Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts

Monday, December 28, 2009

Christmas Day Bombing and Beliefs

September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City: V...Image via Wikipedia

Score one big victory for the terrorists, after the Christmas Day bombing attempt on an American jumbo jet just days ago.

Security – particularly in the United States – got tighter than ever before over the days, weeks, months and years following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Never in recorded history had humankind been on such a high state of alert. At one point in time, we even had to remove our shoes – our shoes – prior to boarding an airplane.

Then, just as the world’s attention was focused on the holiest day for Christians – Christmas – the world was reminded just how important these measures are, as a man lit what initial reports claimed to be “fireworks” aboard an American flight over western Canada.

One wonders how on Earth – or rather about 30,000 feet in the air – someone can even get on an airliner with anything remotely flammable with all these security precautions.

And far worse, the ramifications since the Christmas Day fire cracker stunt may have gone too far, with little effect. In some American airports, security guards are even testing baby milk brought onboard flights. Maybe if you are real nice, they’ll feed and burp your infant?

Reportedly, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was briefed weeks ago about increased terrorist activities involving bombing attempts and American-bound flights. The reports said that secret terrorist cells had devised a new way to bypass security measures to get explosives on planes, and that these terrorists were conducting training exercises to ensure success.

The recent attempt this holiday season may have been the terrorist’s first attempt or a trial as part of their training exercises.

Either way, it sure got the world’s attention.

The real problem isn’t going to be fixed by adding more security – though that will be the immediate visible solution. For every additional security measure taken, eventually those unscrupulous minds that want to do harm, will.

For every creative and innovative step taken to prevent a terrorist strike, there are just as creative and innovative people at work figuring out how to circumvent these steps.

The only real way to prevent terrorist attacks of airplanes is to stop flying. And that’ll never happen, because air travel is an important necessity in our global village.

Well, there is one other possible way to put an end to terrorist attacks – world peace. If we could only ever achieve a world that truly is at peace, then, and only then, would we ever really be safe from the harm done by those non-peaceful terrorists.

But world peace will never happen either. There is more to peace than sitting around a campfire, roasting marshmallows and singing Cume-By-Ah.

With deeply held religious beliefs – some may even go so far to call ‘em cult-like beliefs – behind many wars around the world, some wars will never end despite all the attempts at peace.

Then you have beliefs so deeply entrenched in a person’s life, they are willing to actually die for them. Like those who killed by flying planes into the World Trade Center in 2001.

Stopping a belief – no matter how wrong – is virtually impossible. A belief is the foundation towards ideas, and ideas lead to actual solutions to problems.

And those problems, for the terrorists, are how to constantly counter all the security measures so they can fulfill their beliefs. So we come full circle, over and over again.

Because the American named “war on terror” isn’t really about people, bombs, planes, or peace. It’s all about beliefs.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

EU Signs Off Valueless Blank Cheque for Climate Change

While European politicians pat themselves on the back, claiming to have successfully agreed to a climate change initiative ahead of the Copenhagen Summit, by ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, others aren’t so sure.

United Kingdom (UK) Prime Minister Gordon Brown says the European Union (EU) is leading the way, with bold proposals, after he, and leaders from 27 other European countries signed the treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty, outlines, among other things, a fiscal plan for allocating funds for climate change initiatives, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The treaty budgets 100bn euros a year by 2020. That would an immediate pay out by member countries of about 5bn to 7bn euros, to achieve that 2020 spending goal.

Initially, this alienated many small EU member countries, as they said they could not afford such a high cost. Nine of these poorer countries threatened to block the deal, unless the richer countries paid more.

This is where the waters begin to get murky – no cost targets for individual EU nations were announced. In fact, the initial funding will be completely voluntary, with the details hammered out by working groups later.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the agreement

Gordon Brown touring the slums of Nairobi, Ken...Image via Wikipedia

was "an important breakthrough that brings new momentum".


What new momentum?

The EU politicians have signed a piece of paper, and that is about all they really have accomplished.

Whenever governments make deals with no definitive plan of action, it is almost a certainty that these deals are just for public relations and have no real merit.

It is like winning the lottery, and being handed one of those enormous cardboard cheques that requires several people to hold. Just as you can’t take one of those giant cardboard cheques to the bank – they use them just for photo ops by the media – when politicians sign something into effect, but leave all the details to “working groups”, it’s all for the media’s benefit.

We live in tough economic times. Millions of people around the world are still feeling the brutal grips of the global credit crisis. Many of these people aren’t working – they don’t have jobs, or income. This has lowered the tax-base and in turn, the tax revenues for most of the industrialized nations on Earth.

Yet, in these tough economic times, governments are often called on more to provide support and training for their citizens, struggling just to survive in this global economic disaster.

So, governments are bringing in fewer revenues, but spending more. Meaning most governments are in debt – big time.

The American national debt is estimated at being in the TRILLIONS of dollars – it is at its highest amount since World War II. Some say, the United States of America owes so much debt, they may never pay it all off.

Which brings this blog posting full circle – EU nations have agreed to support the fiscal plan of the Lisbon Treaty on climate change, without allocating who will be paying for what, and how much.

As many of these governments are in a cash crunch, they will be very unlikely to spend big bucks on treaties which have not specifically dictated how much money is required to support this treaty.

By not forcing specific amounts on each individual EU country participating, the deal was easy for those up in arms about the cost to sign. They might as well be crossing their fingers behind their backs and chiming “na-nah-nah-na,” because they can easily go back on their word for funding support, or just pay the bare minimum they can afford.

But one of the key elements of the Lisbon Treaty is financial forecasting exact monetary amounts required to achieve environmental good.

So the only good that really came out of the signing of the Lisbon Treaty is the free press for the politicians talking about the environment, and just as the plastic cheque – isn’t worth anything at all.



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, July 17, 2009

Techno Politicians – A New Breed of Public Servant

Many eons ago, when I was a print reporter, the only way for politicians and other news makers to get their messages out was through their speeches, media events, and staff. It was a love-hate relationship between us reporter-types, and the spin doctors – I mean press secretaries – working alongside the politician.

Everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth is usually scripted. That script has probably been read, and re-read countless times by their staff, to ensure there aren’t any mistakes in the message being delivered.

When you see a politician on television, answering questions live, all their answers are scripted too. They have been briefed by their handlers how to respond to just about every question you or that television reporter could imagine. It is rare these days to catch ‘em off guard.

What has changed is how direct and informal the messages are becoming, thanks to instant micro blogging sites like Twitter.

Twitter is a cool web-based micro blogging site, which allows peop

Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...Image via CrunchBase

le to share very brief one-liner-type statements about anything and everything that pops into their heads. You can even follow this blog on Twitter, by adding @jordansdaily to your own www.Twitter.com feed.

American President Barack Obama uses Twitter, so too does his rival John McCain. The White House has its own Twitter account, which posts pictures and video they capture as they follow the President. Even the Brits are in on the instant online action, you can follow British Prime Minister Gordon Brown by adding @DowningStreet to your Twitter page.

Whether President Obama actually taps out his own “tweets” to send via Twitter on his Blackberry is doubtful. Those messages, as with everything else that comes out of his – and all other politician’s

Twitter.com/BarackObamaImage by DavidAll06 via Flickr

offices – is carefully crafted and vetted by the best wordsmiths in the world.

But what is fascinating about this new method of communications is its directness.

Love or hate the news media, one thing journalists do is analyze, discuss and debate the issues. When a politician or other news maker says something, there is usually some sort of discussion, or alternative opinion brought in, to add context to the story, and provide some balance. You may not always agree with those alternative views, but at least they are there for you to think about.

However, when you receive a message in your Twitter feed – or any other live micro blogging site – from a politician or news maker, you are only receiving the information they want you to have. There isn’t anything to counter balance their information with other facts and arguments – all you’re getting is their one-sided version of the story.

It will be interesting over the next few years to see how this new form of instant, direct and non-objective messaging affects world democracies.

Instead of getting all sides of the story from the media, those on the information superhighway may just get the information which they have subscribed too, not even considering the bias, slant or angle that information is taking. Elections of the future may be won or lost by just how well politicians communicate their messages directly to the people, circumventing any potential analysis or debate for those people.

And that could prove dangerous for democracy, as the discussions and debates about not just the people running our world, but the very laws, programs and policies that make our world, could vanish.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

ShareThis