Quotes from Obama's peace prize speech

I was working with this speech as preparation for my exam tomorrow and just had to post a couple of quotes:

"The absence of hope can rot a society from within."

"So let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls."

Photostory about devolution in the UK

First television debate

Debate (focus on domestic affairs)

Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Klegg debated for the first time together on television. All three of them got the chance to say something before the debate began.

Nick Klegg persuades the people with a new alternative. He says: "We can do something new, we can do something different this time." He speaks of change.

Gordon Brown says that we do not find ourselves in an easy time but he believes that we are moving towards prosperity. He promises better economy and protection if the people choose right. He states the fact that he knows what he is doing, because he has done it before (refers to the financial crisis).

David Cameron speaks of togetherness - the country has to come together. He says that the country needs a change. If elected he plans on keeping some of the good things Labour has done, but change a bit.

After the opening the audience got to ask questions.

The first question was about immigration. I felt that the three candidates had many of the same opinions but that they had different approaches.

Brown starts off saying that he knows that people feel pressure because of immigration. And he wants control. He does not want no put immigration to an end but he say: "We are a tolerant and diverse country but want to control the immigration more." He also says that the numbers of immigration is falling because of what Labour are doing.

Cameron means that the numbers for immigration are way too high and that they have to come down. He says that they have to address immigration properly. Have stronger border control and a proper border police force.

Klegg say that there is a complete chaos in the administration and that they need more control. He states the fact that there exists both good and bad immigration. He explains that immigrants only should go to those regions where they can be supported. He talks of change.

The next question was about law and order

Cameron says that he thinks the sentences are not long enough. He uses an example about a burglar who broke in to a woman's apartment and set coach on fire. The fumes from the fire killed her son. Cameron say that it is outrageous that this burglar, that this murderer only got four and a half year in prison. He suggests a better drug rehab. He thinks it will help if drug addicts got off the streets and into treatment.

Klegg wants more police on our streets. He continuously repeats, "There are too many young defendants who become the hardened criminals of tomorrow." He says a lot about preventative work. He wants to stop the young defendants before they become hardened criminals.

Brown had three points. I am sorry I only remember two of them:
1. He wants 80% of the police on the streets
2. He feels the parents have to follow up more closely (that is for him to say, huh?)

Brown speaks of progress already made by the Labour party on this problem and he presents data to support it.

The third and final question was about the MPs expenses. The woman asking asks how she can trust a MP who spilled his guts to her at her pub.

Nick Klegg tells her that no politicians deserve her trust until everybody have come clean on what has been going on.

Brown says that he is shocked and sickened by the corruption by the MPs. He says that he was brought up to the belief that one act honestly and fairly and he is shocked by the MPs.

Brown wants to do three things (luckily I remembered all of these):

1. If a MP is misbehaving - you should have the right to recall that MP.
2. He wants to reform the House of Commons and the House of Lords. He wants the House of Lords to be elected.
3. He wants the people to write a partition Parliament.

Cameron wants to cut the costs of politics. He means that it is the real apology the politicians have to make. They spend too much money on politics.

My group though that Nick Klegg definitely was the winner of the debate. His body language, his way of speaking and his arguments were great. He takes advantage of his position in a good way.

The Road - final evaluation

I finished The Road in two days when I was in Spain with my family this winter vacation. I always read a lot when I am on holidays with my family, and I love that because reading good books is always a pleasure. This book really was a pleasure reading.

I wrote about the book when I had only read a few pages so if you want to know something about the author or the prizes the book has won – just take a look earlier in my blog.

The theme of the novel is the loving relationship between a father and a son. But at the same time I would say that the theme could be about how far people are willing to go to survive. McCarthy often shows the surviving men from their most cruel side. But simultaneously as McCarthy shows people from their very worst side, he also shows them from their very best. The boy and the father are the “good guys” as they call themselves. The “bad guys” are the killers. The theme could be the balance and struggle between good and bad.

The style the book is written in is very poetic. McCarthy uses metaphors and comparisons that force you to stop and think for a minute. What does he really mean by this? This is what separates the novel from all the other books I have read before. He explains things in this graceful and flowing way and makes it impossible for the reader to put the book down. It really is beautifully written. He has also used quite a few difficult words (at least I thought so), but I did not mind because I love a challenge.

What does the book try to tell us? Does it have an agenda other than what I have already mentioned? The question is hard to answer. Ultimately I think that the book is a criticism to people as well as it is a tribute to them.

This picture is from the film – the father and the son are wandering in the god-forsaken country.

After I got home from warm and relaxing Spain I had to see the screen version of the novel. It is the first time that I have seen a film that could even compare itself to the book. The director had incorporated almost every little detail from the book into the film. Magnificent! The only thing that got lost was the poetic descriptions of different things and also the wonderful conversations between the boy and the father. And I had kind of expected that anyway.

My earlier blog post amongst other things said this: My first impression of the book is good and I think I am going to like it. It is strangely written though. There are a few difficult words in this novel but I look them up if I can find a computer. I can conclude that my first impression did not change much as I continued to read. I did like it and I still thought the words were quite difficult.

As mentioned about a hundred times already I thought the book was excellent. I actually thought it was so good that I convinced my father to read it after me. He liked it as well. Definitely a book I would recommend – and the film of course.

Watch the trailer to the film here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbLgszfXTAY

Assignment 1

B. Day Paper at Question Time

At Question Time the 24th of February many important topics created a heated debate in the House of Commons. Question Time is an opportunity for MPs and Members of the House of Lords to ask government ministers questions. The Prime Minister answers questions in the Commons every Wednesday and last Wednesday Day Paper was there to witness the debate.

The discussion started off by the Prime Minister paying a tribute to the British troops in Afghanistan. A total of seven soldiers had lost their lives since the House last met. Gordon Brown was clearly touched by the loss of the brave soldiers and sent profound condolences to the soldiers’ families and loved ones.

Later on David Cameron spoke about the Stafford hospital where hundreds of people ended up dying because of the way they were mistreated. Cameron asked the Prime Minister if he understood that the victims would never be content with an inquiry that was conducted in private, but that they would claim a public inquiry. Brown responded with a very well-articulated answer and told Cameron that each case was being investigated individually.

The debate grew more intense and Cameron accused Brown of having brought Britain to its knees and that he had wrecked the pension system and ruined the tax system. He presented the data to back his statement up but Brown smoothly proved the data as incorrect.

Richard Benyon from the Conservative Party asked Brown if he shared his thoughts about the importance to inform people of the value of the work the British troops are doing in Afghanistan. Gordon Browns response was in agreement with Benyon and he presented a plan to make people understand that they have a purpose for their missions. He also explained very well, for those who might be critical to the troops in Afghanistan, why it is important to have them there.

Gordon Brown appeared to be calm and concise during the debate and responded to the questions with well-articulated answers that showed reflection. He remained calm and stayed on-topic during the more heated debates whilst Cameron easily got off-topic and made unnecessary remarks on Browns behalf. Therefore – based on this Question Time I would say that the sitting Prime Minister has a better chance of winning the peoples' votes and the forthcoming election.

Gordon Brown speaking at Question Time 24th of February.

Charlie Wilson's War

Tuesday, February 16, I watched the film Charlie Wilson’s War in class. The film is a drama based on Congressman Charles Wilsons' (1933-2010) efforts to help the people in Afghanistan during the war against Soviet. Wilson’s efforts to help had some unforeseen and long-reaching effects that are still going on today. In this blog post I will answer three questions:

1. Write a short review of the movie and state your personal opinions on both subject and movie.

The movie is set in the early 1980s. Charlie Wilson is a US congressional representative from Texas. Wilson dedicates his political efforts to supply the Afghan mujahideen with the support they need to defeat the Soviet Union. Wilson receives a lot of help from his rich, conservative supporter and lover, Joanne Herring and the CIA agent Gust Avrakotos. Because the only demand the people from Texas have is their right to bear arms and low taxes, Wilson is able to save up a lot of favors by, as he says "voting yes a lot", to cases that are important to his colleges. By reclaiming his favors he manages to increase the budget for the Afghan warfare from $5 million to $1 billion. However, Charlie Wilson eventually learns that even though they won a military victory, there are other consequences to that fight that are being ignored.

I thought the movie was excellent. It was both thrilling and interesting as well as enlightening and funny. At the end of the film there is a conversation between Wilson and Avrakotos where Avrakotos warns him that even though they have won, there is still a lot of work to do in the war-damaged country. And that leads me to my personal opinion about the subject. I though it was quite amazing that no one would give $1 million to rebuilding Afghanistan. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that things easily can evolve in a negative direction, in a post war country where about 50 % of the population is less than fifteen years old, and have no family or school to go to. It is quite sad to think about how history could have been changed if they had just given the money needed to build schools and infrastructure in Afghanistan.

2. How did the movie portray Charles Wilson?

Charles Wilson is portrayed as a charming fellow who is good with the ladies and who knows how to speak for himself. He loves his drink at after hours as much as at work. He is always seen with a new woman and he only hires beautiful girls to work for him. But Wilson is not in any way just a drunk and a womanizer. As mentioned, the fact that he is a congressman in Texas, gives him some advantages. Saving up favors and then reclaiming them in that certain way shows us that Wilson is smart.

3. Did you understand more about the conflict after watching the movie?

.

My answer to this question is most definitely: YES. Here is why; I never really knew the background for the conflict. After watching the movie I had both learned the origins of the conflict and I understood why there had developed one at all.

Again, it is sad to think about how easily history could have been altered. No one has ever said this better than Charlie Wilson himself:

"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame."

Charlie Wilson

Class today

Class today was a little different than usual. We were supposed to prepare for our test text Tuesday which is about politics in the United States. The class was divided into five groups - each group with its own responsibilities. The front desk talked to all the groups and made sure everyone was doing what they were supposed to. The research group found material while the journalists picked out the most important topics and wrote them down. I was in the teachers group. We made rubrics with criteria for testing and made the test questions. I think we made the test quite hard actually. It is funny; I had always thought that my teacher's tests were not that good and that I would make better ones myself. But as it turns out - I make them to hard. Finally the designers made Glogs with material.

I like that my teachers use different teaching methods. And I am glad Ann was feeling creative yesterday when she came up with this system. Things get boring really fast when there is no variation. However the system probably did not work as well for everyone else as it did for me. I do not think the front desk learnt as much as the journalists. Next time a front desk probably would not be needed. The research group and the journalists could make one big group because of the huge amount of work the journalists had to do. If we were to do this again I would probably pick the teachers group one more time because I thought it was fun and I learnt a lot.