Skin bleaching - whose problem is it?*

In a short piece written a couple of months ago for http://www.rollingout.com/ , Amir Shaw argued that reggae artist, Vybz Kartel’s horrific bleaching was proof that self-hate permeates the black community. While I agree that Vybz Kartel must suffer from psychological problems which allow him to put his health at such an obvious risk for the sake of looking like a member of the living-dead, I reject the idea that it somehow reflects a problem that is facing our entire community.

Skin-bleaching is revolting; we can certainly argue that it’s a form of self-hate because of the shocking effects that it has on the person’s skin. Those who bleach their skin expose themselves to serious damage from the sun, having killed off the melanin-making cells which act as a natural barrier. Bleached skin becomes thinner, sometimes almost transparent and always has a redness/soreness which makes it obvious that the person is bleaching. Some of the bleaching creams that contain mercury can cause poisoning that leads to a damaged liver or kidney failure. Hydroquinone which can be found in a lot of these creams was banned in Europe because studies showed it can cause cancer. There is no doubt that the effects of bleaching can be horrendous and deadly, which makes you wonder what kind of person would go through such serious health risks just so they can come out looking like a zombie (Vybz Kartel) or a ghost (Latoya Jackson)?

I think it’s possible to argue that at the outset people who bleach their skin may simply want to achieve a different look, one they consider more appealing in a similar way that people lie in the sun or under a sun bed continuously simply want what they consider to be a more attractive skin tone. However when you consider the effects of bleaching and when you see the end results, I think any sane person in their right-mind would reason that it’s simply not worth it. I think that it’s valid to say that as a general rule, people crave the ‘exotic’- something that stands out from the norm; for English people who naturally have pale skin, ‘exotic’ is looking more like the southern Europeans with their olive skins that tan easily. For some black people, it’s achieving the look of someone who is lighter and therefore more ‘exotic’.

To suggest that black people bleach their skin because they want to be white would be the same as arguing that white people tan their skin because they want to be black. If that suggestion sounds absurd then why are we so quick to label the entire black community as ‘dying to be white’? Does that not perpetuate a racist notion that we all harbour a secret desire to be like our former colonial masters?

In the same way, the proposition that we often hear that women who wear hair extensions or weave-on do so because they want to be like their white counterparts is equally nonsensical especially when you have white women today wearing hair pieces because either their hair is too thin or they want to achieve a different look. Why is it easier for us to accept a simple and trivial reason for various beauty choices on the part of white people but not for our own community? Are we not giving credence to slavery for having broken us by suggesting nearly 200 years after its abolition that everything we do is informed by slavery?

Personally, I reject the idea that our community is in any more of a crisis than the white community. Why do the same theorists who tell us that black people do x y or z because they want to be white not also suggest that white men prefer blonde and blue eyed women because they harbour a secret desire to be part of an Aryan race similar to the ideals of Nazi Germany? Likewise we never ever hear stories of white societies being under threat because white women are marrying or having children with black men. Surely if we’re suffering from these so-called threats, they must on the other hand also be experiencing the effects of them as well.

I think we should be aware of our past, but there is clearly a danger that we are allowing it to dictate who we are today. We have much to celebrate in terms of our achievements. When people like Vybz Kartel behave in such a shocking manner, we should be quick to condemn them without somehow tarring our entire community with the same brush.

I can attest to the fact that the people I know and admire do not bleach their skins. They are educated and exposed enough to appreciate their beauty and to not run such unnecessary risks. I’d be lying however if I said they were all happy with their skin complexion or texture; but I think that a desire to have smoother or more even-toned skin doesn’t translate to hating one’s race. The women I know do wear make up in a bid to achieve a flawless look…and nothing more. Some of the strongest and self-conscious women I know may wear a weave on a given day and on another would undergo a complete transformation with braids or a short cut.

I believe we do our community a disservice by letting the minority, especially an uninspiring, unexposed, ignorant minority like Vybz Kartel and those who practice skin-bleaching, speak for the rest of us. We have achieved a great deal and I’m pretty certain that there are far more people in the black community who do not bleach their skins than who do. Skin bleaching is not an epidemic that affects us all. In its extreme, it is a shameful reality for some that we need to condemn without making it ‘our’ problem.

Kartel is a troubled man but he looks nothing like my brother or my father or my husband and for that reason I’m happy to identify his bleaching as his problem not mine, certainly not my community’s.

*Article first published in Rethink Caribbean

The Alternative Big Read - 100 of the most influential books

A list of books compiled in April 2003 and circulated widely on Facebook is the result of the BBC’s Big Read campaign where the British broadcasting company went around the United Kingdom in search of the Nation’s best read. Unfortunately I wasn’t polled and neither were any of my friends, obviously an oversight on the part of the BBC so having gone through their list and highlighted the 25 books which I’ve read, I decided to compile an alternative list for those of us who missed the knock on our door or whose internet might have been down when the online survey was circulated.
Feel free to comment on any additional ones that should be on the list - we can always 'bump off' some 'multiple titles' in favour of any omissions.



1. African psycho by Alain Mabanckou



2. In Search of our Mother's Gardens by Alice Walker



3. The Temple of my Familiar by Alice Walker



4. Changes by Ama Ata Aidoo



5. The devil that danced on water by Aminatta Forna



6. The Palm-Wine Drinkard by Amos Tutola



7. The Hundred Secret Sense by Amy Tan



8. The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan



9. Fruits of the Lemon by Andrea Levy



10. Small Island by Andrea Levy



11. The Pilot’s Wife by Anita Shreve



12. The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga



13. The God of small things by Arundhati Roy



14. The Beautiful Ones Are Not Yet Born by Ayi Kwei Armah



15. The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver



16. Brothers and Sisters by Bebe Moore Campbell



17. The Famished Road by Ben Okri



18. Second Class Citizen by Buchi Emecheta



19. The Joys of Motherhood by Buchi Emecheta



20. L’enfant noir (The black child) by Camara Laye



21. A distant shore by Caryl Phillips



22. Purple Hibiscus by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie



23. Half of a yellow sun by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie



24. No longer at ease by Chinua Achebe



25. Things fall apart by Chinua Achebe



26. Graceland by Chris Abani



27. Passing Through by Colin Channer



28. Big girls don’t cry by Connie Briscoe



29. Reading the Ceiling by Dayo Forster



30. The beautiful things that heaven bears by Dinaw Mengestu



31. Some kind of black by Diran Adebayo



32. A love of my own by E. Lynn Harris



33. Breath, Eyes, Memory by Edwidge Danticat



34. Krik Krak by Edwidge Danticat



35. Prospero's Daughter by Elizabeth Nune



36. A lesson before dying by Ernest J Gaines



37. The Belly of the Atlantic by Fatou Diome



38. The Longest Memory by Fred D'aguiar



39. The Icarus Girl by Helen Oyeyemi



40. Measuring Time by Helon Habila



41. The House of Spirits by Isabelle Allende



42. In the heart of the Country by J.M. Coetzee



43. In search of satisfaction by J California Cooper



44. Lucy by Jamaica Kincaid



45. Go tell it on the mountain by James Baldwin



46. Another Country by James Baldwin



47. Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys



48. Nação Crioula (Creole) by Jose Eduardo Agualusa



49. Sozaboy by Ken Saro Wiwa



50. Like water for chocolate by Laura Esquivel



51. All the Blood Is Red by Leone Ross



52. Lady Moses by Lucinda Roy



53. Madame Fate by Marcia Douglas



54. The True History of Paradise by Margaret Cezair-Thompson



55. Aya Marguerite Abouet by Clement Oubrerie



56. So long a letter by Mariama Bâ



57. Trois femmes puissantes by Marie NDiaye



58. Unburnable by Marie-Elena John



59. Cloth Girl by Marilyn Heward Mills



60. God don’t like Ugly by Mary Monroe



61. I know why the caged bird sings by Maya Angelou



62. Rain darling by Merle Collins



63. Sleepwalking Land (Terra Sonâmbula) by Mia Couto



64. Brick Lane by Monica Ali



65. Abyssinian Chronicles by Moses Isegawa



66. Juletane by Myriam Warner-Vieyra



67. Maps for Lost Lovers by Nadeem Aslam



68. The Conservationist by Nadine Gordimer



69. The New Moon's Arms by Nalo Hopkinson



70. Memoirs of a woman doctor by Nawal El Sadaawi



71. Weep not child by Ngugi Wa Thiong'o



72. Tail of the Blue Bird by Nii Ayikwei Parkes



73. Kindred by Octavia Butler



74. Tide running by Oonya Kempadoo



75. Me Dying Trial by Patricia Powell



76. Browngirl Brownstones by Paule Marshall



77. What Looks Like Crazy … by Pearle Cleage



78. Erasure by Percival Everett



79. Mine Boy by Peter Abrahams



80. Invisible man by Ralph Ellison



81. The Swinging Bridge by Ramabai Espinet



82. Native Son by Richard Wright



83. Ruby by Rosa Guy



84. A measure of time by Rosa Guy



85. Everything good will come by Sefi Atta



86. A life elsewhere by Segun Afolabi



87. Les bouts de bois de Dieu by Sembene Ousmane



88. He drown she in the sea by Shani Mootoo



89. The Bridge of Beyond by Simone Schwartz-Bart



90. The coldest winter ever by Sister Souljah



91. Season of Migration to the North by Tayeb Salih



92. Mama by Terry McMillan



93. The Salt Eaters by Toni Cade Bambara



94. Beloved by Toni Morrison



95. Tar Baby by Toni Morrison



96. Nervous Condition by Tsitsi Dangarembga



97. Devil in a blue dress by Walter Mosley



98. The Interpreters by Wole Soyinka



99. White Teeth by Zaidie Smith



100. Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston

Taking Ownership of the UN’s failings

World leaders are gathering for the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Each leader will get 15 minutes on an international podium to put forward their agenda and mostly air their grievances and I suspect in the case of the some, notably Iran and Libya if last year was anything to go by, settle ‘personal’ scores. Of course the time limit is only a guidance, many leaders go over this time, though few compare to Gaddafi’s rant last year, lasting a whopping hour and 40 minutes only beaten by Fidel Castro who addressed World Leaders at the UNGA in 1960 for four long and no doubt painful for the audience – hours. Unlike the Academy Awards there’s no music that starts to drown them out as they go past their allocated time nor are they escorted away by burly security guards although the thought of Ahmadinejad being tackled to the ground Jerry Springer style for going over his time would provide much needed entertainment at an otherwise dull male dominated talk shop.

With this annual meeting comes the usual UN bashing – let’s face it we all love a bit of that don’t we? Whether you work within the system, would secretly like to work for it or just like sitting on the moral high ground and pointing a finger, everyone seems to have an opinion when it comes to the organisation that is made up of no less than 192 member states. I guess this is to be expected as the UN is a public organisation, albeit an international one so as our taxes go towards maintaining the organisation, we have as much right to scrutinise it as we do our individual country’s public sector. The issue I have is when World leader’s and their representatives talk about the United Nations’ relevance as though they played no part in making the institution what it is today. The worse culprits being those with veto powers who are the very reason the organisation fails to take any real action.

In 2004 former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan commissioned a panel to make recommendations for a reform of the organisation. In 2005 he proposed these ‘bold’ reforms which included expanding the Security Council, setting out rules on when it can authorise military force and reaching an agreed definition of terrorism. Five years later and these reforms are still being debated.

In a document dated 12th April 2010 from the Ad Hoc Committee Negotiating Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Convention, the issue of how terrorism is defined was still considered contentious. The second question of when the organisation can authorise military force seems to have to been reduced to an academic debate, the only evidence of it still being a live issue is in a paper presented in February at the Annual Conference of the International Studies Association by a student from Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University. The expansion of the Security Council which could be a key issue in real United Nations reform is no closer to being agreed by the five permanent members than it was when first tabled.

I find it somewhat dishonest when the media talk about the United Nations struggling to prove its relevance and cite failed negotiations with North Korea or the Middle East peace process, as though any government on their own or with others have succeeded where the United Nations has failed. Where diplomacy is concerned, I can’t think of a single state’s triumph following UN failure. Its absolutely ridiculous that the Washington Post should refer to the Middle East process in its article U.N. struggles to prove its relevance without quoting its own government’s repeatedly unsuccessful efforts in reaching a deal, which is even more laughable when we consider how ‘closely’ tied the United States is with Israel. If I can’t persuade my own teenager to turn the music down then what chance does my neighbour have?

Where countries have been ‘successful’ (a term used loosely) is in taking military action, something which fortunately the United Nations is a lot more cautious in doing because let’s face it, the last thing we need is another military power that is able to launch ‘shock and awe’ campaigns killing millions of innocent civilians at a whim.

At an individual level, critique is somewhat justified, as I said earlier we contribute to the running of the institution and therefore have a right to question how it run. However this should be done with a dose of common sense; diplomacy which is at the core of the organisation has never been known to produce overnight results. Negotiating with two parties is difficult at best, let alone negotiating with 192 parties, each and every one fighting fiercely to further its own agenda. I think it’s fair to say that there are areas where the United Nations makes a difference, where if it wasn’t there, countries, groups and individuals would run amok. Granted, there is a lot of room for improvement especially where the attitude of a lot of United Nations employees who are no more than paper pushing civil servants, doing the bare minimum while earning a highly competitive salary are concerned. A lot of people enter the system and become disillusioned and unfortunately many of the disillusioned join the lazy bunch and so continues the vicious and very unproductive cycle. I think this is a great shame and one of the biggest flaws of the United Nations. There needs to be better accountability; the seasoned civil servants who sit in offices with no purpose should be gotten rid of. Those who genuinely believe in the organisation’s aim and purpose should continue to work hard and be true to the values they signed up to and themselves. A friend signs her emails off with the following quote from her mother

"If I sweep the front of my house clean and my neighbours on my right and left do the same thing and everyone on the street does the same thing, the whole town will be clean"

If the member states and UN staff members of this extraordinarily broad organisation that is unlike any other, follow this philosophy, surely we will all end up with a United Nations that does what it was set up to do, i.e. facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achievement of world peace. Who then can argue with the relevance of such an organisation?

Sex and the City 2

So I tried really hard to ignore the critics, let's face it, what do they know? According to them noone wants to go and see ageing women making a spectacle of themselves. Why would they? What we all want to see are ageing men making spectacles of themselves with young busty women right? Right?


I have to confess that when I read my friend's review, I nearly caved in - surely if this smart like-minded empowered woman hated SATC 2, there must definitely be something wrong.

Even though my resolve was week, I decided to keep an open mind and went to see it all the same....

So Act 1, Scene 1...so far so good. A bit of reminiscing, humour at the outrageous 80s outfits. Scene 2 - cheesy but funny, one too many cliches about homosexual men and their love for all things Liza Minelli and cabaret but hey...still in good spirit. I'm liking it...but I'm waiting for the crash.

We move on, lunch with the gals, differences of opinion with hubby which I can relate to, motherhood frustrations, work/career issues, dilemmas about 'grown up' life and lusting after what once was. I get it. As always with Sex and the City, I got most of the dialogue, not the stuff coming from Carrie, though that wasnt really a surprise, I've always found her brand of wisdom a little too self-centred, American-centric and a tad immature for me, so it was the stuff from the less obvious wise women - Miranda, Charlotte and especially Samantha that I got and agreed with for the most part. Carrie true to form seems to live a bubble that is New York. I remember the whole debacle about moving to Paris towards the end of the series, to listen to it, one would have thought she was contemplating moving to the Amazonian forest. It was ridiculously over-dramatised and reminded the world why Americans are still so narrow-minded because if Paris, which is a few hours a way and mirrors New York in so many ways was considered a strangely foreign land that she could barely cope with, then what hope is there for modern American women to discover more far flung places in the world without being overcome by fear of being eaten alive by 'the natives'?

Back to the film, Part deux, we move on to Abu Dhabi, the outfits are ridiculous I must confess, definitely not my cup of tea and even Miranda and Charlotte who usually come through were obviously dressed by some crazed Gautier/Chanel intern trying to prove a point, i.e. that high fashion has no place in the real world. The opulence of Abu Dhabi wasn't too my taste either but was certainly well researched so top marks for that. As for the treatment of the 'locals' - I saw nothing anti-islamic or anti-Arab about the film's portrayal of Arab women or men. They even get bonus points for reflecting that the workers in th UAE are mostly foreigners like the Indian butler or the Nigerian karaoke compere. Overall I thought this part was handled with honesty and for once in our pathetic 21st century lives, Political Correctness was shown the door in favour of good ole fashioned honesty. Yes there are issues with states in the UAE such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi that claim to be open and yet still treat women like second class citizens, where men act as though sex is a dirty word when in actual fact (and this wasn't in the film) many of them are getting plenty of the sordid kind behind closed doors. And yes Samantha was disrespectful and went overboard but she, like many Westerners refuse to get the fact that there are cultural differences in this world we live in, and simply because every corner of the globe has a Coca Cola kiosk, does not mean that we've all embraced every aspect of American culture. There are times when these narrow-minded foreigners find themselves languishing in Emirate prisons because they think surely kissing a fellow consenting adult is not illegal. If nothing else, SATC 2 will teach the randy Brit and American tourists that when in UAE do as the Arabs do.

All in all the loud crash bang wallop didn't happen for me, I laughed and I cringed especially at Samantha and her shameless flirting, but I was also amused by her one-liners. There was a huge layer of cheese when it came to the girl fest and celebrating women but you know what when I think of my girlfriends and the way we interact, if we expressed our mutual respect and love for one another, it would seem extremely cheesy but it would be the truth and nothing but. So if cheese is being honest about how phenomenal we are, mothers, career women, wives, then bring it on! I would watch this film again in a heartbeat because as always with Sex and the City, I can relate to these women and that's what I think the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of women who will still flock to the cinema to see it, will take away from it.
Long live the chick flick!!!

Men v Sex and the City - proof that we still inhabit different planets

The time has come again for female friends to get dolled up and slip on their sexiest heels for a special visit to the cinemas. As you can imagine, we're not just talking about any old rated R film, its nearly time for us to laugh, cringe and sob over the much anticipated Sex and the City 2. Whether you're in Jo'burg, Paris, New York or Madrid, most women with access to American television will have heard of the dynamic foursome known as Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha. Two years ago I went with my girlfriends to see the first installment in West London and was able to discuss the tear-jerking and downright hilarious parts with friends who lived way across the pond in New York. We could all relate and whilst we didn't think it was a Oscar worthy plot or performances, we still loved every minute of it and saw it several times. Like Jimmy Choos, SATC seems to unify women, regardless of colour or financial means, we love the celebration of femininity, friendship and general fabulousity. So why does this US export cause so much disdain, dismay and irritation among men folk? Why, I wonder are men so averse to Sex and the City?

Yesterday as I savoured my copy of my favourite bite size magazine (http://www.stylist.co.uk/ ), I decided against my better judgement to read what four male writers had to say about the women of Sex and the City. It took some courage and tongue biting as each one analysed a different character with comments like 'Women realise ditsy in a woman over the age of 33 is unbecoming but they forgive all this because she has...shoes' - no prices for guessing who the Shortlist magazine's editorial director is referring to there. Another writer comments that Miranda who is apparently 'exactly the kind of woman decent men like' (which makes me think there cant be many of these decent men out there as I know an awful lot of single Mirandas) is portrayed as selling out as she settles for 'bored domesticity with a man not fit to clean her shoes'. As if we hadn't been insulted enough, Samantha, who many of us believe epitomises female strength and sexuality is dubbed as a single man's dream because she is willing to and encourages single women to have non committal sex without the promise of  a ring or expensive gift. Perish the thought that a woman would actually enjoy sex and engage in it for her own pleasure. And so these four masculine 'thinkers' go on, pulling apart the women and the series as little more than a disgrace to feminism. Carrie is apparently the least attractive to men because aside from being 'ditsy' she 'works from a rule book made from princessy-ness and insecurity'. But before you rush out to buy yourself a cat and resolve to live a life of singledom, there is hope for the single woman; writer Chris Bell gives us all a little encouragement  by encouraging us to look to Charlotte who he describes as 'perfect wife material - formal and reserved in public; a 'goer' in private, as our role model. So all is not lost, if we all strive to be 'Park Avenue Polyanna(s)' we could land ourselves husbands and have our very own happily ever after - apparently Charlotte's character is the one who 'wins' - true love, marriage and kids! Talk about hitting the jackpot.
If on the other hand you prefer to make feminists lament all over the world by having 'free' sex with men then you'll only have yourself to blame when you can't even find a boyfriend let alone a husband! Tut tut tut Samantha.
Now if you go for option no. 3 a la Miranda, be prepared to settle for table scraps - according to Justin Quirk, what stands out most about Steve is not his unconditional love for Miranda or his willingness to put up with her at times 'difficult' and domineering ways but that he is a 'not good looking semi-literate barman'. Take note those of you who have looked for substance over style in a partner.
Whatever you do, do not and I repeat do not accumulate shoes, no matter how beautiful you find them and how they make you feel and how much disposable income you have, because if you do, you'll simply be expressing everything that is 'shallow and materialistic about modern womanhood'.

I confess that I wasn't under any illusions about men being thoroughly different from us but I think having lived with one for a number of years, I came to believe that there can be common ground even if the fundamentals differ. Yet after reading these four accounts, I can't help but conclude that when given the opporunity to truly express themselves without fear of reproach, men confirm that they inhabit a planet that is light years away from our's. If we consider that these men are supposedly the intelligent, well-read and presumably 'exposed' minority and yet they spout such sexist tosh where everything we do is in relation to their world and their being, then what hope is there for the not so smart ones.
Samantha cannot simply have a high female libido, nor can Miranda genuinely love her family and her career because the two must cancel each other out. I can honestly say that pieces like this give me a whole new level of a lack of respect for men. It's unfortunate that we live together, work with each other and yet so many of them still find it hard to see us as equals. The usual misogynistic stereotypes still pervade where women are only defined by their ability to bag a husband. Likewise when they do choose a career, it has to be all of nothing, they cant be mothers, wives and career women too.
Note to the opposite sex - yes we do like shoes ....so what? - you like football, we like shoes, atleast they make us look and feel sexy.
If these men are a representation of what the majority of men think, then I'm glad that most of my friends are female and I cant wait to hit the town with them for our Sex and the City 2 night out so we can raise a glass to four fabulous ladies who remind us quite a bit of ourselves.

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!