5uVAjHbVV4Fm2wOaDP9H=" -->Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-82943990051853464032015-10-07T23:33:00.000+01:002015-10-08T10:06:17.463+01:00Freedom from Firearms... A British Perspective<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><br />
Tragically, America has just suffered another mass shooting
leaving more of our fellow citizens grieving lost family members. Even more
tragically, that sentence could stand unaltered for every week of President
Obama’s second term to date. The President is visibly, understandably,
commendably <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/10/01/watch-president-obamas-statement-shooting-oregon">outraged
about this</a>, and unwilling to pretend this violence is merely coincidental
or beyond our control.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Unfortunately, despite many efforts, so far he has been
equally unable to do anything to stop this bloodbath. In part, this is because
he has been blocked at every turn by an obstructionist Congress. But even more
so, it is because those lawmakers in their turn are guided by an American gun
culture that has been growing if anything stronger and less constrained even as
the horrors of gun violence have been growing more terrible and tangible. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Americans – at least, a very large minority of Americans –
just love our guns. But more than that, we have been taught to believe in the
IDEA of our guns. Firearms in American culture aren’t piece of sporting
equipment, a tool for hunting, or even a means of self-defence. They are
regarded as a civil right, second only to the freedom of speech in the Bill of
Rights. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The usual thing is for politicians arguing for gun control
to pay deference to this idea first, before talking about how we might slightly
limit this right at the margins. When I commentate on US politics, I also find
myself operating within these parameters, “We’re not talking about repealing
the 2<sup>nd</sup> amendment, but the Founding Fathers talked about a WELL
REGULATED militia… Surely banning grenade launching machine guns from sale to
toddlers would count as a reasonable regulation. That’s all we’re talking about
here!”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But it’s time to come out of the closet on this. I’ve been
telling a lie of omission. Because I just, in no way, regard access to deadly
firearms as a right to which a free citizenry are entitled. I’ve always been
vaguely uncomfortable about that belief, just on the grounds that I know you
should always be wary of the impulse to take away rights that you personally
don’t happen to value (hello there, male anti-abortion extremists!). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And I’ve hesitated to write about gun control issues too
much in the past. Because, there’s a symphony of shouting every time this issue
comes up, and what can I have to add? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, on reflection, I do have something to add, and I hope
it might be of use to my friends back home who haven’t yet given up on the idea
that we might be able to do something about this problem. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As President Obama, and many others have pointed out, the
United Kingdom is one of those countries where we’ve actually changed our gun
laws – most recently, as a reaction to a terrible mass shooting in Dunblane,
Scotland. Death by gun is now vanishingly rare in the UK, but 100 years ago
firearms were as unrestricted here as they are in America today. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If firearms are a civil right, then they are a civil right
that has been deeply constrained here in the UK. And yet, I have never had the
sense that British people feel that they are making any kind of sacrifice or
difficult trade-off in surrendering their “right to bear arms”. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Perhaps, though, there was more to this than I know. If
firearms are a right to be treasured, and if (as the NRA argues) they are vital
for personal self-defence, then logically some people must feel less safe and
less free for the absence of the guns. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I asked British people on Facebook and Twitter to answer the
following question: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivkcQxh72J5KHoYXNZ_JBrkPCh77ObV0Ma4TPv9v8KoAZ6K6wxYVvmnFXalndDSNGevgM_KL61A4NcroSemsy_SovttdlurDiTben322LNfp0ZMAQPLySAyERGIsfC2JLrzTwJtFonbrI/s1600/1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="86" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivkcQxh72J5KHoYXNZ_JBrkPCh77ObV0Ma4TPv9v8KoAZ6K6wxYVvmnFXalndDSNGevgM_KL61A4NcroSemsy_SovttdlurDiTben322LNfp0ZMAQPLySAyERGIsfC2JLrzTwJtFonbrI/s400/1.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I got dozens of heated responses. By far the most common was
along these lines: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB5l0SK-fgLJmr4mdcafGCLnWbdpM1awGg9ohIp_g0vQvi34rBauWFhNmRh_oHCMHZzz5sLbGQM2ACgtqlOu32mfMruEYBI_EDjXDfdEG4WCtNyyffmUs_Jv2zsdn1-uqrhWePDYue95A/s1600/2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="340" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB5l0SK-fgLJmr4mdcafGCLnWbdpM1awGg9ohIp_g0vQvi34rBauWFhNmRh_oHCMHZzz5sLbGQM2ACgtqlOu32mfMruEYBI_EDjXDfdEG4WCtNyyffmUs_Jv2zsdn1-uqrhWePDYue95A/s400/2.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So people are afraid of this idea. Very much so. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A few other common threads came through, as well:<o:p></o:p></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; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b>Emigration:</b>
Lots of folks said they’d leave the country. I pushed back on some of these,
asking them whether they would REALLY leave behind friends and family, or if
that was just a knee jerk reaction. Most said on balance that it probably was a
knee jerk response, but stressed that they would feel genuinely uncomfortable,
and that was not the sort of country in which they wanted to live.<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; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b>Confusion:</b>
Loads of people wondered why on earth such a thing could ever happen. “No one
wants this,” someone wrote. There was a general sense of bafflement as to why
such a thing would ever be contemplated, even as a hypothetical question. <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; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b>Crime
Escalation:</b> Several people mentioned that they either live in “dodgy
neighbourhoods” or have been the target of crime before, and the prospect of
the bad guys they know having access to weapons was terrifying. One friend
wrote, “My home in Brixton would be a scene from a nightmare. Desperate teenage
boys with no hopes and little to lose - the knives already take a lot of lives,
guns would turn that number into hundreds. And me? I'd probably be dead.
The long arm of the law did a blinking good job of protecting me when I
left a relationship with a rather nasty person. If he could have got a gun I
think his pursuit of me would have been fatal.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These were the most common reactions, and they were very,
very consistent. But there was another, minor thread of the discussion that I
hadn’t expected, and that really made me think about this in a new way. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="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; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b>But Guns
ARE Legal:</b> Several folks reminded me that it IS of course possible to buy a
gun here. You just need to have a “good reason” to do so. Several people told
me that they themselves had shot or owned a weapon at one time, that it is
possible to do so responsibly, but that even as gun users themselves, they
would never want “American style” gun ownership. One friend wrote: “I have shot
for fun a few times and can appreciate the enjoyment in this, but this is a
world away from people freely walking around with guns. Geoff Robbins (named
with permission) wrote to me on Twitter as follows: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvEzJGphqFk7CWE0g7YJ7rd6I7clD-JjXcITI5RfBY9mGChxmMKBAVZqDWZi7FlQcbnitpoF5RuTmlnOv0CCGj_PGXpIOj4RwBF62jBAVQecDfJTnWWPDXeC5Xy_4biE13aUxPUQKasP8/s1600/3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvEzJGphqFk7CWE0g7YJ7rd6I7clD-JjXcITI5RfBY9mGChxmMKBAVZqDWZi7FlQcbnitpoF5RuTmlnOv0CCGj_PGXpIOj4RwBF62jBAVQecDfJTnWWPDXeC5Xy_4biE13aUxPUQKasP8/s320/3.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I was intrigued by this, so I wrote back to learn more. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZBF0XqUStgncHbuknVydRLw4Y6S08SLhefUBPqDLpMV3vh9Q9zTDSAWpesKp-etcPRjG8V0bX6z3gMQHPnUHTmzGHQR3SN9boWyXBcn24ZBdXKdvxvOGnOrvVQeJf7_XOD3pkhQOYHiw/s1600/4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZBF0XqUStgncHbuknVydRLw4Y6S08SLhefUBPqDLpMV3vh9Q9zTDSAWpesKp-etcPRjG8V0bX6z3gMQHPnUHTmzGHQR3SN9boWyXBcn24ZBdXKdvxvOGnOrvVQeJf7_XOD3pkhQOYHiw/s400/4.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0XbTLYMSeIYZYEuZXgFIRNPSpli_qsJdGzMeSp8FgHNbdSYNKqafNcwHSde6xZ-mxeGGEpRfRoZoYWyQuVf4UKcxDk3OdCdRjCNVjW-KrxHzj3WP0moxGpYtsH2GAMbCOs4No_Nkn1Z0/s1600/6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="50" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0XbTLYMSeIYZYEuZXgFIRNPSpli_qsJdGzMeSp8FgHNbdSYNKqafNcwHSde6xZ-mxeGGEpRfRoZoYWyQuVf4UKcxDk3OdCdRjCNVjW-KrxHzj3WP0moxGpYtsH2GAMbCOs4No_Nkn1Z0/s400/6.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOIdQmHeSni7E_-iUiiORYl94xeEjXpgPr_moQI72E_3HUbrptev0kOzjv2911VNX0tj3sC_er-h1fkP_lCPrGDUGCaviYLceujqSHE5NbTLU17YbJ6rWz6-7zos7Y0a_fHi0RTQLV5Ok/s1600/5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="51" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOIdQmHeSni7E_-iUiiORYl94xeEjXpgPr_moQI72E_3HUbrptev0kOzjv2911VNX0tj3sC_er-h1fkP_lCPrGDUGCaviYLceujqSHE5NbTLU17YbJ6rWz6-7zos7Y0a_fHi0RTQLV5Ok/s400/5.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape
id="Picture_x0020_7" o:spid="_x0000_i1029" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:323.25pt;
height:41.25pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\karin.robinson\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image011.png"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I became fascinated by this, partly because it exposed such
a gap in my own assumptions. Guns are so rare here that I always just think in
terms of “guns are unlawful”. Even the cops don’t carry guns! (Well, mostly.) <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But they aren’t of course. They are just very tightly and
strictly regulated. They are a privilege that can be earned. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Suddenly I had a LOAD of questions. How would I go about
getting a gun if I wanted one? What counts as a “good reason” for having one
under British Law? Who actually issues gun licenses, and what’s the process?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So I looked into it a bit. In a nutshell, here’s how gun
ownership operates in Britain:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>There is No Right to
Have a Weapon for Self Defence<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
This is probably the biggest difference between the US and
the UK. In Britain, you are not allowed to arm yourself specifically for the
purpose of protection against future possible attack. This doesn’t just apply
to firearms – you aren’t allowed to carry around knives or mace or anything
that is specifically intended to be used as a weapon in case of attack. This
isn’t the same thing as saying you don’t have a right of self-defence – you do.
If you are attacked, you do have the right to fight back with whatever
materials are at hand. To use a concrete example, you would not be allowed to
carry a kitchen knife with you in case someone attacks you, but if you ARE
attacked in your kitchen you are free to grab a knife and use it provided that
this defence is “reasonable”. That means, if someone is grabs your purse and
runs off, you’re not allowed to come after him with the knife. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is the aspect of British gun law that seems most alien
to American sensibilities – and it really is quite an extraordinary difference
in beliefs. Essentially, in Britain you sign up to a social contract that says
collective security (knowing that no one is armed) is more important than an
individual right to be armed in defence. One reason this works here is because,
as seen by my social media responses, there are very few people here who
believe carrying firearms would make them personally safer. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This principle is also important, because so many other
things follow on from it within the system of laws – if there’s no right to
self-defence, then the “good reasons” to be armed are limited to things like
hunting and sport. And there is then no good reason whatsoever to need a loaded
weapon in your home at all times. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Some Types of Guns are Totally Banned</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This part of British law actually isn’t all that alien to
American thinking – we have banned certain types of firearms before both
nationally, for instance assault weapons under the Clinton Administration, and
locally, for instance the handguns ban in DC (the fact that both of these
measures were overturned is just… depressing evidence that this issue is really
freakin’ hard in America).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In Britain, assault weapons, automatic weapons, and handguns
are simply banned outright. Permanently and nationally. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Time <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The licensing system for firearms warns that it takes a
minimum of 8 weeks to achieve a license – which sounds like a long time in the
context of America’s raging debate over 48-hour waiting periods, but two months
isn’t actually that long to wait. Typically it takes longer to get a driver’s
licence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Medical Checks </b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As part of your firearms application in Britain, you must
declare any illnesses that may affect your ability to safely use the weapon –
and this includes any mental illnesses, such as depression. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What’s more, you are asked to provide the details of your
doctor, and to waive medical confidentiality for the purpose of allowing the
police to confirm this information with them. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8GC0pqt1xRAB_hh_BAQQXH8VxZUPdsG37Bh6w5rG_gS4UJhMvUI9YpC7aUvA6U93sKbJJAB-LK7CGZFm77jUtdKVIw9Sc-vdd8rQIOcwfDRlGftj5v8RddOr8AdOxpRsL4fUULTPkZ2g/s1600/7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8GC0pqt1xRAB_hh_BAQQXH8VxZUPdsG37Bh6w5rG_gS4UJhMvUI9YpC7aUvA6U93sKbJJAB-LK7CGZFm77jUtdKVIw9Sc-vdd8rQIOcwfDRlGftj5v8RddOr8AdOxpRsL4fUULTPkZ2g/s640/7.png" width="371" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsBzYbdhIj9db4BdnzkvVH6yNw3sa3zDDTYyHD1zi_Unvko1xSJ5yE2Dp8TlA2oAjapXa-qnbnzuuuGw326oMdjstyyQ8GrAPIjm-kt2uUxdC8C9hiXJF0m104-0NjQEtr5Lt7VgFZICo/s1600/8.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsBzYbdhIj9db4BdnzkvVH6yNw3sa3zDDTYyHD1zi_Unvko1xSJ5yE2Dp8TlA2oAjapXa-qnbnzuuuGw326oMdjstyyQ8GrAPIjm-kt2uUxdC8C9hiXJF0m104-0NjQEtr5Lt7VgFZICo/s640/8.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Criminal Convictions</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You have to declare any criminal convictions, including
those which are already “spent” (i.e., you have served your time and are no
longer under parole). In most cases, a serious conviction will prevent you from
being able to get a license, but even traffic convictions must be reported. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>References<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You have to supply contact details for 2 people not related
to you who have known you for at least 2 years so that the police can follow up
with them as references.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Security Arrangements<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You have to confirm how you will be securing your weapon,
and whether you will do that at home or at another location (e.g., at a gun
club). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape
id="Picture_x0020_10" o:spid="_x0000_i1026" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:451.5pt;
height:294pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\karin.robinson\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image016.png"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJxQXnNbD5q6RMGrrPgsf-LE6vO8v6kluHaym_zQcE60jMusTVGXqxyLS55Q1OeMx3xKRT9CbvpnXvnk5k4VWyNYsdjGt_iqIpPYawMigkEq0kig0sSorENJSyi7HGnY0pg7CEHjKw1pw/s1600/9.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="416" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJxQXnNbD5q6RMGrrPgsf-LE6vO8v6kluHaym_zQcE60jMusTVGXqxyLS55Q1OeMx3xKRT9CbvpnXvnk5k4VWyNYsdjGt_iqIpPYawMigkEq0kig0sSorENJSyi7HGnY0pg7CEHjKw1pw/s640/9.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Good Reason <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
And finally, my favourite condition: there has to be a reason why you want or
need a gun. “I want one” is not good enough you must have a specific purpose in
mind. And since, as we’ve already discussed, having one for self defence is not
a lawful reason, that basically means your evidence for a “good reason” is
likely going to be limited. As the Metropolitan Police explain in their
guidance for applicants:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“To acquire or possess firearms or ammunition under Section
1 of the Firearms Act 1968, you have to provide evidence that you have a good
reason to do so. This applies to the grant, renewal or variation of a firearm
certificate. This evidence can take several forms: permission to shoot over
land or membership of a target shooting club, or a booking or invitation to go
deer stalking are examples, but these are not exhaustive.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One little hiccup – if you plan to go hunting with your
weapon, you also need to provide the name of a person who has given you permission
to shoot on their land. Remember, you can’t just go into the public woodlands
to hunt. So you need a landowner who can confirm your right to hunt there. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a result, of course, guns are now pretty much the purview
of serious hunters or sportsman and there just aren’t that many of those. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One Facebook friend who has worked in government told me, if
you “go back and look at the media coverage of the debate about the firearms
ban post-Dunblane. There were two piece of legislation, the Firearms
(Amendment) Act 1997 (John Majo<span data-reactid=".21.1:5.0.1:$comment10153240041837199_10153240112787199/=10.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.3">r)
and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 (Tony Blair). From recollection,
one of the arguments that got particular currency was that the legislation
would make it really difficult for Britain to compete in shooting events in the
Olympics, because competitors would be unable to train in this country. I
remember thinking that the fact anyone was making such a niche argument at all
was a sign of how utterly marginal guns are to British cultural identity. Big
contrast to America where cultural identity (not just the arguments about
individual freedom) is a huge part of the issue.</span>”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Quite. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, laws and culture both play a huge role in the way that
our two societies have coped with firearms, no doubt. And here in Britain,
there is a complex network of laws that reinforce and maintain a strong
aversion to widespread gun ownership. If my fellow Americans want to know now they
might restrain guns more through laws, Britain offers a wide range of
restrictions and regulations that they could consider. But even more, it offers
a culture that has fully rejected general access to firearms for reasons of personal
security and societal stability.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We’ll need to learn that lesson too, if such laws are ever
going to work. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a>Final parting statistic: here are the respective gun deaths
per 100,000 people in the UK and the US respectively.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3uBdRpO7e4X2UwoPVU6t_OjQvdUrw1KOnUn7siaUooRqfeGyzryTm5WgghzETmzXga9tlc7k_Mv1SDtNpFi6mcl2eUzNRUhZQsLqnZZsihevZNkrJPNC01Sl9kFFgifVuvUWbH0djDgY/s1600/10.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3uBdRpO7e4X2UwoPVU6t_OjQvdUrw1KOnUn7siaUooRqfeGyzryTm5WgghzETmzXga9tlc7k_Mv1SDtNpFi6mcl2eUzNRUhZQsLqnZZsihevZNkrJPNC01Sl9kFFgifVuvUWbH0djDgY/s1600/10.png" /></a></div>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3801227671293876432" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Author’s note:</i> For
those of you who have been wondering where this blog has been over the last few
years – I abandoned it after the 2012 campaign, since President Obama had no
further campaigns to run and I had a life to live. You may be interested in my
personal blog over at <a href="http://karinrobinson.tumblr.com/">Unworthy Thoughts</a>, on Tumblr. And you can always follow me
on Twitter: @karinjr<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-53199539283318076672012-07-27T13:55:00.002+01:002012-07-27T14:54:00.112+01:00How bad was Romney's first day in London?It has been widely reported already in the US that Mitt Romney's first foreign trip as a US Presidential candidate... did not go well. <br />
<br />
But my suspicion is that a lot of my friends in America who are accustomed to "he said, she said" news coverage might suspect that this disaster is being blown out of proportion by the schadenfreude of delighted Obama supporters. <br />
<br />
As your woman on the ground here in the UK, I want to assure you: IT REALLY IS THAT BAD. Here below are the Romney headlines in every British Newspaper this morning.<br />
<br />
Firstly, here's the cover of the Independent:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikMYeiGX1JaV_977_FrQ_Ou9jNFiRMcjilNt7GRu5gaWpKDVTkiymQ6nYt7vQ2bBhbmijG9vA_6Ydf72rClzFSJ2oe5glZ4lI0Z6_aFFy_t_-0v38Hv8xpJyxPVEBjX2F55DpAGslLHuk/s1600/Independent+-+Cover.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikMYeiGX1JaV_977_FrQ_Ou9jNFiRMcjilNt7GRu5gaWpKDVTkiymQ6nYt7vQ2bBhbmijG9vA_6Ydf72rClzFSJ2oe5glZ4lI0Z6_aFFy_t_-0v38Hv8xpJyxPVEBjX2F55DpAGslLHuk/s1600/Independent+-+Cover.JPG" /></a></div>
<br />
In case you can't read it, that says: "Ready. set. go! (Whatever Mitt Says)"<br />
<br />
And here's the article inside the paper:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFlktjd2vIy7eWvhMt7qnSBGR4q6jngIcjpREiS6hnP-348pTYf5jOtZJZ53P9rbHTB6tFibEO5lmcFVPytK4FdWNUkH6snwM-aQsjpGeUD2yfIH2tPHaQqlIFsKLEa8x5qa59-Xw5c-M/s1600/Independent+-+Inside.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFlktjd2vIy7eWvhMt7qnSBGR4q6jngIcjpREiS6hnP-348pTYf5jOtZJZ53P9rbHTB6tFibEO5lmcFVPytK4FdWNUkH6snwM-aQsjpGeUD2yfIH2tPHaQqlIFsKLEa8x5qa59-Xw5c-M/s400/Independent+-+Inside.JPG" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
"Romneyshambles: Mitt begins his trip with a swipe at London"<br />
<br />
Here's the Daily Mirror: <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWuVrRMR2fekCm4GvnGL0hcIVoiOup_f-BhZTC1C-XhM8iv2Go_XHjO2nXLcXSThGhVpFkGMjRf6fgGxaPHN3GEKb81PzVvgzRAlme9-XDG_uSlMnS5yxpxFYP2tx1jiA1iyVUgap458Y/s1600/Mirror.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWuVrRMR2fekCm4GvnGL0hcIVoiOup_f-BhZTC1C-XhM8iv2Go_XHjO2nXLcXSThGhVpFkGMjRf6fgGxaPHN3GEKb81PzVvgzRAlme9-XDG_uSlMnS5yxpxFYP2tx1jiA1iyVUgap458Y/s400/Mirror.JPG" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
"You're Rom, Mitt! PM Hits Back at Games Doubter"<br />
<br />
Here's the Guardian:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdt9aTC_kaMRygIfzetr3EI7dPrh1X35BX3OZKYh4-6kiOUUxCRW31hL0urME1SppMEAh5IuBjskgmUYOygDjbTAmhazBxRE8-8GGLjiI5H8PLx4wJmP8b5rqF3UMJfOg-gKI_Ga2LHS8/s1600/Guardian.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdt9aTC_kaMRygIfzetr3EI7dPrh1X35BX3OZKYh4-6kiOUUxCRW31hL0urME1SppMEAh5IuBjskgmUYOygDjbTAmhazBxRE8-8GGLjiI5H8PLx4wJmP8b5rqF3UMJfOg-gKI_Ga2LHS8/s320/Guardian.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Brutally reading: "Mitt falls at the first hurdle"<br />
<br />
And here's the Sun (just a few pages in from the traditional topless women - I know... classy):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlWp_dqdy2juA5f4uNUekRw3XdDgQ6izQFVpOfJpgMolgrcJNloG46OAVHf3gG8LUpba5qaVmCxlt7zZ8hpUXVTznnNIvKS3QAQZmbGphtd523tTixNP40MuSvBO-mmo2niEbFrRKSnrc/s1600/Sun.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlWp_dqdy2juA5f4uNUekRw3XdDgQ6izQFVpOfJpgMolgrcJNloG46OAVHf3gG8LUpba5qaVmCxlt7zZ8hpUXVTznnNIvKS3QAQZmbGphtd523tTixNP40MuSvBO-mmo2niEbFrRKSnrc/s320/Sun.JPG" width="240" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
It says: "Mitt the Twit: Wannabe President in Games Insult"<br />
<br />
And here we have the Times:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-IC7-lx2v8LynMQ4t92uOX9kspbnP7hD5VraKZS763LA4bUulBd6lLFnVjf1WCtMmaaMcEY2_K72A0G3i_rQ_viRU8vizb8bWi-hWe8-siVJAXvJwkUcIf5ZYe-K91XoxgB-eQsbWhF4/s1600/Times2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-IC7-lx2v8LynMQ4t92uOX9kspbnP7hD5VraKZS763LA4bUulBd6lLFnVjf1WCtMmaaMcEY2_K72A0G3i_rQ_viRU8vizb8bWi-hWe8-siVJAXvJwkUcIf5ZYe-K91XoxgB-eQsbWhF4/s320/Times2.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
"Romney loses his way with gaff about the Games"Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-30928133654419862882012-05-12T18:05:00.000+01:002012-05-12T18:05:36.862+01:00Gay Marriage Won't Change the Meaning of Marriage. But it will Change the Meaning of GayIf you have been avoiding all news sources for the past week, you may have missed the moment when President Obama came out and expressed his personal support for allowing same sex couples to marry.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hOSLufPxk8s" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
As it happens, the President made this statement while I was attending a reception for US citizens at the American Embassy. We were required to surrender all electronic devices before going in, so I walked in knowing that the President was expected to make some sort of statement about this issue, then walked out an hour later, checked the news and had the uncanny sensation that the world had changed while I was inside.<br />
<br />
That probably seems melodramatic. After all, in terms of policy - the President's statement changes little. Perhaps nothing. President Obama has long been on the record stating that believes there should be no difference whatsoever in the law between committed same sex couples and married straight couples. He favoured a version of civil unions that would offer full legal protection to these couples. But, of course, the president's views on this are not especially relevant since decisions about the issuance of marriage license are made at a state level - and although some states (including most recently New York) have recently allowed gay couples to marry, others are moving in the opposite direction. Including, of course, North Carolina - which only the day before the President's statement had overwhelmingly voted in favour of a referendum that would add a prohibition against both civil unions and gay marriage directly into the state constitution. (It has been noted that the last time North Carolina amended their state constitution, it was to ban interracial marriage. <i>Plus ca change...</i>)<br />
<br />
So why, then, this sense that the world was in some way fundamentally different now?<br />
<br />
I think back to my first year of college - in 1992. That was the year Bill Clinton became President. It was the year I turned 18, and voted for the first time, and lived on my own for the first time. It was also the first time I met anyone who was openly gay. Actually, I met a lot of people who were openly gay or bisexual that year. And thank goodness I did, because it instantly cured me of the embarrassing crime of being unreflectively homophobic. And I do mean instantly. I grew up in a small town at a time when no one of high school age was openly gay (although I now know, several of the people I knew well in high school were closeted gay. Oops.) so I never had the opportunity of getting to know anyone who identified as a sexual minority. But the very instant that I realised some of my new friends were gay or bisexual, I flipped - like a coin toss. These people were great! Funny, and kind. Smart and interesting. Mature sometimes, ridiculously silly others. They were the sort of friends I'd been searching for all my awkward teenage years.<br />
<br />
In the Spring of that year, I marched in a huge gay rights parade in Washington, DC, on a beautiful sunny day. I remember that Ellen DeGeneres, who at that point was a relatively minor stand up comic, gave a speech referencing her own lesbianism so openly that several years later when she officially came out of the closet I was really confused ("I thought we all knew that?").<br />
<br />
But even in the sunniest mood on that sunny day, I never would have imagined that just 20 years legalised gay marriage would be the mainstream and reasonable position of a popular and centrist US President. At that time homosexual acts were still illegal in many states (this was before the Supreme Court Deciaion in Lawrence V Texas that protected the right to private sexual acts). Employment discrimination was relatively routine against gays and lesbians. A teacher at my high school who I only later on realised must have been gay was so fiercely closeted that he visibly panicked when I ran into him with a male friend at an out of town theater. Goodness. He must have been terrified - it wasn't that uncommon then for teachers to be fired or "encouraged" to resign if they were found to be gay.<br />
<br />
We were just coming off the worst years of the AIDS crisis, and I remember that the AIDS quilt was brought to the Capitol and spread out in the Mall between the Washington and Lincolm memorial.<br />
<br />
The goals of the gay rights movement then seemed on the one hand so modest, and on the other so unreachable - essentially... to be left alone. "Please don't discriminate against us." "Please allow us to serve in the military."<br />
<br />
The idea of the government providing formal legal protection to gay couples in the form of civil unions was at that time considered pretty extreme. And there were many on the left who opposed the idea of gay marriage at all. Because, in their view, marriage was an elite bourgeois institution perpetuating gender stereotypes and unrealistic ideas of lifelong monogamy. Or some such nonsense.<br />
<br />
Basically, both the left and the right agreed about one thing - being gay would never be "normal". Gay people would never settle down in suburbs and raise children. They would never marry in a church. They would never file a joint tax return. They would be cursed (in the right's view) or privileged (in the left's view) with a perpetual existence of lifestyle nonconformity.<br />
<br />
Now, there's nothing wrong with living a transgressive life. If you want to enact in your life a non-monogomous relationship model, or if permanent commitment isn't for you, or if you just don't buy into any of the prevailing norms about family formation - good for you. Go forth, be free - live your life and best wishes.<br />
<br />
But at the time, I think most of the people at that DC march believed that so-called normality would never be an option for them. That whatever their own inclinations may be, the best gay people could hope for was to be tolerated.<br />
<br />
But today, we have come so far as a country that the President of the United States - in an election year - can come out and say gay people should have the option of being celebrated and honoured for their commitment. Because, putting aside all the legalities - that's the function of marriage. It is for society to affirmatively honour, respect and support the commitment of two people to each other. That's why so many marriage ceremonies include a moment when the priest asks the congregation to make vows to the couple. Because, to steal a phrase from Hillary Clinton, it takes a village to enact a marriage.<br />
<br />
Famously, around the same time that I was marching in Washington for gay rights, President Clinton was agreeing a "compromise" that would allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military - so long as they lied about who they were. A couple years later, under duress, he signed the so called "Defence of Marriage Act" which has the perverse effect now of preventing couples who are legally married in some states from having their marriages recognised elsewhere.<br />
<br />
What President Obama did this week was historic - not because it was radical, but because it was... normal.<br />
<br />
He made both a common sense and a compassionate argument. How could he, a man whose parents' marriage would have been illegal in many states of the Union at the time he was born, explain to his daughter why the parents of their friends should not be allowed to marry? He couldn't. Of course he couldn't. The more you think about it, the more it makes sense.<br />
<br />
Mitt Romney says he not only won't support same sex marriage - he won't support civil unions (which even President Bush said he could support).<br />
<br />
Mitt is living in a different America than the President is. An America that looks a lot like that closeted small town I grew up in. It's a worse America. I am so glad that I moved out of that place in my mind so many years ago, and I'm so glad to move forward with the President into a new America where equality can be real and meaningful.Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-4997847002210491722012-04-27T12:33:00.005+01:002012-04-27T12:35:06.744+01:00The Democrats Abroad Global Primary Starts Next Tuesday...<a href="http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2012/04/London-For-Obama.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-49554" height="225" src="http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2012/04/London-For-Obama-300x225.jpg" title="London For Obama" width="300" /></a><em>Reblogged from my <a href="http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/04/vote-2012-americans-uk/">Left Foot Forward</a> article, posted today:</em><br />
<br />
With all the attention on next week’s mayoral elections, and the expectations of a disappointing result for voters on the left, perhaps progressives can take comfort in another election that will be taking place in London and across the UK: the vote for Barack Obama <a href="http://www.democratsabroad.org/node/14691">here in Britain</a>.<br />
<br />
From <a href="http://www.democratsabroad.org/node/14691">May 1-6</a>, more than 6 million American voters who live overseas will have their first and only chance to cast a ballot in person for Barack Obama, and to choose the delegates who will represent them at the Democratic Convention in North Carolina.<br />
Why does this matter? Well, first and foremost, this overseas primary will be one of the first tests of Democrats’ ability to bring back the voting coalition that won us our sweeping victories in 2008.<br />
As a Regional Field Director for Americans Abroad at that time, it was my job to increase voting participation from American voters living here in Europe. The Obama campaign understood that Americans living abroad have historically had difficulty voting, and have often been underrepresented at the polls. In 2008, however, <strong>we achieved an astonishing 750% increase in our confirmed Democratic vote</strong>.<br />
With the resurgence of the American right, and the Republican Party’s worrying efforts to suppress the vote by introducing restrictive new voting laws across the country, it is now more important than ever before that the Democrats are able to bring underrepresented voting groups back to the polls.<br />
<strong>The overseas vote can be a secret weapon in this fight</strong>, as a large group of voters that not only vote Democrat in record numbers, but who can make a difference in scores of close races, from Virginia to Pennsylvania to Michigan to Florida, because they will cast their November ballots in their home states, and who – moreover – are invisible to pollsters. <strong>Democrats living abroad will not show up in any voting projections until the one that counts, on election day</strong>.<br />
<br />
Yet the challenge of organising these voters is significant. The 50 states have different rules for voting in federal elections, and although much progress has been made of late in increasing voter access for Americans living abroad, one recent change to the law means that states that were previously required to keep overseas voters on their rolls for two full election cycles now may<br />
require a fresh ballot request each election year.<br />
<br />
As such, Democrats Abroad is making a major push for voter registration and ballot requests this year. We’ve tried to make it as easy as possible by creating <a href="https://votefromabroad.org/">www.votefromabroad.org</a> – a one stop shop for all overseas registrations and ballot requests.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dauk-primary-london.eventbrite.com/">Here in London on May 1st</a>, we are pulling out all the stops, offering live music, speeches, American flags in abundance, and one simple message: <strong>vote here to make a big difference back home</strong>.<a href="http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/04/vote-2012-americans-uk/">http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/04/vote-2012-americans-uk/</a>Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-91617600865688512782012-04-23T14:51:00.001+01:002012-04-23T14:51:31.538+01:00You heard it here first...Long time blog followers may remember that <a href="http://obamalondon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/i-heart-mona-sutphen.html">I wrote last year</a> about meeting then-DNC Policy Director Clyde Williams and his impressive wife Mona Sutphen who was a Deputy Cheif of Staff to the President. I wrote about how impressed I was with them both, in particular Monica and then said this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I asked her if she had considered running for office herself - and she suggested
that she wasn't interested in that, but that Clyde was seriously considering it.
I wish him all the best - I think he'll be great.</blockquote>
And so it has come to pass - I've just spotted in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/nyregion/black-politicians-fear-loss-of-prized-pulpit-in-harlem.html?pagewanted=1&hpw">this interesting article </a>about the changing racial dynamic in Charlie Rangel's upcoming election that one of the people running against him him the primary is none other than Clyde Williams. Huh.<br />
<br />
Not saying I back one or the other (love Charlie Rangel) - but I'm just pointing out the news value of this blog. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-78485358853222793262012-03-18T17:11:00.000+00:002012-03-18T17:11:19.606+00:00Making the Case...You'll be hearing a lot more from me over the next few weeks about why I passionately believe we need to re-elect Obama this November - both because of the great work that he's done and the real harm that would be done by the alternatives. <br />
<br />
But to set the scene for this discussion, here's 17 minutes crystalising the Obama Presidency so far, from the campaign. <br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2POembdArVo" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
Well worth watching. And sharing.Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-67746431849210148532012-03-06T19:30:00.002+00:002012-03-06T22:55:32.474+00:00Because America Has Suffered Enough...To spare us the misery of watching Republican candidates all day today, Barack Obama gives a press conference. He's so considerate.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dJm4-qPbmMM" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
On Iran: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">My policy is not containment, my policy is to prevent them getting a nuclear weapon. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">That's my track record. Now, what's said on the campaign trail? You know, those folks don't have a lot of responsibilities. They're not Commander in Chief. And when I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I am reminded of the costs involved in war. I'm reminded of the decision that I have to make in terms of sending our young men and women into battle. And the impact it has on their lives, the impact it has on national security. The impact it has on our economy. This is not a game. There's nothing casual about it. And when I see some of these folks who have a lto of bluster and a lot of big talk. But when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it turns out they repeat a lot of the things that we've been doing over the last three years. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">It indicates to me that that’s more about politics than trying to solve a problem. Now one thing we have not done is we haven’t launched a war. <strong>If some of these folks think it’s time to launch a war then they should say so and explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be. </strong>Everything else is just talk.</blockquote>Take that, warmongers! <br />
<br />
On Rush Limbaugh and the Sandra Fluke Controversy:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">I don’t know what’s in Rush Limbaugh’s heart, so I’m not going to comment on the sincerity of his apology. What I can comment on is the fact that all decent folks can agree that the remarks that were made don’t have any place in the public discourse. And the reason I called Ms. Flute is because I thought about Malia and Sasha and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about. Even ones I may not agree with them on. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens. And I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">And that we want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves arguments and disagreements and debate. And we want you to be engaged. And there’s a way to do it that doesn’t involve you being demeaned and insulted, particularly when you’re a private citizen. </blockquote>On whether Republicans are waging a "war on women":<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Women are going to make up their own mind in this election about who is advancing the issues that they care most deeply about. One of the things I’ve learned being married to Michelle, is I don’t need to tell her what it is that she thinks is important. And there are millions of strong women around the country who are going to make their own determination about a whole range of issue.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">It’s not going to be narrowly focused just on contraception. It’s not going to be driven by one statement by one radio announcer. It is going to be driven by their view of what’s most likely to make sure they can help support their families, make their mortgage payments, who’s got a plan to ensure that middle class families are secure over the long term, what’s most likely to result in their kids being able to get the education they need to compete.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">And I believe that Democrats have a better story to tell to women about how we’re going to solidify the middle class and grow this economy, make sure everybody has a fair shot, everybody’s doing their fair share, and we got a fair set of rules of the road that everybody has to follow. </blockquote>On immigration reform:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Well, first of all just substantively, every American should want immigration reform. We’ve got a system that’s broken. We’ve got a system in which you have millions of families here in this country who are living in the shadows, worried about deportation. You’ve got American workers that are being undercut because those undocumented workers can be hired and the minimum wage laws may not be observed; overtime laws may not be observed.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">You’ve got incredibly talented people who want to start businesses in this country or to work in this country. And we should want those folks here in the United States, but right now the legal immigration system is so tangled up that it becomes very difficult for them to put down roots here. So we can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And it is not just a Hispanic issue. This is an issue for everybody. This is an American issue that we need to fix.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Now, when I came into office, I said, “I am going to push to get this done.” We didn’t get it done. <strong>And the reason we haven’t gotten it done is because what used to be a bipartisan agreement that we should fix this ended up becoming a partisan issue. </strong>I give a lot of credit to my predecessor, George Bush, and his political advisers who said, you know, “This should not be just something the Democrats support; the Republican Party is invested in this as well.”</blockquote>Unfortunately, too often Republicans seemt o only be invested in exploiting immigration fears to fire up their base. That's why <a href="http://bit.ly/wCWIDw">polls today</a> show that Latino voters are currently supporting President Obama by an astonishing margin of 70% compared to 13% (!) support for the GOP.<br />
<br />
You know, it's refreshing amidst the <a href="http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2012/03/super-tuesday-tale-story-so-far.html">Republican hullaballoo</a> to take some time and watch a President who is smart, thoughtful, and humane.<br />
<br />
Also, I love this:<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gJSARj_KZfU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-82368070500114963332012-03-06T16:24:00.002+00:002012-03-06T17:40:20.105+00:00A Super Tuesday Tale: The Story So Far<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCBVg5W3PV2Hpj62mjpPsw47Y3kBxGKkU6iDEN-vMs84welOpY0jo4O3QgMxGHLvFipBNOoCck3F-fYC_aE6JNDP6clbHI1TMlEfJNg8bzrqODYrDgl1yLbuNragRrOx__pcz1gBqvaWI/s1600/Super+Tuesday+Polls.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCBVg5W3PV2Hpj62mjpPsw47Y3kBxGKkU6iDEN-vMs84welOpY0jo4O3QgMxGHLvFipBNOoCck3F-fYC_aE6JNDP6clbHI1TMlEfJNg8bzrqODYrDgl1yLbuNragRrOx__pcz1gBqvaWI/s320/Super+Tuesday+Polls.PNG" width="320" /></a>Hello boys and girls! In America, it's Super Tuesday today - so primary voters in 10 states are casting their ballots today. This is probably a good time to remind you of the Story So Far in the Republican primary. It's been grippng. <br />
<br />
Initially, Mitt Romney looked like a shoo-in candidate, but quickly Republican voters came to realise that he was a poor campaigner, personally unlikeable, prone to embarassing gaffes, and slippery in his beliefs. <br />
<br />
So they all decamped to the Great Saviour from Texas - Rick Perry. Who enjoyed a surge until we discovered that he seems not to know anything about anything (for instance, he couldn't remember the names of the 3rd Cabinet agency he wanted to abolish. "Oops!"). <br />
<br />
Then they all got excited about a Pizza salesman - Herman Cain. Until it turned out that he ALSO didn't know anything - for instance, what might be happening in Libya - and also had some icky affairs and did some sexual harrassing, which at first the Republicans were totally fine with, but then eventually they were like, "You know what? Nah."<br />
<br />
So Perry and Cain both dropped out to make way for the new big sensation in the race: New Gingrich. Newt surged to a lead, because Republican voters decided his affairs were a really long time ago, plus he gets angry a lot, which they like, and plus he seems really smart and has BIG IDEAS. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, it turned out that some of his big ideas included stuff like giant mirrors in space to illuminate the highways (no, I'm not kidding). Also, everyone remembered that he's not a very nice person.<br />
<br />
So then everybody thought, OK, let's give Romney a chance after all because - you know. All that stuff about him being a weak candidate that no one likes are still true, but what the heck, everyone else also sucks. <br />
<br />
But then they thought, NO GOD DAMN IT! They REALLY REALLY DON'T LIKE MITT ROMNEY! And he's a Mormon, which is weird and they have magic underwear and what's that about? <br />
<br />
Maybe they'll just go back Newt. He's still angry, which they like. <br />
<br />
Argh - but no, he's angry but he's also a jerk and he's promising to build a moon colony and make them into the 51st state (and what is it with this guy and outer space, anyway) so no, not Newt...<br />
<br />
Romney, then? Is it really going to be Romney? OK, they start to think maybe it will be Romney after all, but then they suddenly remembered!<br />
<br />
"Wait a minute! We hate gay people and we're uncomforable with women. You know who else hates gays and thinks women should shut up and make babies? Rick Santorum! He's, like, famous for it!"<br />
<br />
So they think maybe Santorum will save them, because the Google thing is less of a big deal now, and surely hatred and fear of minorities has always been a winning strategy. But then, it turns out that Rick's not actually on the ballot on a lot of states, so it's unclear if he can in theory actually win enough delegates to win. <br />
<br />
And then we start having this really icky conversation about birth control with all these women trying to talk about their lady parts and it makes the Republicans really uncomfortable, but it turns out that some of these women have the right to vote (when did that happen anyway) and they seem to be getting really angry, and being angry is bad when other people do it. <br />
<br />
So, they're back to Romney. Because they don't like him very much but, really, who else is there? <br />
<br />
No, SERIOUSLY! WHO ELSE IS THERE?<br />
<br />
Happy Super Tuesday everyone.Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-70758569965242456782012-03-05T12:33:00.000+00:002012-03-05T12:33:15.887+00:00Rush Limbaugh is Still Calling Sandra Fluke a SlutFollowing up from <a href="http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2012/03/attempt-to-terrorise-sandra-fluke-and.html">my last post</a>, it's incumbent upon me to report that Rush has issued the following supposed <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/text-rush-limbaugh-apology-law-student-234650892.html">"apology"</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."</blockquote>So, he apologises for the insulting word choice, but he repeats the insult. <br />
<br />
Note, please, that he continues to insist that any discussison of birth control can only be about "recreational sexual activity" and that he defines it as by definition something that should not be discussed in Congress. Despite the fact that Congress is actually passing laws to restrict brith control access, it should never be discussed in Congress, by this view.<br />
<br />
So the law student that Fluke testified about who lost her ovary and may now be unable to have children because she was denied a medically necessary treatment - he says her story is really about "sexual recreational activity". <br />
<br />
The married couple Fluke describes who have had to stop taking birth control because they couldn't afford it in their budget? Any mention of their family planning decision is just a trashy rehashing of their "sexual recreational activity". <br />
<br />
And the rape victim who didn't seek help because she believed the university would not offer any assistence to her for her recovery? Rush just accused her of being irresponsible, but anyway we shouldn't talk about it because her rape was recreational.<br />
<br />
When I wrote yesterday that this is an attempt to terrorise women into silence, this is EXACTLY what I meant - the implication that anyone who feels it's important to discuss reproductive health is basically trashy is a powerful tool in persuading women to sit down and shut up. We won't.Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-50832562191595942632012-03-03T15:59:00.001+00:002012-03-03T16:00:42.747+00:00The Attempt to Terrorise Sandra Fluke - and All WomenIf you've been following US news, you will be aware that yesterday President Obama placed a call to offer his support to Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student who testified last week about access to birth control for women. We'll talk in a moment about the horrific things that were said about Sandra that appalled so many of us, including the President. But before we do I want to give Fluke's original testimony the prominence that it deserves. Please watch:<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xlRC0nsjtKQ" width="420"></iframe><br />
<br />
For those of you who can't watch videos, or who would rather scan text - the full transcript of what she had to say is below:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">“My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I’m also a past-president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. And I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them so much for being here today.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> (Applause)</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the non-partisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously-affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic or Jesuit institutions.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear yet from another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">“One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s just not true.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “Women’s health clinic provide a vital medical service, but as the Guttmacher Institute has definitely documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “How can Congress consider the [Rep. Jeff] Fortenberry (R-Neb.), [Sen. Marco] Rubio (R-Fla.) and [Sen. Roy] Blunt (R-Mo.) legislation to allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to de-fund those very same clinics?</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “These denial of contraceptive coverage impact real people.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions suffer very dire consequences.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, ‘It was so painful I woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor’s office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “As she put it, ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age – increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis – she may never be able to conceive a child.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">“Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. I wish it were</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">“Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medications since last August.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered on the insurance and she assumed that that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handle all of women’s reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that – something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “As one other student put it: ‘This policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “These are not feelings that male fellow student experience and they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking what did we expect when we enroll in a Catholic school?</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of ‘cura personalis‘ – to care for the whole person – by meeting all of our medical needs.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “We expected that when we told our universities of the problem this policy created for us as students, they would help us.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “We expected that when 94% of students oppose the policy the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for – completely unsubsidized by the university.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">“We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> "And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century, anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for the access to the health care we need.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and the universities appreciate the modifications to the rule announced recently. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the health care they need. And I sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> “Thank you very much.”</blockquote> Ok. <br />
<br />
Now, the sad duty before me is to report what has been said about Sandra by right wing extremist radio host Rush Limbaugh. The below is pretty explicit and offensive, so stop reading now if your stomach turns easily.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">"A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they're going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control. Speaking at a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Pres. Obama's mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it's too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage. Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke's research shows."</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope. "'Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception), Fluke reported. It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"'Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,' Fluke told the hearing. $3,000 for birth control in three years? That's a thousand dollars a year of sex -- and, she wants us to pay for it." ...</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.</blockquote>And despite the furore over his remarks, Limbaugh continued his attacks on Fluke in the following day's program:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">This is about expanding the reach and power of government into your womb, if you're a woman. This is about the Democrat Party wanting more and more control over you. What was early feminism all about? Emancipation, individuality, freedom, liberation, all of these things. Now here comes Danica Patrick out and she says, "I'm perfectly comfortable letting the government make my health decisions for me." Well, folks, I'm gonna tell you: Right there, that's the death and the end of feminism.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">When Danica Patrick can come out and say (paraphrased), "Oh, I'm perfectly fine with the government making these health care decisions for me," and that's feminism? I don't want to make these decisions! Nobody is denying Ms. Fluke her birth control pills. Ms. Fluke is approaching everybody and asking us to pay for them.</blockquote> Argh. Excuse me while I go wash my hands now. I feel dirty after quoting that. <br />
<br />
OK. So, there are a number of things going on here, most of which are obvious, but just in case anyone is missing them, let me spell out clearly the many ways in which not only Rush, but the many other right wing commentators who have discussed this issue have gotten falt out wrong. (Leaving aside the gratuitous cruelty.)<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">1) This is not about sexual promiscuity. As Fluke's testimony makes clear, many women take birth control on the advice of their doctors for reasons other than contraception. And even for those who are using birth control primarily to prevent pregnancy (not that there's a damn thing wrong with that, by the way!) the overwhelming majority are married or in permanent exclusive relationships and are seeking to plan when of if they have their children. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">2) Birth control costs are unrelated to sexual promiscuity. Rush seems to misunderstand this basic fact, but for the record: the cost of the pill is the same each month whether you're having sex multiple times a day, rarely, or not at all. In fact, because women't bodies take some time to adjust to the hormonal balance women are generally advised to stay on the pill consistently even if they go through a period in which they do not expect to be having sex</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">3) Sandra Fluke's sex life is not up for discussion here. You will notice that at no point in her testimony did she refer to her own sex life or relationship status. She spoke as a representative of other women and on behalf of an organisation, Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice. We don't even know from this testimony whether Fluke herself uses birth control, is in a relationship, or is sexually active. She testified about a medical issue, siting the xperiences of other people who have been affected by it. And for her trouble she was called "slut" and "prostitute".</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">4) This testimony could have been given by a man. The great irony here is that when Fluke was originally denied the right to speak at the Republican-led hearing on this issue, the headlines at the time referred to the fact that this meant no women were testifying about this issue of women's health. I agree it's profoundly important to hear the voices of women about the issues that affect women. But in Fluke's case, almost nothing she said could not equally have been given as testimony by a man. But had the person testifying been male, no one could have called him slutty or suggested that his parents should be ashamed of him. <br />
<br />
5) No-one is asking you or the government to pay for my birth control. Limbaugh's basic premise is that the free birth control provision amounts to some sort of new welfare entitelement for women. But it's important to stress that President Obama's birth control mandate will not cost one additional dime of the taxpayers money or any additional contribution from health insurers. Offering complimentary birth control to all reduces the overal costs for insurers - thus they actually save money by providing this service. Just as other preventative health care measures (stop smoking programs, pap smears etc.) save insurers money. And they do so not only by reducing unwanted pregancies, but also by preventing medical ailments such as the one suffered by Fluke's friend. In fact, that story makes very clear how this circumstance works - free birth control pills could have prevented the formation of the cyst which eventually caused an expensive surgery followed by lifelong treatment. </blockquote>So, Rush Limbaugh has literally got every single relevant fact in this situation dead wrong. <br />
<br />
But there's something else going on here, that we need to all be aware of. Rush will pay the price for his out of order comments - already, 5 advertisers have announced that they are withdrawing their sponsorship from the show. Republican candidates have started to play the awkward Dance of Disassociation (Rick Santorum, weakly, says that what Rush said was "Ridiculous." But, ya know, he's an "entertainer" so he gets to say these things. Because gratuitous, content free personal insults are a LAUGH RIOT!) and the right wing effort in Congress to overturn the President's good work on contraceptive cover <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/blunt-amendment-vote-fails-senate-contraception_n_1313287.html">has failed</a>. <br />
<br />
So, no harm no foul, right? Wrong. Because, as with terrorist suicide bombings the success is not judged by the damage done to the perpetrator but by the terror imposed on the population. <br />
<br />
Speaking up for access to birth control, or women't reproductive freedom in general, is often difficult. Like many women, I believe that my decisions about family planning and my health are private and personal, and I prefer not to discuss them publically. I have had problems in the past (in fact, I still have problems) with access to family planning services being severely constrained. And I feel a certain sense of guilt about this - that I ought to be speaking up more about this, confronting the local Catholic doctor who refuses to allow any of the 25+ doctors in his practice to prescribe birth control, complaining to the Local Council about the overcrowded, understaffed birth control clinic 2 miles away from me that is the only access women in my neighborhood have to family planning services. People are shocked by this. But BY GOD I don't want to be the public face of birth control advocacy. What happened to Sandra Fluke is exactly what in my worst nightmares I imagine might happen to me. <br />
<br />
It takes bravery to speak up about this. Rush's attack was designed to quash that bravery in millions of women. He may well succeed. This is terrorism, pure and simple.Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-43476500324649905442012-02-18T14:16:00.002+00:002012-02-18T14:52:23.520+00:00Gadflies and Choristers: An Open Letter to Andrew Sullivan<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Andrew_Sullivan_cropped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Andrew_Sullivan_cropped.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Dear Andrew,<br />
<br />
I was thrilled to have the chance to meet you this week, at fundraisers for <a href="http://immigrationequalityactionfund.org/">Immigration Equality</a> (a fantastic organisation, by the way, doing brave and necessary work to overturn cruel and dehumanising immigration restrictions against gay and lesbian families). I was especially looking forward to meeting you because, as I mentioned, I've been a daily reader and fan of <a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/">your blog</a> for over 10 years now - since before you blogged for the Beast, or the Atlantic, or Time. Since back in the days when you were publishing in white text on a blue background (why did you do that?).<br />
<br />
And I return to your blog compulsively each day not because I agree with everything you say but because you are the conservative writer I most respect. I admire the unflinching way in which you present opposing points of view - even those that are sometimes harshly critical of you, and I admire the intellectual honesty with which you acknowledge that you sometimes make mistakes. I also know that you command a huge and diverse audience - which became very clear when you linked to <a href="http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2011/01/inexplicable-edits-on-sarah-palins.html">my Sarah Palin post </a>and 20K of your followers clicked over to read it. <br />
<br />
So by the time we met, I'd been following the twists and turns of your thought for a very long time, and I know where you're coming from. You're a gadfly. You don't want to be inside anybody's tent, you are not a joiner, you treasure your independence and I suspect (in classic Oxford debating tradition) you relish a good fight.<br />
<br />
And when we met, and I introduced myself as representing <a href="http://bit.ly/AbJZlZ">Democrats Abroad</a> you weren't telling me anything I didn't already know by declaring that you were not a Democrat. I was a little taken aback, though, when you said that you "don't like Democrats much."<br />
<br />
Andrew, you endorsed John Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008. You've <a href="http://bit.ly/yNR9RA">written beautifully</a> about why you continue to support the President, and you've been rightly appalled by the turn towards theocratic extremism and away from reality-based policy making that the Republican party has taken in recent years. Almost every Democrat I know reads you and respects you. And you clearly like and respect a lot of Democrats.<br />
<br />
It's not true that you "don't like Democrats." I reject the premise. I think what is true, and what you probably meant, is that you don't like Democratic fellow travellers. I know you have distaste for what you perceive as interest group politics. I know you blame Clinton for caving on many issues that he should have stood up for.<br />
<br />
However, I should note that since our meeting I have <a href="http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/law-wiki/16989-travelling-usa-hiv.html">looked into this issue</a>, and I think you are wrong to say that Bill Clinton imposed the ban on immigration for people who are HIV positive - my research says the ban was imposed in 1987 and that Clinton PROMISED TO REPEAL IT but failed, due to opposition from Conservatives in Congress. Similarly, Clinton promised to overturn the ban on gays serving in the military but again wound up giving in due to pressure from the right and instituted the (in some ways even worse) "compromise" of Don't Ask Don't Tell. So, you're not a Clinton fan. I get that. But to blame "Democrats" for failing to live up to a promise you wanted us to keep without reserving greater loathing for the folks on the other side who are fighting tooth and nail to do the opposite of what you want seems perverse to me.<br />
<br />
No, not perverse. It seems gadfly-like. You described yourself to me at dinner as an "ornery journalist". Bless you for it. I'm glad you are! We need folks who are naturally uncomfortable with feeling comfortable. I love people who have an instinct to pick holes in their own side, to challenge even (or especially) their closest friends, and to prefer the good fight to the quiet life. I love them so much I'm married to one.<br />
<br />
But I want to make a cautious, limited and tenuous plea on behalf of those of us aren't gadflies by nature. Because, in a world populated by gadflies we'd achieve nothing but the sting. And for me, the kind of intellectual honesty that gadflies enable is useful as a TOOL to help us improve our ability to do something specific. I care about politics because I think we need to change the way things work. I want to defend my country and my world from the prejudice and bigotry, create more opportunities for more people, reduce poverty, improve education and access to education, create a healthier nation at a lower cost... I want to play some small part, however insignificant, in DOING STUFF. And very often the best way of doing that is to find a coaliton of other people who agree with you about the direction you want to move in, put aside your points of difference with those folks, put your shoulder to the wheel and start grafting. For me, that coalition is the Democratic Party. <br />
<br />
Sometimes, it's better to sing with the choir than to shout from the back.<br />
<br />
The choir metaphor is very close to what I mean, actually - a choir or people who all have their own voices can create, together something new and amazing that none of them could have done on their own. I might want to sing "I Heard it Through the Grapevine" as a bluesy number. You might want to reinvent it as a rock ballad. And that guy over there might want to sing it at half speed to bring out the sorrow of the lyrics. But if we all agree we want to sing the song, and we are willing to let a choirmaster direct us in the arrangement, we can sing a song that's different than how any of us would have done it, but satisfying to all of us.<br />
<br />
When it comes to politics, people think this means selling out or giving up your principles, but I don't accept that. Every member of the choir does have their own voice, and the variation of those voices does matter. But by harmonising with others you can be heard by more people, and sound better.<br />
<br />
I would never support a policy that I didn't believe in just because the Party asks me to. Nor would I keep silent about something I cared about because the Party wanted me to. But if the song we are singing today is "Let's create affordable accessible healthcare", I'm happy to chime in on the beat. I'm not going to stand at the back shouting, "I'd also like to legalise marijuana." Though I do. Nor am I going to arbitrarily shout "prison reform is badly needed" into the chorus. Though it is.<br />
<br />
I look around at my fellow Democrats Abroad, and we are working very hard indeed to <a href="http://www.votefromabroad.org/">register overseas US voters</a> and get them to the polls. It's hard work. It's not glamorous. It's often frustrating and rarely wins us fame, or glory. I honestly believe that for every person that we register, for every new voter we reach, we are a tiny little bit closer to building, over the long term, a country that is a little better.<br />
<br />
But I also believe our presence in the choir changes the choir. Changes the Party. Hopefully for the better. To give you just one example that should be meaningful to you, Democrats Abroad are a tiny state chapter within the Democratic Party. But we are a tiny state chapter that is nearly universally in support of immigration equality for our many members. Our voices on this subject are <a href="http://www.democratsabroad.org/node/8621">loud and clear.</a> And increasingly our fellow Democrats are in harmony with this.<br />
<br />
We need both gadflies and choristers. In fact, I think we should all aim to be a little bit of both.<br />
<br />
Again, it was great meeting you in London. And thanks again for over a decade of being an essential, infuriating, enlightening, astonishing, inspiring and challenging daily read.<br />
<br />
Very best wishes,<br />
<br />
KarinObama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-36493136955668710732011-10-17T18:52:00.002+01:002011-10-17T19:18:01.018+01:00More Great Protest Signs! Occupy Wall Street People Can Spell and do Math!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU7AeM6oz_XjIgXImxOlfuMPwboo6a3CFvNi5klEf0w4ZjjnIq83KSPlGJKDCX0sxLV8IKbZHF-0wk2Up1D6IVwcbeYUllhXz6_ezI8A8qKsND4BlDOZxkQdkqRaCslrjVW1XLoDz8gOc/s1600/CEOs+VS+Average+workers.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" oda="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU7AeM6oz_XjIgXImxOlfuMPwboo6a3CFvNi5klEf0w4ZjjnIq83KSPlGJKDCX0sxLV8IKbZHF-0wk2Up1D6IVwcbeYUllhXz6_ezI8A8qKsND4BlDOZxkQdkqRaCslrjVW1XLoDz8gOc/s320/CEOs+VS+Average+workers.PNG" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRqm98vtQoaca1xwraMNAcx8gK-5Ho78N2GpwNd2l5C4fNNQ86kdZ_DyI4FGWGW-hlu1ig4YmKD_gWcx-2FGkScqNfTZHtUFvOcPkQ1F2tjC_NwmKc9_yRYAN7pkSkQnRPRMwOeaoJoUo/s1600/National+Comparison+CEO+Salaries.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" oda="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRqm98vtQoaca1xwraMNAcx8gK-5Ho78N2GpwNd2l5C4fNNQ86kdZ_DyI4FGWGW-hlu1ig4YmKD_gWcx-2FGkScqNfTZHtUFvOcPkQ1F2tjC_NwmKc9_yRYAN7pkSkQnRPRMwOeaoJoUo/s320/National+Comparison+CEO+Salaries.PNG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">These two are making exactly the case I made in <a href="http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2011/10/best-protest-sign-ever.html">yesterday's blog</a>, but with cardboard instead of pixels. Yay for cardboard.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This one is accurately describing some of the reprehensible behaviour of the financial markets that the rest of us are still paying for:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHS_ms48eJaXm-u2gJEUE6B95AaaA2x_FjGj7_yW6P_ZJ0NvtLAeug5uphHQ0c5x_NdxKXmXnuU9DAGSu-PXXjTejyLIRRuIzecxoNrb653Op0CAIia3e8T2AKAAgb7QNulWRRhBRzZ08/s1600/Mortgage+Backed+Security.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" oda="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHS_ms48eJaXm-u2gJEUE6B95AaaA2x_FjGj7_yW6P_ZJ0NvtLAeug5uphHQ0c5x_NdxKXmXnuU9DAGSu-PXXjTejyLIRRuIzecxoNrb653Op0CAIia3e8T2AKAAgb7QNulWRRhBRzZ08/s320/Mortgage+Backed+Security.PNG" width="286" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This one combines a subtle Harry Potter reference with Paul Krugman fandom and a bit of economic theory for the complete nerdly package. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje_0cY_Jq0II_WWobXhrA8n3tpcYInBIxheqJg8fNoUTOH7ItEMChyJ1z1U43hB4-4U2EItyAEniWmu8QtnFfeU6EZiBHl28j6aG2U5VsBCUqy8kM-6PDOuOnAZ1jAdpxFkwnkn4rXoKM/s1600/Krugman%2527s+Army.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" oda="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje_0cY_Jq0II_WWobXhrA8n3tpcYInBIxheqJg8fNoUTOH7ItEMChyJ1z1U43hB4-4U2EItyAEniWmu8QtnFfeU6EZiBHl28j6aG2U5VsBCUqy8kM-6PDOuOnAZ1jAdpxFkwnkn4rXoKM/s320/Krugman%2527s+Army.PNG" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Thanks to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-wonkiest-signs-from-occupy-wall-street/2011/08/25/gIQAV0CbrL_blog.html">Ezra Klein</a> (and to his commenters) for the slideshow and additional links. I totally heart you guys. You are like the Justin Bieber to my 13 year old girl's heart. <br />
<br />
Or something.<br />
<br />
UPDATE: And don't miss <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/10/how-occupy-wall-street-is-like-the-internet/246759/">this wonderful post</a> by the man who originally wrote the the words in sign three, then accidentally discovered that someone had made them a sign. Sweet.Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-66898131225194105602011-10-15T19:50:00.000+01:002011-10-15T19:50:08.137+01:00Best Protest Sign Ever?I have to agree with <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/10/13/343633/wonky-protest-sign-highlights-growing-inequality/">Matthew Yglesia</a>s: This is a huge step forward in protest sign communications...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/wonkysign.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="481" src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/wonkysign.jpg " width="437" /></a></div><br />
Basically, this conveys the key point - for the overwhelming majority of Americans, the income growth that was enjoyed by earlier generations has not been a reality in our adult lifetimes. Wages have actually been stagnant for most Americans, which underplays the problem because the cost of essential things like housing and (most notably) health care have gone up drastically.<br />
<br />
It's a reality that families have coped with as best they could for decades now - and because many of us now live in 2 income families instead of relying on a sole (male) breadwinner, because we have relied extensively on formerly cheap and easy to access credit, and because we've been willing to work harder and longer hours than ever before, the average American has just about gotten by.<br />
<br />
Until the bottom fell out of the economy a few years ago, unemployment levelled off at over 9 percent and government gridlock put us in a position where we couldn't do anything about it.<br />
<br />
But there is another story of America, as represented by that sign. A story of wealthy people who became insanely rich. Money that begat money that begat money forever and ever amen.<br />
<br />
And a lot of these people - the wealthy 1% who spiralled into stratospheric income growth - are decent people who did good things. Many of them are people like the late lamented Steve Jobs or the affable Warren Buffet who got rich because they were smart and visionary and knew how to turn their smarts and vision into something useful or interesting (another bunch of them got rich by legally but unethically cheating the financial system - but for the sake of this argument, let's leave those out of this discussion as they are not relevant to the point I am making here).<br />
<br />
The problem is not that some people are wealthy. The rising tide has not lifted all boats - the ratio between the workers who labor in companies and the CEOs who lead them is not only higher than it's ever been in America - it's higher than it is anywhere else in the world.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/296700_576639862451_52000605_32131213_1615209514_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/296700_576639862451_52000605_32131213_1615209514_n.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Look hard at <a href="http://creativeconflictwisdom.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/ration-of-ceo-pay-to-average-worker-by-country/">that chart above</a>. Now think about the people in question.<br />
<br />
Let's take a specific example: the CEO of a major Japanese car company. Let's say Toyota.<br />
<br />
The Toyota corporation has over 317K employees. Last year it produced 7.3Million cars and generated $236Billion in revenue.<br />
<br />
The President of Toyota is Akio Toyoda. He earns the equivalent of $1.7Million per year, not including stock options.<br />
<br />
Now let's compare him to the CEO of a major US car maker. Let's steer clear of all companies that were recently rescued by government dollars and choose Ford, the only one that was profitable without federal intervention.*<br />
<br />
Ford has 164K employees, about half what Toyota has. Last year it generated about $129Billion in revenue - again, roughly half of Toyota's.<br />
<br />
The President of Ford is called Alan Mulally. Last year he made $17.9Million dollars.<br />
<br />
That's astonishing. (I had to research these numbers, by the way - they are worse than I thought...<br />
<br />
Let's put that into a table, actually:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBGmIPIxQSXvxE9KWMVlPcKSBfda3VyBy8g8Tmbwf7sIfS8MucQrzIQeFu3JMHHYcxDMwiPMpCt4Ov2lbg_LTcmVKn_ovaKvKPkPeqfpSkQhrdh04jB9frAfJjIPkkVBryV5QDodIg28s/s1600/Ford+Vs+Toyota.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBGmIPIxQSXvxE9KWMVlPcKSBfda3VyBy8g8Tmbwf7sIfS8MucQrzIQeFu3JMHHYcxDMwiPMpCt4Ov2lbg_LTcmVKn_ovaKvKPkPeqfpSkQhrdh04jB9frAfJjIPkkVBryV5QDodIg28s/s320/Ford+Vs+Toyota.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><br />
The American CEO earned ten times the salary for running a company about half as big. How does that make any sense at all?<br />
<br />
Now, Ford would probably argue that they need to pay top dollar to get the best people. And there's some truth in that. (Mind you, sometimes companies also pay top dollar to get mediocre-at-best people...) The economic arms race at the very top levels has led to a kind of ever increasing mine-is-bigger-than yours cycle of insanity.<br />
<br />
But I find it hard to image that there isn't someone out there who could run Ford Motor Company very well indeed for the knock down price of a mere $1.7M per year. For $1.7 million a year you can send your children to the best schools, you can live in the most lavish home(s), you can eat out ever night if you want at the finest restaurants - you are rich.<br />
<br />
And I can't help but think that if they DIDN'T need to spend that extra $10Million per year on making their already-very-rich CEO opulant-to-the-point-of-insanity rich instead, maybe they could have used that money in some other way that would be useful.<br />
<br />
They could raise their workers wages, of course.<br />
<br />
But they could also take that cash and pay a dividend to shareholders if they wanted - many of whom are just a different set of insanely wealthy folks, but many more of whom are smaller investors or 401K holders who could take that money and invest it in their own businesses (putting people to work), or upgrade their home (putting consturciton workers to work) or buy consumer goods (putting people who make them to work).<br />
<br />
Or, they could take that $10M and invest it in more equipment, putting the manufacturers of that equipment to work.<br />
<br />
Or, they could use it to hire more people directly. Or design a new car that will finally be better, cheaper and more fuel efficient than the ones Toyota produces, so that maybe someday it will be Ford that is twice the size of Toyota - putting some Japanese workers out of work. (Oops, sorry.)<br />
<br />
Basically, they could do almost anything with that money other than let it sit in the bank account of Alan Mulally, where it sits there earning interest and turning into even more money (all of which is taxed at a very low rate as capital gains).<br />
<br />
But they can't. Because they think if they don't pay Alan Mulally $17.9M per year, they won't be able to find anyone good enough to do the job. They have their backs up against a wall - this is what CEOs expect to earn in America and they want to be company that hires the best CEOs available.<br />
<br />
What can be done? Well, the government can take that decision out of their hands. If we increased the upper rate of taxation, one of two things would happen. Either:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol><li>CEO's would stop expecting or demanding insanely high salaries, freeing the companies to spend that money on something else. Or:</li>
<li>They would actually pay that money in taxes, leaving the government free to spend that money on something else. Like educating future workers for Ford. Or funding scientific research that can later be used to benefit Ford. Or building a highway on which the cars that Ford produces can drive. Or, if God forbid it should ever become necessary, bailing out the car industry yet again to keep Ford in business.*</li>
</ol><div>The people who have taken to the streets in the Occupy Wall Street Protests in America are making a fair, important and too often ignored point: Income inequality in America is terribly out of control and it is hurting us all. </div><div><br />
</div><div>* By the way, the bailout of GM and Chrysler that took place 2 years ago almost certainly also wound up saving Ford as well. Not to mention the $5.9M government loan they took at that time to help shore up the industry. If you don't believe me, believe <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2011/09/19/ford-looks-hypocritical-in-new-anti-bailout-commercial/">Forbes</a>. </div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div>Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-33100072748613400882011-09-21T20:54:00.001+01:002011-09-21T21:00:21.140+01:00Will Elizabeth Warren be the Next Senator...for the <a href="http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/search/label/Michelle%20Bachmann">Commonwealth of Massachusetts</a>? After seeing this video, I'm REALLY hoping she will. <br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/htX2usfqMEs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
<br />
Superb. I've got chills. <br />
<br />
Be afraid, <a href="http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2010/01/maybe-there-could-be-more-trucks.html">Scott Brown</a>. Be very afraid.Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-38418504795110622452011-09-20T14:56:00.000+01:002011-09-20T14:56:19.599+01:00DADT ends today...The US Military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy - under which gay men and women were allowed to serve, as long as they were duplicitous and secretive about their personal lives, has finally come to an official end today. <br />
<br />
I blogged on <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/karin-robinson/dadt-finally-ends-this-we_b_968382.html">the Huffington Post </a>and article in which I interviewed a gay former US Airman (and friend) who was discharged a decade ago under the policy. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>"We walked down to the Colonel's office. I knocked. I had to salute, and then he read me my discharge orders. I didn't say anything at all." <br />
<br />
Woltkamp's Colonel told him that he had the right to an attorney, and that they would help him find one. But he was informed that he had to sign away all other rights to representation. He was presented then and there with a paper to sign. <br />
<br />
"I don't know why, I just signed the waiver. I thought I had to..."</blockquote>Read the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/karin-robinson/dadt-finally-ends-this-we_b_968382.html">full article here</a>.Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-73822077693365340462011-09-17T16:52:00.002+01:002011-09-18T14:20:36.628+01:00Not a Hypothetical QuestionDuring the last GOP debate, there was a chilling moment when Wolf Blitzer asked candidate Rob Paul whether a hypothetical man without health insurance should be allowed to die. Someone from the audience shouted "yeah" and the audience applauded. Paul stumbled and was unable to answer.<br />
<br />
But when we talk about whether people without health insurance should live or die, whether we should let them die, that's not a hypothetical question. It's very real, and very painful and actually applies to people here and now. People like Steve:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tCN6VlfkGR0" width="440"></iframe><br />
<br />
Our current law says that if someone shows up at an emergency room in need of urgent care, it is illegal to turn them away - whether they can pay or not. But what if they need chomotherapy for cancer? Or what if their diabetic? What if they're HIV positive - and there are expensive but effective drugs that could keep them alive.<br />
<br />
The GOP answer is that the person should take personal responsibility for their health. But that's precisely what the Affordable Care Act calls for - it insists that if you can afford health care, you must purchase it so that your medical casts won't be an undue burden on your fellow taxpayers if (when) you need it. It says to insurance companies that they must offer insurance policies to everyone - whether they have a pre-existing condition or not. And it says to those who can't otherwise afford coverage, that the rest of us will chip in a little bit in the form of health subsidies to give you the insurance you need so that you can get preventative care and early treatment that you need to stop your health from deterioriating so that the cost to us, the taxpayers, of saving your life is as low as possible.<br />
<br />
But in the end it says: No. You should not be allowed to die. It says, America is a country where easily preventable deaths should not take place because we simply turned our back on the suffering. It says we're all better off if we know that health care is not a luxury for the wealthy. It says that because every single one of us is at risk of losing our job, our savings and our health, we want to take some measure to protect ourselves from the consequences if that happens.<br />
<br />
That's reasonable, it compassionate, it's economically sound. That's the Democratic policy. It's my policy.<br />
<br />
What's yours? Ask yourself "Would you let him die?"Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-73647637263678291432011-09-13T10:45:00.000+01:002011-09-13T10:45:20.178+01:00Jobs Growth Since Obama InaugurationBlog stats data tells me that a number of people are finding this site through a search for "Jobs Growth Since Obama Inauguration". That's a good thing to be searching for (both Google-wise and, you know, as a thing to want...)! Let me make that just a little bit easier for you - here's a chart that shows US <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_07/wake_up_washington_jobs_landsc030741.php">jobs gained or lost</a> through July this year:<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><img border="0" src="http://wamo.info/pa/110708_jobs.jpg" /></center><br />
<br />
A few points to note:<br />
<ul><li>This chart is missing a month of data - in August, the Economy gained zero jobs as a whole. To be more exact: Number of private sector jobs gained in August, 17,000. Number of public sector jobs lost in August: 17,00. </li>
<li>Even if the public sector had not shed those jobs - the private job growth would not be enough to keep up with the increase in population, let alone recover from the jobs lost during the recession.</li>
<li>It is in this background that President Obama has called on Congress to urgently pass the American Jobs Act. Sitting around and waiting isn't going to create those jobs. Here's a few things that will: </li>
<ul><li>Cutting the payroll tax cut in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.</li>
<li>A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases).</li>
<li>A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans: This provides tax credits from $5,600 to $9,600 to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans.</li>
<li>Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.</li>
<li>Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country, supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.</li>
<li>Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank, modernizing our roads, rail, airports and waterways while putting hundreds of thousands of workers back on the job.</li>
<li>A New “Project Rebuild”, which will put people to work rehabilitating homes, businesses and communities, leveraging private capital and scaling land banks and other public-private collaborations.</li>
<li>Expanding access to high-speed wireless as part of a plan for freeing up the nation’s spectrum.</li>
<li>A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.</li>
<li>Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring.</li>
<li>Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.</li>
<li>Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year: The President’s plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers payroll taxes in half in 2012 – providing a $1,500 tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security Trust Fund.</li>
<li>Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates, which can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket.Moody's Chief Economist <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/mark-zandi-obama-plan-would-add-19-million-jobs/2011/09/09/gIQAAx9kEK_blog.html">Mark Zandy</a> says that the American Jobs Act will create about 1.9 Million jobs and 2% growth for the economy. </li>
<ul><li>Source: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/jobs_act.pdf">White House Fact Sheet</a></li>
</ul></ul></ul>The White House has published loads of helpful information about how the American Jobs Act will work. For instance:<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/09/state-state-look-american-jobs-act">Here </a>you can find out what impact it would have in each state, if passed. </li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/09/white-house-office-hours-american-jobs-act">Here</a> you can find a list of Twitter office hours, when administration officials will take your questions about the proposals. (Today, David Plouffe! Tomorrow, Stephanie Cutter!)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/09/state-and-local-officials-respond-president-s-call-american-jobs-act-0">Here </a>are responses to the Jobs Act from state and local officials.</li>
</ul>The American Jobs Act uses a mix of ideas that have been supported by both parties over the years, and which economists think would be effective. Congress should pass it now. <br />
<br />
And the President told them so. <br />
<br />
<object height="300" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="bgcolor" value="282828"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.whitehouse.gov/xml/video/74713/config.xml&path_to_plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins&path_to_player=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf"></param><embed src="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="300" flashvars="config=http://www.whitehouse.gov/xml/video/74713/config.xml&path_to_plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins&path_to_player=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf&share_url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/09/08/president-obama-presents-american-jobs-act"></embed></object>Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-29051159849339783862011-09-11T14:45:00.000+01:002011-09-11T14:45:50.827+01:00A 9/11 ReaderThere has been a flood of remembrances, reflections, and reporting on this 10 year anniversary of The Events. I've been pretty selective about the things I chose to read or watch - there's only so much mourning a person can do. But a few things stood out as unmissable - I pass them along to you:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>The Washington Post reports on <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2011/09/06/gIQAMpcODK_story.html">the 2 F-16 pilots</a> who were scrambled to take down United Flight 93. The only problem was, they had no artillery or missiles. The plan, therefore, was to ram that plane with their own. </li>
<li>The Boston Globe reports on the <a href="http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-06/news/30119721_1_flight-attendant-logan-international-airport-american-airlines-flight">workers at Logan airport in Boston</a> who, on that morning just like every morning before, checked in their passengers with a smile. A decade later they're still reeling from the shock and guilt. How would you feel to know you'd helpfully checked in four hijackers? That because you called in sick someone died in your place? That because you handed over Mohammed Atta's luggage to the FBI you might be on an Al Qaeda target list. Riveting and disturbing. </li>
<li>The edition of The Onion that was published 2 weeks after the attack (one week after they published nothing. Nothing was funny for the first week, so that's what they published) remains the most cathartic funny-because-it's-true laugh-out-loud-to-release-the-tension thing I've ever read. I remember the photograph of a woman with a cake labelled, "unsure what else to do, woman bakes American flag cake." But the article, <a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule,222/">"God Angrily Clarifies Do Not Kill Rule"</a> bears ample rereading. Make sure you read through the final two words.</li>
</ul><div>If you want my thoughts on the anniversary, have a look at either:</div><div><ul><li>Yesterday's post: <a href="http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2011/09/10-years-later-was-there-911-era-and-is.html">Everything I Need to Know About 9/11 I Learned at the Last Night of the Proms</a> </li>
<li>My 2009 anniversary post: <a href="http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2009/09/after-busy-day-of-work-today-with.html">9/11/09</a></li>
</ul><div>Stay safe. Be well. </div></div>Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801227671293876432.post-67820028776547037442011-09-10T23:59:00.002+01:002011-09-11T15:37:41.087+01:00Everything I Need to Know About 9/11 I Learned at the Last Night of the Proms<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dci4LPdUUh8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
I am sitting here tonight watching the Last Night of the Proms - a great, if bizarre British tradition, and I am relishing the absurd costumes of the punters, the buzz in the hall. I remember that 10 years ago this event, formerly as imperterbable as the seasons, was overcome with a mood of sobriety. Instead of noisemakers, St. Andrews flags and the Fantasia on Sea Chanties, they gave us a program of slow and sombre reflection. Beautiful, stirring, mournful and utterly, utterly heartbreaking.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wjvVqtffz7I" width="420"></iframe><br />
<br />
It couldn't have been further from the "posh people go wild" nonsense of the usual Last Night tradition, but we were only a week out from the watching the twin towers fall, and even here - even in London - we didn't know if we would ever laugh again.<br />
<br />
I'm glad to report that we are. The singer currently performing "And This is My Beloved" is wearing more mascara than Dolly Parton gets through in an entire world tour. One man at the front of the Royal Albert Hall is wearing a lei composed of orange carnations, and someone has just blown a kazoo.<br />
<br />
The fact that rich people in the West can shout along to classical music doesn't mean we have defeated international terrorism. Or that we will forget the lives lost - over three thousand on September 11th. Thousands more since then in Iraq and Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
But at this moment, hours from the exact 10 year anniverary of the attack, as I watch Britons bouncing up and down in tune, wearing absurd waistcoats... with Osama Bin Laden unceremoniously slain and dumped into the sea after a decade hiding out with his pathetically predictable porn collection, I watch the prommers and I tell his ghost this:<br />
<br />
We win. You lose.<br />
<br />
And now the Chinese virtuoso pianist Lang Lang is playing Chopin's Grand Polonaise. His fingers are flying faster than the eye can see. The woman in the audience holding the yellow balloon animal is suddenly still and intently listening. Lang Lang's bright pink carnation is slightly askew on his chest. His final, solitary note rings out and the audience holds its breath for three long seconds before they applaud. Rapturously.<br />
<br />
Because a young man can travel from his home in Communist China and exercise his talent with dignity in the midst of chaos. That's why we've won. That's why you've lost. <br />
<br />
Later on, a soloist appears wearing an illuminated Viking costume bedecked with a rose on her shield, daffodil on her chest, and giant thistles and shamrocks on her headgear.<br />
<br />
Because we can combine the ridiculous and the sublime. Because we allow for joy and sorrow and silliness and solemnity and patriotism with a healthy dose of scepticism, and because all of this can happen in the same evening. <br />
<br />
That's why we've won. That's why you've lost. <br />
<br />
Somewhere in London right now, a blogger is no doubt writing that the Proms are a decadent display of upper class privilege. But an event where millions sing Climb Every Mountain in swaying unison (a display which made me actually physically cringe) isn't upper class anything, it's as close to mass popular culture as we get these days.<br />
<br />
I'm a believer in pop culture. Trash has redeeming social value. I remember as a pre-teen watching Labyrinth - as cheesy a fantasy film as you'll ever see - as raven haired Jennifer Connolly tells flame haired David Bowie in her moment of realisation that, "You have no power over me." And with those words she is free.<br />
<br />
Pop culture tells truths.<br />
<br />
This weekend I am supposed to be reflecting upon where I was 10 years ago. I'm supposed to be feeling the pain again that I felt as I huddled with colleagues around the grainy television to watch the towers come down. I'm supposed to relive the fear as I waited, one by one for my loved ones to check in, counted my friends in DC and New York, wondered if we were at war.<br />
<br />
Instead, I choose to watch as a man in a sparkly purple bowler hat bounces along to Auld Lang Syne, arms linked.<br />
<br />
On September 11, 2001 a pathetic group of misfits inflicted damage beyond their wildest dreams. And in the years that followed, we chased them down the rabbit hole, doing ourselves even more damage than they could do on that terrible day.<br />
<br />
But the worst they could do didn't damage our economy even a fraction as much as the actions of a handful of our own bankers and financiers. The President they attacked served out 2 hapless terms and was replaced by the son of an African ex-Muslim immigrant, who took down Bin Laden in a meeting sandwiched somewhere between solving the debt crisis and having dinner with a <a href="http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/09/08/it-gets-better-barney-frank">gay Congressman</a>. The jihadist fantasy that they could by violence do anything that would wipe the grins off our absurd faces turned out to be just that. Absurd. Fantastical.<br />
<br />
Which is not to say that the Arab world might not someday supplant the West. Life is long, and the world turns, and America will not always be a global superpower. It may be that an Arab nation will someday threaten the USA for economic and political supremacy - but if so it will not be because of any plan hatched in a secluded complex in Pakistan, but in the streets of Cairo, and Tripoli, and Damascus.<br />
<br />
Because 10 years on from the greatest so-called triumph of the cult-of-death fanaticism that falsely claimed to represent the people of the Arab world - the actual people of the Arab world have stood up to their long-serving masters and demanded, in their own names, the right to be heard.<br />
<br />
We don't know what the final outcome of the Arab Spring will be, but we do know that the people of these nations now have an opportunity - an opportunity that violent jihadism never gave them - to make their own fate.<br />
<br />
I hope that someday they too will be able to gather together in a September night and sing patriotic songs, badly. I hope that they will be able to wear silly hats, and laugh and bounce, and take their freedoms for granted.<br />
<br />
And I turn to the ghost of Osama Bin Laden and laugh in his face.<br />
<br />
And I say, "You have no power over me." And with those words we are free.Obama Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02652619223311941390noreply@blogger.com