America: Calling an end to the civil war

America at war

The shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona yesterday brought into stark relief the fact that America is at war, a civil war of multiple fault lines drawn and being made sure by generals and lieutenants that range from the media, through religion to politics.

The sides are many, the Conservatives versus the Liberals, the Republicans versus the Democrats, the right versus the left, the right versus the wrong; the wedge issues being big government, abortion, guns, immigration, gay marriage, taxes, the military, the rich, in fact, any issue from which someone can launch an attack, discarding the facts for sensation, talking lies so much that they become true, rallying the mob – a euphemism for the American People to action through intemperate vitriolic language leaving no room for contemplation.

God has been stolen by the one side, patriotism is the drumbeat to which another marches to call the others traitors, pundits have their entrenched positions never to meet in the middle, analysis is dead twice over and common-sense has long been fossilised it is burned off as fuel, one-upmanship, brinkmanship are the order of the day – if you had a heart, it had better not be of flesh or it will be exhausted by the tirades.

Seeking one healthy body of America

Yesterday, America had the opportunity to look at itself again and wonder how it all got to this – where did the wide gulfs exacerbated by earth-moving tremors emanate from, who gives this state of affairs the oxygen of existence and what can be done to bring America back to one body at ease with itself?

Two eyes that see reality, two ears that hear in stereo, two nostrils that do not breathe alternately, one brain not ravaged with schizophrenia, two arms lifting burdens in unison, two legs that walk strong in the paths of righteous, wholesome and civil discourse engendering brotherhood, a house in unity and one nation kept in good faith.

Making amends with the 1st and 2nd

Yesterday, brought the freedom of assembly in the promotion of democratic representation and accountability met with the abuse of the right to bear arms responsibly and that is probably where the real debate should begin from.

The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution [1] covers a whole range of freedoms from religion, to free speech and the freedom to assemble whilst allowing for the people to petition for governmental redress of grievances.

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution [2] is broadly accepted as the right to bear arms, I have had issues with the English interpretation of the this amendment but this is not where to raise those matters, but I have come to the conclusion that the people who know that law have predicated this amendment on just the five 4-letter words obviating the need for the grammatical constructs of the statement. “Well free keep bear arms”

Applying the gun safety rule to speech

In context, let us examine the matters of the right to bear arms and that of freedom of expression.

Whilst the debate about bearing arms rages the fact is responsible gun ownership means adhering to a whole range of gun safety rules; safe storage from unauthorised use, engaging the safety latch/catch to prevent accidental discharge, aiming in the direction in which the gun is being fired with the responsible selection of the right targets and not shooting indiscriminately endangering yourself or the public in your use of the weapon.

That, in itself is definitely not too much to ask, gun owning does not having to become gun-toting; America is no more the Wild West.

Applying that analogically, speech is free, just as the right to assemble is free but we do not assemble in dangerous places putting ourselves and others at risk, a public place like where the congresswoman was meeting her constituents should have been safe, secure and without risk to life or limb.

In the same vein, one wonders why a safety catch cannot also apply to the freedom of expression and free speech, that safety being civility when expressing oneself and having the ability to hold ones peace even when provoked.

People can choose their words carefully that they can disagree without being disagreeable, they can express great displeasure without being abusive, they can withhold praise rather than rail with condemnation, they can speak the truth without helping rekindle the fires of hell and incitement.

Return to one America

There is opportunity and scope for Americans to revisit the spirit that built that country into the greatest nation on earth, this unique and elevate position cannot however been maintained if you are all bent on tearing each other down to be hear, to be seen, to gain power and to diminish others.

The shooting at Tucson was one tragedy too many, as the local sheriff said [3], Arizona had become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry, true Americans know their nation was built on greater virtues and godly principles – they should call a time-out on this unpalatable situation.

Lower the temperature, stop the vitriol, engage in wholesome discussion and the hardest thing to do is probably genuinely smile whilst accepting that a difference in opinion does not have to become the seed for sowing hate and waging battles.

As we reflect, our thoughts and prayers should be with the bereaved and the victims of this heinous tragedy and the people who fan the embers of discord should be called out and shamed for their un-American activities.

Sources

[1] First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[2] Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[3] @HuffingtonPost: Arizona sheriff: 'We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry' http://huff.to/hqR1sF

Gabrielle Giffords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gabrielle Giffords I Know http://shar.es/XUlDh by Eleanor Clift - A really human side to being a Democrat Rep in a GOP district.

The UK: The evidence for radical electoral reform

A difficult poll

Even the mother of all parliaments and one of the world’s oldest democracies is fraught with problems, issues and irregularities.

Yesterday, the citizens of United Kingdom of Northern Ireland and Great Britain went to the polls to elect representatives for their parliament called the House of Commons, however, the people did not give a clear majority mandate to any one political party and with that comes what is know as a hung parliament.

Sadly, there are people who did not get to vote because of the poor logistics of not anticipating the possible turnout such that there were long queues and polls had to close at 22:00 hours leaving hundreds disenfranchised.

Certain councils catered for students quite differently from residents even though all were selecting representatives whose work would affect them locally and nationally – there is no doubt that the system is broken.

Change and reform required

Balloting has to move from papers but electronic ballots must have a paper trail for verification and confidence in the system and there should be more flexibility to extend times of the polls if voters have arrived at polling stations before the deadline.



The most disturbing part of this election is the discrepancy between votes cast and seats won – the leading party polled 36.1% of the votes and will take 47.2% of the seats whilst the third party which polled 23% of the votes 8.8% of the seats.

This is manifestly wrong and does not reflect the clear and express wishes of the electorate; it calls for a radical reform of how our votes are translated to representation with a proper correlation between votes and the acquisition of power.

An expired system

The first-past-the-post system might have worked for past but there is no way how this can be the system for the 21st Century.

Today the Liberal Democrats have the opportunity to demand a change that allows for the people have their wishes fully expressed when they form a coalition with whatever party can garner the support and will to run the country after this election.

Dividends of democracy

In the graphic that shows the rewards of proportional representation, the UK Independence Party and the British National Party weigh in with a possible 32 Members of Parliament between them.

Whilst they constitute a right-wing of almost unsavoury politics, the people who voted for them are part of our democracy and as I did say in comments I made on Facebook, having these parties with representation in the House of Commons is enough a price to pay to ensure that the voice of the majority is heard loud and clear.

All the dividends of a democracy cannot all be profitable but any other system that takes better account of the percentage of votes polled nationally must be better than what we have now – electoral reform is inevitable, the people must demand it and get it.

The UK: I endorse democratic reform

How does your vote count?

For the very first time in a very long time, the elections in the United Kingdom have been gripping, everyone has been offering a message of change but the real change required has not received the airing required.

The parliamentary system in the UK makes politics very local rather than national, you vote for a representative of your constituency who happens to be a member of one of the established political parties and the party with the most representatives has its leader crowned the Prime Minister.

There are ways in which the party leader is the charismatic face of your local representative who might not even be local but parachuted in to represent the party to the people – there, if any of the contestants has a track record in that locality, it is possible that a political upset might arise.

Change from ideology

However, it appears voting intentions might have moved on from political fastidiousness and ideology, personalities might matter and policies are interesting but the force of mandate sometimes allows for legislation that we would never have wanted if we had the choice.

The economy, immigration and public services have been given all sorts of glosses and opinions but no one party seems to have all the answers that would really work for the national as a whole – we need a system that allows for the best people to be called into the service in these tough times regardless of party affiliation.

You have to be a member of parliament (MP) to be a minister of the crown and thereby you are accountable to the House of Commons, however, if you are not an MP, you have to be bumped up to the House of Lords and in some ways, you are beyond accountability to the elected chamber.

The choices are not people

For the first time, there is a possibility that two men younger than I am will take the reins of government, the likelihood is that David Cameron of the Conservative Party will be Prime Minister – after 5 years as Leader of the Opposition, he is hardly representative of change – but he will be a change from 13 years of Labour government.

Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats the usually third party was an absolutely fresh face especially after the Leaders’ debates and I think he won 2 of those three debates – what was refreshing was he addressed the questions, engaged the people and spoke sensibly. He had not become a sloganeering beacon of clichéd sound bites that seemed to sound profound but had no substance.

Gordon Brown comes with baggage, much from the way Labour was swept to power in 1997 through the economic prosperity to the crisis and humongous deficit that the UK now has. He does have experience of leadership that others do not have, but one wonders if he holds the keys to a greater future for the UK.

Democratic reform is what I want

I have no man to endorse of the ones we have to choose from but I endorse radical electoral reform – one that allows for votes to count both locally and nationally, one that moves us from the silos of political ideology to better considerations for all options that might be presented for the good of the people and one that is centred on progress that allows the unity of all talents as war cabinet with representatives of all major parties.

This electoral reform can only come from forcing cooperation between the parties by the strength of the numbers that they poll, their popular support rather than their number of MPs, for instance the Labour Party took a parliamentary majority with just about 35% of the vote in the last election.

That was hardly representative of the 65% that did not vote for the Labour Party but they have held power with an assumedly strong mandate for 5 full years.

Change comes with the Liberal Democrats

Honestly, a strong turnout for the Liberal Democrats holds the key to better electoral representation because it would force reform where we need it in representation, in purpose and in accountability; it is that once in a lifetime for the people to demand and get change in democratic reform.

The Conservatives and the Labour Party benefit disproportionately from the status quo without carrying the full resolve of the majority and the real intentions of the people, for once, a hung parliament might well force the agenda in the direction of what is good for the people at home and abroad and this is why I endorse democratic reform – by consequence it comes by giving the Liberal Democrats your vote.

Galvanising by gay-bashing

There are three issues the President of the United States can use to divide the American People and galvanise his conservative electoral base in an election year.

In order of increasing potency -:

1. Outlaw all stem cell research (ambivalent support)

2. Constitutionally outlaw abortion (supported but can split the less fundamental conservatives)

3. Constitutionally ban gay marriage (widespread support)

We all know that this tack was used in the 2004 elections where 10 of the 11 states that had the gay marriage ban on the ballot during the presidential election went to the Republicans and the Democrats have still not cottoned on this sleight of hand.

To put paid to the dwindling polls that are reaching record depths, a God-fearing bible-bashing President is the tonic for calling the Lazarus polls back from death.

However, the technique is not so much to attack gay marriage per se, but to fault sections of the judiciary and denigrate them as “activist courts”, well, that is new parlance for the election – it would be heard, time and again.

With the Supreme Court beginning to look like cardinals in a conclave, we might as well find argument that would make the subjective and prejudicial look reasonably objective, but I am still not clued in as to how gay marriage affects traditional marriages.

You cannot use the courts to deal with ambivalent sexuality, but in America, we have a President who can divide the people like no other.

Sometimes the West is a community divided by its morals and united in its hypocrisy.