It's November already. Where's the time gone? I'm well into the Masters course by now. Whilst engaging, it is certainly the most intense period of time I've ever experienced. Mountains of work that don't seem to be getting any smaller.
However, when one has a two-hour seminar discussing the failures and successes of Blitzkrieg and the utility of battle tanks in mechanised warfare it's not all bad. That, and writing an essay about a European military space policy that's cunningly disguised within 'civilian' programmes.
This blog has been neglected. Hopefully I will have more time in future to add more posts when I can. I'm sure I'll comment on some news eventually... maybe when Anne Widdecombe wins Strictly Come Dancing...
Sunday, 7 November 2010
Saturday, 4 September 2010
Travel Blog 2 - Boston, MA
I was happy to leave the infernal swamp that was Washington DC to the promise of a cooler sea breeze in Boston. Though it was still quite warm in Boston, it was not half as bad as Washington DC.
'How to lose a colony 101'
I walked the 'Freedom Trail', a three-hour walk originating in the heart of the city and finishing across the river and at up a slight hill. I followed the 'red brick road' past all the historical sights telling the history of the revolutionary war and how it began in Boston. The pamphlet was handy in explaining these 'old' sites. Being a Welshman I have different view of what old or ancient is... nevertheless, some parts of the city were unchanged since the late 1600s.
As well as the old, the city was constantly full of contrast between the old and new. There was no better example than this of an old Catholic Church sat right next to a towering, glimmering skyscraper.
Apart from the 'Freedom Trail', I visited a jazz bar, a Second World War destroyer, and the Christian Science Centre. When I asked the female representative how this particular sect of Christianity was different to other denominations, she looked on very blank at me and could only recite how many members they had worldwide. So I decided to leave the woman who didn't understand her own religion. The Centre did have a unique Mapparium, a glass sphere you'd walk into which was essentially an inverted political globe of Earth.
Near the Bunker Hill Monument, after I had climbed it, I bought some water from a vendor on the street. His sign read:
"That's a peculiar way to spell water." I told the vendor.
"Yeah, well that how we say it." he replied.
"Oh right, phonetic is it?"
"You say what?"
"Thanks for the wat-ER" I said as I turned.
I left the imbecilic cretin with a little laughter but also with a pang of dread.
Monday, 9 August 2010
Travel blog 1 - Washington DC
It's been a while since I've written a blog post, and with good reason: exams in May, end of year celebrations (including my birthday), and preparation for my seven week sojourn in the US and Canada. And now I'm back in Wales where we have baked beans, decent tea, decent chocolate and no tipping! This post is the first of many with a few pictures and comments. It may take a while to get through it all, I have 1600 photos. But only a select few will be posted.
I began my trip in Washington, DC in the middle of June. No-one told me it would be so humid. The 30-35C heat was bad enough, but the humidity made it so awful to walk around in. As i waited for the bus at Dulles International Airport, I wondered what the hell I'd gotten myself into.
My first full day in DC was spent with a fellow traveler at the hostel, A Brazilian named Gusto. He and I walked around the Mall, went into the Holocaust Museum (which is not as good as London's Imperial War Museum's Holocaust section), the American History Museum, the Abraham Lincoln Memorial (which had a distinct sense of hypocrisy about it in regards to Native Americans) and walked to the foot of the Washington Monument.
Afterwards, being a Brazilian, Gusto had to watch the Brazil-DPRK football game. We went to the now-closed ESPN bar a few blocks away from the Mall. It was amusing to watch him panic as Brazil failed to get a goal in the first half, and then see North Korea score against them in the second. But, Brazil won in the end so it was business as usual...
The subsequent days were spent doing much of the same, albeit by myself. I visited the Air and Space Museum. That was most interesting, especially considering my particular academic interest in space politics. The museum had a gallery section, full of stunning photos taken by space craft traveling to the far reaches of our solar system. I was there for quite a while studying these photographs, particularly the well known picture of Io in transit across Jupiter taken by Cassini:
I began my trip in Washington, DC in the middle of June. No-one told me it would be so humid. The 30-35C heat was bad enough, but the humidity made it so awful to walk around in. As i waited for the bus at Dulles International Airport, I wondered what the hell I'd gotten myself into.
My first full day in DC was spent with a fellow traveler at the hostel, A Brazilian named Gusto. He and I walked around the Mall, went into the Holocaust Museum (which is not as good as London's Imperial War Museum's Holocaust section), the American History Museum, the Abraham Lincoln Memorial (which had a distinct sense of hypocrisy about it in regards to Native Americans) and walked to the foot of the Washington Monument.
Afterwards, being a Brazilian, Gusto had to watch the Brazil-DPRK football game. We went to the now-closed ESPN bar a few blocks away from the Mall. It was amusing to watch him panic as Brazil failed to get a goal in the first half, and then see North Korea score against them in the second. But, Brazil won in the end so it was business as usual...
The subsequent days were spent doing much of the same, albeit by myself. I visited the Air and Space Museum. That was most interesting, especially considering my particular academic interest in space politics. The museum had a gallery section, full of stunning photos taken by space craft traveling to the far reaches of our solar system. I was there for quite a while studying these photographs, particularly the well known picture of Io in transit across Jupiter taken by Cassini:
Whilst there I went to the museum's IMAX 3D cinema and watched Hubble 3D, a 40 minute documentary film narrated by Leonardo Dicaprio which showed a space shuttle crew's mission to repair and upgrade the Hubble Space telescope. That movie was certainly a spectacle in 3D, particularly when it took you on a 3D tour of a star nebula.
I also visited the Library of Congress, which was lavishly decorated inside. Quite a fine example of (free)masonry and 18th/19th Century architecture.
The Native American museum was interesting, but also very very deep and tough going for a complete outsider such as I. All the myriad tribes and nations of the indigenous people of the Americas had their own sections in this huge museum. It is a place where an extremely proud nation should feel its guilt, like so many others. The museum had a lovely cafeteria which featured food from five different American regions, with their own delicacies and recipes. Certainly a must for unique food when you wish to extend your life a bit by not having another greasy burger.
I also paid a visit to the Natural History Museum. Not exactly my cup of tea but it was interesting to walk around. I did notice, however, a complete absence of religious zealots leading children around in this museum. Whereas in the rest of the Mall I saw hordes of children and leaders from who-knows-what religious sect or denomination. The slogans on the backs of their t-shirts made for amusing reading. Perhaps these groups didn't want to expose the children to evolution and Earth's fossilised history...
They say that the design of Washington, DC, was meant to be large to impress the individual. It didn't. It annoyed. It took ten minutes to walk one block.
That pretty much covers the highlights of Washginton, DC. I was exceedingly happy to leave that climate as soon as I possibly could. I shall leave a few more photos below, and stay tuned for the next installment - Boston, MA.
Sunday, 9 May 2010
And the loser is... the British electoral system
Whilst a humbled Clegg twiddles his thumbs and considers his options on a coalition with the Tories or whoever else will jump into bed with him, I am more concerned with what seems to be a strengthened public and media attitude towards a British Presidency.
While it is true that Cameron's Conservatives have amassed the greatest amount of votes, they are still short of that crucial majority. Many seem to be repulsed by the fact that Gordon Brown could yet become PM in a rainbow coalition of everyone vs the Tories.
"I voted for David Cameron, not Gordon Brown!"
"I voted for Nick Clegg. I don't want to see Brown take his place."
"Gordon Brown can't be PM again, but who else can be from Labour? I didn't vote for David Miliband to be PM"
These statements are all untrue unless you voted for those as your MP in your local constituency. You may have voted Conservative, but you did not vote for Cameron. You may have voted Liberal Democrat, but you didn't vote for Nick Clegg. And so forth.
The parties appoint their leaders, and these leaders assume the premiership if their party gains a clear majority. The system as it stands now in the UK does not allow the public to directly vote for a Prime Minister. We all vote for our representative in the House of Commons.
The media seems generally happy to feed the public's misperception, particularly in regard to those awful TV debates. It is good MPs/candidates that have pandered to their local constituents that win elections for the parties and their leaders.
Nevertheless, there do seem to be people around who understand the media has it all wrong and that the system is becoming too Americanised in light of the media. Our system is different to the USA's, we do not need the same kind of media coverage. If you wanted complete parity with the USA you'd have a TV debate with... the Queen. Arguing with herself.
I think we can all agree that we don't want the media to dumb-down the election process for us. Directly, the PM is appointed, not elected. But the people decide the ruling party. It's just convenient that the leader of the ruling party usually is the PM.
While it is true that Cameron's Conservatives have amassed the greatest amount of votes, they are still short of that crucial majority. Many seem to be repulsed by the fact that Gordon Brown could yet become PM in a rainbow coalition of everyone vs the Tories.
"I voted for David Cameron, not Gordon Brown!"
"I voted for Nick Clegg. I don't want to see Brown take his place."
"Gordon Brown can't be PM again, but who else can be from Labour? I didn't vote for David Miliband to be PM"
These statements are all untrue unless you voted for those as your MP in your local constituency. You may have voted Conservative, but you did not vote for Cameron. You may have voted Liberal Democrat, but you didn't vote for Nick Clegg. And so forth.
The parties appoint their leaders, and these leaders assume the premiership if their party gains a clear majority. The system as it stands now in the UK does not allow the public to directly vote for a Prime Minister. We all vote for our representative in the House of Commons.
The media seems generally happy to feed the public's misperception, particularly in regard to those awful TV debates. It is good MPs/candidates that have pandered to their local constituents that win elections for the parties and their leaders.
Nevertheless, there do seem to be people around who understand the media has it all wrong and that the system is becoming too Americanised in light of the media. Our system is different to the USA's, we do not need the same kind of media coverage. If you wanted complete parity with the USA you'd have a TV debate with... the Queen. Arguing with herself.
I think we can all agree that we don't want the media to dumb-down the election process for us. Directly, the PM is appointed, not elected. But the people decide the ruling party. It's just convenient that the leader of the ruling party usually is the PM.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Second debate: foreign policy
Well done Sky for making a better show than ITV. The set looked more up to date and the questions were up in text on the screen as the leaders debated. Common sense at last.
And, the topic was foreign affairs, which is my favourite! Although some issues weren't touched upon enough, or hardly at all, such as Afghanistan (apart from general equipment issues), Iraq, Iran, the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and relations with Russia and energy security.
There is one thing I am immensely glad of Brown and Clegg for bringing up - the importance of the EU for British trade and jobs. Brown quoted 50% of our trade is with the EU, and some three million jobs. Let that be a crippling blow to all who want to be out of the EU. The EU is good for us, and we are dependent on trade with and through it. End of.
Cameron said that the other two leaders "won't stand up for Britain" in Europe. What? It makes no sense that British leaders just throw everything away to Brussels - what do they gain from it. The first and foremost duty of any leader is to secure the best interests of his/her people. It makes no sense. And despite what Euroskeptics may believe, Blair and Brown have insisted on the most opt-outs for the UK from so many EU agreements than any other member. The UK is one of the main players in the EU - within it the UK can get better terms for us than outside of it. Cameron can't be allowed to ruin our economy on top of ruining our relations in Europe.
Thankfully, Brown and Cameron did put Clegg down over the Trident issue. "Get real", Brown said to Clegg. And he's right. It doesn't matter that Trident was developed during the Cold War. Nuclear weapons still exist, and they have dynamics that affect world politics and national security way beyond the Cold War. The nuclear deterrent ensures the UK's place on the UN Security Council and stabilises relations with Russia and China, amongst other nuclear powers and wannabes.
There is no cheap alternative to Trident - it's a hell of a bargain we've gotten from the Americans. We can't develop our own system because it will either be rubbish or cost much more money than renewing a similar system to Trident. Knowing us, our own system will probably cost a lot of money and still be shit. For Clegg's "anti-Americanism", it is ironic that he wants to get rid of Trident. In a crisis, what is Britain's main ability to take its own diplomatic action independent of other actors, including the US? The nuclear deterrent! Furthermore, New Labour has pushed the securitisation and militarisation of the EU more than any other British government. With a more unified and militarised EU, we will be able to go our own way, independent of US influence sooner. Clegg's foreign policy is highly schizophrenic.
I have to say that during that debate, Brown came out on top. He said what made the most sense, and Cameron was agreeing with Brown on the nuclear issue. Nick Clegg didn't answer Brown's question about nuclear power. Why are the Lib Dems set against nuclear power sations? It is the only affordable way we can reduce our carbon emmissions.
On a side note, I do feel sorry for Ieuan Wyn Jones and Penri James of Plaid Cymru. In Ceredigion, the race is between Penri James of Plaid Cymru and Mark Williams (incumbent) of the Lib Dems. With Clegg doing well in the polls as a result of the TV debates, Plaid is left reeling from the effects. Polls show that Plaid's support has dropped relative to everyone else because of the debates. In Ceredigion, my constituency, Plaid faces an uphill battle unless Clegg manages to make a hash of things before May 6th.
I look forward to the next debate!
Sunday, 18 April 2010
UK Election 2010
Once again, I enjoy being blunt. Particularly when in contrast to what I'm talking about.
If you're a UK citizen it's likely that you watched or heard of the first Prime Ministerial debate recently. It was an enjoyable 90 minutes. The media's analysis was awful, which I will get onto later.
ITV did a crap job of the set, I thought. It harks back to the 1980s and Fifteen-to-One. It looked archaic and outdated, and already on newsbites the clips of the debates look over 20 years old. And there was no text on screen of what the question was to remind us as the three men argued.
Anyway, to the nitty-gritty. Personally, I could see Gordon Brown tear David Cameron's policies apart. No wonder Brown was smiling - he was crippling his policies. Unfortunately it seems most other people I spoke to about it completely ignored what was being said and though Cameron wasn't waffling at all. On so many occasions Brown cornered Cameron - particularly on public spending and the £6bn cuts. As Brown was grimacing at Cameron, I was laughing WITH Brown. I loved watching Cameron's wishi-washi idealistic crap be torn apart. I was paying attention to what was being said.
I could tell Brown was genuinely worried about what the Tories would do in power. And I agree with him. At times like these spending needs to be upheld. Tory cuts would make thousands redundant and destroy a large slice of the state's income and ability to finance itself. You have to spend money to make money! That was Gordon Brown, the economist speaking. Yes, Brown was part of the economy that collapsed, but so were the Tories. Remember that it was Thatcher and Reagan who set up that system in the 1980s.
The Lib Dems agree with Labour (mostly) on this issue. Cuts in public spending are not the answer. And I like Vince Cable. I'd love to see Brown as PM and Cable as Chancellor. No disrespect to Alastair Darling, he is a competent Chancellor.
As for Clegg, I didn't have a major bone to pick with him, apart from the Trident issue. As much as it pains me to say, Cameron has it right on Trident. But so does Brown. I'd hate to see what the Lib Dems would to our deterrent. He says he wants cheap one, well, we can't get much cheaper than the one we already have! The deal we have with the USA is a bargain already. We can't get better for less than what we're already paying.
But Clegg did do well in the debate. Like Gordon Brown, he could put figures to his policies. Cameron was full of abstract language and absent figures and commitment to policy.
Well done Brown and Clegg, let's just hope the nation sees the holes you've put in Cameron's 'policies'.
The media coverage afterwards was awful. ITV reporting was awful as always. Cameron bias of course, saying he did very well... blah blah blah. That and the Icelandic volcano will kill us all.
Newsnight wasn't much better... argh I got so angry. I don't care what jonny-anonymous has said on twitter or facebook! If I wanted to know I'd have looked myself. The same reason you're reading this - you might be interested to know what I think. And then the Newsnight man showed this pointless shitty flash game on the interweb where Cameron and Brown were boxing... I mean - this is Newsnight! Not CBBC! Bloody hell... And the 'experts' on Newsnight were shit... I don't care about Clegg's body language... so what if he has one leg slightly forward of the other?!
The British media's coverage of the debate can be summed up in one word: FAIL.
If you're a UK citizen it's likely that you watched or heard of the first Prime Ministerial debate recently. It was an enjoyable 90 minutes. The media's analysis was awful, which I will get onto later.
ITV did a crap job of the set, I thought. It harks back to the 1980s and Fifteen-to-One. It looked archaic and outdated, and already on newsbites the clips of the debates look over 20 years old. And there was no text on screen of what the question was to remind us as the three men argued.
Anyway, to the nitty-gritty. Personally, I could see Gordon Brown tear David Cameron's policies apart. No wonder Brown was smiling - he was crippling his policies. Unfortunately it seems most other people I spoke to about it completely ignored what was being said and though Cameron wasn't waffling at all. On so many occasions Brown cornered Cameron - particularly on public spending and the £6bn cuts. As Brown was grimacing at Cameron, I was laughing WITH Brown. I loved watching Cameron's wishi-washi idealistic crap be torn apart. I was paying attention to what was being said.
I could tell Brown was genuinely worried about what the Tories would do in power. And I agree with him. At times like these spending needs to be upheld. Tory cuts would make thousands redundant and destroy a large slice of the state's income and ability to finance itself. You have to spend money to make money! That was Gordon Brown, the economist speaking. Yes, Brown was part of the economy that collapsed, but so were the Tories. Remember that it was Thatcher and Reagan who set up that system in the 1980s.
The Lib Dems agree with Labour (mostly) on this issue. Cuts in public spending are not the answer. And I like Vince Cable. I'd love to see Brown as PM and Cable as Chancellor. No disrespect to Alastair Darling, he is a competent Chancellor.
As for Clegg, I didn't have a major bone to pick with him, apart from the Trident issue. As much as it pains me to say, Cameron has it right on Trident. But so does Brown. I'd hate to see what the Lib Dems would to our deterrent. He says he wants cheap one, well, we can't get much cheaper than the one we already have! The deal we have with the USA is a bargain already. We can't get better for less than what we're already paying.
But Clegg did do well in the debate. Like Gordon Brown, he could put figures to his policies. Cameron was full of abstract language and absent figures and commitment to policy.
Well done Brown and Clegg, let's just hope the nation sees the holes you've put in Cameron's 'policies'.
The media coverage afterwards was awful. ITV reporting was awful as always. Cameron bias of course, saying he did very well... blah blah blah. That and the Icelandic volcano will kill us all.
Newsnight wasn't much better... argh I got so angry. I don't care what jonny-anonymous has said on twitter or facebook! If I wanted to know I'd have looked myself. The same reason you're reading this - you might be interested to know what I think. And then the Newsnight man showed this pointless shitty flash game on the interweb where Cameron and Brown were boxing... I mean - this is Newsnight! Not CBBC! Bloody hell... And the 'experts' on Newsnight were shit... I don't care about Clegg's body language... so what if he has one leg slightly forward of the other?!
The British media's coverage of the debate can be summed up in one word: FAIL.
Saturday, 3 April 2010
Dissertation!
After blitzing the dissertation for over a week, I seem to be getting ahead of the workload of my 12,000 word dissertation. Currently it stands at approximately 9,000.
It's been quite an interesting topic. As a note to myself more than anything, to help me clarify my thoughts, I'm jotting down the gist of each chapter so far. Apart from the theoretical chapter. I know that bit well enough inside and out! To those reading this is a sneak preview of some of my work.
I believe the American space policy chapter depicts a superpower struggling to define the best policy to preserve its own assets. It is torn between weaponising space to protect its assets but this would likely spark an arms race... on top of soured relations with Russia and China. On the other hand, America will have to restrain itself once more from weaponisation and believe in restraint from the other sides... this worked in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Why do some military hawks believe it won't this time, when the United States does not have a capable ideological foe?
Europe proved to be interesting too. The European Commission has practically taken over the European Space Agency and is giving it orders. Good ones too. Europe is weaning itself off of dependence on America bit by bit. Galileo sat-nav and the Common Security and Defence Policy go hand in hand.
Russia, for its part, is performing a balancing act. It is keen to get any and all countries off of GPS dependence. It is actively helping the Chinese and Indians in developing their own sat-nav systems.
America seems to be losing its superiority in space... bit by bit, as more states and actors emerge to use outer space for communication, commerce and science research. The space sector, I believe, will see the most radical change in the 21st Century, in technology, capabilities, politics, and general public understand and appreciation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
