My new blogging home is:

http://westendbitch.wordpress.com

Obama-neutral

I can't get worked up about a potential Barack Obama presidential campaign. I love the man's charisma, I really do, but I suppose my own pro-Hillary bias could only get him to my second-choice candidate at best. Since I don't live in America, it figures that I'll have no say in choosing who gets to run, but when has that stopped me running my mouth off before?

It just seems that politically, he's had it way too easy so far. His impressive public persona is such that it seems to divert attention from his actual policies. Not to mention that he's been in his Senate position for about a year, not exactly a seasoned warrior. I know that can be a boost, being fresh and untainted in the way that other candidates might envy. But he remains a largely unknown quantity, though his books seem both frank and honest. Still, he and his family haven't undergone the scrutiny of other major players on the US political stage, and while there might be nothing much there to uncover, there has to at least be some reservation.

Not that a young and vibrant candidate is a bad thing, but in a country that can elect Bush to two terms, can you really rely on the shake-up factor? After essentially leaving a monkey at the controls for eight years, mightn't America reach out for some gravitas, a slightly more elder statesman? There is something Clinton-esque about Obama, and I certainly mean that as a compliment, but can he really distinguish himself from that comparison?

I keep my fingers crossed that the issue of race won't be dwelled upon, but until there is a black President (or a female one for that matter) it's going to be a 'controversial' talking point throughout the campaigns.

I'll be flying the flag for Hillary regardless, and hope in the meantime that there isn't a shameful burst of Democrat infighting to spoil the chances for whoever does eventually run.

Making poverty history and such

It's possible I'm just being a little dense, but you know how we're all meant to donate money to MAKE POVERTY HISTORY? Well, what exactly are they going to do with the money? I'm too lazy to do more than a scant flick through Google results, but is there a concrete plan to MAKE POVERTY HISTORY, and all they need is the money to achieve said plan?

It appears that debt relief is a big part of it, which I understand to be asking wealthier nations to forgive the debt of poorer countries. Not that there's anything wrong with providing a clear slate, but what does that mean in the long term? Is it like paying off the balance of your credit card only to max it out again when Christmas rolls around? Will this simply give carte blanche to rack up huge sums of debt again? Or are the G8 and cronies supposed to cancel the debt collection but slap wrists and vow never to loan money again?

It all seems rather vague. I suppose when you let pop stars take the lead rather than say, economists, then it's more good intention than pragmatism. I don't disagree with the fundamental goodness (though I do want each case to be examined as to exactly how this crippling debt was run up) and that responsible leadership in these countries should be a criteria for the continual flinging of money at them.

I suppose that makes me hard-hearted?

Israel once more

Don't you just hate when someone says what you think, but better than you could express it?.

Well said, David Clark.

The breeders strike again

Proposed changes to legislation governing IVF.

Two separate issues for me here. First off, hurrah that the law will now finally acknowledge that a pair of testicles attached to one parent does not govern the ability to have a family. The notion of mum, dad and sprogs has long since been outdated, and while it might be ideal according to whatever research you read, the reality is that plenty of two-parent families don't stay that way, and surely the love and ability to provide for the child is what should be paramount.

I don't really care one way or the other about being able to choose the sex of the baby, only that I can't see how it matters. I suppose I'd feel that raising a boy would be easier, and it appeals to me more than having a girl. But since I'm in no mood to procreate, it couldn't matter less right now.

My real issue is IVF on the NHS. Can someone tell me when this 'right' to having children was established? Why, in an organisation as strapped as the NHS so clearly is, are we offering a service that can only be described as elective at best? There has to be some sort of hierarchy here, surely? Personally I'd argue that if biology or lifestyle render you unable to conceive naturally, it's not a medical necessity that you receive treatment for it. As a gay woman I am mortified at the thought of taking money on the NHS to play Russian Roulette with my ova and uterus, when that money could so easily be better spent.

It's not rooted in cruelty (as so many of my views are!), I can appreciate that wanting children desperately and yet not being able to have them must be a difficult pill to swallow. But if you are so overflowing with love, so eager to provide a loving home and raise a child (or children) well, then why not consider other routes? And yes, I'm talking about adoption. When so many children still go without a stable home or anyone to recognise as parents, how can we condone the expensive 'creation' of more babies? The state looking after these children who need to be adopted takes its toll on the taxpayers too, but that's a different issue, more one of collective responsibility.

Don't you stop and think at some point that an inability to conceive is perhaps some way of keeping things in line? That there's a natural explanation for it?

And ok, if IVF must continue to exist as a practice, why should it be free? Surely the ability to raise children is in part financial? If you can't afford a trip to the pez dispenser ova inserting people, then can you afford to raise a child? Shouldn't there be an element of wanting it badly enough, of not entering into it lightly?

Paranoid rantings, not mine for once

Guardian vs Daily Mail!

Writing for the Daily Mail is more or less a guarantee of admission to my "oh shut up" list, but Melanie Phillips winds me up perhaps more than average. I can't put my finger on specifics, but the general "the world is against me (and my carefully selected 'majority')" is as good a place to start as any though.

What particularly irks me, more and more in recent months, is the assertion that any questioning of Israel or Jews is Anti-Semitism. My studies in the Middle East are just beginning, and I know there's much more complexity I haven't got my head around yet. That said, I don't think Israel should be granted all of the special 'favours' it seems to rely on, in the proven lobbying of other governments, and in the allowances of behaviours we in the West would be forced to condemn from many of their Arab neighbours. Of course, I know those Arab neighbours haven't got the hottest track record when it comes to terrorism or outright aggression towards Israel either.

No side is without blame, and yet we're not supposed to challenge the 'rights' of Israel to defend itself. Defence is one thing. Outright aggression (Lebanon, anyone?) is clearly not the same. I question both sides, I want peace on both sides, less needless death and more co-operation. But it has to apply to both, or I'm not being reasonable. To question Israel is not Anti-Semitism, and comparisons to Nazi Germany shouldn't be bandied about simply for shock value.

I know that historically Jews have been poorly treated. As a Catholic (albeit lapsed) my heritage is fairly rife with persecution too. But I understand the magnitude of the Holocaust, how it must never happen again, how it is worse than even the imagination can stretch to. I hate the leaders of Iran and elsewhere who call for Israel's annihilation. And yet, part of me wonders how this wasn't the only possible result, after how Israel was created. Dispossessing another people of the land surely doesn't make them any better than those they fight against? To place oneself so firmly in the midst of hostility seems like bad planning. Were the Palestinians just supposed to take it? I know the arguments, I know most of the history, but wasn't there anywhere less contentious?

Still, history, politics and religion. Put them all together and how can you avoid trouble?

It's getting so she doesn't even shock me any more

We're trying to 'understand' Ann Coulter again.

Oh she's just hideous. More often than not, my blood will be boiling before I get to the end of a sentence about her. Earlier in the week, I though her 9/11 widows comments were indeed beyond the pale. She's racist, xenophobic, trigger happy and so many other bad things on top of that.

What really riles me are her assertions that on a gut level many people agree with what she's saying. I usually find at least some glimmer of understanding in extreme arguments, but with her the revulsion stops it being close to possible.

I think the best approach would be not to rise to the bait. But with the coverage her smallest remark enjoys, it would just raise her profile if she were the only one shouting.

Still, a good slap wouldn't go amiss.

Fighting vainly the old ennui

A man in woman's clothing?

Cameron is just like Blair; Blair's a Thatcherite wannabe. Capitalising on middle-class issues, education reform, save the Health Service... I'm losing track of who's on what side anymore.

This is my problem with British politics in the time of my own political consciousness: it's dull. And as a result I think the sweeping changes and landslides are more to do with boredom than enthusiasm. Did New Labour really promise everything society wanted, or were they simply not-the-Tories? And isn't Cameron's surge up the polls more or less attributable to a similar 'phenomenon'?

The lesser of two evils, the lesser of who cares? There is no viable third party or third way, this is what we're stuck with. I don't necessarily think Cameron is a revolutionary, I'm not even sure he believes in ANYTHING, but I'm less fed up of him than the other guy.

Is it a third-term curse? It's not like Mrs Thatcher had such a great time after win number 3. Should we follow the US Presidential model and stop complacency and public ennui setting in? But that rankles with my own belief that elections form term limits, we don't need to set a maximum in a democratic system.

Anyway, my bet at this stage is that Cameron and the Conservatives will pull it off. You know, whenever it's time for another election.

Inevitable, but sad

The report on Emergency Services' response on 7/7

I suppose the dust has mostly settled now, and thus the timing of the report. I know every official body has to be held to account, and only from admitting weaknesses can they improve.

It's still sad though, that this now clouds the initial impression of a responsive and efficent emergency plan. It shouldn't detract from the people who did such brave things that day, who went above and beyond. And it will make us better prepared for any next time, as much as we ever can be.

What is shocking is that LUL still have no provision for underground communications. The radios don't work in tunnels, and surely even on a basic operational level this is a huge risk? I don't know, can't communicate, can't have air-conditioning... not too pleasant down there now, is it? Sort it out, please.

The coat hanger state

Thanks again, South Dakota.

But it is the abortion rights opponents who seem most irked at Mr. Blouin, once a champion for their efforts. "He's a hypocrite," said Kim Lehman, executive director of the Iowa Right to Life Committee. "He says he's pro-life, and yet what he's really saying is that he is personally pro-life but would take no action that's pro-life. He's the worst kind of so-called pro-life. I don't think he has a right to call himself pro-life."

Oh my GOD lady, could you be missing the point any more if you tried. I have no idea who this Mr. Blouin is beyond the content of this article, but from what you've said there he seems to be the definition of a responsible lawmaker. He has his own beliefs, but will not use the legal system to impose them on an entire state (if he even had that power to begin with). What kind of wholesome pro-life action should he be taking? Harrassing young women, threatening doctors, blowing up clinics, that kind of thing?

The South Dakota change in the law relating to abortion absolutely sickened me when I first heard of it, and time hasn't really softened the blow. This is probably my limited understanding of US Federal Law here, but isn't this in some way a contravention of full faith and credit? I accept that the states have rights, and that there will inevitably be variances in legislation due to the different political climates, but how can they stop access in one state when it remains in the state next door? Isn't that somehow a curtailing of your rights as a citizen of the country? I know the people who support that law will be happier to see it go nationwide, but I honestly think there's a time when you're fifty states, but there are also times when you're just one nation. It's the same with the EU, you can't pass laws in one country that would prejudice the citizens of another member state.

I suppose it doesn't help that I basically just don't understand the pro-life movement to begin with.

A little knee-jerk institutional bigotry

Thank God the Senate is there to stop runaway discrimination. Well, in theory. Until they can drum up the votes.

What absolutely enrages me is that this isn't simply a moralistic crusade, but also a matter of convenience, trying to divert attention from gross mistakes on both the domestic and international stages. Don't get me wrong, I understand that it's yet another abuse of power in a bid to impose a religious morality on a secular legal system, but why let trivial details like that interfere.

I don't actually crusade for gay marriage, I think civil unions and/or partnerships are completely sufficient, providing they allow the proper rights and benefits. The major irritation is the attempted subversion of what should be a normally unchanged structure, just to push an agenda. If Democrats tried this kind of grandstanding they'd be pilloried in the press for trickery and trying to shift the spotlight. When the President does it, it's just another "tactic".