State control of the media has to be one of the most abhorrent characteristics of any government. We gasp in horror when we hear that Somalia has banned radio stations from broadcasting music, that Turkey is prosecuting an author for "anti-Turkishness" or that China has starting vetting foreign news reports. State control is a symbol of growing oppression, of withdrawal from the international community, of a distrust of one's own citizens.
How come, then, that in Britain we have the BBC? The BBC is a state-funded media giant. It accounts for 26% of all television viewing and 47% of all terrestrial television viewing. The BBC also accounts for 55% of all radio listening, national and local - more than all the hundreds of commercial stations put together! It is an affront to our media's liberty and our citizens' liberty. If we want to watch TV, we have to pay for a licence and fund the BBC, whether we want to use the BBC or not. It is an embarassment to this country's values. Any self-respecting liberal democracy should jettison it immediately.
How come, then, that in Britain we love the BBC? You never hear anyone call for the BBC to be disbanded. We grumble about our licence fees, but we love radio stations with no commercials. We love to watch Match of the Day or the latest dramatisation of Jane Austen. We love the BBC news website, and we know that people all over the world love it too. I am no exception. My radio consumption is split between BBC Radio 2, Radio 3, and Radio 4 (BBC comes up with the best station names, too!). I watch Newsnight, the Daily Politics and Question Time (I know, I know...). How do I square this with my views on the role of the state?
This is one of the great paradoxes of politics. If I lived in a country with no state media, and the government said, right, we're now going to tax you £100 a year and start making our own broadcasts, I would be horrified. No-one would want it. But now that I do have the BBC, I wouldn't want rid of it ever. I can understand why Americans value the right to carry arms for self-defence. I can understand why that's an important expression of their liberty. But even though I live in a country where that liberty is denied, I don't want it - we seem to get along fine without guns.
Does this mean I am inconsistent? I don't know. All I know is that given the choice between the BBC and guns, I'd choose the BBC every time. And I'll still think of myself as a champion of civil liberties.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Patience, not complacence
Is there a scarier transition in one's life? Progressing from an easy, exciting student life to the difficult, unknown world of - employment. Shudder! It's probably even more scary then when you grew up knowing you would leave school for the coal mine. At least then you knew what was coming. Choice brings insecurity. Unfortunately that's the case for so much in modern society: democracy; women's rights; drinks you've never heard of at Starbuck's...
But at the end of the day, who wants to work in a coal mine?
I've applied to a variety of jobs already: the Foreign Office; Essex County Council; a development consultency firm; Immigration control; the Treasury; even an editor at Encarta! So far I've had no rejections, but I've only got one interview (at the Foreign Office), and that's not until October 24th! In the words of Samuel Beckett, "In the meantime nothing happens". Patience is my watchword. My track record shows that I have a worrying capacity for turning patience into its arch-nemesis: complacence. My challenge is to avoid doing so again.
But at the end of the day, who wants to work in a coal mine?
I've applied to a variety of jobs already: the Foreign Office; Essex County Council; a development consultency firm; Immigration control; the Treasury; even an editor at Encarta! So far I've had no rejections, but I've only got one interview (at the Foreign Office), and that's not until October 24th! In the words of Samuel Beckett, "In the meantime nothing happens". Patience is my watchword. My track record shows that I have a worrying capacity for turning patience into its arch-nemesis: complacence. My challenge is to avoid doing so again.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Did I really do this?
I just handed my dissertation in. Wow. And best of all, I'm really pleased with it.
Today marks the symbolic end of a year. I've got an 80 page monster to show for this part of my life. Sometimes, when I'm studying, the most frustrating part is that my labours never seem to achieve anything. My most rewarding activity this year was volunteering at a 'Homework Club' in the local library. But then you reach the end of the degree and out comes this creation, in black and white, with your name on it. I can't help but be proud.
Today marks the symbolic end of a year. I've got an 80 page monster to show for this part of my life. Sometimes, when I'm studying, the most frustrating part is that my labours never seem to achieve anything. My most rewarding activity this year was volunteering at a 'Homework Club' in the local library. But then you reach the end of the degree and out comes this creation, in black and white, with your name on it. I can't help but be proud.
Monday, September 18, 2006
What's the matter with Kansas?
An article in the Guardian looked at an peculiar quirk in Americans' voting habits. In 2004, the 10 states with the lowest household income all voted Republican. The 5 states with the steepest falls in income also all voted Republican. Curious, because aren't poor people supposed to vote Democrat? A book by Thomas Frank, called What's the Matter with Kansas?, blames this phenomenon on "values" voting (gay rights and abortion). The poor, he says, have been hoodwinked into voting against their economic interests.
Well, actually, Mr Frank is wrong. The problem is not that poor people are voting Republican, but that they aren't voting at all. According to CNN polls, 63% per cent of those who earn less than $15,000 a year and 57% of those who earn between $15,000 and $30,000 voted Democrat. But the turnout for those earning less than $20,000 was only 48%.
The reason that the poorest states all vote Republican has nothing to do with the poor, because they aren't voting. Something else is going on. According to the Guardian, it's the rich people that you need to look at. In wealthy states, the rich split their votes between Republicans and Democrats. But (and this is the important bit), rich people in poor states always vote Republican. So the poor states always turn out red.
If the Democrats want to win an election, the answer is quite simple. Develop policies that appeal to the poor. There's a whole load of them just waiting to vote for you if it looks like it's worth it. According to US census figures, since 2000 poverty has risen by 7%, and median household income has fallen by 3%. As everyone surely knows by now, the question is not What's the matter with Kansas?, but What's the matter with the Democrats?
Well, actually, Mr Frank is wrong. The problem is not that poor people are voting Republican, but that they aren't voting at all. According to CNN polls, 63% per cent of those who earn less than $15,000 a year and 57% of those who earn between $15,000 and $30,000 voted Democrat. But the turnout for those earning less than $20,000 was only 48%.
The reason that the poorest states all vote Republican has nothing to do with the poor, because they aren't voting. Something else is going on. According to the Guardian, it's the rich people that you need to look at. In wealthy states, the rich split their votes between Republicans and Democrats. But (and this is the important bit), rich people in poor states always vote Republican. So the poor states always turn out red.
If the Democrats want to win an election, the answer is quite simple. Develop policies that appeal to the poor. There's a whole load of them just waiting to vote for you if it looks like it's worth it. According to US census figures, since 2000 poverty has risen by 7%, and median household income has fallen by 3%. As everyone surely knows by now, the question is not What's the matter with Kansas?, but What's the matter with the Democrats?
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Which life?
The magazine The New Humanist is run by the Rationalist Association. I love that there is a contemporary publication devoted to humanism. This is a worthy cause. I do not love that Borders in York stocks The New Humanist but does not stock any Christian journals.
The Rationalist Association does not appear to oppose religious beliefs, just religious dogma. However, on the inside cover of the current issue of The New Humanist is an advert by a different group, the British Humanist Association. I notice that their slogan is: "for the one life we have". The BHA clearly believes that this commitment to "the one life we have" distinguishes them from Christian organisations. All it reminded me of was the slogan of Christian Aid: "we believe in life before death".
This got me thinking about the attitudes expressed in the above statements. Earlier in the day, a friend of mind had suggested that Christians are more likely to be accepting of the status quo because of their trust in a higher power. An "opiate for the masses", you might say. But my reading of the Gospels is that Jesus persistently exhorts us towards active subversion. We are told to pursue ideals of love, community and faith against the norms of society. He promises a life after death, but all his advice is on how to act in this life.
The British Humanist Association and Christian Aid are opposed on a matter of principle, but their end conclusion is the same: a commitment to the life we are living now. Surely rationalism and a love of Christ are not incompatible?
The Rationalist Association does not appear to oppose religious beliefs, just religious dogma. However, on the inside cover of the current issue of The New Humanist is an advert by a different group, the British Humanist Association. I notice that their slogan is: "for the one life we have". The BHA clearly believes that this commitment to "the one life we have" distinguishes them from Christian organisations. All it reminded me of was the slogan of Christian Aid: "we believe in life before death".
This got me thinking about the attitudes expressed in the above statements. Earlier in the day, a friend of mind had suggested that Christians are more likely to be accepting of the status quo because of their trust in a higher power. An "opiate for the masses", you might say. But my reading of the Gospels is that Jesus persistently exhorts us towards active subversion. We are told to pursue ideals of love, community and faith against the norms of society. He promises a life after death, but all his advice is on how to act in this life.
The British Humanist Association and Christian Aid are opposed on a matter of principle, but their end conclusion is the same: a commitment to the life we are living now. Surely rationalism and a love of Christ are not incompatible?
Monday, September 11, 2006
Superpowers
Amid the many articles about the fifth anniversary of 9/11, I notice the news that China has increased its censorship of the media by banning foreign agencies from distributing their own reports. From now on, the state-owned Xinhua news agency has the power to censor foreign reporting.
Obviously, this is a bad development. It struck me because I've used Xinhua myself to get news about China, and I've always been impressed by its constructive criticism of the Chinese government. On second thoughts, I suppose I've never seen anything there about Taiwan, ethnic minorities or human rights.
David Cameron today spoke against "anti-Americanism", which he says "represents an intellectual and moral surrender". It has often been remarked that America's unilateral approach to the "War on Terror" has lost it much of the worldwide sympathy it gained after 9/11. Certainly there is much in American foreign policy that deserves criticism. On the other hand, if we must have a world superpower, I think I would rather it be America than anyone else, so I'm inclined to agree with Cameron on this one. Previous superpowers, from the Roman Empire to the Mongols to the British, respected other societies far less than the Americans have done. I am grateful the Soviet Union lost the Cold War.
As China grows in confidence, it is worth asking ourselves what sort of superpower it might become. I am no great lover of America, but I know who I would prefer exercising world dominance. Today, as we reflect on the last five years, I hope that anti-Americanism isn't the abiding legacy of 9/11.
Obviously, this is a bad development. It struck me because I've used Xinhua myself to get news about China, and I've always been impressed by its constructive criticism of the Chinese government. On second thoughts, I suppose I've never seen anything there about Taiwan, ethnic minorities or human rights.
David Cameron today spoke against "anti-Americanism", which he says "represents an intellectual and moral surrender". It has often been remarked that America's unilateral approach to the "War on Terror" has lost it much of the worldwide sympathy it gained after 9/11. Certainly there is much in American foreign policy that deserves criticism. On the other hand, if we must have a world superpower, I think I would rather it be America than anyone else, so I'm inclined to agree with Cameron on this one. Previous superpowers, from the Roman Empire to the Mongols to the British, respected other societies far less than the Americans have done. I am grateful the Soviet Union lost the Cold War.
As China grows in confidence, it is worth asking ourselves what sort of superpower it might become. I am no great lover of America, but I know who I would prefer exercising world dominance. Today, as we reflect on the last five years, I hope that anti-Americanism isn't the abiding legacy of 9/11.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Frustrating times
The end of my Masters degree is fast approaching. This should be a time of either intense pressure, elation or panic, but for me it's mostly frustrating.
I have already decided not to go for an academic career so my dissertation seems pretty useless, even though I know I should work hard at it to get a good degree. All I want to do is look forward, but I'm forced to stick firmly in the present until this is all done. I find that hard.
On the positive side, my research has enabled me to learn a lot about national identity and the origins of "Englishness". It has turned me firmly into an anti-nationalist. Why pledge my allegiance to a "nation" when I can pledge it to my family, my friends, my faith, humanity? I've also had the opportunity to read lots of sermons by an enthusiastic eleventh-century archbishop. I can hardly complain.
I have already decided not to go for an academic career so my dissertation seems pretty useless, even though I know I should work hard at it to get a good degree. All I want to do is look forward, but I'm forced to stick firmly in the present until this is all done. I find that hard.
On the positive side, my research has enabled me to learn a lot about national identity and the origins of "Englishness". It has turned me firmly into an anti-nationalist. Why pledge my allegiance to a "nation" when I can pledge it to my family, my friends, my faith, humanity? I've also had the opportunity to read lots of sermons by an enthusiastic eleventh-century archbishop. I can hardly complain.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
To beg the question
Acts 3:1-8: Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. And a man lame from birth was being carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple that is called the Beautiful Gate to ask alms of those entering the temple. Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked to receive alms. And Peter directed his gaze at him, as did John, and said, "Look at us." And he fixed his attention on them, expecting to receive something from them. But Peter said, "I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!" And he took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. And leaping up he stood and began to walk, and entered the temple with them, walking and praising God.
What should we do when a beggar asks us for money? It has to be one of the most awkward social interactions, for a Christian or anyone else. Nietzsche said that "beggars ... should be entirely abolished! Truly, it is annoying to give to them and annoying not to give to them." That's often how I feel, but it's hardly the answer.
Occasionally I have spontaneously given a beggar a £20 note, usually out of confusion more than compassion. How can you give money to someone when you don't know if they really deserve charity? Everyone deserves love, but that doesn't mean they deserve financial windfalls! Surely a better way to help homeless people is through organised social work and local government projects. Manchester Cathedral runs a centre for the homeless, for example.
On the other hand, you can't ignore a beggar either. That is plain rude and still leaves you feeling incredibly guilty. That's why the passage from Acts struck me. When Peter was asked for alms, he used the opportunity to help the beggar in a different, more useful way, and witnessed to his faith to boot! Is this a model for us? I can't imagine saying to a beggar, "I've no money, but come to church with me instead." I remember Don Miller in Blue Like Jazz saying that he used to take homeless people to lunch; I can't see myself doing that, either. What is the answer?
To be honest, I think the point of Acts 3 is primarily that no-one should be forced to be a beggar because of a physical affliction. On the whole, today's society is pretty good at protecting the disabled. But that doesn't solve my problem. For now, when a beggar asks me for money, I just acknowledge him and apologise that I don't have any spare change.
What should we do when a beggar asks us for money? It has to be one of the most awkward social interactions, for a Christian or anyone else. Nietzsche said that "beggars ... should be entirely abolished! Truly, it is annoying to give to them and annoying not to give to them." That's often how I feel, but it's hardly the answer.
Occasionally I have spontaneously given a beggar a £20 note, usually out of confusion more than compassion. How can you give money to someone when you don't know if they really deserve charity? Everyone deserves love, but that doesn't mean they deserve financial windfalls! Surely a better way to help homeless people is through organised social work and local government projects. Manchester Cathedral runs a centre for the homeless, for example.
On the other hand, you can't ignore a beggar either. That is plain rude and still leaves you feeling incredibly guilty. That's why the passage from Acts struck me. When Peter was asked for alms, he used the opportunity to help the beggar in a different, more useful way, and witnessed to his faith to boot! Is this a model for us? I can't imagine saying to a beggar, "I've no money, but come to church with me instead." I remember Don Miller in Blue Like Jazz saying that he used to take homeless people to lunch; I can't see myself doing that, either. What is the answer?
To be honest, I think the point of Acts 3 is primarily that no-one should be forced to be a beggar because of a physical affliction. On the whole, today's society is pretty good at protecting the disabled. But that doesn't solve my problem. For now, when a beggar asks me for money, I just acknowledge him and apologise that I don't have any spare change.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Why PR makes sense
I'm interested in American politics. It works very differently from politics here in Britain, or so I thought. Americans seem to split every issue into 'conservative' or 'liberal'. Every newspaper or news channel is either 'conservative' or 'liberal'; every person is either a 'conservative' or a 'liberal'; and every policy is either a 'conservative' policy or 'liberal' policy.
Strangely enough, in Britain we do have a Conservative and a Liberal Party! But, to me, those words don't mean the same things they do in America. My impression in America was that a person's entire political mindset could be extrapolated from any one issue. If you admitted to being anti-abortion, this automatically means that you are also anti-gay rights, anti-taxation, pro-Iraq war and countless other things I know nothing about. But here in Britain, I thought, that doesn't happen. I could quite happily have a discussion with a stranger about abortion while giving him no clues about my political leanings.
Last night, I tested this theory on a French and an English friend. To my surprise, the English friend disagreed. She said that moral, social and economic issues were just as polarised here as in America; that being anti-abortion was inextricably linked to adherence to the Conservative Party, pro-abortion with the Liberals or Labour, and so on. Perhaps she is right; perhaps I have just wilfully ignored the political landscape. Or perhaps British politics is polarised, but just not to such a great degree as American politics. However, the real surprise for me was hearing about politics in France.
The political situation in America and Britain is caused by the electoral "first past-the-post" system, in which only the top candidate in each region is represented in congress/parliament. This stops minority parties getting any power and forces a two-party system (Britain is unusual in that a third party, the Liberals, consistently attracts a sizeable portion of votes, but on the whole it is still a two-party nation).
In France, on the other hand, there is proportional representation. The number of votes equals the number of representatives. This has one significant consequence: minority parties are worth voting for. There are about ten parties in France that get over 5% of the vote: the biggest party only gets about 20%! The problem is that they have to form coalitions before they can govern the country, but think of the advantages! In France, if you care about the environment you don't have to vote Democrats, you can vote Greens. If you are patriotic, you don't have to vote Republican, you can vote Rally for the Republic. If you are socialist, you can vote Socialist or even Communist, and so on. And your vote will count.
Bipolar politics is bad politics. It averages out countless viewpoints into two groups. No-one can vote for the issues they care about without supporting numerous others they don't. Some people say at least it keeps extremism out of politics. On the contrary, the best thing you can do with extremism is keep it in the open. In France, the National Front polls about 12% of votes, but at least everyone knows they'll never actually get in power and they'll never contaminate the moderate parties. In Britain and America, extremism seethes under the surface. Conservatives and Republicans are forced to court right-wing nationalists. It makes me reluctant to vote for the parties I really like. That's not good enough. When will our governments realise the best democracy is genuine, proportional representation?
Strangely enough, in Britain we do have a Conservative and a Liberal Party! But, to me, those words don't mean the same things they do in America. My impression in America was that a person's entire political mindset could be extrapolated from any one issue. If you admitted to being anti-abortion, this automatically means that you are also anti-gay rights, anti-taxation, pro-Iraq war and countless other things I know nothing about. But here in Britain, I thought, that doesn't happen. I could quite happily have a discussion with a stranger about abortion while giving him no clues about my political leanings.
Last night, I tested this theory on a French and an English friend. To my surprise, the English friend disagreed. She said that moral, social and economic issues were just as polarised here as in America; that being anti-abortion was inextricably linked to adherence to the Conservative Party, pro-abortion with the Liberals or Labour, and so on. Perhaps she is right; perhaps I have just wilfully ignored the political landscape. Or perhaps British politics is polarised, but just not to such a great degree as American politics. However, the real surprise for me was hearing about politics in France.
The political situation in America and Britain is caused by the electoral "first past-the-post" system, in which only the top candidate in each region is represented in congress/parliament. This stops minority parties getting any power and forces a two-party system (Britain is unusual in that a third party, the Liberals, consistently attracts a sizeable portion of votes, but on the whole it is still a two-party nation).
In France, on the other hand, there is proportional representation. The number of votes equals the number of representatives. This has one significant consequence: minority parties are worth voting for. There are about ten parties in France that get over 5% of the vote: the biggest party only gets about 20%! The problem is that they have to form coalitions before they can govern the country, but think of the advantages! In France, if you care about the environment you don't have to vote Democrats, you can vote Greens. If you are patriotic, you don't have to vote Republican, you can vote Rally for the Republic. If you are socialist, you can vote Socialist or even Communist, and so on. And your vote will count.
Bipolar politics is bad politics. It averages out countless viewpoints into two groups. No-one can vote for the issues they care about without supporting numerous others they don't. Some people say at least it keeps extremism out of politics. On the contrary, the best thing you can do with extremism is keep it in the open. In France, the National Front polls about 12% of votes, but at least everyone knows they'll never actually get in power and they'll never contaminate the moderate parties. In Britain and America, extremism seethes under the surface. Conservatives and Republicans are forced to court right-wing nationalists. It makes me reluctant to vote for the parties I really like. That's not good enough. When will our governments realise the best democracy is genuine, proportional representation?
Sunday, September 03, 2006
First Day
Yesterday was the last day of me not having a blog. Tomorrow yesterday will be the first day of me having a blog. Such is the way of the world. By way of introduction, I am a student at York, England. I finish university on 23rd September; I'm looking for a job.
I hope to use this page to do what most people seem to do, to talk about anything I like. I don't have a great deal on my mind today. I just bought two French films - "Baise-Moi" and "Delicatessen". I don't know if they're any good. I was slightly reluctant to buy them, because it makes me look like a World Cinema buff, which I'm not. I just want to learn French.
I should mention that I'm a Christian. This is because I love God, and the Bible tells me He loves me too. Wow. On Sundays, I plan to write my own little eccentric prose-poems in praise. Just to warn you in case my Sunday posts look a bit odd. That's all. Goodnight.
I hope to use this page to do what most people seem to do, to talk about anything I like. I don't have a great deal on my mind today. I just bought two French films - "Baise-Moi" and "Delicatessen". I don't know if they're any good. I was slightly reluctant to buy them, because it makes me look like a World Cinema buff, which I'm not. I just want to learn French.
I should mention that I'm a Christian. This is because I love God, and the Bible tells me He loves me too. Wow. On Sundays, I plan to write my own little eccentric prose-poems in praise. Just to warn you in case my Sunday posts look a bit odd. That's all. Goodnight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)