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

If I see one more ‘woe is the single woman’ article…..

I’ve just read three articles dealing with the woes of being a single woman, the first written by a single woman who spends the entire article talking about how much of an over-achiever she is, apparently with the pedigree of an Arabian thoroughbred, only to finish pathetically dreaming of a ‘found glass slipper’ and a kiss to awake her from her slumber, dreams that apparently get her through life’s drudgery.


Article no 2 is written by an expert in getting married, having done it (albeit unsuccessfully) three times, she feels qualified to tell single women what they’re doing wrong. Essentially, it’s all about changing who you are so you can achieve the wonderful state of matrimony.

The final which I’ll admit I couldn’t bear to finish reading was about the lack of single men in New York but again the crux of the argument was that you dear single female reader are the problem….the sole reason why you are still unhappily single.

First of all let me say that I’m not single but I’m hoping you’ll be willing to hear me out before making a decision about my credibility on the issue of singledom. It might help you to know that I’m not a ‘smug married’ and I was raised by two, no three single women. First my grandmother, then my aunt and finally my mother. All formidable women who just got on with the business of life and raising children with the help of their extended family

Now, I don’t know exactly where it started but some, no make that a lot of women have managed to convince themselves that being single is some kind of a curse. Perhaps a male-dominated society has been telling them this for so long that they’re starting to believe it. Or maybe it’s their smug married female friends who are often so miserable in their own lives that they like to pretend they are somehow better off. Trust me they’re not!

I know I’m not saying anything new but I feel that it needs to be said on this 8th day of March 2011, International Women’s day – Ladies you can be single and happy!!! There are good marriages and bad marriages, likewise single life can be fulfilling or it can be lonely as hell. The advantage is that as a singleton you get to choose whether you’ll lead a life that makes you happy whereas to be married and happy depends on your spouse not being an arsehole!

While I enjoy being married, I recognise that it’s not for everyone. Marriage is an institution that requires an enormous amount of sacrifice/compromise and in my experience and those of my friends, the wife is the one who does most of the compromising/sacrificing. There are no doubt exceptions to the rule but the fact that a majority of women have to give up their surname and identity to take on their husbands should already ring alarm bells that ‘ain’t nothing equal about this set-up’. Also it may be as a result of our disposition as women, and again I speak for myself and the 80 or so married women I know, but we tend to just get on with what needs to be done and that ends up meaning doing everything ourselves. We become primary carers of our children, which often means professional compromise; we take on the lion share of the housework and we comport ourselves in public like ‘married women’. This means most of us lose the male friends we once had because we are acutely aware of what is expected of us as ‘wives’. Our husbands on the other hand have flourishing careers, supportive wives, cared-for children and homes that they can happily come back to at the end of a long day at work followed by nights hanging with the boys or girls. For all intents and purposes there is nothing, other than the ring that would suggest that their status has changed.
Before you get the picture of a gloom and doom marriage, let me attempt to qualify this though by saying what you give up on the one hand you gain on the other. There’s the wonderful feeling of being with the man you love (I’m making an assumption here of course that people marry for love); marriage also means someone to have sex with when you choose and how you choose, with or without the end result of children and last but by no means least companionship.

As a single woman the greatest benefit is freedom, to do, to be, to go without having to answer to anyone and although society would have us believe that women are incapable of enjoying sexual freedom apparently because of some hormone called oxytocin , I can say with absolute certainty that this is not true for every woman. Admittedly not everyone is liberated enough to pursue or enjoy sex outside of a committed relationship, those who do, do exist and are increasing in numbers so long live the female sexual revolution! Being single also means absolute selfishness, taking care of numero uno, guilt-free shopping and countless hours beautifying yourself without fear of being judged by a hardworking husband/breadwinner.

Granted we’ve seen enough Hollywood chick flicks and read enough ‘self-help’ articles to be able to list the drawbacks of being a single woman and even name the films that illustrate them; from ‘27 dresses’ to ‘The Back up Plan’, ‘He’s just not that into you’, and who can forget the dreadful ‘The Ugly Truth’. The gamut includes the date dilemma for a friend’s wedding, the realisation that all your friends are settling down, the desire to get pregnant and of course good ole plain loneliness. Without wishing to trivialise these issues, I think that the anxieties that come from them are for the most part self-inflicted.

We can choose to be happy and single. We can choose to go to a wedding alone or with a friend, male or female. Likewise we can decide to have children outside of wedlock or to adopt and finally why not opt out of loneliness? We can choose not to be lonely with or without a partner. Why allow society to define what happiness means for you when we are all so different? In fact I’m convinced that it’s all a ploy by men to lure us into marriage by convincing us that we want it more than they do….when in actual fact, they need it far more than we do. Single women need to take what their married peers say with a pinch of salt, yes of course they’re happy some of the time but then so are you! The rest of the time you struggle with various issues ranging from professional to personal. They likewise struggle with issues of inadequacy….am I sexy enough? Is he looking at other women? Are my children happy/well-balanced? We all have our issues….'local and global’ as a friend would say so let’s all stop pretending that marriage provides some sort of a catch-all solution.

There are times when I refer to myself as a single woman, partly because I forget that I’m married, partly because I think my subconscious is trying to preserve my identity in this ‘institution’. I love being married because I’m with the man I love but I wouldn’t chose marriage just for the sake of it and I sincerely doubt I would do it again with someone else.

No doubt being single comes with difficulties and the grass is always going to appear greener on the other side but from someone who is on the other side, let me assure you that it isn’t. No matter how ‘loved up’ you are, marriage is hard work and a constant battle of wills.

By all means aspire to it if that’s what you want but it helps to know that there are women like my mother, aunt and late grandmother, who were/are perfectly happy single and had/have very fulfilled lives.

Wouldn’t it be a testament to how far we’ve come as women to have more and more women happily embrace being single and telling the self-styled relationship gurus to stick their ‘how to get married in 30 days’ advice where the sun doesn’t shine?

Today, I’ve decided to raise a glass to my fabulous single female friends – long and happily may you live!!!!

It's LFW darling

So London Fashion Week came to a close yesterday and the baton will now be handed to Milan for  its 'Pret-a-Porter' collection... that's 'Ready to wear' to you and I darlink which runs from February 23rd to March 1st, and finally Paris the Capital of haute couture will be wrapping up the season, i.e Spring collections between March 1 and 9th. Quel dommage! I'm hoping this little paragraph which did require some 'googling' demonstrates that unlike most 'haters' of fashion, I'm not completely ignorant of the beast, I just don't like it! Let me qualify that, I can't say I despise fashion per se, rather if I had to choose between Style and Fashion, I'd go for the former any day. Granted the two sometimes meet but judging from this season's trends, I'm beginning to think less and less so.
Something else I find irritating about fashion is its ability to make people do stupid things, wear obviously ridiculous clothes and excuse such behaviour by telling dismayed onlookers that it's in fashion, as if that were some kind of excuse to lose one's self-awareness.
The other day Vivienne Westwood had the gall to criticise Kate Middleton for having no style and while I agree that the soon-to-be Queen of Great Britain-in-waiting's dress sense leaves a lot to be desired for someone her age, I take heart that atleast she doesn't look hideous half the time, which unfortunately I can't say for Ms Westwood. She's the British designer famous for bringing punk to fashion, who is hugely innovative and revels in breaking the rules, yet she herself looks absolutely hideous 90% of the time. It's one thing designing clothes for 20something year old anorexic-looking models, quite another trying to pull it off when you're 70, and très wrinkled sweetie.
At times watching fashion shows feels a little like reading 'The Emporer's new clothes' all over again where everyone seems to be pretending to be in awe of some new designer collection and the more discerning and plain speakers among us are thinking 'but its the same as last year and the year before'. Whether it's the chat shows with their 'what's new this season' or the glossy magazines, fashion pundits in every media seem to make a habit of trying to pull the wool over our eyes. This Spring 2011 trends apparently include floral prints, stripes, playsuits and bell bottoms - 'Hang on' ...I hear you shout, '...but those were last year's trends too'...and probably the year before. Yet nobody seems to bring this to the so-called designers and fashion pundits' attention that not only are we regurgitating 60s and 70s trends that our parents followed, we are also repeating them year after year and pretending they're new and fresh each time.
And then we have the style genius that is Mr Gok Wan who tries to tell every woman in the UK that they can look beautiful naked...Not! This man has a lot to answer for because thanks to him young girls walking the streets of London, Manchester, Liverpool and every other major UK city think they can D.I.Y their way to a fashionable wardrobe and the results are ofcourse disastarous. Gok's Clothes Roadshow, a series on British television advocates women sewing on things like buttons and tassles, and wearing their cardigans backwards to create a designer look for less. Yes yes I know, it sounds ridiculous and it is, picture the tired old trousers that have had sequins glued on by some incompetent teenager because Gok says so. To some extent we can excuse the young because invariably they have great bodies and few brain cells but when older 'ought to know better' people take blind fashion advice, it just makes me want to weep.
I understand the lure of fashion, it requires little effort, you can just pick an item or two and wear it in exactly the same way as you saw Kate Moss wearing it at that red carpet event, except you don't have her body and you're not on the red carpet, you're walking down the high street and finally, I think most importantly the 'knock off ' which you've bought is made of cheap polyester and has been sewn together by little nimble fingers somewhere in India, her's is made of pure silk and looks expensive because it is expensive!

I'm not suggesting that noone is able to pull off fashion trends, simply that those who do, use their heads. They are able to mix and match items, cheap and cheerful with key quality pieces and the result is often that we assume if the shoes are from Ted Baker, the dress must be too, even though it only costs 14.99 from H&M. I think smart stylish people also realise that they can't pull off any look, no matter how hot and 'on trend' it is.

For the rest of us, my advice would be leave the clogs to Alexa Chung, the hoof-style boots to Solange Knowles and please please please remember that if you do not follow the Sikh religion and you're not a man, then there's absolutely no excuse for wearing a turban.

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.

Hanging up my Superwoman cape

She's a successful professional working her way up the corporate ladder, cooks like Nigella, runs a small cupcake business on the side, is on the Parents Teachers Association committee of her children's school and is teaching her one year old baby sign language. This may sound like a comic book heroine but I'm guessing we can all recognise one or more of the modern day Superwoman’s traits and for some of us she may reflect the Over-Achiever we've become. My question though is how healthy is it to want to achieve so much?


There's a Boot advert  released in December depicting two women who are running errands whilst clearly suffering from very bad colds. They bump into each other and recount all the things they have to do which includes completing a presentation for a meeting, packing for a holiday, picking kids up from school and taking them swimming, nursing a husband who is sick in bed and all the while confirming through blocked up noses that they are fine...yes fine. I used to like this advert, in fact it used to make me laugh but not anymore. Now I want to weep when I see it and short of that, I find myself shouting at the TV "Don't encourage them!" Them ofcourse being women who seem to think that it's a badge of honour doing everything and not acknowledging that they sometimes need help or simply to take time out for themselves.

In addition to all that she does, Superwoman’s mission would be incomplete without some serious gloating or one-up man ship. It’s simply not enough to be a size 0 two months after giving birth as well as of course already giving your partner a run for his money in the bedroom and completing a marathon in record time, she also has to tell other women about it ….especially the 'failures'…you know the ones who are having trouble shifting the flab three years after giving birth and are looking like a hot mess on the personal grooming front. What better way to drive them to suicide than to reveal your six pack abs whilst whipping up a three course meal and extolling the virtues of home schooling. Recently Mrs Bloom…. (Orlando’s wife) decided to post a flawless picture of herself breastfeeding her newborn baby accompanied by comments that she gave birth to the almost 10lb baby without any pain relief. Great.....so thanks for that Miranda; that just made the day of that new mum suffering from post natal depression having spent 12 hours in labour with an epidural. And then there’s Gisele Bundchen….yes the supermodel who told women last year that they should all be forced to breastfeed for at least six months because ofcourse she did just that no doubt whilst travelling between Milan and Rio on photo shoots. Another wonderful moment for womankind….just what we needed especially when thousands of women are having a hard time not producing enough milk for their newborns and feeling inadequate as a result.

The truth is being an over achiever, Super mum, Super wife, Super Manager comes at a heavy price to our health. Our constant running around and giving 110% as the expression goes may not manifest itself immediately but it will invariably lead to stress which does have an impact on our short and long term health. Some serious side effects of stress include hair loss, insomnia, high blood pressure and even stomach ulcers, and I can testify to knowing  a number of women who have suffered from one or more of these. What's more so many of us appear incapable of just relaxing….you know that party trick where you do absolutely nothing! In short, our quest for perfection is making us socially inadequate at best and sick at worst.

I'll admit to having donned my Superwoman cape with pride in the past but think my ‘light bulb moment’ came when I woke up one night wondering and asking my sleeping hubby whether our daughter had eaten lunch before going to a party the day before. That’s when I realised that this business of trying to do everything and do it perfectly was getting out of hand. Not only was my question absurd at 2 a.m., it also revealed that rather than having a restful night’s sleep I was busy worrying about all the things I had not been able to control/do perfectly. I concluded that rather than lose my sanity trying to create an unrealistically perfect world, I had better lower my expectations. So whilst I am not hanging up my chef’s apron completely or giving up blogging or my business or doing a good job at work, I am loosening my control on these things. If work doesn’t get done within the dedicated hours, i.e. 9am-5pm with a full hour’s lunch, then it will simply have to wait until the next day. I’m going to re-acquaint myself with the freezer section of the supermarket when I just don’t have the energy to prepare a nutritious meal from scratch. My kids do not need to have organised activity every weekend, sometimes they can just play with the toys they have or here’s an idea…learn to entertain themselves. If I can only get around to blogging once a month….then so be it. I’m sure the world will survive without my pearls of wisdom for a few weeks. And as far as the business is concerned I will learn to delegate more and then just let it go!!!!!! Because let’s face it while Superwoman goes about saving the world, who on earth is saving her?

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.

Cyberspace - the new mask for hatred

They call themselves critics or commentators, I prefer the term cowards. I refer to those who hide behind cyberspace in order to voice their hate-filled and often obscene ideas. Pick any website from news sources like guardian.co.uk to gossip ones like dailymail.co.uk to Youtube, social networks like Twitter; take a moment to read some of the comments made by people in response to contributors' opinions and postings and chances are your blood will run cold.

Human beings seem capable of expressing such loathsome ideas, and of so much hatred often in response to some of the most trivial things when there is no fear of them having to defend their ideas publically. It reminds me of the Klu Klux Klan and their masks as they carried out lynchings and like that, it smacks of cowardice whichever way we look at it.

I am a firm believer in standing by your convictions, however unpopular. If you believe in something you should have the courage to defend it. If however a person is simply harbouring hateful ideas which have no place in society and cannot be defended then rather than using the internet which can be a positive and progressive tool, they should consider keeping those thoughts locked in their warped mind or better still think about speaking to a professional about their issues.

I enjoy using the internet, emailing, blogging and keeping in touch with friends and family; my work is almost entirely reliant on this medium. Yet the internet also frightens me ....quite a lot; hence the decision to not include my personal details in this blog. In the past, I've been the object of hateful and anonymous email messages whose origin I have no idea of, more than two years later. I also limit my children's exposure to the internet because of the number of psychos who I believe reside in cyberspace.
I once found a Youtube video of the Little Mermaid which started with the character Ariel singing only for it to morph into some 'nutter' launching into his own version of 'Part of your world' whilst gyrating in front of his webcam. Clearly he did this in order to lure children who would expect to see a full version of the Disney classic and would instead end up viewing some deranged grown man clearly in need of his medication or locking up for all our sakes.
On another occasion I pulled up a video again on Youtube of the Kidz Bop version of the song 'Hey, I love you' which a friend posted on her Facebook only to be confronted with comments that included obscene name-calling of children in the group whose music is aimed at 3-10 year olds. More recently I happened upon Rihanna's twitter page and saw an exchange between her and a 'follower' where the latter made a misogynistic comment in response to a positive message the singer had posted. Clearly not wanting to seem like a spoil-sport, she responded to him; although my approach would have been to simply 'block' the moron!
Call me naive but does it not go without saying that as human beings we wont all share the same opinions or find the same things appealling? And if that is accepted as a given, then why subject yourself to something you dislike only to lay into it? For instance, I don't care for rock music so it would be insane of me to watch an Aerosmith video only to post insults directed at the band because their music 'sucks' to use a common cyber term.

I think debate is healthy and yes by all means critique someone's work but using real parameters not simply your personal like or dislike. If someone writes an opinion piece, it is simply that, an opinion piece, they are not reporting the news, they are simply giving their opinion on something, therefore the analysis should be based on whether that opinion was well-presented, balanced or convincing. If someone has 'left-wing' ideas you can be certain they are not setting out to convince a 'right-wing' reader. So for that reader to accuse them of being liberal or leftist is really to state the obvious; to go further and spout hateful words or try to discredit their professionalism simply on the basis of a difference of opinion is childish and to do so from the comfort of a barren living room where only the 'critic' and his lonely computer sit...quite pathetic.

On this blog, I choose to moderate comments not because I don't welcome criticism but simply because I refuse to provide a forum for the frustrated and borderline insane to air their questionable opinions.
I read a number of blogs and sometimes I agree with what the person says, other times I don't, if a piece is well written I will say so. If I dont think it is then I simply wont post a comment because I know that there are others out there who will beg to differ. I also think it's morally wrong to belittle the work of someone or worse defame them while hiding behind some ridiculous cyber name.

Fortunately there is an increase in cases of internet slander or internet libel so people will be forced to think twice about what they post on the internet 'anonymously'. Likewise there is an ongoing debate about incitment to hatred on the internet which while recognising that Freedom of expression extends to the internet, acknowledges that it carries with it the same responsibilities as it does in the real world.