Yes or No?

The Death Penalty may, for some people, seem very humane and advantageous for the states, but for me, there are two main problems: The first being that that it portrays the belief that in some cases, killing is acceptable, but secondly – and more relevant to my point – the person gets no chance of redemption. It is important to believe that humans, if given the chance, can improve and rescue themselves. It is this I use to make the somewhat tedious link the recent drug issues in Athletics, especially British. A few months ago now, some of you may have remembered the story of Christine Ohuruogu. This British 400 metre runner was given a one year ban for missing three drugs tests – not found taking drugs – who then can back to win a Gold medal at the World Championships, only weeks after the end of the ban. Sounds like a fairy tale right? Unforunatly not, as it turned out that her one year suspension also included a ban from competing in any future Olympic games. This was, to every British men anguish, imposed by the British Olympic Association, rather than the International Olympic Committee. This started a heated debate within the country, which was never really solved, though recently she won the right to compete in the Olympics. Things have now moved on now to another level. Dwain Chambers, the British 100 and 60 metre runner, has recently returned from his ban too. His is slightly different though, as he was banned from testing positive for THG, an performance-enhancing drug. He has come back a new man, with a point to prove, and succeeded, wiping the floor in the recent London trials. This has meant he has been reinstated into the British Olympic team and will represent Britain at the Indoor World Championships in Valencia. The has reopened the debate and so, it erupts again. Many people have been highly critical of his inclusion, including Dame Kelly Homes and Lord Sebastian Coe, believing that it is people such as him that are tarnishing and ruining the “true spirit” of the sport. Even the selectors claimed the picked him under duress, though if you really thought that they wanted to make an example out of him, he would not of been picked. Furthermore, let’s not forget this is a sport lead by the ever-so corrupt, IOC. Also, many disagree, and I am one of them. Interestingly enough, the people who agree with Dwain are in fact current Athletes, aware of how the sport is operating at this time, and perhaps where is it headed, such as Kim Collins and Asafa Powell. The reason I disagree is I feel he should be given a second chance – shouldn’t we all? He served the ban with no trouble, acknoledged he made a mistake and the error of his ways, and now that it is expired, why shouldn’t he run? It’s perfectly allowed, and unless they plan to change to rules, than it is perfectly fair. Moreover, the rules are there to be seen in black and white, plain and simple, but people are still complaing even though they are following. All I am saying is that we are all human and all make mistakes – its part of being who we are, and thus we should give him the chance to redeem himself. One thing that is essentially important is that he is not made a example of, as it is undemocractic to keep punishing him personally. And so, the Hullabaloo is all about nothing. Dwain and Christine should both be allowed to run (if they qualify of course) this summer, at this year’s Beijing Olympics, for they served their bans- end of story. Plus, they are pretty much one of the best hopes for any medals returning Britain’s way. What does Britain want – renewed athletes making us proud, bringing back medals, or an embarrassingly bad medal-free Olympics? It’s your choice. Just remember: To err is human; forgive, divine.

Grammy Shock

On December 6th, the date the Grammy nominations were announced, I was astounded by one act: Amy Winehouse, nominated for 6 awards. I had never realized that whilst she had been creating a stir within the UK and the rest of Europe, she had successfully broken into the U.S. market as well. This is quite an achievement nowadays for any British artist. However, Amy Winehouse is not your average artist in any sort of context.
The link between drugs and music is an old one, and, to be honest, as a teenager, I don’t have too much trouble if the artist keeps it private and discreet, though I personally don’t think taking drugs is appropriate at any time. Just by looking at the process, as well as the location, on where most cocaine comes from is enough to turn my conscience upside down, but that’s a whole different story. As it happens, discretion is clearly not a word in Winehouse’s dictionary. Her drink and drug problem has become infamous, due to it being blasted around by the tabloid newspapers for the last 10 months, ever since the release of her acclaimed album, Back in Black. The public have eaten it up, not surprisingly in a world where tabloids massively outsell broadsheets and where most of us rather read about Britney’s Spears mental breakdown rather than the political instability in Kenya. She, herself, seems to be past caring, and her whole attitude is summed up in her song Rehab “They tried to make me go to rehab, but I said no, no, no”. This shows that she has no desire to change her situation. Merely 3 weeks before the Grammy’s took place, a video of her was posted by The Sun showing her and her drug habit. And so, the story continues.. Winehouse, managed to win 4 Grammy at this year’s awards, for Best New Artist, Record of the Year, Song of the Year (What’s the difference anyway?), and Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, the latter three for the song, as it happens, Rehab.
Now, as a music fan, fair enough. I don’t particular like the song, and I feel she has better, but it the whole morality of the issue. She should never have won the award because of her behaviour, or it should have at least been held back until there was some improvement. By winning the Grammies, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences is merely accepting her attitude, with no response towards it. I’m not saying her music didn’t deserve the prize, but like actors and sport stars, musicians should be punished for using illegal substances too. No exceptions. Winehouse should be too, and I personally don’t feel it’s the right message to be sending the next generation of potential drug users – that it’s okay to take drugs if you’re rich, famous and talented, plus there is a chance you might get lots of airtime from the press, as well as some critically commended awards. The moral implications of this are enormous, as if governments are serious about stopping drugs and therefore, drug-related crime, than they shouldn’t allow drugs to be portrayed as such a rich and glamorous thing, but condemn them, regardless of the circumstances. Furthermore, the singer is effectively destroying herself in the process, with her own father-in-law asking for a boycott of her music, whilst The Times recently said they felt the government should force her into rehab. A hold back of the prize may have been heavily criticised, but if it saved Winehouse’s welfare, and showed the world that drugs were wrong, than it would only be for the better. However, no one has helped, as the press continue as before, promoting the drug use, and their readers do not seem to showing their disgust in her behaviour, but more jealously, wishing they could be the ones leading her life of luxury. It’s okay showing the story sometimes, especially if she was in rehab, improving, but it nowadays a singer’s drug addiction receives more time on the news than the nearing civil war inside a country. It would seem the idea that bad press is always good press is no more fitting than here. This is just the world we live in.
All I’m saying is that we all have are own personal heroes and role models, especially when we are younger. If your child’s is Winehouse, I don’t envy you. The point is drug and drink addictions should be denounced in any case – it’s what’s known as equality.

Food, Not So Glorious Food

We all know the song, "Food, Glorious Food" – well most of us, at least. For some reason, I have this image of me singing it in school when I was between the ages of 8 and 12, but this would seem unlikely for two reasons. First, my memory is bad, and most of those childish, slightly religious, songs we sang do sound quite similar – Can anyone really tell the difference between “He’s got the whole world in his hands”, and “this little light of mine”? - so similar in fact that when you replay one in you head it merges into this amazing medley containing lyrics from every one you ever sang. Secondly, Food, Glorious Food is most famous for being contained in Oliver Twist, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdqrGJybsCQ) so why would I have sang it at school? Anyhow, the basic principle of the song is that food is, well, glorious. From a TV programme, I was going to find out that this may be true, but only for those who need it - for the rest of us it is as plentiful as air, therefore taken without thought.
The thing is, I’m don’t actually watch TV that often, but after 3 years living in Finland, with just BBC Prime, BBC World, and Sky News in English, I was slightly excited about the prospect of BBC One. The first thing I turned to though, was some programme on BBC1 or CBBC (This was 6 months ago now) called Best of Friends.

It was on the BBC and well, it was pretty awful, but what I found hard to accept was that one the activities was to find a ping-pong ball in a baked bean and, then a rice pudding bath. Now, this may seem a little petty to some people, but to me, it's wrong. In a world that, according to the World Food Programme, contains 854 million persons classified as hungry, and where a child dies from hunger every 5 seconds, I’m not sure this is the right message to be sending kids. I'm sure the same things were on TV when I was 9, in fact I'm sure there were such programmes and I probably enjoyed them too, but now I'm more aware of the world around me, and it doesn't seem right
People always argue with me about things like this – a prime example being when someone takes too much food from a buffet and does not eat it, and remarks “Well, they can’t send this to Africa, can they?”, therefore finding their own behavior acceptable – but most miss the point. No, they cannot send half eaten cooked food to Africa, or anywhere else for that matter. And no, they cannot send the bath either. But the fact is, it is not required to take too much or to have the bath - the unneeded waste - in the first place. Furthermore, it is not really the right way to go and eradicate things such as poverty, if British children are brought up thinking that jumping in a tub full of food is perfectly okay, whilst half the world starves. Most of all, I just would like some guilt, some awareness, just that we in the West feel lucky for everything for what we have, and never take it for granted.
This, in reality, is too much to ask. We live in a life of luxury, and whilst millions die in LEDCs around the world, we don't know them, there is no personal link and they are not famous, thus it is just a statistic, with no story. However, I would like to think that the BBC, of all people, could at least not show so much waste and selfishness. And once the world is hunger- and famine-free, I promise I will be the first to call for the return of Baked Bean baths.

An Inconvenient Truth? More Like An Convenient Lie - Part I

Despite being a believer in the threat of global warming, I was astounded to hear a few months ago that Al Gore had been awarded the coveted Nobel Peace Prize. For the life of me, I could not understand it. The Nobel Peace Prize is arguably the greatest award a person can win: a prize I associated with the likes of Nelson Mandela, who spent 27 years in jail, forever believing in his cause of "an democratic and free society" and thus, ending the apartheid regime; Henri Durant, the founder of the Red Cross and Geneva Convention and Gorbachev, who successfully and peacefully lead the dissolution of the Soviet Union. As far as I knew all Al Gore had contributed to the world to gain the prize was a film. Do films encourage and promote peace? Does making a film compare to the amazing feats of other Nobel Laureates? Did he truly deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? No, not really.
Okay, okay, maybe I am being a little harsh, it is just an award, and yes, I was one of those pleased at the time of release of An Inconvenient Truth that at least someone was doing something, even if it was just making a film. But let's just go back in time for a bit, back to Alfred Nobel, the creator of the prize, who said the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Fair enough, but did Al Gore do this? No. In fact, the Iraq War, (Al Gore did oppose to US support of Sadam Hussein) is - for the pessimists - an oil war, which is of course linked to Global Warming.
Okay, yes, being harsh again, but then we hear the reason he won it "for their (Note:he won it jointly with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such changes." Fair enough, but it doesn't really make sense. Did Al Gore tell me more about man-made climate change? Well, yes he did, but I knew the basic principle, and it was such a current issue, that most people did, and well, the rest of the information he showed us was all very lovely and it reinforced his case, but was it really necessary? Is the greater knowledge he told us useful? Probably not.
Then, his efforts to lay the foundations to stop global warming. Erm....okay...where are they? He made a film, did Live Earth (Because quite clearly Live Aid stopped Famine and Poverty, so of course that was a clever idea - Live Aid was a good idea as it raised awareness about the issues, but, like Geldof said, everyone knows about Global Warming), and then teamed up with Cameron Diaz and Sir Richard Branson to form some random competitions called 60 Seconds to Save the Earth and the Virgin Earth Challenge. Well, let's start with Live Earth...so, where did the money go for that then? Interesting right. Intelligence Earth, a British website which advises people on where best to donate their money, found this question perplexing, publishing "What on (Live) Earth is going on?" (http://www.intelligentgiving.com/articles/features/what_on_live_earth_is_going_on)
And then, where does his $100,000 speaking fee go?
Oh, and then there is the issue of the event's carbon emissions. The artists' and spectators' travelled all around the world, and well, they used planes, cars, planes, buses, taxis, and then there is lighting and electricity. John Buckley of CarbonFootPrint.com said energy consumption, was at least 74,500 tonnes, - more than 3,000 times the average Briton's annual footprint. It is estimated that 100,000 planted trees are required to offset the total carbon emissions produced during the event, but because of the continuing deforestation occurring on the planet, this is unlikely to counter the emissions from the event, even if 100,000 trees were planted, which of course they won't be. Not forgetting the environmentally conscience audience left tons of rubbish around, especially plastic cups, after the event, instead of placing them in recycling bins - so did they care about Global Warming, or did they just go to see their favourite stars? Then, there is the stars. Hypocrisy was forever in the concerts with performers such as Madonna, who produces more than 100 times the average amount of waste produced by Briton in a year. Furthermore, the concerts had pretty dismal viewing ratings, which just rubbed salt into sore wounds. So Live Earth was a flop.
60 Seconds to save the Earth was an alright idea, but with the main prize such being an Toyota Highlander Hybrid (An SUV), it does slightly dent the validity of it, just like the carbon emissions from Live Earth did. The Virgin Earth Challenge is about the only good idea that has appeared since the film, but was mainly created by Sir Richard Branson, and is basically a giant pay-off for anyone who can save the planet, which is fair enough.
Global warming is happening - for The Great Global Warming Swindle believers, I concede maybe it is not totally due to us - and we are using up our fossil fuels, and for both of these, we need to do something about it. Somethings being an energy-saving light bulb, taking a bus, turning off the lights, letting wind farms (which are beautiful by the way) be built near your house is brilliant for the average person. Even making a film is worthwhile, but for people who have as much power as Al Gore - more than a film and a concert is something. That's all I'm saying.