Should the Brazilian government and people have the right to exploit the rainforest as a resource?

Conservationists and economists lock horns over the right and to what extent natural resources can be exploited constantly. Whilst conservationists recognise that LEDCs urgently need economic development to improve the quality of life, they regard total exploitation as threatening, both to the environment and to the country involved. Similarly, economists are aware that total exploitation of natural resources will not be beneficial in the long-term, but believe that LEDCs require immediate, short-term action to bring about economic progress. Neither group is wrong; conservationists are right to point out that forests are under threat, whilst economists are correct in pointing out the urgency in bringing in revenue to benefit countries.
One area where this debate is in full swing is Brazil, where the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest is continuing at an alarming rate. In a total area of 4,100,000 sq km of rainforest, 699,000 sq km have been removed for lumber or grazing land for cattle. The percentage of rainforest cover stands at 82%, down from 95% in 1970. The main reason for felling the forest is to convert the land into agricultural land. 90% of the felling occurs for farming reasons; 60% for cattle ranches and 30% for small-scale agricultural production. Demand for beef in Europe and North America is insatiable and, in large numbers, can fetch large profits. Smaller farmers are also likely to earn marginally more in subsistence farming than in informal factory work in Sao Paulo or Rio de Janierio.
Contrary to popular belief, only 1% of the rainforest is felled for timber. However, the timber that is felled is of extraordinary value on the world commodities market - woods such as mahogany and ebony are very expensive in the western world. Timber is also increasing in value year by year, with the recent boom in house building in Asia and America fuelling high demand for lumber. Consequently, there is a huge economic incentive, particularly in the short-term to preserve the rainforest, both for large investors and small farmers.
Many people are also anxious to ensure that views of the rainforest are not skewed by untrue facts. Brazilian logging companies have their own statistics which appear to suggest that deforestation is not as severe a problem as perceived. They claim that only 2% of the rainforest has been felled since the 70's, and those areas are on the periphery of the forests where there is already human influence and the forests cannot be regarded as pristine and undisturbed. However, these facts are difficult to reconcile with NASA photographs of the rainforest which show huge swaths of felled forest, certainly more than 2%. However, environmetalist groups also are selective in the information they present, and regularly fail to point out the work logging companies do towards replanting and ensuring that forestry is carefully managed.
Nevertheless, the rate of deforestation is undoubtedly high. This destruction of the rainforest has a profound impact upon a variety of interest groups. One of the major benefactors from a healthy and diverse rainforest is the atmosphere, which indirectly has a bearing upon everyone in the world. The Amazon Rainforest is known as the 'lungs of the world' and are estimated to store over 10% of the world's stored CO2 and thus accounts for 10% of the world's net primary productivity. Many scientists believe that losing the Amazonian rainforest would have severe implications upon CO2 levels and global temperatures.
Furthermore, the Amazon rainforest is still largely unexplored, and certainly most of the plant and animal life has never been categorised or examined. This suggests that, with most medicines and ingredients stemming from rainforests, losing this diversity would also mean a loss of potentially crucial medicines. This would not only be a tragic loss for medical researchers, but also for countries with rainforests, as there would be a massive loss in potential revenues and export power. In a country where 31% of the population lives below the poverty line, and GDP stands at $8,800, losing such a valuable and potentially profitable resource would be tragic. Preserving the rainforest would also be potentially profitable in terms of managed mining and forestry. Whilst not providing immediate revenue, managed forestry would be a long-term and effective method of providing a sustainable and steady income. Tourism would also be a sustainable income earner, provided that the rainforest is preserved.
However, a significant body of opinion within Brazil, represented mainly by the industrial and land owners want to see short-term economic progress within Brazil. Whilst all the main political parties are leftist or even Marxist, these groups hold significant power within Brazil, especially when government needs financial backing for projects. Consequently, there has been a growth in the amount of deforestation and mining projects going ahead within the Amazon basin. There are also many poorer citizens who not only wish, but need, to see an opening up rainforests to allow farmland to be created. Significant numbers of city dwellers are leaving major urban areas for the interior in order to seek a better standard of living. Their livelihoods are closely tied in with an expansion in the amount of land available for farming. These people do recognise that preservation is important for Brazil's rainforests, but when hungry stomachs need filling, this argument holds little sway.
In the Western world it is often difficult to comprehend the extraordinary difficulties LEDC governments face in making decisions regarding sensitive eco-systems that can be vastly profitable. In a society dominated by the service an manufacturing sector, and where we can afford to protect ecologically important areas of nature, it can often seem short-sighted of other nations to exploit their natural resources. Yet, when countries as poor as Brazil have such vastly lucrative resources such as the Amazon rainforest, it is easy to understand why they are so keen to make the most of those potential income earners.
There are many sceptics of the significance of the rainforests, particularly with regard to their importance to climate regulation. Phillip Stott, an eminent geographer considers the 'lungs of the earth' theory the "daftest of all theories". His views are largely based upon the notion that in the history of the earth, rainforests have not been a significant eco-system affecting the formation of the climate. However, he does not disagree that the rainforests should be, partially at least, persevered for the benefit of the plant and animal life that exists within them, and the potential long-term benefits of tourism and sustainable forestry. Perhaps further evidence is needed before this debate can be solved. Unfortunately this evidence is difficult to collate, particularly when climate, an unpredictable and whimsical force, is concerned. Stott and other argue that, whilst trends may suggest changes in climate, there is scant evidence to support this. And, indeed, they have a valid point. However, it may not be raining but if there are dark clouds on the horizon you get the washing in!
Personally, I think that the preservation of the rainforests is crucial, not just in terms of preserving the current climate on the earth, and because it will be more economically sustainable, but because of the ethical issues involved. I do not believe we hold the right to destroy or pollute the very earth on which our own survival depends. Creationists through to evolutionary scientists cannot deny that the world is a beautiful and awe-inspiring place; something beyond the bounds of human abilities to create. What right or reason would we have to damage such a precious environment?

National Prejudices

Whilst we may feel that we live in an age where prejudice against one another simply because of inherent causes has been eradicated, it is untrue to say that our attitudes are unbiased or unprejudiced. After the Second World War nationalism appeared to be fading in its influence over hearts and minds, and many European countries were ready to sign up to the EEC/EU proposals of pan-Eurpoean free markets and open borders. Yet there has been an increasing movement towards patriotism and sharing a national identity. Whilst these are good things in themeselves, as they promote goodwill and co-operation , they can easily lead to nationalism and xenophobia if taken to the extreme.
Furthermore, there appears to be great resentment towards many industrialising nations that threaten the commerical and military migt of Western powers. Should the West fear the rise of China as an economic and military superpower, or view this as an opportunity to build economic and global security ties? I can speak with no authority here, as I have no detailed knowledge that politicians and diplomats will have, but there is certainly a current of opinion within ordinary society that China represents a threat to the West.
Many people shudder with horror at the thought of buying a product manufactured in China, although they secretly rejoice at making huge savings by buying cheaper products. People prefer to buy products made in their own country, out of a spirit of patriotism certainly. However, it seems that people in the UK are much more willing to buy an American product than one made in the Far East. Again, this could be a spirit of race, rather than national, patriotism, out of a determination to aid one's bretheren, but this does seem perverse in an age when we are attempting to promote the message of equality and trying to destroy national barriers. After all, why should China, Taiwan etc. be denied the same privilidges that come through a domination over trade and global affairs that Europe and North American have enjoyed for decades.
Yet we still continue to improve our own economies in an attempt to compete with China and India, instead of focussing on diversifying and improving efficiency to tackle wastage, climate change and social issues such as unemployment and income disparity. Unfortunately we appear to value national standing and prestige above fairness and preservation of the planet.
Another example is the prevailing attitude towards migration into this country. The perennial notion that is circulating is that immigrant families come to Britain cheifly to live off the state and enjoy privilidges that they cannot afford in their country of origin. Despite this view, there is very little evidence that immigrants work any less than hard than UK nationals. In fact, many Polish and Eastern european workers, the ones that are most often bearted for their idleness and letahrgy, are the ones that work the hardest doing jobs that any ordinary Briton would refuse to do for a wage that no-one else would accept.
In addition, migrant workers are often able to under-cut British workers on price, as they are prepared to put up with lower wages. Whilst many British labourers have every right to complain about losing their jobs to migrant workers, this still shows a failure to grasp a basic economic principle; that price dictates any choice the consumer makes. If British workers wish to retain their jobs, they must strive to improve effieciency or quality.
One would assume, of course, that this opinion would only be shared by those who are directly impacted by migrant labourers, such as builders, plumbers etc. However, the attitude of, if not hostility, then unease regarding migtration, especially from nations we would regard as under-developed, appears to be endemic rather than a representation of a minority opinion. Many politicians are regarding migration, and the reduction of immigrants, as a central issue that will win them votes if they are able to cut the numbers. Whilst this may be a popular policy, surely one could not regard blatant discrimination as an ethical or tenable policy. After all, if the immigration was a brain-drain from the US to the UK, how many people would be complaining?
Overall, therefore, there anumber of ways in which we can see there is much work to be done in tackling prejudice and self-interest, despite the many advances we have made in recent years. Migration is likely to become and even hotter political hot-potato in recent years. Lets hope we can eventually see some sense and focus on our own failings rather than picking out those in others.

Parliament Press Gallery Piece

‘Write a balanced discussion paper assessing how, or whether, Britain’s aid policy objectives – universal free education, universal access to drugs to tackle malaria and HIV – can be achieved. Set out how these objectives have been affected by the UK’s wider foreign policy and military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.’

To be sure, the introduction of a universal policy with the objective of providing free, comprehensive care or education globally would require vast mobilisation of resources and expertise. Gordon Brown wrote in the Times (April, 2007) that educating the 80 million children who do not currently go to school would cost $10 billion per year. A significant sum this may be, but not an impossible target to meet.
Even the UK could fund a universal education programme with minimal damage to public services. Furthermore, we have the expertise in this country, as a leading nation in providing quality university courses and teaching, to train educators, doctors, nurses and carers with the necessary skills to implement such a broad policy.
Again, funding is a significant issue that will need detailed scrutiny in order to find the necessary finances, but not an impossible aim. Assuming half of the world’s richest economies take part in funding the universal education/healthcare programme, the UK’s share of the cost would clock in at around £28,000,000 per year. This figure pales into insignificance when compared with the amount that is proposed to be saved under the Conservative policy of scrapping the existing inheritance tax system. George Osborne, whether correctly or not, certainly believes it credible that he can save £1 billion in taxes. If, rather than not collect this money and benefit the tax-payer, they were to spend it upon implementing a world policy of free education, which would benefit far more people, the UK could soar past the target figure needed.
Of course, however, it would be political disaster for the Conservatives, or any political party to even conceive the notion that taxes should be spent on something other than UK public services. And this is the most important attitude that must change in the UK. We have the expertise and the finances to implement such a policy, but we lack the collective self-sacrificing and charitable nature needed. As a country we are quite happy to put our 2 penny pieces into the Breast Cancer Awareness box at the corner shop counter, but giving away millions of pounds of tax-payers money appear quite a different matter.
Of course, we have a point. Why should OUR taxes should be spent on anything but OUR services? Look after Number 1 is the perennial dictum of any capitalist society, right? Yet this selfish attitude towards money is hindering the progress of many schemes such as these, providing universal access to drugs and education. If only we as nations in the West could view our ‘global responsibility’ and recognise the need to be more generous and self-sacrificing with regards to our giving, much more could be achieved.
Furthermore, withholding on issues such as these further perpetuates the stereotype of the Westerner as an arrogant money-maker, rather than as an altruistic humanist. We are acutely aware of the need to break down stereotypes in the UK, but fail to identify where we are merely disseminating the typecast we strive to avoid. In addition, we can hardly preach to the world about the need to reduce carbon emissions, reduce wastage of resources and cut population growth, whilst we consistently foster growth in our own economies without assisting those that have hardly begun to develop.
Moreover, investment in education and healthcare will not cost the western world in the long-run, despite the commitment required right now (although it appear that the obligation may be less onerous than first appears) in order to provide in such a way. Investment in education will mean more and better minds focusing on the needs of the world, such as tackling climate change, resource depletion etc. and health care provision will benefit everyone by eradicating dangerous diseases that spread quickly and threaten life. Eliminating these disease will also lead to healthier populations, putting less pressure on resources in the future, such as preventative medicine and the provision of constant health care.
Consequently, it appears that, if the UK and the Western world were to shake themselves out of their shells of complacency, and in the worst cases arrogance, the implementation of universal education and universal provision of drugs to combat HIV and malaria could easily be met. As we have seen, the cost to the UK would not be great when compared with the amount we spend on ourselves, and the expertise could easily be sourced using the educational institutions already established in Europe and North America. All that is required is a collective sense of altruism and unselfishness that could easily be raised if only we had a broader view of the world than the insular, sheltered stance we currently have.

Why History?

We seem to have an extraordinary obsession with history in the UK. We as a nation have an insatiable penchant for historical pulp fiction novels and costume-dramas on TV. Companies such as the National Trust and English Heritage turn over hundreds of millions of pounds each year and own large tracts of land all over the country. Whether or not this phenomenon is apparent in Europe or elsewhere abroad I am not sure, but certainly the British seem to enjoy examining the past.
Some historians are critical of this amateur love for history, and are aggrieved at the way in which the ‘dumbing down’ of history depreciates its true value. This is undoubtedly true for those who see history as a purely academic subject or who wish to keep history locked away in dusty libraries and archive rooms in museums. And, indeed, this method of studying history in an academic and ‘true’ way, following outlined precepts and principles should not be derided. Exclusive and inflexible it may be, but it nevertheless produces the main of our academic history, which is the base of all historical knowledge.
However, history is not an exclusive and academic subject, for which one must go to university in order to study it simply because it is not important that students of the discipline follow rigid guidelines of learning, unlike students of mathematics or psychology. Whilst basic skills must be understood to comprehend history, such as chronology and basing assertions of fact rather than fancy, much of the learning comes from experiencing rather than reading or being taught history. Thankfully educational institutions were the first to recognise this, although not without facing much hostility, and many history courses are becoming more and more interactive and personalised, with emphasis placed upon individual learning rather than theory teaching.
As well as a change in attitude towards conventional historical study i.e. degrees and PhDs there has been a there has been a massive rise in the number of genealogy and ancestry courses and literature available either on-line or as local groups. Many newsagents stock up to as many as 10 different history or genealogy related magazines (although this figure is put to shame by the number of magazines available featuring cars or even angling!).
The reasons for this national obsession are manifold. Firstly, as a European nation we have a lot of historical evidence to examine and study. Unlike American and African nations, what Europeans left behind has lasted and is well documented. Only Asian civilisations have achieved the same or even better levels of historical remains. Buildings, cities and writings that survive are of immense value to historians, and make the job or writing or studying history so much easier. The fact that African and North American nations tended to be migratory, and also that many African and American civilisations were simply wiped out or made subservient to white Imperialists in the 17^th, 18^th and 19^th centuries has meant that little documented evidence of their cultures and customs remains.
Secondly, British history is a fascinating and, for the most part, glorious tale of a nation that has many clearly visible ways of how the past has shaped its present and future. Henry VIII’s break with Rome, Charles I’s execution, William of Orange’s ‘Glorious Revolution’, the Act o0f the Union between England and Scotland and Cook’s claiming of Australia for Britain are all examples of how British history has direct implications upon British nationhood today, and how our future as a country will pan out. Very few countries have the ability to look at the past with such clarity and assess each piece of history with such accuracy.
Finally, British history is interesting. Undoubtedly the French have a fascinating historical story to tell, but the variety and vibrancy of British history must surely steal the show. Events such as 1066 and William the Conqueror, the Wars of the Roses, the Civil War and the British Empire have such a multiplicity of stories and characters that make the events seem so much more worthwhile to study. This may appear to be a narrow-minded viewpoint, and there will be many who disagree. Indeed, studying history would be worthless without an examination of the American War of Independence, the French Revolution, Communist Russia and Nazi Germany, as these are undeniably key points on which much of the world’s history hinges. Nevertheless, I still maintain that Britain is fortunate to have such a wide ranging and varied history as make any study of it seem so much more worthwhile, and this is surely why so many people seem to have an affinity and fascination with our history.

This essay is designed to show how De Bernieres masterfully creates the setting of the island of Cephallonia in the book Captain Corelli’s Mandolin. The Greek islands have never been better described by an outsider, in my opinion, than by De Bernieres. He encapsulates island life brilliantly, with all its quirks and peculiarities.
The first impression De Bernieres gives of Cephallonia is mixed, although the majority of the reader’s feelings for the island are swayed largely towards the positive. De Bernieres does this by not describing the island, rather the inhabitants of the island.
Our first encounter with Dr Iannis and the description of his daily work suggests that at the present time all is well with the island, and that it is a peaceful idyll where little of significance occurs and the island and villages have become timeless. We are given this impression mostly through the description of the doctor’s rounds, which include a ‘relatively easy calving, lanced one abscess…’. Even the dosing of ‘one lady of easy virtue with Slavarsan’ suggests that although the inhabitants have their illicit practices, this does not rise beyond a certain rustic sense of immorality, rather than a mass indulgence.
The timelessness comes from the sense that the villagers are seemingly unaware of the world beyond their own lives, and only the doctor appears to have received any proper education or knowledge. Nevertheless, these people are not portrayed as ignorant, rather they are simply unconcerned with the outside world and choose to devote their energies to what matters most to them and their lives.
This image of sleepiness and agelessness is further compounded by the doctor’s histories. Although they are describing the history of the island and how it has been ravaged by one administration and ruler to the next, the whimsical nature of religion etc., there is still a sense that the island has not been affected by this mistreatment or randomness, in that life still continues to sustain itself. This image is further expanded through the doctor’s capricious and sweeping way of detailing events, suggesting that although historically significant, they have little import upon the lives of the Cephallonians.
Finally, we arrive at a sense of agelessness and sleepiness through the way in which the De Bernieres switches from the magnificent to the mundane in a matter of sentences, choosing to mesh the two together rather than treat them separately.
For example, we are given the history of Cephallonia through the eyes and words of the doctor, and De Bernieres uses excessive and complex language and themes, such as ‘It is completely virgin. It produces overwhelming clarity of focus, it has heroic strength and brilliance.’ in order to describe the light of Cephallonia. The following paragraph contains a description of the doctor urinating on the plants and the goat eating the doctor’s work.
This intermeshing suggests that, whilst Cephallonia has its place and importance in history, and contains many brilliant and amazing qualities, it is, nevertheless, a place where ordinary people go about their live and urinate on the plants.

Attitudes to Climate Change - A Drip-Feed Approach?

The question posed by many environmentalists today is what it will take for us, as a human race, to be jolted out of our complacency towards the environment and what will be required before we are prepared to make sacrifices for the planet. There is certainly a large enough scientific consensus that climate change is not only occurring, but is a problem, if not a threat. Yet, we now seem to be stuck in a rut as to what the best policy is towards reducing carbon-emissions. In fact, some even argue that we need not reduce our emissions provided we can offset that pollution by planting trees to absorb carbon etc. although the people who hold this opinion tend to be in the minority.
Campaigners such as Al Gore, with his documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' and others are certainly contributing to a changing of attitudes towards climate change. Unfortunately these documentaries and campaigns, however effective or informative they are, are still failing to provide the dramatic changes to spending and consumption patterns that are needed to tackle this problem. Raising awareness is obviously a key to this issue, but as of yet it seems to be doing precious little to alter our lifestyles.
So what do we need to do? What needs to happen in order to produce the dramatic turnaround that we are told so often that we need. One obvious of guaranteeing success would be a policy of tax-rises for CO2 emitting products, with tax-breaks for low-emissions or carbon-neutral products such as cars or generating power. The biggest factor in any individuals calculations is the relative costs involved, and price is a massive factor in any transaction. Look at the lengths many superstores go to to ensure that their products are cheaper than others, and the success of value-stores over those that cannot offer either quality or price. As Henry Ford said in his famous maxim:
'There is one rule for the industrialist; make the best quality of goods possible, at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.'
In fact, cost seems to be the most highly regarded of these three principles; the others being largely disregarded by some firms.
If so much emphasis is put upon costs, therefore, it would seem obvious that one way to tackle CO2 emissions would be to implement policies of charging the polluters for the damage they cause, and rewarding those who lower or annul their emissions. Nevertheless, this policy seems to be a political hot-potato, particularly in the UK. Politicians are extremely reluctant to promote any policies that present any tax-rises, regardless of the benefits that this would accrue to the global community, presumably because of the considerable risk of alienating a substantial portion of the electorate. Furthermore, any minute legislation or guidelines that would begin to change habits towards consumption in this country, such as proposals for large reductions in the numbers of cars on the roads in 2030, for example, would also be avoided like the plague, presumably for the same reasons.
Therefore, politicians must gain the political will to step in, or the public must gain the motivation to act of their own accord. Given the present ease of buying cars, appliances, personal computers and the ability to travel relatively cheaply, it seems unlikely that the majority are prepared to give up these practices. The luxury of being able to spend in such an extravagant way has become so ingrained in our culture that not only do we enjoy living such lifestyles, we get withdrawal symptoms every time these privileges are denied to us. Think of the pandemonium that would occur if we found suddenly that only one car was allowed per household.
Consequently, because we have little political or personal will to act on such matters, it does seem to be the case that a gradual acceptance of the damage we are doing to our planet, and a drip-feed of documentaries, books and reports is perhaps the most effective way of communicating to the majority the best ways that we can tackle the problems that threaten our planet, rather than attempting to convince the world into committing themselves to decisive action, despite the fact that that could be what is most needed in order to save our world.

James Baldwin the essayist and social commentator wrote that: 'People are trapped in history,
and history is trapped in them.'
This statement is undoubtedly true, as any perusal of the plethora of historical books or
films will show. I am inspired to study history to understand why history is 'trapped inside
us' and to know why we need history, at least on an amateur level. Furthermore, history is
enormously relevant for analysing the present and projecting the future, and is also the
subject most likely to raise debate or controversy. I also want to broaden my knowledge of the
past, particularly political history, in order to understand why and how things are the way
they are, and how we can hope to understand the future in that historical context.
Consequently, I would very much like to study HistoryPolitics at University
Aside from doing an A-Level in History, I am also entering the AEA for History, for which I am
required to do a significant amount of reading, particularly regarding historiography and the
interpretation of history. This additional reading has enabled me to broaden my understanding
of historical events and the study of history as an academic subject.
This autumn I shall be entering the Great Debate, a competition organised by the Historical
Association. The subject this year is the most important scientific achievement since 1906,
for which I have chosen to argue for Rutherford's splitting of the atom in 1907. This event
will enable me to deploy my historical knowledge in a new of method, using appropriate
presentational techniques.
I am a subscriber to the History Today magazine, which I find very useful in providing
academic articles on a variety of historical topics that I would not otherwise read. I also
read the BBC History, which is less scholarly, but presented in a much more accessible and
interactive fashion. I also take an active interest in local history, assisting at the local
museum in a number of capacities, such as cataloguing old photographs, creating displays etc.
In addition I am interested in current affairs and read Prospect magazine, which styles itself
the magazine of 'Politics, Essays and Argument'. This magazine is fascinating and provides an
unusual mix of current affairs and debate about a wide range of topics. This magazine provides
a much more detailed picture of debates, with many different and conflicting points of view
considered, which serves to broaden my understanding on these topics
I am also a keen reader of fiction, although my favourite fictional authors tend to be
historical novelists! Thomas Hardy and Charles Dickens are my favourite authors, not least
because they are outstanding storytellers, but also because of their trenchant and insightful
assessment of the ongoing social upheaval. A more contemporary author I enjoy is Sebastian
Faulks, who has an excellent talent for telling history through the eyes of ordinary people.
My extra curricular activities involve completing my Gold Duke of Edinburgh and taking part in
practice walks. Fortunately I have always been a good hiker. During the summer of 2006 myself
and my family completed the Tour de Mont Blanc, a 120-mile round hike in the Alps over 7 days.
I also do a lot of walking on nearby Dartmoor. I also keep fit by rowing in the local gig club
every week and take part in the fitness training sessions.
A significant amount of my time is spent on a project established by the Kenyan Government
called Digital Village, which aims to set up computer schools and Internet access to all
villages in Kenya. As part of this project myself and a team of people are travelling to Kenya
in October and working in a handful of villages setting up computers and providing basic ICT
lessons. Hopefully we will be able to expand this project in the future. At the moment I am
raising awareness and funds for this project and am keen to maintain my involvement with this
project.

Book Review - Captain Corelli's Mandolin

My summer holiday book this was a book I have been meaning to read for many years, having heard many rave reviews from both magazines and friends. Captain Correlli's Mandolin was the book recommended and, as suggested, I thoroughly enjoyed the book. There are parts of the book I did not particularly enjoyed, and also parts where I thought the author, Louis De Bernieres, could have done better. Nevertheless, Captain Correlli's Mandolin is certainly a 'must-read' for anyone who enjoys a nail-biting and believable plot.
One of the primary reasons why I enjoyed this book is the intertwining of both a personal storyline and a historical narrative. The personal aspect of the book is told through the wonderful variety of characters, the long-suffering Pelagia, secretive Carlo, enigmatic Mandras, who all have a part in the narrative. De Bernieres uses these characters and their stories to develop the plethora of ideas he is analysing and confronting.
For example, Mandras' story is harrowing account, full of injustice and horror, and how war affects even the best of us, turning men into monsters. This challenging idea, not just of how deeply war affects people, but also how so few are either villain or hero, and are often capable of atrocity and humanity. However, De Bernieres also uses the story of Mandras as a corner-stone of the plot, as well as being an interesting story from a purely literary standpoint.
Furthermore, this area of the book is used by De Bernieres to examine the historical events of the time in Greece, particularly the civil war, and rivalry with Communists and Monarchists. From academic historical perspective, this narrative is not instructive, as De Bernieres, although accurate in abroad sense with regard to history, has undoubtedly taken some historical licence and developed his own twists and turns. Nevertheless, the history that can be gained from a lay-man's perspective is profound. In addition, De Bernieres is effective at communicating not just the historical tangibles, such as numbers of deaths, buildings destroyed etc., but more importantly the emotions and passions that are created by war, and also the suffering and privations.
De Bernieres is so talented at conveying emotions because his ability to adapt his writing style, specifically the language he uses, to different situations within the plot is unparalleled. For example, when the plot is focused on the superfluous and educated Dr Iannis De Bernieres's choice of words become much more eloquent, not just in the speech of Dr Iannis, but in the narrative also. However, when the plot is focused on characters whose mannerisms are much coarser, the language and descriptions change to reflect the milieu. Whether this is an unconscious change, or whether De Bernieres intentionally adapts his writing style, it is impossible to say for certain. However, it is certain that this change in style is very effective and sits comfortably with the situation in the plot.
De Bernieres's story is also wonderfully varied and unexpected, particullarly the conclusion. The ending of the whole book is a wonderful mix of emotions, both happiness and sadness, and throughout the novel De Bernieres contrasts humour, horror etc. with wonderful effect. The side chapters of Mussolini's rants are wonderfully comic, yet also have a darker side as they show how vain and arrogant he was. By doing this, De Bernieres creates a very interesting mix of emotion and feelings in the reader.
However, if there is anything that can be criticised in De Bernieres novel it would be the swiftness and almost cursory way in which the passage of time from 1950 to the present day is dealt with. I felt that there was a lot left out of the storyline that De Bernieres could have focused on, and not swept through at a very fast pace. Consequently, the reader arrives at the stage of Pelagia's old-age without feeling that there was an intermediate stage of her life. Furthermore, Corelli, a central character, simply falls off the stage. In the early and middle phases of the book the story was told from many different viewpoints. However, as Pelagia enters old age we no longer receive such a variety of viewpoints. This is partly due to the fact that many of the characters are no longer relevant. However, i felt that the story would have been enriched if we had had an account of Corelli's experiences as well as Pelagia's.
Nevertheless, this criticism is slight and insignificant, for the book remains a brilliant read, full of emotion, controversy and excitement, which grips the reader and hold you spellbound, and unable to put the book down.

Education under Tony Blair

During his election campaign Tony Blair famously said that his three priorities were 'Education, Education, Education.' In this essay I shall examine the success of the Labour Government in tackling this issues, and whether they have met their targets. A cursory examination of the progress of education by perusing newspapers and magazines would suggest that Labour and Tony Blair have failed to deliver on schools and education. The majority of stories and articles regarding education suggest that, despite students achieving better exam results, funding and equipment for schools has dropped, teaching standards are lower, and there is a growing gulf between children those who do well at school and those who are under-achieving It would, however, be untrue to say that funding for schools has dropped in the past 10 years. In 1996 the education budget was £70m per annum, compared with a projected £10.2bn in 2011. (source: The Independent) The equivalent amount in today's terms would be slightly under £100m. This increase in funding is a massive leap and shows an increased financial commitment, if nothing else, to education within the UK. This investment also suggests an increase in the spending on equipment such as laboratory tools and books. However, many questions have been raised over how this money has been spent, and whether the extra funding has helped schools that need it the most. A considerable percentage of this funding has been and will be spent on establishing City Academies, a highly controversial Labour proposal. Many claim that, rather than spending money on establishing a new system of education, the money should be spent on raising standards in existing schools. Another criticism of Labour educational policy is an increasing interference from the Government in dictating the role of teachers. National Curriculum guidelines have been tightened, Ofsted inspections have become more frequent and more rigorous, and the implementations placed upon teachers regarding attaining goals in children is intense. This interference is regarded as unnecessary by many, who view the experts as the teachers themselves. And indeed such a level of interference almost certainly constrains teachers to boundaries and prevents them from giving their whole attention to teaching in a way that seems appropriate for them and for the students.
Nevertheless, the Government is aware of the need to maintain standards in schools across the board, and ensure that children are not disadvantaged as much as possible. By laying down guidelines for teachers to follow, the Government is just as likely to be helping by improving the quality of teaching and standards for children who would otherwise be left by the way-side, than disadvantaging those children that have the potential to be stretched. In an ideal world we would should be able to do both, to support the less-able and underprivileged as well as push the high-achievers. However, we can only do so much, and it is far better for the Government to create a level playing-field than maintain a system where some children are pushed and others not supported.
Also, the Government is acutely aware of the need to be seen to be taking action, both because it promised to do so in its manifesto, but also to present a break from the apathy of previous governments and parties. Therefore, a high level of Government involvement suggests that those with power are aware and are working to solve problems within the educational system.
In higher education the government also has a chequered track-record. The cost of university fees has dramatically increased, with over 50% of students paying in excess of £3,000 each year. The amount of available grants has, however, increased, with over 50,000 students receiving grants. Anyone who's family income is below £60,000 is entitled to a half-grant, amounting to up to £1,750. Families who's income is under £25,000 are entitled to a full grant for their university tuition fees, and also receive bursaries for maintenance costs. Therefore, to say that the Government has been successful with regards to university education would be untrue, but it would also be unjustified to claim that, because the cost of university study has gone up, students are worse off.
Overall, therefore, the Government has had a mixture failure and success in its educational policies. However, no-one would expect any Government to have unmitigated success in any area of policy, as one cannot simply please everyone. However, Tony Blair was unfortunate in that, as he promised such sweeping reforms in the education system, such as a move towards much less academic selection, he has not delivered. His focus on education has, predictably, led to many pundits focusing on Labour's educational policy, and consequently, its failures. Overall, therefore, Labour has had mixed success, but its choice to focus on education as a cornerstone of its policy has led to much criticism and derision.

Iraq War

If there is one event that will define the years that Tony Blair was in power, it will undoubtedly be the invasion of Iraq and the pretext of searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction. This event will stand out certainly because of the negative criticism he has received for the decision, also because of the loss of life, but also because many regard it as epitomising the attitude of British politicians towards the United States of America.
One of the major condemnations of the Iraq conflict for Tony Blair is the inability to find any WMDs in Iraq, suggesting that the claim that Saddam Hussein was able to launch nuclear missiles against the UK was a fabrication. Obviously, if this is the case, Blair would deserve the criticism he receives as deliberately misleading the public, especially over a matter of conflict involving potential loss of life, is serious indeed. And British public opinion seems decisively against the decision to invade; with 55% of people believing the decision to invade Iraq was wrong as of 7th June 2007. (Figure from YouGov.com)
Nevertheless, it is hard to understand why politicians around the globe would fabricate evidence such as this in order to invade. Despite their being a case to suggest that American foreign policy was directed towards securing Middle-Eastern oilfields, it hardly seems credible that such a big piece of evidence should be fictitious.
One reason for this notion is that, although Russia, Germany and France opposed the war, they did not claim that Iraq was not in the process of producing, or had at the time, any WMDs. Rather, their claim was that they were not credible threats to their countries or the world. Therefore, it is the nature of the weapons that it questioned, not the existence of the weapons.
Secondly, it seems odd that politicians should fabricate such a big piece of evidence in order to be allowed to invade Iraq. They would have been aware that nay of invasion would place them under an obligation to find these WMDs. If their existence was faked, it would become apparent after the invasion that they never existed. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that Iraq did not have WMDs. However, it is certainly the case that the American-led forces have been unable to find these weapons, suggesting that they were either destroyed, removed to Syria etc. or that they never existed.
Overall, therefore, the case for the existence of WMDs is strong, but it is the fundamental nature of the weapons, and their disappearance that causes questions to be raised as to the credibility of evidence cited by the Government. Thus, politicians who sued this argument to justify the invasion, such as Tony Blair, have found themselves on loose ground.
Many people find fault with the Iraq war because of the apparent complicit nature of Tony Blair and his government to the foreign policy of the USA. Indeed, it would seem that far from being independent of America, Britain, like many states in the world, have become tools for implementing America’s ideological and political ideas. However, American influence cannot be said to stretch as far as to totally influence the actions of the British government, but it can be seen where the UK was attempting to keep in step with the USA’s tune, something many opponents see as a major falling point for Tony Blair.
It must be stressed, however, that it was not only Labour politicians who voted for the war, far from it. Many voters against the war were Labour MPs, and many supporters of the war were Conservative politicians. The decision to go to war was not a executive decision, but a legislative one, done so because a majority of MPs voted for the war. In short, the war is as politically legitimate (provided no deception took place) as any bill enacted by Parliament concerning theft or murder.
Another major problem for Tony Blair in justifying the Iraq war was the inevitable loss of civilian life in Iraq, and the loss of soldier’s lives. Human rights groups, the church, and indeed, many ordinary citizens have been rightly angered by the appearance of arrogance and callousness on the part of the leaders for how their action will affect people in the Middle East. It would be impossible to consider the decision to invade Iraq as humanitarian towards its civilians in terms of the deaths that would occur.
Nevertheless, the most compelling argument for the Iraq war I have heard is to challenge the legitimacy of Saddam Hussein’s rule. People argue that, as Saddam Hussein was installed as the effective ruler of Iraq after the Gulf War in 1990, he is considered a legitimate ruler by many of the participant countries of the 1st and 2nd invasion of Iraq, particularly America and Britain.
Despite this, it is my personal opinion that Saddam Hussein was a despot. His subjects had no right to habeas corpus in law, no right to an elected, uncorrupt Government, no right to free speech or religion, or even to expect fair treatment by the police, army or judiciary. In short, 18 of the fundamental articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights out of 30 were breached by Saddam Hussein or his government. In my view, anyone who denies these rights to it citizens is not worthy of governing his country. I believe that no-one or country is exempt from these principles, especially the USA. Therefore, I advocate the removal of any dictators, totalitarian rulers etc. If George Bush, or any leader, is complicit in any breaching any of these declarations, he is not fit to govern. The removal of leaders should firstly be by imposing sanctions and international pressure. If however, these methods fail, I do not believe that military action should not be considered.
However, it is easy to see why people oppose the war in Iraq, given the circumstances surrounding the war, the apparent following of American foreign policy, the potential loss of civilian life and the ulterior motives of many of the leaders who advocated the war. Because of this, the war in Iraq should be considered as one of Tony Blair’s failures, even if some regard it as a moral and ideological triumph of democracy over totalitarianism and oppression.

Tony Blair - An Analysis - Introduction

As Britain enters a new phase of leadership with Gordon Brown, much has been made of the legacy left by Tony Blair, particularly those seeking to deride his premiership and the changes that have been made. No-one can deny that the Blair years have seen great changes in Britain, and even his staunchest critics admit that Tony Blair was instrumental in these changes. Instead they seek to carp the achievements relentlessly. Too many people, in my view, are quick to stress the problems that have been encountered over the last 10 years rather than the successes. Undoubtedly this is due to the fact that any leader, in the closing phases of their tenure, comes under much greater criticism. An analysis of many British PMs is sufficient.
More importantly, however, the Conservative party have successfully repositioned themselves since the 1997 general election debacle to hold a more central ground in British politics, and have also lost some of their air of stuffiness and middle-class appeal. The Conservatives are in a much better position to attack the Labour government with the failures of their term in Government very much consigned to the history books.
Some of the criticism is undoubtedly due. Government heavy-handedness and relentless cuts in the National Health Service have certainly damaged the ability of hospitals to provide treatment and care, and severe criticism will always be made of the handling of doctor training under Patricia Hewitt.
Similarly, there will be those who will always find fault the Government’s decision to send troops into Iraq. The invasion is certainly the most controversial issue of the Blairite years, and those opposed to the war will constantly use the loss of life and failure to rebuild Iraq quickly as ammunition to attack the Labour party.
However, there have been significant improvements in Britain as a result of a Labour Government in a variety of policy areas.
Economically Britain has prospered, with the Chancellor, now Prime Minister, Gordon Brown orchestrating the oft-quoted ‘longest period of economic growth in contemporary British history.’ Although house prices have risen considerably along with interest rates, the overall wealth and productivity of the nation has risen out of all proportion to other western EU countries.
Constitutional and legal reform has also been a key area of legislative success for the Labour Government, with the introduction of the Human Rights Act of 1998 and successive reductions in the numbers of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Both of these mark significant steps in improving the democratic process and nature of the UK’s constitution.
I hope, in a series of articles, to analyse in a very amateur way, the success of the Labour party under Tony Blair over the last 10 years in many areas of policy and governance. I am a Labour voter, and I believe my analysis will reflect that. However, I recognise that there are faults, and that mistakes have been made, just as I consider their have been successes. I shall try to be as impartial as possible in my approach and judgement in order to produce a successful analysis of the Blair years.

Selective Education - The Modern Apartheid for Children

I have posted this on the Conservative Party blogspot, on the PM blog spot and sent it to many newspapers. It is a short letter giving my views on selective education.

Dear Sir,
The recent argument over grammar schools is, in my opinion, long over-due. I myself am a former student of a comprehensive college, and now attend the 6th Form of the school. In my experience there a two major negative influences that grammar schools have.
Firstly, because an element of the school system is selective, we segregate students. Not only do we split the male and female students, but also split between high academic achievers and low academic achievers. This generates a completely false idea of what the world is like. Not only are there few places where life is accordingly separated, but also, it engenders an idea that it is acceptable to treat people differently because of their abilities. We moved on from the idea that women were different because of their sex in 1928, that blacks were different because of their skin in 1990 when apartheid ended, so why do we still cling to such an old fashioned notion nowadays?
Secondly, having a selective school system means that at some schools, presumably, students are supposed to receive a better quality of education, or be in a more desirable environment because of the academic surroundings. (If this is not the case, why do people send their children there?) Therefore, because there are schools that are supposed to offer better education, it makes comprehensive schools appear as second best. In my case, I probably would have been able to enter my local grammar, but my parents refused to send me there. Because of that, have I received a poorer education or be expected to get lower grades? Of course not. But because grammar schools are for ‘brighter students’ (quoting hundreds of ‘Letters to the Editor’), ones that are going to get to the top of tree, by not going there, I am not expected to reach as high or be as academically talented.

Therefore, I would urge anyone who wants to keep grammar schools to consider what good selective education actually does for students at these schools. But, more importantly, consider the damage a selective education does to comprehensive educated students, their self-esteem, aspirations and ability to aim high. This is more of plea than a statement of opinion. It simply isn’t fair on comprehensive students to have a two tier system, nor right that some students should receive a better class of compulsory education. Please reconsider your attitude to grammar schools and their relevance in the 21st century.

Review of Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Ruiz Zafón

I have just finished reading an excellent book called ‘Shadow of the Wind’ by Carlos Ruiz Zafón. The book follows two different stories at once, one of a Daniel, young boy growing up in his father’s book shop in Barcelona, and the other trailing an author of a book that Daniel has become devoted too.
The reasons that this story is a must read are manifold. Firstly, it is exceptionally well written by Carlos Ruiz Zafón with a great understanding and ability to communicate the intricacies of Spanish culture. The author is of Spanish origin, so his knowledge on this subject is unsurpassable, but his ability to convey the sense of the Spanish mindset and lifestyle is faultless. Zafón brilliantly expresses the relaxed, lazy atmosphere of the Spanish afternoons spent in coffee shops and Tapas bars, everyone enjoying the hot afternoon sunshine in the Plaza.
Zafón also blends in with his wonderful descriptions of good Spanish living with the much seedier, squalid poverty of Barcelona in the 1940’s under Franco’s governance. Many of the characters either experience or come into contact with the poverty and abandonment that faced many Spanish citizens, for the oppressive and prejudicial nature of the Government and the law. The blend of the two ways of Spanish life in this novel is quite unique to me. Too often books about 20th century Spain focus on Franco’s rule and how this crippled the country, destroyed Spanish culture etc. all of which are undoubtedly true. However, Carlos Ruiz Zafón is distinctive in that he chooses neither to focus on how bad Franco’s rule was nor what it did to individuals or the country, without making clear that there was an amalgamation of the good and bad of Spain at that time.
Finally, this book was fantastic because it was chillingly cold-hearted and abject in places, yet also was full of hope and possible happiness. This reflects his description of Spanish lifestyle, but it is much more apparent in the themes and story line of the book.
As an example of this I point to the story of Penelope Aldaya. I am trying not to give too much away in this review, but no reader will be left untouched by the description of Penelope’s fingernails scraping the door in an effort to get out of the room where she had her illegitimate and incestuous baby, with her parents standing on the other side refusing to help. Similarly shocking is the discovery of the room years later by Daniel, who finds the blood stains on the wall and floors. Zafón goes a good deal beyond horror in this scene. Yet, we also get wonderfully refreshing and heart-warming incidents, such as in the opening chapters where Daniel meets Clara, reads to her and listens to her piano playing.
I would unhesitatingly recommend this book to anyone who wants a challenging read and a book that deals with complex emotions. As a rule I only like books that have a happy ending, but keep you guessing until the end, and Shadow of the Wind was no exception.

Idiocy in Immigration - An False Belief

Immigration has to be one of the most contentious issues that politicians can discuss today. Somehow it has become ingrained into the British mindset that immigrants bring nothing but crime, unemployment and, frankly, mean trouble. It seems to be even more the case that it is not just extremists like the BNP that think this, but also a small minority politicians in the more ‘respectable’ and main stream British parties.
One of the main reasons why I think that immigration has been such a controversial issue for the UK is because of the legacy of the British Empire and what it has left in this country. For there still exists in Britain an ideal that somehow the British are superior to the rest. Now this is not a view that is expressed very often, certainly not vocally, but at least in our attitudes towards other countries, in particular Eastern Europeans and Asians it is very apparent. Whenever the immigration issue crops up in discussion or politics, there are always those that bring out the argument that immigrants are just here to live off the state and the benefits it awards. Aside from being misguided and completely incorrect, the idea typifies the attitudes some people have in this country towards foreigners. Somewhere the thought has been put into their heads that, simply because they are not British, they will not be putting something back in this country. There is absolutely no basis for any claims that immigrants to this country will not work when they come here. Immigration figures from independent sources show that unemployment amongst the white male population stands as 4%, whereas in Indian or Chinese male populations the figure is 7-9%. This shows that although unemployment is higher amongst other ethnic groups, the change is hardly on the scale that is often represented.
So why does this idea exist? Where has the idea that British people work harder and deserve more come from? We cannot simply put it down to a sense of national pride. If it were true that a nationalistic feeling was responsible for the notion that foreigners deserve less in this country because of a false belief in their work ethic, why aren’t people in the BNP and other right-wing groups up in arms about the thousands of American, French or Irish natives who live here? Of course they aren’t. So we have to turn to another solution, which I believe is the simple fact that it somehow irks certain people that others should be enjoying this country and working hard for it just as much as themselves. It is the selfish attitude that people such as Poles or Pakistanis should be allowed to enjoy the privileges of living in such a fine country, because that means they will have to share what they enjoy so much.

Queuing

Did you know that the average person in the UK over 50 will have spent 2 years waiting in lines?! The reason I mention this is because on Saturday I spent a small eternity queuing at the airport check where they processed 50,000 people’s boarding. I wouldn’t have minded if the single check in clerk was not yet out of Secondary school, had infinitesimally low intellect, and processed each boarding pass at the rate of one every half hour. But it wasn’t his entire fault; there were 50 check in desks unmanned right up until I reached the desk. Then, as if by some divine intervention, the entire check in clerk workforce in the UK filled up the available desks to process the 3 remaining families, then, presumably, sat and waited in an empty lobby until the next crush came, when they would all leave for tea break again! The same thing happened at the security checkpoint, passport control, boarding gate and even the coffee shop. Yet, as soon as I reached the airport in Switzerland, all was quick and efficient. The same was true of the bank and train station. Why?
Personally, I put it down to the Swiss Army knife. Any country that can come up with a contraption that contains tweezers, a toothpick, a corkscrew, fish scaler, magnifying glass, ballpoint pen, and even, on some modern ones, a USB key has to hold the reputation for being the most efficient nation in the world. Not that there are any uses for Swiss Army knives. Seriously, can you imagine a circumstance in which you would need an all-in-one fish scaler cum USB key? But that is not the point. Young children can cause serious damage and harm with them, so they have become a necessity for growing small boys. Efficiency is the key with Swiss Army knives. Can you imagine parents buying separate utensils for different purposes for kids who have a hankering to carve their initials in trees after removing splinters with tweezers? So, because the Swiss have achieved their reputation as being an efficient nation through the Swiss Army knife, they are anxious not to disappoint. And I salute them for it. If only we could have some of that clear headed efficiency in England. But we can’t, because otherwise I wouldn’t be able to enjoy the fact that 4% of my life has been spent in a queue.

Bitching about Buses

Today I want to moan about people who moan about bus services in Britain! There are areas in the UK where public transport is fairly bad. Yeah, and there are white elephants in Burma. To be honest, whenever I read a newspaper or see a report on television about how bad British public transport is, and how it used to be better, I want to write in and ask them whether they think that they are being just a little too selfish with regard to how they are being served by public transport.
Firstly, I know for a fact that my home town of Plymouth has an excellent bus service that reaches to every single area of the city, and the buses run at least every hour in all districts. All of these bus services run on time and link with one another to a reasonable degree. For example, on Saturday I purchased an ‘all day rider’ ticket and rode for three hours on 8 different bus route throughout Plymouth. I calculated that the deviation from the timetable averaged 4 minutes. I find it hard to believe that Plymouth is the only city in the UK where I can expect to be delivered where I want to go on time by the buses. In fact, the capitol, London, received an award for ‘City with the Best Public Transport’ in 2006. Clearly some cities receive an unparalleled service, whilst others do not, or people are making mountains out of molehills. I am inclined to think the latter.
Obviously, the buses and routes I have been looking at are city services and that facilities become fewer and further between in the country. Nevertheless, we have to look at these things in context. The reason that bus services are less frequent in the country is because there is less demand. There are fewer people who live in villages, and fewer people who have no car, and thus rely on a bus to take them where they want to go, so the bus services reflect this in their timetables. I recently did a survey for some Geography coursework and discovered that over 10% of residents in the particular village of my study needed a bus, and only 33% of interviewees would use the buses if the services were improved. Clearly the costs of running a service would not be met if residents continued to use their cars for journeys.
So, to conclude, what I mean to say is that if people want to have a good public transport system nationally, we need to make sure as a community that we use it. And if anyone wants to sample excellent bus services, I unhesitatingly recommend Plymouth.

Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?

Something that has been putting my back up lately is how some people seem to think that the English language is being used and, to use one persons words ‘degraded’, by the use of expressions such as ‘basically’ and ‘like’. I was reading an article in the newspaper and the comments of some readers and was astonished at how some people thought certain words were incongruous with English because they used both Latin and Greek prefixes and suffixes, they are overused, young people use them more and, probably, because they don’t like them or understand them!
Why shouldn’t English speakers be able to use words that aren’t ‘proper’ English, such as ‘over-exaggerate’, ‘detrain’ or ‘diarise’? Just because these words are new to some people, don’t fit Latin grammatical rules etc. doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t use these words? Any etymologist or linguist will tell you that language evolves as time goes on and that the variety and complexity of a language is only added too by the creation of new words and the adoption of colloquialisms.
Furthermore, one of the specific beauties of the English language and one of the main reasons many believe that has led to its widespread popularity is because of its casual structure and lack of regimentation. Because English has been mangled and used differently in many countries, we have a richness and diversity that allows us to express ourselves in millions of ways. We can identify between house and home, black and dark and many others, mostly because we have allowed the language to develop that way. One of the most famous writers in literature, Shakespeare, is thought to have coined over 600 words, and that is a conservative estimate. These include:
- accessible
- fashionable
- priceless
- assassination
- crucial
- successful
- useless and useful
- impartial
- and vulnerable

So how can people say that the English that we are using is not the Queen’s English, doesn’t work grammatically, or is just not ‘correct’ way of talking? And if anyone tells me that I should speak properly and not use words that aren’t in the OED, I think I might just make the aware that one of the best new words we have in the English language is moron!

How do we give to charity today?

How would I spend a million pounds? It would be the norm nowadays for me to say that I would use the money for a good purpose – maybe giving to starting a foundation or charity. Certainly everyone who has to answer this question publicly for a magazine or television interview say that they have some brilliant, ethical way of giving the money away. Similarly, it seems to be that celebrities nowadays must be seen to giving to charity or committing to some moral cause. For example, I was reading an article in a magazine that focused on certain celebrities who gave to charity over the year. For example, Angelina Jolie was highlighted as one who gave a significant proportion of his income to charity, along with various others such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
I am certainly not highlighting these examples because I want to accuse them specifically. But, I think that, on the whole, the way the way in which people give to charity in the Western world today has become very arbitrary and self-centred. It seems that people give to charity in today’s world because it is fashionable and, in the case of celebrities, enhances their image. I point to the ‘Prince’s Trust Organisation’ as an example (though you can hardly describe Prince Charles as a celebrity) of this. Why does Prince Charles need to have his name labelled on the charity he is patron too? If he is genuinely giving to charity because he feels compelled to do so (which he should, as should we all), then why does he need to be associated so clearly with his charity? Similarly, Bill Gates and his wife Melinda Gates. They have their own foundation known as the ‘Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’! Being so clearly linked with the charity is obviously a way to promote his own image as a generous benefactor and philanthropist.
Secondly, some people say, and quite validly, that you need celebrities to advertise charities and get people to donate, this seems a very odd set of circumstances. Why do we in the Western world need to have celebrities to advertise charities? Why is giving to charity something we need encouraging to do? We are very fortunate to live in a society that is wealthy and has the ability to give to others. Yet people seem to have forgotten that giving to charity should be something we should be doing habitually!