The Population and Politics

Politics. Politics. Politics.  Politics is constantly in our faces, on the news, in magazines, in newspapers, in daily conversation, in debate, in general day-to-day life; and with the UK General Election coming up in May 2015 it is going to become more and more prominent.  However, despite our lives being run by governments, and despite politics being a large part of all of our lives, are we as a population really engaging with politics any more?

65.1% of the population voted in the last general election in 2010.  My guess is that less people will vote in 2015, and my reasoning is that people are bored of politics - or at least politics as it currently stands.  Politicians bicker, new reporters hype up the conflicts between different parties, politicians hear through the reporters what another politician has said, and then they bicker again.  In more regular occurrences, you have to ask yourself, how often do you hear two politicians from opposite parties actually debate and discuss politics?  On a recent question time, Conservative communities and local government minister Penny Mordaunt MP, Labour's shadow international development secretary Mary Creagh MP, the leader of UKIP Nigel Farage MEP, comedian and campaigner Russell Brand, and Times columnist Camilla Cavendish all appeared on the show.  If you watched it you'll know that Penny Mordaunt and Mary Creagh pretty much just picked at each other throughout the show, pretty much avoided any question aimed at them, and generally made damn sure everyone was even more tired of their tedious bickering than they were before they even started. (N.B. Can we just take a moment to congratulate Camilla Cavendish, a journalist, on remaining unbiased, and the voice of reason throughout the show!)

The Labour and Conservative parties are at each others necks and people are bored of it.  If you ask most young people, and probably most mature adults, what they think of politicians, they will tell you that they are childish, constantly arguing, and all the same.  This is what politics has become - monotonous.  We hear the two main parties insult each other every year, and quite frankly people are becoming disengaged with it because of it.

However, where it used to be that people are tired of politics in general, people now begin to realise that it is mostly the main three parties (Lab, Cons, Lib Dem) that follow this same monotonous bickering, meaning that smaller parties are beginning to be listened to.  This can be seen with the rapidity with which UKIP have gained followers in the last year or so, and also on a smaller scale the Greens.  Two opposite minor parties getting more attention due to the failures of the major parties. Positive for sure.

The question is, will people become more engaged or less.  The answer is quite clear.  Whilst the two major parties (Lab, Cons), and sometimes the third (Lib Dem), continue to rule the political world, the bickering will continue, and due to this people will do one of two things.  Firstly, they will become disengaged, completely uninterested in modern day politics and will withdraw; the second option, is that people will look elsewhere, see the rise of the Greens and UKIP.  Either way, the political scene will change.  It might not happen yet and most probably not this election, but in the near future we will see the disengaging population become the saviour of British politics, and when this happens, we will see a change in the way that society is governed - we just have to hope it goes the correct way, fingers crossed.

Drugs - Criminalisation, Legalisation, and Rehabilitation

A big question that gets raised now and again, and has recently surfaced with Russell Brand's documentary "End the Drug War", is whether or not currently illegal substances should be legal, and whether the system we have at the minute works.  To put it straight up, I don't necessarily think that illegal substances should be made legal, but I most certainly feel that the system that we have at the minute is too coercive, too forceful, and ignores the fundamental point that users are still human and addiction is an illness - regardless of what got them there in the first place.  Also, understand before making a judgement on my views that I have taken drugs, not to any particularly extreme level, but enough for me to see and know the highs and the lows that they may bring.

So, should drugs be legalised?  Yes, and no.  There are pros and cons to every solution, but usually one side is much stronger than the other.  It isn't so black and white with drugs due to the human mind.  As the system is at the minute, it causes the use of illegal substances to be a criminal offence, subsequently increasing the chance of someone breaking the law due to the unavoidable market out there, it marginalises addicts who without proper help are forced to become criminals again, and again, just so they can get the fix they need. Like I said, addiction is an illness, you can't just switch it off.  However, there are also positives of the current system, predominantly that it stops people taking harmful (most of the time) substances.  Surely that is enough?  That they are illegal in order to stop people taking substances which are going to harm their body?  Well it would be enough if alcohol and cigarettes, for example, were illegal too, but they are not.  Why not?  I couldn't give you an answer.  They are just as, if not more in some cases, harmful to your body as the current illegal substances.  The answer can't be that they are less addictive because nicotine is one of the most addictive substances.  It can't be that they don't affect your body as much, alcohol damages your liver, and cigarettes damage your lungs, arteries, etc.  But just because these are legal, does it mean the others should be too? Or does it mean that alcohol and cigarettes should be make illegal?  I think in a perfect world it would be best for everyone to make alcohol and cigarettes illegal, but i wouldn't suggest that even as a possibility in this day and age...so the other solution would be to legalise everything.  I would say, no.  Because ultimately some drugs are worse than others and if anything is going to be legalised it should be done on a drug by drug study - for example, I would say legalise marijuana by all means, but definitely don't legalise meth.  You get my drift.

However, keeping drugs illegal criminalises the user, and therefore this ends in a vicious circle of abuse, followed by arrest and potentially prison, followed by out of prison where one will abuse again, only to get arrested, and it goes on and on.  So maybe 'illegal' is wrong.  Not in the sense of them being against the law, but in the sense that it shouldn't be a criminal offence to use.  Fundamentally the approach to drug users, abusers, and addicts, should be very different.  Brand says money should be spent on rehabilitation for these people. Get them back on their feet with the opportunity to break a harmful cycle in order to live a relatively normal live. Maybe there should be a  number of times you can get rehabilitation before it is a prison sentence or a fine?  Like driving offences - you don't get your license taken off of you for breaking the speed limit, you may get points on your license, a fine, or at best a slap on the hand; but the continued driving offences may end up with the license being taken away, or at worst a short prison sentence (depending on the severity of the crime).  I feel drugs should be approached that way - it shouldn't make you a criminal for using drugs, or getting addicted to drugs.  But it should be illegal to use/abuse.

Brand is right in saying the war on drugs needs to stop, because it shouldn't be a war.  Users should be met with compassion, care, and ultimately the help they need to get off of whatever they are on.  Don't necessarily legalise drugs, but be certain that it won't lead to a criminal record and a hefty prison sentence if using illegally.  Everything has to be done case by case, day by day, not every incident is the same, not everyone is in the same circumstances, but there should be an overriding feel that these substances will harm you, and therefore should not be used.  But we also shouldn't feel like criminals if we do use, we shouldn't have to be shady, and a bit dodgy, we should be encouraged to get help, know that help is there, and know that if we get 'caught' all that is going to happen is that the government's system is going to help you out, get you back on your feet, and hopefully lead you in the right direction.

Unfortunately, we still live in a society where the majority of illegal substances will land you in a lot of trouble.  It shouldn't be this way.  And you have to ask yourselves, why is it this way?  Rehabilitation over criminalisation.

Climate Change - How it affects all of us, and what can we do?

I pick the title 'Climate Change' rather than 'Global Warming' for a very specific reason. Facts. Fundamentally, climate change is a natural process, the earth gets hotter and colder in a steady fluctuation as thousands of years pass, and subsequently global warming is natural - or at least in its usual sense.  However, since humans began developing and industrialising, climate change has seen a change.  It has accelerated.  Before discussing this, here are some facts.

From NASA's Global Climate Change site (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/): "For the 650,000 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide has never been above this line" (see graph below).

As you can see from the graph, up to 1950, the Earth's natural climate cycle has been pretty predictable, and we were entering a warming period regardless of human intervention or not. But, come 1950, when industrialisation really took off, just out of WW2, the human race was ready to rebuild itself and it would use any resource it could get its hands on to achieve this.  In the last 64 years atmospheric carbon dioxide has soared high, and it isn't slowing down. Some argue that this is just an anomaly in the fluctuation, I have to ask those people to look at the graph above and tell me again that this is 'just an anomaly' - it isn't.  We are having extreme affects on the atmosphere and it reflects in the Earth's patterns. For example, "Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century" (same source). I can list a whole load of other affects that accelerated climate change (in this case global warming) has but you can look into those yourselves.

So what though right?  We are the alpha species and we can do anything we want?  We want development right? Well, let me put it like this: It affects us ALL. Regardless of species, and regardless of differences within a species - whether you are from the Americas or from Africa, it will affect you.  And if you aren't feeling it now, if we continue with the 'business as usual' approach, you will, and it will be far too late.

But, is it too late now?  Have we gone too far?  Different people will tell you different things, but in my opinion, just from looking at the facts, the figures, the statistics, the statements, we are on the brink of going too far.  If we don't act now, we won't get another chance.  The media and the government will focus on your individual actions - promoting recycling, turning off your lights etc.  This is important, and it is worth getting in the habit of doing these things now.  However, to stop this acceleration and to allow the world to return to its natural fluctuation, it is not us as individuals that are the problem.  It is the big companies, the powerful countries, but also the developing countries.  It is their use of fossil fuels, and their reluctance to move to sustainable resources.

So there you have it.  We need to push the companies to change, we need to make them realise we want them to change.  How to do this?  Sign petitions, go on marches, organise marches, boycott services, whatever it is to get the companies' and the governments' attention across the globe.  Sustainable resources (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc) are expensive, yes; but if the governments stop spending our money on things which are ultimately going to become pointless, if we let this acceleration continue, then we can invest in huge projects which can provide FREE energy to the population of the world. Think about it, you have the power to make the people that need to change, change. 

Oppressors and the Oppressed - Reciprocity

One of the most talked about topics of the era is oppression in all its different faces, be it sexism, racism, poverty, inequality in a work place, xenophobia, class discrimination, etc etc.  It is widely understood as a bad thing yet the majority of the public are indoctrinated by it, we say things which some people may not bat an eyelid at, but others will whole heartedly rip into you regardless of whether you meant to be offensive or not.  Similarly, we become more aware each day that things which were once considered to be acceptable are now unacceptable. Fundamentally we can agree that oppression isn't a positive thing, that ultimately equality enlightens people, enlightenment leads to freedom, and thus equality is freedom.  Another thing which we can all agree is positive, freedom - be it freedom of speech, civil rights, human rights, etc etc.  However, recently a new discussion has arisen, and that is as to whether oppression can be reciprocated, whether the oppressed can also be oppressors. 

In the last two weeks the question of whether a male can be raped was brought to light with the allegation that Shia LaBeouf announced that he was raped during an art installation.  Regardless of the individual circumstances of this particular case, it brought a much more important question to hand, whether sexism, and sexual abuse, is able to be reciprocated. (NB: I am not here to discuss the Shia LaBeouf case, there are plenty of articles which focus solely on that). One side of the argument argues that, no, a male cannot be subject to sexism or sexual abuse.  This is backed up with legitimate argument of male privilege across society, with legitimate arguments on the nature of sexism throughout history being predominantly a one way occurrence, and with legitimate argument that, in terms of sexual abuse, men are generally able to withstand coercive sexual abuse from the opposite sex (although, it may be noted, this is not always the case). The other side of the argument is that, yes, a man can be subject sexism, or sexual abuse.  This is much harder to defend with solid historical, and cultural, evidence as ultimately yes, males have been the oppressors, and have a certain standing of privilege.  This can be closely related to racism, in the sense of white privilege, colonialism, and segregation. But, this does not mean that it cannot be reciprocated, due to lack of publicised evidence. 

I make the point again, I am not denying that the white male is privileged, i am not denying that throughout history it has been predominantly a one way occurrence. However, take an advert for example.  One advert shows a female model half naked advertising some commodity, we can agree that this in itself is sexism - the objectification of women is a huge problem in the modern mass media.  However, here is another advert.  A male, topless with well defined, 'sexy', abs, advertising some commodity.  Why is this also not considered objectification? Both are as sexist as each other.

Another example is the integrated norms and beliefs that society holds upon women AND men.  Admittedly created by male sexism, women are seen to be the weaker, more emotional, softer gender.  However, similarly this puts a stereotype on men to be the strong, less emotional, harder gender.  Why? Why should this be? Is it weak to be emotional? No, of course it isn't.  It links well to homophobia, the stigma attached to being homosexual creates fear of being logged into that stereotype. It creates an innate feeling of inequality.

Talking about racism it is much harder to find cases of reciprocal racism towards the white race in a western society.  But go into an oppressed mixed race, or ethnic minority, community and there are deep set feelings of hatred towards the white race.  Understandably.  But this does not condone oppression towards the oppressor.  Why should it? Two wrongs most definitely do not make a right.  It just makes them feel better.  And although this is important in itself, surely equality and understanding is much more more fundamental?

I could write for hours on the subject, and for a deeper understanding of my thoughts a longer discussion is needed.  But for now, the basis is there for thought.  Iris Marion Young, in the chapter Five Faces of Oppression, discusses the idea that an oppressed group/individual doesn't necessarily have to have a material oppressor. That society itself, through cultural imperialism, has ultimately acquired a set of norms which marginalise and discriminate naturally.  It is a good read and i would recommend it to anyone interested in my thoughts, and oppression in general, as predominantly they are rooted there. 

Discrimination is discrimination, and can be from anyone to anyone, from any group to any group. Whilst it faults a person/group it is discrimination. It happens all the time, from material oppressors and from society's norms in general. Looking objectively upon discrimination and oppression, it occurs both ways, and is rooted deep within society and culture. I don't deny that it occurs, and has occurred throughout history, predominantly one way. But this does not mean it cannot be reciprocated.