The Golden Strawberry

A recent spate of "hug-a-...-day" has erupted on Facebook. Hug-a-jew, I'm asked. Or someone gay. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against either group, but I am eagerly waiting for the "Hug-a-Christian" day, or the "Hug-an-African" day. I do not want to make this about various social implications of either of my suggestions, as of course there are numerous ones. My point is that the latter two would almost certainly not happen, but the former two seem to be perfectly acceptable.
Why are jews and gays seen as almost 'cuddly' members of society? What makes them seem friendly, approachable and amicable? Is it because they have both experienced repression to a greater or lesser extent? More importantly, why should we need a day to go and hug them? Such actions only serve to remind us of divisions that are ever present in society. "There are gay people, and they are different, so we should remind everybody of that". Err, why? Surely we do not need to be reminded of the differences between various elements of society, surely we should be making an effort to forget about these differences?
It is things such as this which really annoy me. Women were repressed for many centuries, where is the "hug-a-woman" day?
There are two conflicting issues here it seems, that of religion (Islam, Judism, Hindu etc) whereby people from that religion are 'different'. And then there is gender and sexuality. People who have different sexual orientations are 'different'? Surely what most people want is to be the same? When you are a kid, you want to fit in at school. When you start work, you want to make the right impression with your colleagues. So why do we need to emphasise difference?

Society it seems is happy to consider difference, as long as it is not threatening. Jews and Gay people are not seen as a huge threat, certainly not in the same manner that Islamaphobia is still very much a part of our conscience. If society doesn't agree with you in your views on religion, then you will find it very hard to have a day of hugs.
It isn't just a religious thing either. It's a social thing too, if someone says something that people dislike, they are instantly lambasted. Witness David Irving for example.

It is here I have a problem though. I firmly believe Irving should be allowed to talk, thinking that despite him doing so, people are intelligent enough not to listen. His 'difference' is refreshing, although ultimately flawed. I do not agree with him and his views on the holocaust, but I am willing to let him have them. Just like I do not necessarily agree with some of the stuff the Qu'ran says, but I am willing to let those who believe in it, believe in it.

Consequently, the rather mixed and confused rambling aside, I am aware of difference, and believe that difference is a good thing in society. However, I do not think it should be reinforced, and made an issue of by such events as "hug-me" days.

Luke

This story greatly cheered my Sunday up:

"A scientist has gone undercover in a 14-stone armoured hippopotamus suit in Zambia to mingle unremarked with pods of the feared mammals.

Dr Brady Barr, who returned from his mission last week, adopted the disguise in an attempt to harvest sweat samples from hippos in the quest for a new type of sun cream."

The whole article is a work of genius, and must be read in its entirety. Shame it doesn't have a happy ending:

His mission failed but, Barr said, “we shall be going back to Africa as soon as we can”.

I think the word is "Indomitable".

Cory

Something else I wrote for Redbrick, on film:

Welcome to the very first Redbrick film news of 2008. It’s quiet in the film industry at the moment, with everyone in the film industry too busy making New Year’s Resolutions to produce any films, sadly.

 

The most significant news is still the Writer’s Guild Strike, but I have been barred by a higher power (well, Ivan and Laura) from mentioning it. So I won’t.

 

Because of this strike, the Golden Globe awards, which were announced on Sunday January 13^th, was not a glamourous red carpet affair. Actors boycotted the event after you-know-who said they would picket the event. Instead, the winners were announced at a press conference. I have seen the results of Guild President elections announced with more glitz and glamour.

 

Atonement won best motion picture, beating favourite No Country For Old Men. Other notable winners include Sweeney Todd for best musical or comedy, and Ratatouille won best animated feature film. Will this have any bearing on the upcoming Oscars? Probably not. The Oscars may not happen at all, at this rate. If the you-know-what is still going on, we might end up with Oscar winners being announced over a soulless tannoy. Maybe this does show that, where awards ceremonies are concerned, we don’t really care who wins. We care more about the red carpets, stupidly expensive dresses and clichéd acceptance speeches.

 

Enough of such high-minded ramblings. Instead, let’s talk about a gossip story with a (tentative) Birmingham connection. Tom Hanks is apparently an Aston Villa fan. Is this because of Villa’s outstanding pedigree, I hear you ask? After all, they have a proud history of seven First Division titles, seven FA Cup wins, one European Cup win and have been led by some of football’s most distinguished managers (including, er, Graham Taylor). Not only that, but they are also owned by the amusingly named Randy Lerner. Nope, Hanks likes Aston Villa because “the name is so sweet. It sounds like a lovely spa”. So now you know.

 

Finally, a poll by website lovefilm.com (and remember, if it’s on the internet, it must be true) has given us the top ten feel good films. The Shawshank Redemption came first. This adaptation of a Stephen King short story, starring Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, beat Pretty Woman, Toy Story and the Life of Brian, all of which were in the top ten. So if you have the January blues and are sick of doing essays, you know what to watch.

Cory

Hullo all,

I believe this is my first post this year, so first of all I hope your 2008 is going smoothly. I hope to be posting more soon (don't I always say that?). Here's something I wrote for Redbrick about the American elections. It's not that long, but they only gave me 550 words to play with. And cut most of that out in the paper. Hey ho, here it is:

The most important event of 2008 is happening thousands of miles away, and we can’t do anything about it. Republicans and Democrats are currently choosing their American Presidential candidate, while the world looks on impotently.

 

Trying to choose a favourite Republican nominee is like trying to choose which debilitating skin disease you’d rather have. John McCain seems the only (relatively) sane one. Rudy Giuliani has been described as “George Bush with brains”. If he’s only half as dangerous as that implies, we should still be very worried.

Mitt Romney is trying to be everyone’s friend and failing spectacularly. He is both for and against abortion, for instance. Romney is also a Mormon, and anyone who thinks that the Garden of Eden is located in Missouri should be ridiculed at length. He has, however, been criticised by some for not being Mormon enough. Only in America…

The final frontrunner is Mike Huckerbee, whose contribution to the religion debate was: “Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn’t, so I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict”. So stupid it’s hard to know where to start. Its only possible merit is that on reading it Richard Dawkins might spontaneously combust.

It seems very likely that a Democratic candidate will be in the White House come 2009. John Edwards’s grass-roots campaign is stalling, because America doesn’t have a trade union movement worth basing a campaign around. The two main contenders are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

How can Clinton portray herself as the force for change? You wouldn’t see Norma Major or Cherie Blair campaign for Prime Minister on a similar platform. Hillary unexpectedly won the New Hampshire nomination, seemingly because she shed a tear at a question and answer session. It proved she was human, with proper emotions and things. But surely weeping isn’t a basis for a long-term political strategy? If it is, Hillary should just replace herself with a crying statue of the Virgin Mary. It would save her a lot of effort. The statue would at least pull less ridiculous faces.

She is leading a negative campaign against her fellow Democratic nominees, forgetting they are all on the same side. Supporting the Iraq war is one thing. The problem is the fact that she didn’t actually read the CIA’s document on Iraq’s WMD before she voted for war. In all fairness, Clinton would probably be a competent President, maybe even reaching half-decent on a good day.

However, the only credible change candidate is Barack Obama. He may not be the new Messiah, but he makes people feel good about themselves. None of Hillary’s negative campaigning for him. We haven’t seen much substance yet, but Obama’s policies will be tested now he has emerged as a serious front-runner. On foreign affairs he seems sound, at least. He advocates talking to the leaders of Iran rather than blowing it up. And unlike Mitt Romney, Obama believes in ending Guantanamo Bay rather than extending it.

It’s still early days. February 5^th, or ‘Super Tuesday’, is a date for your diary. On that day twenty states vote at once for their nominations. By then we may be in a clearer position to know who will compete for the job of US election. One thing’s for sure: whoever wins has to be better than George Bush. Hopefully.

Cory

I have just finished reading The Innocent Man by John Grisham. I would urge everybody to read it. It is a fascinating insight into how the American judicial system can go so horribly wrong. I do not want to talk about the book here, but for those eager to know the story, the basic outline is here. I want to encourage everybody to read it. Having finished it, I have a small lump in my throat which makes me thankful we do not have the death penalty in Britain. Obviously the book does not tell the other side of the story, that of the police officer, something that would make for interesting reading.

I contrast it to two television programmes I recently watched. The first, Louis Theroux: Behind Bars was a great programme examining life in jail and how some prisoners are full of remorse for their crimes, others are not. The second programme, How to Kill a Human Being presented by Michael Portillo was a gory way of indicating further how wrong the penalty is. I maintain that there is no humane of killing somebody, it seems to be a contradiction in terms, humanely taking away one of the basic rights anybody can have, that to life.

Can the death penalty be right? Having watched the latter and read Grisham's book I strongly feel no. But there is this nagging feeling in my head that raised its head during Theroux's programme. If the prisoners are feeling no remorse for their crimes, what good is their being in prison? As one prisoner said, they do not pay taxes, they do not need to find a job, or housing. They get all their meals provided to them, and they get exercise and light. They do not have a care in the world, other than being stuck behind bars. Is this a punishment? I do not know.


I want to point your attention to this website too. Just look at it. Think about it. And then re-evaluate your position on the death penalty, indeed, the judicial system as a whole too.

Luke

Can anyone tell me how much difference there is between this case of a Ghanaian woman and this one about a Sierra Leonian man is? That's right, the man, Al Bangura plays football. The woman, terminally ill with cancer, does not. Whilst I do not pretend to know all the in's and out's of the two cases it seems there is some sort of double standard here. Bangura, 19, has had his appeal accepted after initially being told his visa had expired and he couldn't get a new one. He will stay in the country and keep on plying his trade with Watford. Which is a good thing. He escaped war torn Sierra Leone whilst young and came over to play football, fulfilling his dream. He is allowed to stay in Britain and "contribute to society" through playing football and entertaining thousands of fans each week.
Ama Sumani, 39 however is facing a struggle to stay in Britain where she can get the drugs needed to help with her cancer fight. If deported back to Ghana she says she will not be able to afford the treatment, which consists of regular dialysis, nor the longer term help of a bone marrow transplant. This is not a good thing. She will return to Ghana and most likely be dead within a year. Her local MP in Cardiff, Alun Michael, claims the issue is about the care in Ghana, not Britain. Such an opinion seems to be both ignorant and flys in the face of the kind and caring Labour party that we are all meant to think exists. After all, the Labour party is the one for the people on the street, not just those rich elites like the Conservatives. Except these cases beg to differ. The richer footballer (part of the rich elite?) has been fought for by his club, his local MP, and lots of very good lawyers. Ama Sumani has no-one to fight her corner. Consequently she has been deported back to Ghana, and he is allowed to stay.

Now I'm all for the maintenance of standards, and if the law suggests that both should have been deported, then so be it. However, it is the frustration of the double standards which irks me the most. If two people with apparently similar circumstances do not receive the same outcome then either there is something which we do not know about, or there is something wrong. In the world of media that is today's society, I'm inclined to think it is the latter.

Luke

Bureaucracy just gets in the way nowadays. Especially if you are a 'have-a-go-hero'. Like this guy from Teesside. He acted very bravely and 'outside the box' to rescue a young girl who had fallen down the cliff, and his return? Nothing, other than aggro and grief from people who told him that he had done something wrong.

Sorry I may be being a bit slow here but... what?

It is a sad state of affairs when you are criticised for saving somebodys life. It is also a sad state of affairs that you are now expected to perform a risk assessment analysis before making any decision on how to act. In cases like this there is not the time for musings at the top of a cliff whilst some young girl is desperately struggling to survive.
When bureaucracy gets in the way of common sense then we know we have problems. It is time that society wakes up to the fact that it is only the individual who can make the decision, not the government, not local councils, but the individual. Let us have some freedom back please. If I want to put myself at risk to help someone else then I will, regardless of whether the risk assessment says so or not.
We wonder why in this country things take so long to achieve (the most recent one I noticed was the reaction to a sight improving drug which is available in Scotland but not England or Wales because NICE are still performing tests). The answer seems apparent. It is the miles of red tape and the hundreds of hoops that everyone has to get through before anything can be achieved. It is a shame, we should be promoting 'have-a-go-heroes' and encouraging people to do something to help society, not making it harder for them.

"Yes, is that Superman? We are from the government calling about the housefire you are about to save a woman from. We just wanted to make sure you assessed all the risks before entering the building..."

It seems silly, but this is where we are heading I feel.

Luke

Facebook statisitics are revealing things apparently, they tell someone a lot about a given network. The Birmingham network for example consists of 49% females, 39% males and 12% unlisted. This is weird, I get sexual orientation and being bi, but regardless of that, you are still almost certainly a male or female (and the proportion of those to which the 'neither' label applies is surely not 12%!) I am all for gender equality, but to me this seems slightly off, especially since football, with a traditionally male fanbase, ranks as the second highest interest amongst its students. Also on this particular list are other such well known interests as drinking, sleeping and eating. Ah yes. Those interests which keep us alive. Well done Birmingham students, you have successfully managed to list basic human characteristics as part of your interests. This either means: a) you have no creativity when it comes to filling in such basic lists, or b) you actually do not have any interests making you a rather sad sort of person.

However, the more overwhelming statistic is the number of students who list their political views as 'none listed'. 64% of the population put this down, beating 'Liberal' into second place with just 10%. I am aware that there is no distinct 'Labour' option as there is a 'Conservative' option, but I would still be willing to bet that student political apathy runs deep, and for most of those 64% for whom not listing a political status, politics is another world, something to be fought over by stuffy old men in chambers somewhere in London. The days of great numbers of students protesting and being active figures in nationwide political spheres seems to be declining, instead, it seems, students are more content to focus upon staying alive.

Luke

It is interesting to watch three democratic processes occur across the world simultaneously at the moment, and watch as they each evolve into something bigger.
In Kenya, we had the elections which many of the campaigners are claiming were fixed so that Mr Kibaki won, as opposed to the Raila Odinga. It is these claims, coupled with the ethnic tensions across Kenya which have seen one of the more democratically sound countries of Africa collapse amid scenes of church burning and health fears. I do not know enough about Kenyan politics to try and offer my view as to which would be a better choice for the country, but for the immediate future it is imperative that Kibaki rises to the challenge of sorting out the problems that have occurred, irrespective of whether the vote was fixed. What then for the long term? These suggestions will not go away, and neither will the violence until something drastic happens. We can only wait and see.
Contrast this with Georgia where small protests about the snap election have been muted and largely ineffective, as worldwide observers claim that this is a democratic election. After 7% of the vote had been counted, the current president, Mr Saakashvili was leading the way with 55% of the vote, needing only half the overall total to become president again, without the need for a second round of voting. Those in the opposing corner are the ones who are making the biggest noises, and protests about the initial results have resulted in the doubt being cast. Again, we can only wait.
Finally, America. Following Iowa, Obama and Huckabee have led the way for their respective parties. Some claim that Obama is about to overtake Mrs Clinton in New Hampshire too. From my point of view, the whole American system seems overly complicated, I'm not sure quite why there needs to be a difference between primaries and caucuses for example, but will watch as the democrats turn their campaigns into an increasingly two horse race. The republicans, not really making any headlines continue to potter along. Everyone is now waiting eagerly for 5 February, or super Tuesday to see who comes out fighting from each party.

All the elections are bound to have a worldwide impact. Kenya is already having such an impact, the call for aid from Western countries is growing more critical every day. In Georgia, if the current president maintains his role, relations with Russia will become more strained, and consequently relations with the west (whom Mr Saakashvili sympathises with) will follow suit. America are in the midst of choosing who they want to lead the free world onwards after the current incumbent leaves the role.
Back in Britain, Mr Brown has told us "2008 will be a year of real and serious changes". Always one for the understatement our Gordon.

Luke