UN Unfit For Purpose

After the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was set up in the hope that it could prevent further terrible conflict. A Security Council was appointed to specifically oversee areas where potential warfare could break out. The five permanent members of that council - the five main victors in World War II - were the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, Russia and China; each of the permanent members was granted the power of veto, so that any military intervention would require the consent of all five countries. These were noble aspirations of introducing democracy into scenarios of violence during a period of difficult political and social reconstruction. Unfortunately, the long passage of time appears to have rendered these constructs unworkable. Syria is a country in chaos. The UN estimates that around 9,000 people have died since pro-democracy protests began in March 2011. Regardless of a recent UN-brokered ceasefire, lethal aggression is continuing; this week an explosion in Hama took more innocent lives. France is now saying that the Security Council should consider the use of force in Syria as the peace plan is failing. Britain and the USA (although preferring to be non-interventionist) would almost certainly be willing to go along with using force as a last resort which we now must have reached. Yet the force option will probably not go ahead due to the veto of the other permanent members. Russia and China have their own agendas: they are anti-American (just watch the Russia Today news channel and see that every other story is slating the US!); they are worried about sacrificing their own economic deals (i.e. oil) that they have previously brokered with the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad, as then they would have to share the spoils with other world powers; and they are concerned about losing dominant influence in a prime political area. Basically, Russia and China are gladly putting their own nationalistic egos first, and genocide a distant second. Shame on them, eternal shame.

Twat Off!

Having resisted for a long time, I have recently joined Facebook. Social networking isn’t really my thing; I’m not the most sociable of people anyway, and socialising over the Internet strikes me as rather frivolous when I can just go to the pub (perhaps it’s for people who have more commitments than I do). Mainly I joined to promote this blog to a few more people, but I must admit it can be fun to share music videos and general thoughts on life with ‘friends’ who you don’t see that often - once you’ve got past the mindless comments of the many idiots, of course! So I now have more respect for Facebook than I used to. However … there is still a social networking menace present on the Internet that we should all be constantly wary of for the sake of our social sanity. Yes, I’m talking about Twitter. As someone who enjoys writing, the thought of being reduced to 140 characters is objectionable. Anything that I want to say in that amount of space isn’t worth putting online; the same can probably be said for most people. Even though I have never spent a significant amount of time surfing the site, my conclusion after brief perusal is that people put mundane inanities (a phrase probably not understood by Twitter users) on the Net for the world to see in order the fill the almighty gap in the rest of their lives! Seriously, do people have nothing better to do with their existence than make the effort to tell others what they had for lunch, or how trendy their trousers are? And of course, don’t forget the smiley face! It’s akin to encouraging intellectual regression. I imagine that brain cells of Twitter users are dying at twice the average rate because they’re simply not being stimulated by anything other than moribund cerebral activity. So rest assured, I will always do my utmost to write about things that matter and, if necessary, at length. And it is my belief that when someone starts taking pleasure from Twitter, they have been twatted!

Grand Cruelty

Yesterday was the annual Grand National horse race. Two horses were killed during the event. It is time for a change. Some courses (e.g. Newbury) are flat races - therefore, horses can race to their heart’s content without the fear of death! I understand that horse racing (with jumps) is a long-standing tradition, but that doesn’t condone animal cruelty. A horse with a broken leg is a horse that gets put down! Society continually changes and modernises, meaning that human beings must sometimes change with it. When animals are unnecessarily being harmed, it is time to accept our responsibility as compassionate people and stop this cruel sport, even if it has been around for centuries. Flat races are fine, just like with greyhounds (where the dogs don’t get constantly injured to a fatal extent). So, even though I thankfully didn’t bet on this year’s race, rest assured that I will never again be betting on the Grand National, or any other horse race where jumps are in effect.

Comprehensive Isn't A Dirty Word

The Department for Education has stated that the majority of secondary schools in England are now academies or are in the process of seeking academy status. (For the purpose of definition: academies have local flexibility over staff pay and conditions.) So, when removed from accountability to local authorities or national standards, schools can pretty much do whatever they want as long as they don’t receive too many complaints and produce good grades. That may seem reasonable, but just because the grade average is of a high quality doesn’t make up for the underprivileged few who are continually left behind. If your son or daughter wasn’t up to scratch because they couldn‘t conform to that school‘s particularly individualised teaching methods, would you be content that at least your school had a nationally prestigious status? Would you have the time and energy to ‘shop around’ for an educational institution that was better suited to your child’s needs? At least the comprehensive system was equal for all and everyone had the same fair chance of success. Individual entrepreneurialism can be determined at college or university, when people rightly choose their subject options; prior to that everyone should be on an equal footing in compulsory education.
A spokesman for the Department for Education said: "It is only when schools have been under-performing for a number of years that the government steps in to ensure improvement”. So according to the government, over half of secondary schools were under-performing! That may be acceptable to a right-wing ideology, but a lot of parents and teachers are happy with their children’s education and wouldn’t want an overhaul of the system. Perhaps the government should leave schools alone for a while, let kids enjoy learning without the constant pressure of tests and exams, and let teachers enjoy teaching without the constant pressure of league tables and Ofsted repercussions. But then that wouldn’t suit the needs of capitalist competition and the desire to be superior, would it?!

Inaccurate Reporting

A recent ‘independent’ report into last year’s riots has determined that the blame lied with education and opportunity. It says that a lack of support and opportunity for young people contributed to the outbreak of the riots, and that low educational achievement of some teenagers necessitates financial penalties for schools that fail to teach basic levels of literacy.
However, the panel was appointed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg. So let’s explore these motives further.
Suggestion No. 1: One of the reasons that theft is so prominent is because materialistic values and economic consumption are promoted as the be all and end all of society. And lack of education may cause disgruntlement, but a redistribution of wealth so that nobody feels financially excluded may provide a better solution.
Suggestion No. 2: Neither citizens nor society is completely to blame for anything. There are roots in the social environment that set about a start of such things and individuals who are too weak to resist the opportunity to do something bad. Live with that reality.
And suggestion No. 3: Appoint a panel that isn’t appointed by the government (thereby, independent!). Just a thought.