Oh do get off that soapbox!

The Times front page headline reads Saudis told Obama not to humiliate Mubarak followed by Hugh Tomlinson's report of the phone call made by King Abdullah to President Obama telling him that if they tried to force Mubarak out of Egypt in the face of popular protest, his government would retailiate by propping him, i.e. Mubarak up. And so it would seem our journalists are up in arms, outraged on the public's behalf as though this was the most scandalous thing since the last Wikileaks bombshell. Which leaves me wondering do people fully understand what happens in international politics?

Leaders threatening each other is hardly news and I for one didn't need to read any Wikileaks report to understand that politics is a dirty game where seemingly chummy Heads of States have utter contempt for one another. Is it not obvious that powerful countries achieved their status by less than pleasant means? Or that despotic regimes count so-called democratic leaders among their supporters? Perhaps I'm cynical and maybe people do go around thinking that our leaders are all fine upstanding citizens whose actions are purely altruistic. Somehow I doubt this very much. I think the public is a lot more discerning than the media would have us believe so their outrage at the USA being influenced by the oil-rich Saudis seems a little feigned to say the least.

Let's assume for a moment that we do all expect Western Leaders to uphold their democratic principles in all political matters, whether domestic or foreign. We know they can be very vocal in condemning the likes of Robert Mugabe for human rights abuses or supporting military coups of those they deem to be dictators(or as Bush would say 'against US'), and perhaps we find that laudable yet we can't ignore that when it comes to oppressive regimes like China and Israel it is always business as usual. What I find hugely duplicitous is that our so-called independent media perpetuate these double standards rather than acknowledge that politics is and has always been a dirty game. This may be part of our ability as Westerners to constantly maintain the moral high ground, albeit in our own minds. We're constantly told and we believe that we are free unlike the oppressed populations of the world. We elect our leaders and hold them accountable but do we really?

There are countless examples of actions that have been taken (see War in Iraq) and are still taken by our elected leaders which we have either no knowledge of, and which if/or when we do, we are rightly outraged by. Admittedly on fundamental issues such as our freedoms, to associate or to express ourselves in the media or in public, we are far more advanced than autocracies like North Korea or Iran, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that we know of, or could possibly approve of all the decisions that our governments make. Politics is a ruthless business, where power is the single most important factor and governments will carry out some of the most despicable acts in order to maintain or acquire such power.

In the game of politics leaders are ousted at a whim  because they do not suit a country's purpose as was the case with Haiti's Jean Bertrand Aristide, genocidal regimes are protected as the French did in Rwanda during Operation Turquoise and when governments refuse to play ball, crippling sanctions are imposed as was the case in Zimbabwe which end up affecting the ordinary man more than the despotic leader. Who on earth are we kidding when we try to hold Obama accountable for Mubarak's refusal to step down from power? The US's influence in Egypt is worth nothing as long as the 82 year old leader has the support of a mighty power like Saudi Arabia. As long as leaders have financial and often military backing from one country or another, whether openly or as is often the case 'behind close doors', they will continue to do exactly as they please even if that means defying their people and/or the international community. Politics will continue to be about a power struggle where sometimes the power shifts from one nation to another.

Oftentimes I wish people would simply call things like they are and stop pretending we live in some kind of Utopia where our leaders have our best interests at heart. What the phone call from King Abdullah and the subsequent 'delicate' diplomacy on the part of Washington proves is that the Saudis have the upper hand. Simply put, America will have to dance to their tune because clearly they have something that America wants.....or rather needs.
So my humble appeal to the next journalist who choses to pick up this story and run with it as though it were the 'scoop' of the week, do get off your soapbox for one minute and fully appreciate what being the leader of any nation means and if you already know this which I suspect you do, then try and find another story to demonstrate your moral indignation. I hear Britain's decided to triple its aid to Somalia. Now there's a story worth investigating.

If this is Capitalism, then call me a Socialist!

Tomorrow will mark two years since Barack Obama took office as President of the United States and today the House Representatives voted to repeal his Health care reform bill which many will argue is his greatest achievement to date.
So why repeal it?....to most Europeans it seems like a 'no-brainer' to use an American term, yet the US population are divided on whether everyone should have the right to decent and safe healthcare irrespective of their financial situation. To be very frank I just don't get it. Perhaps I'm missing something but I find myself asking whether this is what true Capitalism looks like?

Simply put Capitalism is defined as "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." (Source Oxford Dictionary Online) Socialism on the other hand, advocates public or common ownership and management of resources.
With Capitalism comes a tendency for a more individualistic society - as money is king ultimately, we must all work towards making more of it, even if this is to the detriment of others. Contrary to what Fox News would have their dimwitted audience believe, countries in Europe follow the Capitalist model rather than the socialist one, however most Europeans understand and appreciate the need for the State to intervene in order to protect vulnerable members of society. Hence Europeans' bewilderment about public opposition to the US Healthcare reform bill. I suspect there is also a widely held belief shared by most decent human beings that certain rights must not be compromised, rights such as access to  food, education and yes healthcare!
In African societies, it is a given that we take care of our extended families - and although this can prove burdensome at times for able-bodied and better off family members, it results in closer and stronger family bonds and everyone in society from the young to the old feel cared for.
In European countries where nuclear families are more common,  people still accept that they have an obligation to contribute towards a better society, i.e. by paying their taxes or other social contributions. I'm not suggesting for a moment that people don't complain about this or at times about able-bodied people who 'sponge off' society, they certainly do. Nonetheless I've yet to hear someone bemoan the fact that unemployed or poorer members of society are receiving free healthcare which their taxes pay for. It just seems like a very odd thing to me in a so-called civilised and developed country. Such an attitude furthers the rich poor divide and although such disparity is something the Western media documents as representative of developing countries, the images post Hurricane Katrina tell us quite something else. I wonder though if the Americans who complain about having to fund healthcare simply choose to ignore the adverse effects of a society where companies thrive at the expense of the poor and sick or where the wealthy can afford the best medical treatments while the poor and struggling have to choose between their health and say the roof over their heads.To date the main and only valid argument I've heard from those opposed to Obama's Affordable Health Care Act is that it will mean a rise in their taxes. Although there are other gripes, such as the fear of government using healthcare funding for abortions and the government taking over and operating a second rate healthcare system - such arguments have been rebutted unequivocally. The crux of opponents' argument therefore is that they are expected to susidise through their taxes those with the greatest need which simply put reflects an 'everyman for himself' attitude.

Before the Act came in last year, 46 million Americans were without health insurance, children with pre-existing conditions could be denied coverage, and insurers could cancel your policy retroactively because of an unintentional mistake on your application. The Act has addressed these and many more issues so what exactly is so objectionable about it?
I understand that American Society thrives on hard work and for many people, success has come as a result of sheer drive and determination. This is an admirable quality and why the country is still viewed as the land of opportunity. Yet we cannot ignore the fact that the 'lazy and privileged' also exist. There are those who were born into 'money' whose paths have been carved for them and who are where they are today simply because of their heritage. I can think of a few former US Presidents to illustrate this point. It is therefore disingenuous to suggest that the vulnerable among us should be denied assistance when there was never a level playing field to begin with. If we all started on an equal footing, this argument may be somewhat persuasive but even then.... as we say in Africa 'No one knows what tomorrow will bring'. There are times when in spite of our best efforts we find ourselves in need of a helping hand; there have been stories of people whose lives were turned upside down following a redundancy. There are those who recognise that all  it will take is a few missed mortgage payments for them to find themselves without a roof over their heads and in need of assistance.

It's one thing to deny people financial support but quite another to refuse them healthcare when they are at their most vulnerable. Healthcare should be a right not a privilege and if supporting a system that provides a more equitable system where companies are not allowed to exploit the vulnerable, means being accused of Socialism, then that is a badge I will proudly wear.

Mr Cameron, you are no Barack Obama

The Sun newspaper defaced Barack Obama's Hope poster in today's edition by replacing the man whose campaign and image reflected the true meaning of the word with the image of the far from inspiring toffee-nosed Mr Cameron. Their melodramatic headline went 'Cameron is our only hope :http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/article2961073.ece
The very idea of me having to pin my hopes on the constantly airbrushed, disingenious David Cameron is enough to make me pack my bags and return to Africa sharpish.
The sad thing is that because British journalists are so lacking in imagination, they get on a bandwagon and hold on to it for dear life, regardless of whether it smacks of contradictions or not. Mr Cameron could not be more different from Barack Obama in style, politics and vision if he tried.
Aside from there having two very polarized upbringings, David Cameron was born into a privileged English family, went to private schools all his life including a preparatory school attended by the Princes of Wales and York and the prestigious Eton. All this was rounded off nicely by a noble degree at none other than Oxford University.
Barack Obama on the other hand was born to a Kenyan father and American mother who divorced when he was very young, had a very modest childhood, attending local schools in Indonesia and finally moving back to the US to live with his grandparents, hard working Americans who were by no means wealthy.

Fast forward to their political and ideological ideas and I still fail to see the likeness, Mr Cameron is the leader of Conservative party which by definition has always favoured the 'haves' at the expense of the 'have nots'. They believe that, like the Republicans in the USA that everyone should do for themselves, this is partly reflected in their policies to fix what they refer to as 'broken britain' including rewarding married couples because we should aspire to marriage and those who are irresponsible enough to find themselves as single parents should just go and hide in shame. Likewise they would like to encourage people to create their own schools when the state ones are failing. This is all very well for the highly educated overzealous mummies who move about in their 4x4s and are fortunate enough to not have to work. The majority of us who rely on the government providing good schools for our kids will end up being left out in the cold. Although the Tory party (as the Conservatives are also known) now claim the NHS as the best thing to happen to Britain, something they wish to protect, once upon a time would have quite happily cut spending on the service that affords the majority of Britons free healthcare.
The democrats and President Barack Obama on the other hand believe that government has a responsibility to ensure fairness for all. Obama has, against all odds been able to push through a healthcare bill which will ensure that all Americans regardless of their financial means have access to affordable healthcare.

The Conservative party and Mr Cameron's approach towards everyone taking responsibility wouldn't be so objectionable if we all started on an equal footing. Instead we have a world where there is no level playing field and yet you expect me to pull myself up when you've been given a significant head start and advantage? It would be like telling women to stop moaning and work hard so they can become CEOs and Directors of companies and earn the same salaries as men; all good and well, if you would be so kind as to take away the social and professional advantages afforded to these men.
The Times newspaper had a front page photo of the Camerons in what I would call a cringe-worthy pose - SamCam (as Mrs Samantha Cameron is fondly referred to) stretched out lovingly on her husband's lap. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/04/david-samantha-cameron-caption-competition I didn't have to go through my old copies of Newsweek and Time magazines which covered the US election campaign to recall the likeness of many of the photos we saw of the Obamas on the road, campaigning from one US State to another. The difference was that unlike this extremely staged pose, theirs seemed very real and did not scream PR stunt to the discerning public. Perhaps it's the Brit mentality but I cant help but be cynical by Mr Cameron and his heavily airbrushed images and massively staged photo ops. I would perhaps find it all a bit forgiving if it were original but for either the media or Mr Cameron himself to try and position him as Britain's answer to Barack Obama is insulting for those who know what the two leaders and their parties stand for.
Gordon Brown may be awkward and not a people's person, wrinkles, gaffes and all but atleast he is who is he is, warts and all. I would much rather have a leader who  is dull and real than one who is so bent on selling us the perfect image, that he deliberately misleads the public into thinking that he is something that he is not. The people's leader you are not and will never be Mr Cameron, win or lose this election so rather than spending mounds of cash which I appreciate you and your wealthy party can more than afford, you should focus on the substance. Have the balls to say what you stand for and to reflect this in everything you put out to the public. That way atleast those who do end up voting for you will be fully aware of what they are letting themselves in for.
And please do us all a favour and jump off the hope bandwagon!