#pair2004

Speaking at a Catholic school benefit in New York on 23rd April, Jeb Bush announced he’s “thinking about running for president”. The Washington Post reports that “prominent donors, conservative leaders and long-time operatives say they consider Bush the GOP’s brightest hope to win back the White House”.

Why? Some attribute his popularity to the support of the Christian Right.

In an interview with Real Clear Politics, Hispanic evangelical leader Rev. Samuel Rodriguez spoke of Bush as “an attractive candidate for evangelicals that adhere to a pro-faith family and religious freedom agenda”. It’s easy to see why. ‘Choose Life’ license plates were signed into law by Bush during his tenure as Governor of Florida in 1999. In a 2003 court case, Bush ordered lawyers to appoint a representative for the foetus of a developmentally disabled rape victim. He also fought a two-year court case to keep alive Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman on life support.

However, some argue that support from the Christian Right is largely irrelevant in today’s Republican agenda. Writing for New Republic, Michael Kazin believes the Christian Right to be a “fading force in American life” because of the shifting consensus on big issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

There is growing tolerance, acceptance and support for issues like abortion, and the GOP can no longer garner the simultaneous support of the Christian Right and wider American public by asserting their opposition to it. Any act which appeases the Christian Right risks alienating the swing vote.

If the GOP wishes to succeed in 2016, focus should be turned to reinforcing their stance on issues such as immigration and education; areas which Jeb Bush causes much concern. Bush recently angered some conservatives by saying immigrants come to the United States illegally out of an “act of love” to help their families. On the topic of education, Bush’s advocacy of the Common Core State Standards Initiative goes against the grain of the Republicans.

There is considerable disagreement with the assertion that Jeb Bush can do well in 2016 as a result of Christian Right backing because they are no longer the influential power they used to be. But perhaps more importantly, Bush’s breaches in Republican orthodoxy over fundamental issues such as immigration will test the faith and trust of traditional conservative voters. 

Speaking at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Obama painted a pessimistic picture for the upcoming midterm elections. “In midterms we get clobbered - either because we don’t think it’s important or we’ve become so discouraged about what’s happening in Washington that we think it’s not worth our while”.  Obama went on to confess a sense of urgency in a (futile) attempt to redress the balance of turnout this year. But is Obama’s urgency warranted?

The problem of turnout at midterm elections is a well-established one. Every four years, the percentage of eligible voters that go to the polls hovers around a mere 40 percent, which never translates well in Congress. Since the American Civil War, the president’s party has only managed to pick up seats three times. It’s a customary affair.

So what can we expect in November? The president's party has not picked up more than 9 seats in a midterm since 1865. The Democrats need 17. It’s safe to say the House will remain Republican. As for the Senate, a cluster of polls supports the expectations of many: the Democrats are going to have a hard time holding the majority, in part due to vulnerable seats held in states such as South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana.

CNS news, amongst other conservative media sources, took great pleasure in headlining a recent quote by Obama’s former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: “if you lose the Senate, turn out the lights because the party's over". Needless to say, Republicans will take a more literal view on Gibbs’ choice of the word ‘party’.

But Robert Gibbs isn’t necessarily correct. The Democrats may well lose the Senate this year, but it is doubtful that the GOP would be able to hold it for more than two years. In 2016, the situation that the Democrats currently face will be thrown into reverse. Republicans will have 23 seats up compared to just 10 Democrat seats, many of which will be in vulnerable, Democratic territory.

There is certainly scepticism over the importance of this year’s midterm elections. The House of Representatives will remain Republican, that’s almost certain, and it’s certainly possible the Senate will see a new majority. Yet this could be short lived because vulnerable seats largely dictate success in the Senate. It would appear then, that Obama’s sense of urgency is somewhat unwarranted.

I am a White Caucasian girl with Green Eyes so to many my story will sound like a pathetic little rant but please keep reading.

I admit that I don't get discriminated against often. When people see me they wouldn't necessarily think: Is she foreign? Some might detect my accent but as I am fairly fluent people have stopped commenting on it. 

There is however one place where it matters where I am from: Supermarkets. 

Let me tell you what happened to me today: 

I have friends coming over for the weekend and we have decided to have some drinks at mine before going out. Like any normal person would I therefore went to buy some alcohol (or tried to). In case you are thinking: She must have tried to buy Vodka or something. NO, I tried to buy three bottles of Cider at 4.0% (500ml per bottle). But then again why should it matter what I buy? I am 20 years old which is above the the legal age for purchasing alcohol in the United Kingdom. Back to my story: I was asked for my I.D. - fair enough I look under 25 and that's the rules, why should I get offended. I show the lady my EU Driving Licence and I am told that she needs to check with her supervisor. Fair enough again, not everyone knows this form of I.D. And then it comes: "I am sorry but we cannot accept this form of Identification." 

The first time this happened to me I gave them my two Identity Cards (French and German as I have two nationalities), they both clearly state my name and age (even my address, height, signature) - but No.

Most UK supermarkets don't accept I.D.s as they vary from country to country and staff can't be able to know every single one of them. As for E.U. driving licenses some shops accept them some don't. Passports are widely accepted. I do however not carry my passport with me at all times, as it is my most valuable piece of identification. 

I greatly appreciate the fact that employees cannot know all I.D.s but I can prove that I am over 18 - with not one, not two but THREE I.D.s.  So I am standing there at the till, looking at my ciders and thinking to myself: Thank you for making me look and feel like a complete idiot.  I am allowed to cross state borders with my I.D. (Schengen, baby!) but not allowed to purchase three bottles of Cider? Pathetic is the only word that comes to my mind. 

So I walk off, feeling ashamed. Yes, that's how it makes me feel. I am obviously not British, so why should I have the same rights as everyone else in this country?

For me, there is a deeper meaning behind these three bottles of Rekorderlig. The fact that I hope not to be I.D. (even though I am not 14) just shows how deeply this system of Identification is flawed. Of course they have to check my age, but most cashiers don't actually doubt the fact that I am over 18. To most of them it's just a routine check but as I don't have my Passport or a British I.D. I cannot purchase the alcohol. 

 27th February 2014

Results from the latest tracking poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation have recently emerged which show that the uninsured are unsurprisingly wary of the effectiveness of Obamacare. February findings illustrate that 56% of those uninsured hold an ‘unfavourable’ view of the health reform bill. The Washington Times have utilised this outcome to claim the uninsured have “turned up noses at Obamacare”. However, further investigation reveals that such a conclusion would be a deceptive manipulation of the findings. In reality, befuddlement has translated into ‘unfavourable opinion’ because it is the default answer for the unsure and the unaware.

Half of the problem becomes clear when assessing the wording of the poll. The question “Given what you know about the health reform law, do you have a generally favourable opinion of it?” commands the respondent to put aside their lack of comprehension on the reform, and invites an influenced opinion. It is a loaded question which, unless wholly informed, steers the respondent toward an ‘unfavourable’ view as the default. Why? The media has a lot to answer for here.

The very same Kaiser Health Tracking Poll reveals a conveniently neglected insight into media influence. 37% of respondents say they saw or heard stories in the news about an individual/family that was harmed by the new law, whilst only 26% saw stories where the individual/family had been helped.  The Kaiser Family Foundation concede that a “majority of the public say their impression of the ACA law is based on what they’ve seen in the media”, supported by the findings that 54% have had no personal experience with the health reform law.

Hilary Clinton addressed this very issue just this Wednesday. Speaking to a group of supporters at the University of Miami, she said all the “misinformation” was hindering discussion in Washington, stating that “part of the challenge is to clear away all the smoke and try to figure out what is working and what isn’t”.

Tweets go viral everyday but I don't think Gemma Worral anticipated her 140 characters to be retweeted thousands of times. 

This tweet might be really amusing of some but to others, including me it is rather shocking. Has political disengagement really come this far?

I don't believe Gemma is the only British citizen who doesn't know that the United Kingdom does not have a President. In fact, some might still think that David Cameron's title is President of the United Kingdom rather than Prime Minister. 

The whole 'Barack Obama is "our" President'-Thing was a bit harder to for me to come to terms with. For me it seems like common knowledge to know that Barack Obama is the President of the United States - regardless of the fact that I do study politics. Everyone who watched the news since 2009 should know that this man is somehow important and AMERICAN (even I can figure out his accent).

Then I started thinking - what if I printed out pictures of heads of states and showed them to people, would they know their names and more importantly what country they represent? I believe that Barack Obama is quite an extreme case, because of how much media coverage he gets. Similarly I believe most people would know who Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and David Cameron are. However, do you know who Fredrik Reinfeldt, Aníbal Cavaco Silva or Miloš Zeman are? Exactly (google is your friend).

Now, on of the main arguments of Gemma's critics is that she should have known who Barack Obama is. I totally agree yet, I believe that knowing who the American President is should not be the only important factor: One should be aware who is the key political figure of the country they live in. 

With the three main Westminster parties agreeing to a currency union block last week, the SNP face a bit of a dilemma. Go to Scotland’s official referendum website, and you’ll find an optimistically phrased FAQ: “We propose that the pound Sterling will continue to be the currency of an independent Scotland”. But it is becoming increasingly clear that Scotland will have to think again.

Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander suggested options (albeit with indifferent expression); “What is Mr Salmonds plan? Does he want to join the Euro, does he want to have another countries currency circulating in Scotland like Panama does with the dollar?” For the Lib Dem, Salmond’s plan A is well and truly off the table.

Yet Salmond remains resolute. Yesterday in a half hour speech to a pro-independence crowd, he responded by asserting the Westminster intervention had already “backfired badly”. The SNP leader branded the move a diktat due to the poor Scottish reception from the empirically representative “phone-ins and newspaper polls”.

One thing does resonate with me however. Whether or not the UK and Scotland would benefit from a currency union is seemingly cloudy. Nevertheless, the report put forward by the Fiscal Commission Working Group is irrefutably impressive, not least due to the contribution and endorsement from top economy buffs.  It outlines four currency options in detail and provides commendable and empirical evidence as to why a currency union would be beneficial. (See box 7.02)

George Osborne has been relatively dismissive of the report. In fact, counter arguments fail to address the main tenets of the report in any regard. Go to the Government page which addresses the title “Why a currency union would be bad for Scotland and the UK” and you’ll encounter a mere 7 bullet points of backward looking arguments and sweeping statements, without a link to their own report on currency and monetary policy published last April. Go to the Scottish referendum website and you’ll see a consideration of the UK Government report and a fair rebuttal of their claims.

If you are British and haven't seen any rain in the last week it's probably because you live in Benidorm. 

Surrey, Berkshire and Somerset are under water and it has been reported that 130,000 homes were without electricity last Wednesday (12th of February). The storm seems to have died down but many are faced with the consequences: Damage. 

In tough times people need someone to turn to and sometimes it feels good to blame someone for what has happened. But who is to blame for a storm? Of course I could go into further detail and make a climate change argument, but that is not what I want to discuss here. What interests me is why in times like this people often point the finger at politicians. 

Why did they not react in time? Why did it take so long for the army to get involved in helping flood victims? Why did nobody predict this storm? Ect. 

Since Storm St Jude Politicians and the Environment Agency have had time to learn their speeches by heart and it seems like everyone is blaming someone else. Is this bickering really helping anyone? I don't think so. 

If your house is flooded, and you do not have electricity, I want to think that buying a newspaper is one of the last things on your mind. People want answers but they also want their life back - in form of compensations and maybe an apology (Thank you Mr. Cameron). 

The government has created a £10m grant scheme which allows small to medium businesses to claim up to £2,500 "clean-up costs and compensation", but how about private homes? The floods have alreday caused over £1bn of damage since December and insurers are now facing the heavy burden to compensate thousands of households in distress. With families still waiting to be compensated for the Christmas Storms one can only wonder when flood victims will be able to get back to their 'normal' lives. 

Still who is to blame?

I think that is a very difficult question to answer and I think it is wrong to single out politicians. Yes, the government has misjudged the flood risks in some areas. Yes, it might have taken a while for politicians to apologise. And yes, we need more flood defenses in order to prevent floods like this from happening again. But should we really blame David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg or even Nigel Farage for this? I mean on a personal level? What could they have done? We just saw how helpful they were on site - staring at the water and showing off their Hunter wellies. Maybe we should let professionals do the job, like Prince William and his brother Harry. 

In all this blame game one person claims to know why the UK was ravaged by a storm: His name is Councillor David Silvester. 

"The scriptures make it abundantly clear that a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the Gospel (and in naked breach of a coronation oath) will be beset by natural disasters such as storms, disease, pestilence and war."

Yes you have read this right: This man believes the floods are a divine punishment for "the passage of his [David Cameron] same-sex marriage bill". 

This is probably one of the most awful things said in regards to the storms and I am happy to say that David Silvester has been suspended from his party, namely UKIP. According to the party's spokesman 

Everyone is entitled to their own religious ideology, which is central to a free and fair society and we would again like to reinforce that Cllr Silvester’s views are his own and in no way reflect the party’s position

Laughing is one of my favourite emotions, it is both wonderfully liberating and contagious. 

It's like smiling: I dare you to walk down the street and smile at every person that you come across and I guarantee you that you will get smiles back. 

Habbo was created in 2000, MySpace in 2003 and Facebook celebrated its 10th Birthday a few days ago. People now had the opportunity to communicate online (slowly but surely; do you remember AOL Connect Sound?). 

Since then a lot has changed but a few things seem to have remained in all the overwhelming mess that is the internet. When people started to e-mail each other or engaged in conversations via MSN (or other messengers) they realised pretty quickly how impersonal their exchanges were: They needed a way to express their emotions.

How do you express your emotions when you cannot see the person that you are having a conversation with?

Emoticons and Internet Slang were born. 

I tend to use smileys a lot, I just think they make my texts/emails/blogposts/instagrams/tweets look nicer. Like I put mascara on every day to make myself look nicer. 

One thing however I hate is LOL. It is probably my least favourite abbreviation on the net and especially in real life. 

Until now people commonly believed that individuals who used LOL in their everyday vocabulary were either lost in their social-media world or obnoxious narcissists who did not want to share their emotions with the outside world. "That party yesterday was, like, mega LoL!"

I however have another theory. It all began with my mirror. 

Like many of you, I smile a lot and I don't hold back from "Laughing out Loud" - it seems like this has irreversible consequences on my face: LAUGHING LINES. OMG, at 20? How am I going to look like when I am 30, or 40. TBH I don't really wanna think about it, FML. 

EUREKA: What if all those professional LOLers had realised the side effects of happiness that I had just been confronted with? The evil (my smile that is) left its prints on my face. Engraved for everyone to see. 

I am still in shock. I don't know how I am ever meant to smile again. Maybe saying LOL is not that bad after all? On the plus side I am saving a few 1000 Pound on Cosmetic Surgery... If I promise not to smile, my face will be perfectly even for the rest of my life, won't it?

So please everyone, stop smiling. 

Sincerely yours,

Charlotte