Commenter

Bring back our military

2011-05-22T23:09:00.000-07:00

Britain's fleet of combat jets is to be slashed down from 230 to 107, a reduction of more than half in a move designed to plug what is known as the "black hole" surrounding the budget for buying defense equipment. The royal navy's 23 strong force of frigates and destroyers will also be cut, falling from 23 to 19. My question is why is the military being cut? Isn't the army the army the backbone of a nation?

My argument comes from the fact that very recently, about a couple of months ago, a Russian plane came very close to British airspace. If that happened in the cold war we would probably be dead by now. You just cannot be too careful.

Analysts are now warning the government that if a recent war was to strike at any point now the United Kingdom may be too stretched to fight a war, thus resulting in losses on the British side.

Yet that is not my biggest concern. Let us look back a few weeks when Osama Bin Laden was shot dead by US navy seals in Pakistan. Crowds gathered outside the White House and in Times Square shouting "USA" and holding boards which state:

"Omaba 1, Osama 0"

This may sound completly off topic but just stay with me. To me this to me is typical Americanism, once again getting over the top about something which should be taken with extreme caution; the death of the head of the world's biggest terrorist organisation is, while an act of justice, an act of stupidity. Killing Osama Bin Laden will just cause more problems than it will solve.
Americans will cheer at the thought of a degraded British military, and this will humiliate the people of the UK. If anything, I would rather have a Russian plane entering our airspace rather than Americans laughing at us.

Demarchy is the key to success

2011-05-22T02:13:00.000-07:00

Democracy has its problems, but can demarchy eliminate them?

You heard that correctly, demarchy, not democracy, is what I believe to be the key to the success of a nation; whether that demarchy be partial or in whole. For those who do not know, demarchy is a political system whereby decisions are made by a random cross-section of the masses. When you think about this demarchy makes much more sense than democracy simply because of the fact that the people we choose to represent ourselves in parliament (or congress for you Americans) are only representing the people, while demarchy actively involves the people in the legislative branches of government.
Ideally all voters should critically analyse each piece of information set forward by the candidates for election, and then inquire as to whether the information given will actually match the policies the person will set forward in government. However not all people will do that, after all they have a life. Politicians therefore will focus much of their campaign on advertising, much like how a corporation advertises a product, and people may vote for that candidate solely on the fact that they saw an advertisement. Once this person is elected into power they may abuse their newly entrusted powers and turn to corruption.
Demarchy eliminates this possibility, namely because of the fact that randomly selected people cannot use advertising to their advantage. Ordinary people are also less likely to corrupt. A random cross-section of the people should also in effect make sure that a cross-section of the people is represented in government, as opposed to in representative democracy whereby the masses of people in one area are represented by one or a small group of people who may not share the views of a significantly large proportion of the people.
Demarchy then is just an idea at the current, but perhaps it could become a possibility.

Don't break away Scotland!

2011-05-21T06:38:00.000-07:00

Above: SNP leader Alex Salmond favours Scottish Independence

For all those who don't know the Scottish National Party (SNP) has gained a huge majority in the Scottish parliament. Why should anyone be interested? Well the SNP leader Alex Salmond favours independence; basically Scotland may break away from the United Kingdom.
The days are long gone when Britain ruled an empire on which the sun never set, and perhaps this is a good thing, but the northern half of our nation seceding to form a new nation is just a huge embarrassment to the Britons, especially the English. It was 1707 when the Act of Union fused the English and Scottish parliaments together, and in 1800 Ireland too fused with England and Scotland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This collection of papers helped craft a strong nation, one which conquered a quarter of the world's surface.
I have no problem with the Scots breaking away, its just if they do they won't know what they are in for. Independence will only cause more problems and it is possible that Scotland may come running back to join the union again. All that I propose is greater powers to be given to the Scottish parliament, including perhaps Scotland being viewed as a separate entity during international conferences.
But the main problem with independence is that Wales may get the same idea, with the Welsh Assembly becoming entirely responsible for all Welsh policy making. And if this were to happen then we may end up with the Kingdom of England, the Republic of Scotland and the Republic of Wales.
Don't know about Northern Ireland though. The question I would like to ask is whether Northern Ireland stays in the union or secede and join the Republic of Ireland? Anyhow, let's just hope Alex Salmond fails in his quest for independence.