I wish I could repair the world but the truth is I can only work on a little bit of one corner. The question is whether it’s worth me undertaking that small service for so few, when the world at large needs so much for so many?
For me the answer is yes. I justify this for myself by the thought that if everyone does a bit of what they can do, then the results will be hugely beneficial.
I should make it clear, before some of you do, that I realize I am no paragon of virtue, and I don’t do as well as I should with some of the ideas I list here. The reason for writing this article is that sometimes the most obvious things go unwritten or unsaid. At the cost of appearing crass, stupid and patronizing I will, nevertheless try and encourage everyone to open their hearts to help others less fortunate. You never know, someday that could be you receiving rather than giving. You probably are already aware of an immutable law of physics, for every action in the universe there is an equal and opposite reaction. Or as my late father used to tell me, “you get back what you give tenfold!”
What does this mean in a practical sense? We can’t all give large sums of money for the simple reason we don’t all have a lot of money to give. But we do all have a little spare time, and maybe the only act of giving we can manage is to go and see an old and lonely relative. It’s amazing to me that I should have to write this, but so many people don’t give this most simple of gifts, some of their time.
Sometimes the thing we need most is a cold dose of the truth, and this can be a wonderful act of generosity. Recently a good friend of mine told me some home truths about what I was doing career wise. He was right, I had become a bit stuck in my ways, aiming in a direction I knew in my heart was wrong, but he had the guts and cared enough to tell me to follow another path. This reinforced what my family had already been saying to me, but it took someone a little more objective to force me to act. This was a very generous action on his part, enhanced by his recommending I seek to channel the output to a company he had found. None of us know how this might evolve, but it has opened my eyes to an entirely new opportunity. I trust I will disprove that hoary old chestnut that no good turn goes unpunished because I genuinely couldn’t appreciate his kindness more. So, David Courtney please step forward, take a bow and thank you.
Let’s all remember that the person with his hand out usually has a back story that would make you weep if you took the time to stop and listen. They’re not all scroungers and wasters; in fact most of the people asking for help do so because they need it.
We’re all having a harder time of it economically at present, after a period of huge wealth creation. We’re feeling the pinch of the credit crunch. Imagine how much more the really poor are feeling the cold draft of this impending recession and try and give something, even if it’s just a kind word, a bit of your time, an hour or two of your expertise. It’s going to count more now than ever. Of course, if you have a little cash that would be great.
There are going to be real problems this winter if we don’t all start pulling together now.
I haven’t gone soft in the head, and didn’t suddenly find a dogmatic religious belief, but we all must be made aware that this economic downturn is going to really hurt a huge number of people across our western society and we need to find ways to make this inevitable financial crash as painless as we can, because that will benefit everyone.
Our governments must move to the forefront of this battle by putting in place immediate and workable methods to keep people in their homes during the coming pandemic of houses going into negative equity and being untenable for the otherwise new homeless. There are already entire sections of cities in the USA that have been repossessed by shortsighted mortgage lenders. Are we going to allow this economic cancer to infect us all, do we want the cities to become either empty or the playground of the get rich quick speculators who are bound to take advantage of the misery of others?
Most of us are generous come Xmas or at a birthday; we all enjoy the giving and the pleasure it generates. Let’s try and make every day a holiday for ourselves and those we help. Meanwhile, in my totally inadequate way I shall do what I can to repair my tiny corner of this world we all share.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
WhoWeAre
During our lives we are often asked, “what do you do?” I now believe how we answer defines us. For most of my life I would happily respond, “I make films,” and this inevitably led to subsidiary questions that further evidenced my proposition. The most often asked is, “have you ever made anything I’d have heard of?” Of course if you were not able to satisfy this question with a suitably current and well-known film title, you were somehow assumed to be either lying or a total loser.
Worse still is to be able to supply a well known title with big stars attached, because then the next question is always, “what was he/she like to work with, have you got any funny stories?” If you answer this with a witty, well-paced anecdote your reception will be wonderful. However the next time you are to meet this person they are almost bound to introduce you to their friends with, “this is Tony, he works in the film industry and he’s going to tell you some really terrific funny stories!”
Once I attended a wedding and was determined not to get caught out and so was introducing myself to anyone that didn’t know me as, “I’m a business executive.”
The man sitting next to me said he was in the media business; in fact he was in the film industry. Somehow or other, without prompting from me, it transpired that he knew Tony Klinger, despite the fact that I was sitting next to him and my knowing I had never met the man. He went into quite some detail about his friendship with Tony Klinger, during which time the people who did know me were either tittering with laughter or on the edge of terminal embarrassment. Not able to stand it any longer I calmly revealed my identity to the dishonest man. He didn’t turn a hair.
When I was a teenager I was already working in a prestigious job in films and lived in a very desirable part of central London, so, because no one would believe the real details I made up the fact that I was a trainee accountant, which no one had a problem with.
I went through a period of nearly a decade when I spent most of my time working in academia but always felt uncomfortable with describing myself as an academic, and the main reason for this reticence was the fact that I never have felt like a true academic; I just don’t think like an academic.
When, recently I worked as the Chief Executive in the content creation section of mobile telephony I began to talk of myself as an executive, and described my role. However one of my business associates was affronted as he saw me as a filmmaker and wanted me to be more honest with myself.
So now I have gone full circle. Again, as at the very start of my career, I am describing myself as a writer. It is what has underscored and underwritten everything I have ever done, and fairly says to the world, here I am, a happy scribbler. It is a great relief to have rediscovered this simple truth, and it’s a wonderful relief.
Worse still is to be able to supply a well known title with big stars attached, because then the next question is always, “what was he/she like to work with, have you got any funny stories?” If you answer this with a witty, well-paced anecdote your reception will be wonderful. However the next time you are to meet this person they are almost bound to introduce you to their friends with, “this is Tony, he works in the film industry and he’s going to tell you some really terrific funny stories!”
Once I attended a wedding and was determined not to get caught out and so was introducing myself to anyone that didn’t know me as, “I’m a business executive.”
The man sitting next to me said he was in the media business; in fact he was in the film industry. Somehow or other, without prompting from me, it transpired that he knew Tony Klinger, despite the fact that I was sitting next to him and my knowing I had never met the man. He went into quite some detail about his friendship with Tony Klinger, during which time the people who did know me were either tittering with laughter or on the edge of terminal embarrassment. Not able to stand it any longer I calmly revealed my identity to the dishonest man. He didn’t turn a hair.
When I was a teenager I was already working in a prestigious job in films and lived in a very desirable part of central London, so, because no one would believe the real details I made up the fact that I was a trainee accountant, which no one had a problem with.
I went through a period of nearly a decade when I spent most of my time working in academia but always felt uncomfortable with describing myself as an academic, and the main reason for this reticence was the fact that I never have felt like a true academic; I just don’t think like an academic.
When, recently I worked as the Chief Executive in the content creation section of mobile telephony I began to talk of myself as an executive, and described my role. However one of my business associates was affronted as he saw me as a filmmaker and wanted me to be more honest with myself.
So now I have gone full circle. Again, as at the very start of my career, I am describing myself as a writer. It is what has underscored and underwritten everything I have ever done, and fairly says to the world, here I am, a happy scribbler. It is a great relief to have rediscovered this simple truth, and it’s a wonderful relief.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
LinksacrosstheGlobe
A suspected would be assassin jumped out of a sixth floor window in a downtown Denver hotel. A car was stopped in the same town with three armed men in it, and one of them stated that his friend wasn’t going to let a black man live to be the President. Hillary Clinton makes a barnstorming speech in support of her previous rival, Barack Obama, telling her 18 million supporters to get into place behind the Democratic candidate.
Across the world in Moscow, the Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, sniffs the political air and belligerently announces that his country has recognized the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent. This is clearly a knee jerk reaction to the West’s own reaction to the recent Russian invasion of Georgia.
When the Russian President explained his country’s actions he excused them by making the comparison with America’s own justification for Kosovan independence. Perhaps he has forgotten that there were no American tanks enforcing that situation.
For the Russian view of this we need to examine the words of Russia’s President. “They addressed to Russia with a request to recognize their independence. Taking into consideration the free will of the peoples, the UN Charter and OSCE documents, I have signed decrees to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on behalf of the Russian Federation. This is the only way to save people’s lives,” Medvedev said.
"Saakashvili chose genocide to fulfill his political plans," Medvedev said. "Georgia chose the least human way to achieve its goal - to absorb South Ossetia by eliminating a whole nation."
“Russia stopped the extermination of the Georgian people and then showed restraint with a goal to regulate the conflict through diplomacy,” the president said.
The Russian leadership has clearly studied the Nazi theories of propaganda with diligence. They demonstrated that if your first lie was big enough and was accepted then anything you said thereafter on the subject would also be accepted. This entire argument was not about Georgia swallowing another country; the two semi autonomous regions were and are legally integral parts of the country of Georgia, which Russia is now swallowing.
“Our warnings were left with no response. NATO and the UN ignored them. It is clear now that the Georgian administration was preparing for the war, whereas the support of its external protectors was only strengthening the feeling of impunity. The Georgian administration chose another way – to disrupt negotiations, launch military provocations and attack peacemakers. The Georgian administration initiated a military conflict in defiance of common sense and contrary to the UN Charter,” Medvedev said.
The truth is that there is not going to be real independence for these two new “countries” of South Ossetia and Abkhazia because the truth of their new situation is that they are now going to be semi-autonomous regions of the Russian Federation in all but name. They have simply swapped the somewhat chaotic rule of Georgia for the much more constricting embrace of the regional colossus, Russia, as it demonstrates its power.
The West, in fact most of the world, disagrees with the Russian actions but is powerless to do anything to stop them, or in fact even to slow them down unless we are willing to risk a world conflict.
The Kremlin's recognition of the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia makes it plain that it is willing to dice with almost twenty years of economic, political and diplomatic bonds with its Cold War antagonists.
Medvedev's grim televised announcement sparked immediate and spontaneous joyful celebrations on the streets of the rebel capitals. Parades of cars displaying the South Ossetian and Russian flags blared their horns, women cried for joy and gunmen fired their weapons into the air.
The United States was clearly shocked by the timing and nature of the Russian response, threatened to veto this move in the U.N. Security Council should Russia seek international recognition for the territories.
"Abkhazia and South Ossetia are a part of the internationally recognized borders of Georgia and it's going to remain so," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. President Bush called the Russian move "irresponsible."
The Kremlin insists, despite many doubts in the West, that its invasion of Georgia was a spur-of-the-moment response to the Georgian military's surprise crackdown on South Ossetia.
Remember that Georgia’s actions were, in all likelihood, engendered by the actions of militant subversives in South Ossetia, trained, directed and armed by their Russian puppet masters. In other words the Russian government set the trap and the Georgians fell right into it.
In any event, since the battles raged Moscow had weeks to weigh the consequences of recognizing the breakaway regions and did so in the knowledge of the consequences.
While the West focused on Russia's effort to shift Georgia's internationally recognized borders, the Kremlin perversely denounced the U.S. use of a Navy destroyer and Coast Guard cutter named the Dallas to deliver aid to Georgia's Black Sea coast.
There are conclusions that begin to be discernable in these seemingly unconnected circumstances. Russia has an appetite for empire and growth that isn’t yet satisfied. There is also an evident thirst for the country to reassert its superpower credentials at the top table of world affairs. Meanwhile, in the States there is the small matter of the election-taking place on November 4th.
It’s a racing certainty that the Russian leadership will, as stated previously in this column, be looking forward to testing the resolve and nerve of whoever becomes the President. If that happens to be Barack Obama then the test could be big enough to rattle all of our cages. Some of you will remember what Khrushchev did to test Kennedy in Cuba in 1961. It nearly caused world war.
What lies ahead for us after November none of us know, but you can bet with some certainty that they’re planning something in the Kremlin right now. Let us all hope no one in Moscow miscalculates and their actions don’t cause any major warlike situation in the near future.
Russia’s Prime Minister Putin is, in reality a carefully coached and coiffured dictator made ready for public consumption. Such men always mistake democratic countries seeking peacefully negotiated resolution as weak. But remember Vladimir Putin received his training whilst working for the KGB in the former East Germany. His mindset is still locked in a Cold War that might never thaw for him.
Strategically it would be a huge mistake for Putin to choose these arguments and times as a convenient window of opportunity to seek revenge for the Russian’s perceived loss of national dignity on the international stage suffered during the disintegration of the Soviet Union. He should remember what Confucius, the ancient Chinese philosopher once said, if you seek revenge first dig two graves.
Across the world in Moscow, the Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, sniffs the political air and belligerently announces that his country has recognized the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent. This is clearly a knee jerk reaction to the West’s own reaction to the recent Russian invasion of Georgia.
When the Russian President explained his country’s actions he excused them by making the comparison with America’s own justification for Kosovan independence. Perhaps he has forgotten that there were no American tanks enforcing that situation.
For the Russian view of this we need to examine the words of Russia’s President. “They addressed to Russia with a request to recognize their independence. Taking into consideration the free will of the peoples, the UN Charter and OSCE documents, I have signed decrees to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on behalf of the Russian Federation. This is the only way to save people’s lives,” Medvedev said.
"Saakashvili chose genocide to fulfill his political plans," Medvedev said. "Georgia chose the least human way to achieve its goal - to absorb South Ossetia by eliminating a whole nation."
“Russia stopped the extermination of the Georgian people and then showed restraint with a goal to regulate the conflict through diplomacy,” the president said.
The Russian leadership has clearly studied the Nazi theories of propaganda with diligence. They demonstrated that if your first lie was big enough and was accepted then anything you said thereafter on the subject would also be accepted. This entire argument was not about Georgia swallowing another country; the two semi autonomous regions were and are legally integral parts of the country of Georgia, which Russia is now swallowing.
“Our warnings were left with no response. NATO and the UN ignored them. It is clear now that the Georgian administration was preparing for the war, whereas the support of its external protectors was only strengthening the feeling of impunity. The Georgian administration chose another way – to disrupt negotiations, launch military provocations and attack peacemakers. The Georgian administration initiated a military conflict in defiance of common sense and contrary to the UN Charter,” Medvedev said.
The truth is that there is not going to be real independence for these two new “countries” of South Ossetia and Abkhazia because the truth of their new situation is that they are now going to be semi-autonomous regions of the Russian Federation in all but name. They have simply swapped the somewhat chaotic rule of Georgia for the much more constricting embrace of the regional colossus, Russia, as it demonstrates its power.
The West, in fact most of the world, disagrees with the Russian actions but is powerless to do anything to stop them, or in fact even to slow them down unless we are willing to risk a world conflict.
The Kremlin's recognition of the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia makes it plain that it is willing to dice with almost twenty years of economic, political and diplomatic bonds with its Cold War antagonists.
Medvedev's grim televised announcement sparked immediate and spontaneous joyful celebrations on the streets of the rebel capitals. Parades of cars displaying the South Ossetian and Russian flags blared their horns, women cried for joy and gunmen fired their weapons into the air.
The United States was clearly shocked by the timing and nature of the Russian response, threatened to veto this move in the U.N. Security Council should Russia seek international recognition for the territories.
"Abkhazia and South Ossetia are a part of the internationally recognized borders of Georgia and it's going to remain so," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. President Bush called the Russian move "irresponsible."
The Kremlin insists, despite many doubts in the West, that its invasion of Georgia was a spur-of-the-moment response to the Georgian military's surprise crackdown on South Ossetia.
Remember that Georgia’s actions were, in all likelihood, engendered by the actions of militant subversives in South Ossetia, trained, directed and armed by their Russian puppet masters. In other words the Russian government set the trap and the Georgians fell right into it.
In any event, since the battles raged Moscow had weeks to weigh the consequences of recognizing the breakaway regions and did so in the knowledge of the consequences.
While the West focused on Russia's effort to shift Georgia's internationally recognized borders, the Kremlin perversely denounced the U.S. use of a Navy destroyer and Coast Guard cutter named the Dallas to deliver aid to Georgia's Black Sea coast.
There are conclusions that begin to be discernable in these seemingly unconnected circumstances. Russia has an appetite for empire and growth that isn’t yet satisfied. There is also an evident thirst for the country to reassert its superpower credentials at the top table of world affairs. Meanwhile, in the States there is the small matter of the election-taking place on November 4th.
It’s a racing certainty that the Russian leadership will, as stated previously in this column, be looking forward to testing the resolve and nerve of whoever becomes the President. If that happens to be Barack Obama then the test could be big enough to rattle all of our cages. Some of you will remember what Khrushchev did to test Kennedy in Cuba in 1961. It nearly caused world war.
What lies ahead for us after November none of us know, but you can bet with some certainty that they’re planning something in the Kremlin right now. Let us all hope no one in Moscow miscalculates and their actions don’t cause any major warlike situation in the near future.
Russia’s Prime Minister Putin is, in reality a carefully coached and coiffured dictator made ready for public consumption. Such men always mistake democratic countries seeking peacefully negotiated resolution as weak. But remember Vladimir Putin received his training whilst working for the KGB in the former East Germany. His mindset is still locked in a Cold War that might never thaw for him.
Strategically it would be a huge mistake for Putin to choose these arguments and times as a convenient window of opportunity to seek revenge for the Russian’s perceived loss of national dignity on the international stage suffered during the disintegration of the Soviet Union. He should remember what Confucius, the ancient Chinese philosopher once said, if you seek revenge first dig two graves.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
PUMA
The Democrats arriving for their convention in Denver, Colorado, intend to promote party unity and use this set piece event to launch their march on the White House. But the truth is that mistrust and deep seated resentment simmer dangerously near the surface throughout the top echelons of the presumptive Presidential nominee Barack Obama and his defeated but still dangerous rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Some of her more extreme supporters formed a pressure group called PUMA, which is an acronym for Part Unity My Ass. They would do virtually anything to replace Obama with Hillary Clinton. This group may be untypical but does represent quite a few people within the party machine who are firmly convinced that Obama cannot win the Presidency.
The selection of Senator Joe Biden has done nothing to damp down the heat beneath the simmering tension between the Obama and Clinton camps that have simply failed to be reconciled since the Primaries. There have been various attempts to mend these broken fences but they have not been effective, the result is that senior Democrats are demonstrating ever-clearer signs of increasing concern about this fault line.
Obviously both the Clintons will be expected to make speeches loudly praising the Presidential aspirations of Barack Obama, and it is certain that they will duly oblige. However it’s what will really be happening behind the scenes that fascinates. In my view the likelihood is that the Clintons are demanding some quid pro quo for their wholehearted support of the Obama election campaign.
An initial major flashpoint is the designated set piece speech for former president Bill Clinton, who is scheduled to speak Wednesday night, when the convention’s theme will be “Securing America’s Future.”
The duty of that night’s speakers is to argue that Obama would be a more effective commander in chief than his Republican rival, and Vietnam veteran and prisoner of war, Sen. John McCain.
Associates of the former president are disappointed, because his wish is to speak about the economy and more broadly about Democratic ideas — emphasizing the contrast between the Bush years and his own, more successful economic record in the 1990s. Last night at a pre Convention event was the first time that Obama alluded to the fact that during the Bill Clinton Presidency Americans became, on average $6,000 better off financially whereas under George W. Bush they are $1,000 poorer.
This is a very big issue for Bill Clinton, his friends and political allies say, because chief among the many grievances he harbors about Barack Obama’s campaign Obama against Hillary is Bill’s firm conviction that the candidate bad-mouthed the political and policy successes of his two terms in office. Bill Clinton cannot and will not accept anyone messing with his political legacy.
Senior Democrats who are close to Obama, equally, made very clear in unattributed comments that they feel equally riled by the entire Clinton camp and it’s unhelpful attitude.
So, we find ourselves, nearly three months after Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the nomination contest, these Obama partisans complained, with her team continuing to act like she and Bill Clinton hold more leverage than they actually do.
Earlier this month there was a short period when the two sides appeared to be working collegially over strategy, scheduling, and other convention logistics, things have turned sour again in more recent days.
Many of the most senior Obama supporters are clearly more than irritated at how they understand the Clintons fanned — or at a minimum failed to damp down — the many stories that Hillary was not even vetted as a possible vice presidential nominee. This, a senior Obama associate claimed, is simply due to the fact that Hillary told Obama she preferred not to go through the rigorous document production process unless she was really going to be a serious contender.
One senior Obama associate made the point that the Clinton camp were still trying to negotiate for her like “Japanese soldiers in the South Pacific still fighting after the war is over.” Maybe the truth is we’re just about to find out how deep the divisions really are, whatever Hillary or Bill say, or how wide the smiles of all the major protagonists in this incomplete saga might be.
Some of her more extreme supporters formed a pressure group called PUMA, which is an acronym for Part Unity My Ass. They would do virtually anything to replace Obama with Hillary Clinton. This group may be untypical but does represent quite a few people within the party machine who are firmly convinced that Obama cannot win the Presidency.
The selection of Senator Joe Biden has done nothing to damp down the heat beneath the simmering tension between the Obama and Clinton camps that have simply failed to be reconciled since the Primaries. There have been various attempts to mend these broken fences but they have not been effective, the result is that senior Democrats are demonstrating ever-clearer signs of increasing concern about this fault line.
Obviously both the Clintons will be expected to make speeches loudly praising the Presidential aspirations of Barack Obama, and it is certain that they will duly oblige. However it’s what will really be happening behind the scenes that fascinates. In my view the likelihood is that the Clintons are demanding some quid pro quo for their wholehearted support of the Obama election campaign.
An initial major flashpoint is the designated set piece speech for former president Bill Clinton, who is scheduled to speak Wednesday night, when the convention’s theme will be “Securing America’s Future.”
The duty of that night’s speakers is to argue that Obama would be a more effective commander in chief than his Republican rival, and Vietnam veteran and prisoner of war, Sen. John McCain.
Associates of the former president are disappointed, because his wish is to speak about the economy and more broadly about Democratic ideas — emphasizing the contrast between the Bush years and his own, more successful economic record in the 1990s. Last night at a pre Convention event was the first time that Obama alluded to the fact that during the Bill Clinton Presidency Americans became, on average $6,000 better off financially whereas under George W. Bush they are $1,000 poorer.
This is a very big issue for Bill Clinton, his friends and political allies say, because chief among the many grievances he harbors about Barack Obama’s campaign Obama against Hillary is Bill’s firm conviction that the candidate bad-mouthed the political and policy successes of his two terms in office. Bill Clinton cannot and will not accept anyone messing with his political legacy.
Senior Democrats who are close to Obama, equally, made very clear in unattributed comments that they feel equally riled by the entire Clinton camp and it’s unhelpful attitude.
So, we find ourselves, nearly three months after Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the nomination contest, these Obama partisans complained, with her team continuing to act like she and Bill Clinton hold more leverage than they actually do.
Earlier this month there was a short period when the two sides appeared to be working collegially over strategy, scheduling, and other convention logistics, things have turned sour again in more recent days.
Many of the most senior Obama supporters are clearly more than irritated at how they understand the Clintons fanned — or at a minimum failed to damp down — the many stories that Hillary was not even vetted as a possible vice presidential nominee. This, a senior Obama associate claimed, is simply due to the fact that Hillary told Obama she preferred not to go through the rigorous document production process unless she was really going to be a serious contender.
One senior Obama associate made the point that the Clinton camp were still trying to negotiate for her like “Japanese soldiers in the South Pacific still fighting after the war is over.” Maybe the truth is we’re just about to find out how deep the divisions really are, whatever Hillary or Bill say, or how wide the smiles of all the major protagonists in this incomplete saga might be.
Monday, August 25, 2008
TrulyGreatBritain
It’s time for some flag waving in Great Britain today. The results in the Olympic games that finished yesterday were a triumph for the British team. Not for one hundred years has the British team won so many events, or so many medals. It’s a feel good factor writ large, and we have every right to enjoy our national triumphs.
I have a friend who jokingly refers to the London Olympics in 2012 as a disaster waiting to happen. As we were watching the awesome Chinese organizational efforts she would say, “what’s going to happen when this show comes to London?” She means that we will get it all wrong, and I think she couldn’t be more wrong.
Of course we will get it resoundingly right, as we always do. Yes, there will be mistakes and errors, fear and trepidation along the path to our doing so but if we hold our nerve, and we are famous for doing jus that, then we will do magnificently. We have always punched above our weight whenever the going gets tough.
In Britain, as long as I can remember, the prevailing and accepted pattern of behavior is to self denigrate and play down our national achievements to the extent that we end believing we can’t achieve anything, when in fact we can achieve everything.
Any list you of the ten top countries, always has Great Britain in it. For a country of just over 60 million people it is amazing that it still is the fifth richest economy, and won proportionately more Academy Awards, Nobel Prizes and all the glittering prizes than any other.
This country has invented more things per capita than any other. This includes such wonders as the television, Internet, radar, jet propulsion, the tank, penicillin, telephones and the list goes on, seemingly forever as witness to this nation’s undying creativity and genius.
Our armed forces, much maligned by the politically correct left leaning of our own country are respected as no other by the rest of the world. The financial centre of the City of London is second to no other. Creatively our literature, art, music, films, television and radio are thought of as without equal anywhere. British museums, art galleries and our best universities are all rated as some of the best of the world.
The French sometimes say that the British are arrogant; they are wrongly mistaking this country’s natural reticence. When you measure Britain’s achievements you realize that this small country has an immense deal to be proud of.
Britain will always be idiosyncratic and funky, its people are built that way. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnston, symbolizes a wit and cleverness that promises well for the 2012 Olympics in London. Of course, like Britain, Boris will occasionally bumble his way through, but in the end, we will get it gloriously right.
I have a friend who jokingly refers to the London Olympics in 2012 as a disaster waiting to happen. As we were watching the awesome Chinese organizational efforts she would say, “what’s going to happen when this show comes to London?” She means that we will get it all wrong, and I think she couldn’t be more wrong.
Of course we will get it resoundingly right, as we always do. Yes, there will be mistakes and errors, fear and trepidation along the path to our doing so but if we hold our nerve, and we are famous for doing jus that, then we will do magnificently. We have always punched above our weight whenever the going gets tough.
In Britain, as long as I can remember, the prevailing and accepted pattern of behavior is to self denigrate and play down our national achievements to the extent that we end believing we can’t achieve anything, when in fact we can achieve everything.
Any list you of the ten top countries, always has Great Britain in it. For a country of just over 60 million people it is amazing that it still is the fifth richest economy, and won proportionately more Academy Awards, Nobel Prizes and all the glittering prizes than any other.
This country has invented more things per capita than any other. This includes such wonders as the television, Internet, radar, jet propulsion, the tank, penicillin, telephones and the list goes on, seemingly forever as witness to this nation’s undying creativity and genius.
Our armed forces, much maligned by the politically correct left leaning of our own country are respected as no other by the rest of the world. The financial centre of the City of London is second to no other. Creatively our literature, art, music, films, television and radio are thought of as without equal anywhere. British museums, art galleries and our best universities are all rated as some of the best of the world.
The French sometimes say that the British are arrogant; they are wrongly mistaking this country’s natural reticence. When you measure Britain’s achievements you realize that this small country has an immense deal to be proud of.
Britain will always be idiosyncratic and funky, its people are built that way. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnston, symbolizes a wit and cleverness that promises well for the 2012 Olympics in London. Of course, like Britain, Boris will occasionally bumble his way through, but in the end, we will get it gloriously right.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
WinningFair
The spirit of the Olympics is embodied in the pledge the athletes undertake to keep at its opening ceremony. Every athlete promises to play fairly and obey all of the Olympic rules. A single Chinese athlete took this oath at the Beijing Opening Ceremony on behalf of all athletes. She held a corner of the Olympic Flag while repeating the oath:
"In the name of all competitors, I promise that we shall take part in these Olympic games, respecting and abiding by the rules that govern them, in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and the honor of our teams."
The oath was written by Baron de Coubertin the founder of the Modern Olympic Games in 1920. Olympic officials also take an oath. While holding a corner of the Olympic Flag, one official from the host country repeats a similar oath on behalf of all the officials.
It is therefore sad and disappointing that there are questions hanging over the Beijing Olympics that must be asked. Although it would be churlish to deny the scope, scale and sheer majesty of these Games we do have to ask about the morality and ethics of their Chinese hosts.
This appears to be especially relevant where the judging of the event is subjective. By this we mean that a panel of judges rather than simply measuring the speed, height, length of a competition instead evaluates the quality of the competitors performance. Look at how well China has done in these subjective events.
Watching the last day of competition in the boxing competition there is no question in my mind that when the competition was close the Chinese boxers were given an unfair scoring advantage. The way scoring in this sport works is that there are four judges and each has a computer button to push for each punch one of the contestants’ lands on his opponent. Only if all four push their button within one second will the point register.
Therefore if you wanted to “fix” a close match all you would have to do is get to just one judge. I suspect that no one has any proof to this effect, but the distinct suspicion remains that this is happening. Perhaps such suspected corruption isn’t a money issue, but more to do with politically or personally favoring one country above another. But if you were to forensically examine the subjectively judged events you would be forced to conclude that there was a disproportionate amount of Chinese success. In boxing, in the bad old days, they used to call these kind of results, “home town decisions”.
Yesterday there was an attempt at an outrageously unfair piece of judging in the quarter final of the over 67kg taekwondo competition. Sarah Stevenson, the British girl was one point behind her two time Olympic gold medal winning Chinese opponent, Chen Zhang. With moments to go Sarah clearly landed a kick to Zhang’s head, thus scoring two points. Somehow this blow was invisible to the judging panel, no score registered. The British contestant and team, plus all neutrals were outraged.
For the next hour there was pandemonium behind the scenes as the British team protested volubly to the authorities. In the experience of all those who have ever observed the fate of such objections there was no chance for it. The shock was therefore enormous when it was announced that the result had been overturned. Sarah Stevenson was declared the winner and would fight in the semi-final. She did so, without any further preparation and lost to a feisty, excellent fighter from Mexico. Then, re-gathering her forces, Sarah won the bronze fight off. It is a great pity for Sarah that she suffered this fate, as she has, when properly prepared, beaten the Mexican twice previously.
Perhaps, during the final moments of the quarter final bout, let’s be kind, a judge was unsighted or just felt such intense outside pressure that he or she hadn’t dared score the British blow, but this simply should not happen. Why is there no video replay available for all the subjective event judging? These kinds of “mistakes” are easy to overcome. When in doubt, look at the disputed moment again.
Similarly some, if not all, of the gymnastic and diving scores are questionable for the same reasons. Discount for the moment that there are big questions still remaining over the eligibility of some of the Chinese competitors, and you begin to feel there are severe doubts about how China has operated its participation in these games, which are supposed to epitomize the Olympic spirit.
There was in these games, a feeling that the Chinese government, rather than their Olympic committee, was in total control. Take nothing away from the amazing Chinese results in almost all of the sports in which they participated and remember that just 16 years ago they won virtually no medals. From nothing to sporting superpower in 4 Olympics is a remarkable achievement that we must all applaud. But cheating is not permitted and there is more than a suspicion that some results were fixed.
Let us all learn from these events, and remember the oaths that are taken so that London hosts a great event, that is also demonstrably impartial in 2012. We want to move up from our own amazing fourth place in the Olympic medals table to an even higher position, but let’s do it fairly.
"In the name of all competitors, I promise that we shall take part in these Olympic games, respecting and abiding by the rules that govern them, in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and the honor of our teams."
The oath was written by Baron de Coubertin the founder of the Modern Olympic Games in 1920. Olympic officials also take an oath. While holding a corner of the Olympic Flag, one official from the host country repeats a similar oath on behalf of all the officials.
It is therefore sad and disappointing that there are questions hanging over the Beijing Olympics that must be asked. Although it would be churlish to deny the scope, scale and sheer majesty of these Games we do have to ask about the morality and ethics of their Chinese hosts.
This appears to be especially relevant where the judging of the event is subjective. By this we mean that a panel of judges rather than simply measuring the speed, height, length of a competition instead evaluates the quality of the competitors performance. Look at how well China has done in these subjective events.
Watching the last day of competition in the boxing competition there is no question in my mind that when the competition was close the Chinese boxers were given an unfair scoring advantage. The way scoring in this sport works is that there are four judges and each has a computer button to push for each punch one of the contestants’ lands on his opponent. Only if all four push their button within one second will the point register.
Therefore if you wanted to “fix” a close match all you would have to do is get to just one judge. I suspect that no one has any proof to this effect, but the distinct suspicion remains that this is happening. Perhaps such suspected corruption isn’t a money issue, but more to do with politically or personally favoring one country above another. But if you were to forensically examine the subjectively judged events you would be forced to conclude that there was a disproportionate amount of Chinese success. In boxing, in the bad old days, they used to call these kind of results, “home town decisions”.
Yesterday there was an attempt at an outrageously unfair piece of judging in the quarter final of the over 67kg taekwondo competition. Sarah Stevenson, the British girl was one point behind her two time Olympic gold medal winning Chinese opponent, Chen Zhang. With moments to go Sarah clearly landed a kick to Zhang’s head, thus scoring two points. Somehow this blow was invisible to the judging panel, no score registered. The British contestant and team, plus all neutrals were outraged.
For the next hour there was pandemonium behind the scenes as the British team protested volubly to the authorities. In the experience of all those who have ever observed the fate of such objections there was no chance for it. The shock was therefore enormous when it was announced that the result had been overturned. Sarah Stevenson was declared the winner and would fight in the semi-final. She did so, without any further preparation and lost to a feisty, excellent fighter from Mexico. Then, re-gathering her forces, Sarah won the bronze fight off. It is a great pity for Sarah that she suffered this fate, as she has, when properly prepared, beaten the Mexican twice previously.
Perhaps, during the final moments of the quarter final bout, let’s be kind, a judge was unsighted or just felt such intense outside pressure that he or she hadn’t dared score the British blow, but this simply should not happen. Why is there no video replay available for all the subjective event judging? These kinds of “mistakes” are easy to overcome. When in doubt, look at the disputed moment again.
Similarly some, if not all, of the gymnastic and diving scores are questionable for the same reasons. Discount for the moment that there are big questions still remaining over the eligibility of some of the Chinese competitors, and you begin to feel there are severe doubts about how China has operated its participation in these games, which are supposed to epitomize the Olympic spirit.
There was in these games, a feeling that the Chinese government, rather than their Olympic committee, was in total control. Take nothing away from the amazing Chinese results in almost all of the sports in which they participated and remember that just 16 years ago they won virtually no medals. From nothing to sporting superpower in 4 Olympics is a remarkable achievement that we must all applaud. But cheating is not permitted and there is more than a suspicion that some results were fixed.
Let us all learn from these events, and remember the oaths that are taken so that London hosts a great event, that is also demonstrably impartial in 2012. We want to move up from our own amazing fourth place in the Olympic medals table to an even higher position, but let’s do it fairly.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
MrVicePresidentialCandidate
Joe Biden is to be Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate on the Democratic ticket for the upcoming USA elections. It’s hard to find anything particularly positive to write about this anodyne man who will, if Obama wins the race to the White House, be just a heartbeat away from the most powerful job on the planet.
Biden, who has twice run for President, remained out of public view at his home in Delaware with friends and family. The normally verbose lawmaker maintained a low profile. Biden is known to speak a great deal without saying too much. Selecting him is a demonstration of Obama picking someone to balance his ticket rather than excite the voters.
Most of us will remember Joe Biden as the man who plagiarized the Welsh windbag, Neil Kinnock’s speech for his own election campaign. You can understand borrowing brilliant words from someone whose writing is better than your own, but choosing Neil Kinnock as your role model is indicative of both cheating and bad judgment.
The 65-year-old senator was first elected to the Senate at the age of 29 in 1973. Biden brings to the potential position more experience in defense and foreign policy - areas in which Obama is rated relatively poorly in the polls compared with Republican Sen. John McCain. Biden is a man who will leave Barack feeling secure as he is perceived to present no threat politically but might carry some blue collar white voters with him to their ticket.
Hillary Rodham Clinton - who was Obama's closest rival for the presidential nomination appears not to have even been seriously considered. Although her omission was anticipated it will solidify many hard line Clinton acolytes against Obama.
Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware was selected by Obama late Friday night to balance his ticket with the older congressional veteran well versed in foreign policy and defense issues.
Biden, 65, has twice sought the White House, and is a Catholic with blue-collar roots, a generally liberal voting record and a reputation as a long-winded orator.
During his more than 30 years in the Senate, Biden served at various times as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and as head of the Judiciary Committee, with its jurisdiction over anti-crime legislation, Supreme Court nominees and Constitutional issues.
Obama's campaign team has arranged a debut for the newly minted ticket on Saturday outside the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.
The selection of Joe Biden is yet another demonstration of Obama’s failure to do more than assert his middle of the road credentials. To win the Presidency he should be seeking to maintain his previously more liberal and exciting momentum with the American electorate. However all his actions seem to achieve are a design for him not to lose too badly.
Biden, who has twice run for President, remained out of public view at his home in Delaware with friends and family. The normally verbose lawmaker maintained a low profile. Biden is known to speak a great deal without saying too much. Selecting him is a demonstration of Obama picking someone to balance his ticket rather than excite the voters.
Most of us will remember Joe Biden as the man who plagiarized the Welsh windbag, Neil Kinnock’s speech for his own election campaign. You can understand borrowing brilliant words from someone whose writing is better than your own, but choosing Neil Kinnock as your role model is indicative of both cheating and bad judgment.
The 65-year-old senator was first elected to the Senate at the age of 29 in 1973. Biden brings to the potential position more experience in defense and foreign policy - areas in which Obama is rated relatively poorly in the polls compared with Republican Sen. John McCain. Biden is a man who will leave Barack feeling secure as he is perceived to present no threat politically but might carry some blue collar white voters with him to their ticket.
Hillary Rodham Clinton - who was Obama's closest rival for the presidential nomination appears not to have even been seriously considered. Although her omission was anticipated it will solidify many hard line Clinton acolytes against Obama.
Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware was selected by Obama late Friday night to balance his ticket with the older congressional veteran well versed in foreign policy and defense issues.
Biden, 65, has twice sought the White House, and is a Catholic with blue-collar roots, a generally liberal voting record and a reputation as a long-winded orator.
During his more than 30 years in the Senate, Biden served at various times as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and as head of the Judiciary Committee, with its jurisdiction over anti-crime legislation, Supreme Court nominees and Constitutional issues.
Obama's campaign team has arranged a debut for the newly minted ticket on Saturday outside the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.
The selection of Joe Biden is yet another demonstration of Obama’s failure to do more than assert his middle of the road credentials. To win the Presidency he should be seeking to maintain his previously more liberal and exciting momentum with the American electorate. However all his actions seem to achieve are a design for him not to lose too badly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
