Yet again polls' portral of Brits is (how shall i put this delicately)...rather worrying. A poll commissioned by children's TV channel Jetix has revealed some rather interesting facts which have obviously been recorded as wrong in history - according to a third of school children. I mean who doesn't know that Winston Churchill, one of this country's greatest war time leaders and arguably the most clebrated British Prime Minister of the 20th century, was leading a double life as an astronaut.
One in three young people belive that he was the first man to walk on the Moon. Forget his defining "we will fight them on the beaches" speech. Instead he shall be remebered for taking "one small step for man, (and) a giant leap for mankind."
As if mixing up Churchill with Armstrong wasn't bad enough, the poll also showed that 72% were unable to identify the Moon in a series of pictures. (I mean, would you like me to draw you a picture? No wait....we already did that!) Of the 1,400 children polled online (aged 6-14), only 44% could identiy Saturn by its giveaway rings, two in five think that Mars is just a chocolate bar (get your minds out of your stomach) and a third thought its surface was blue. And when it comes to naming the planets in our solar system almost 60% didn't have a clue and less couldn't name them in order.
Despite this, there was some good news......nearly three quarters of children polled wanted to learn more about astronomy. See, its not a lost cause yet.
But seriously, putting aside my sarcasm for just a moment, it is worrying that a third of those children didn't even know Earth is an official planet! What exactly are they teaching young people these days? Is the educations department even aware of this? And exactly were does all the governments money for education go, because obviously it isn't in science.
(Originally posted March 20, 2008)
Thursday, 27 March 2008
Privacy violations at an election..What else is new?
News that the American presidential candidates passport files have been breached comes as no shock really, despite the screaming headlines of practically ever national paper. Do people really think that this elections drama has already played out? Certainly not, the Americans never fail to surprise with what new depths (or rather lows i should say) that some people are willing sink to in attempts to try and disrupt an election.
The announcement that the breachs occurred only surfaced after two State Department workers had been dismissed and a third was disciplined for improperly accessing Mr Obama's passport file on three occasions this year. But he wasn't the only victim here, Hillary Clinton and John McCain were also under close scrutiny. The fact that the presidential hopefulls are under close watch is not new news, however the apparent lack of security in the State Department, especially at a highly politically charged moment as this, is.
These revaltions raise questions not only of security but whether they were politically motivated actions, and if so then why it took anybody so long to find out about it. The first time when Obama's file was accessed was January 9th - that's 71 days before any senior officials were even alerated. As if that wasn't bad enough for the State Department to deal deal with, Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, announced that Hillary Clinton's files were also "improperly" accessed last year as well.
All i can say is that if its so easy to access private files and go undetected for so long then we should all be worried about the lack of security were other private and sensitive data is concerned at the State Department.
It's also satisfying to know that the braches were only spotted by Dr Rice's office because of a journalist's enquiries on thursday afternoon. The Secretary of State told reporters that she telephoned Mr Obama to apologise herself due to the frequency of breaches concerning his files. Bill Burton, a spokesperson for Barack Obama, has called for a series investigation into the matter. (Hmmm, wonder how long this one will take!)
While making the usual rounds on news sites i came across the Online Times' covergae of the whole affair(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3598509.ece). If you go to the end of the article they have his break out describing other times when the State Department has been breached concerning presidents. After reading it i realised that unauthorized access to private files seems like an everyday occurrence across the water. Reminds me of our dear governments incompetence concerning private data leaks a while back.
(originally posted March 22, 2008)
The announcement that the breachs occurred only surfaced after two State Department workers had been dismissed and a third was disciplined for improperly accessing Mr Obama's passport file on three occasions this year. But he wasn't the only victim here, Hillary Clinton and John McCain were also under close scrutiny. The fact that the presidential hopefulls are under close watch is not new news, however the apparent lack of security in the State Department, especially at a highly politically charged moment as this, is.
These revaltions raise questions not only of security but whether they were politically motivated actions, and if so then why it took anybody so long to find out about it. The first time when Obama's file was accessed was January 9th - that's 71 days before any senior officials were even alerated. As if that wasn't bad enough for the State Department to deal deal with, Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, announced that Hillary Clinton's files were also "improperly" accessed last year as well.
All i can say is that if its so easy to access private files and go undetected for so long then we should all be worried about the lack of security were other private and sensitive data is concerned at the State Department.
It's also satisfying to know that the braches were only spotted by Dr Rice's office because of a journalist's enquiries on thursday afternoon. The Secretary of State told reporters that she telephoned Mr Obama to apologise herself due to the frequency of breaches concerning his files. Bill Burton, a spokesperson for Barack Obama, has called for a series investigation into the matter. (Hmmm, wonder how long this one will take!)
While making the usual rounds on news sites i came across the Online Times' covergae of the whole affair(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3598509.ece). If you go to the end of the article they have his break out describing other times when the State Department has been breached concerning presidents. After reading it i realised that unauthorized access to private files seems like an everyday occurrence across the water. Reminds me of our dear governments incompetence concerning private data leaks a while back.
(originally posted March 22, 2008)
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
Obama's saving grace
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3584393.ece)
Barack Obama's speech last tuesday in Philadelphia was reminicent of a man tierd of the usual political stirring and innuendo, and a man whose words relayed how desperate he was was to return the focus back onto his campaign, and brush aside once and for all the media speculation surrounding the controversial link between him and his former pastors "anti-american" sermons.
At the core his speech were two vital issues which surround this presidential election more than any of its predecessor's - race and equality, possibly because America has never had a presidential candidate who is the "son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas,"(Obama's opening speech) or speaks which such seemingly genuine conviction and passion. Not since the days of Bill Clinton has the world seen an American candidate who could easily woo a crowd of voters with mere words.
Don't get me wrong, i havn't made up my mind on which democratic i will keep my fingers and toes crossed for on election days (being pro republican simply being out of the question-we do not need another Bush administration in the White House), but i cannot help but be in awe of Obama.
He addressed the issue of race after the incendiary remarks made by his former pastor Rev Jeremiah Wright. The next day almost every newspaper and news site was caught up in praise for him and his "flat-out brillent speech" as it is being hailed. After watching it on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUn4ohZUGs0) i understood why. The importance behind the speech however is my interest here. The main reason why he did is is fairly obvious - he had to address the issue before his campaign took on any more water. Obama's strategy of dealing with his race identity is one of the most, if not the most important pillar of his entire campaign, and Rev Wright threatened it. Afterall,
- Whites make up 73.9
- Black or African American 12.4%
- American Indian and Alaska Native 0.8%
- Asians 4.4%
- Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 0.14%
- Hispanic or Latino origin 14.8%
- Other race 6.3%
- Two or more races 2.0% (Source: US Census Bureau, 2006 (figures add up to more than 100 per cent because Hispanic is classified as origin, not race).
To say that Rev Wrights' remarks that:
"who cares about what a poor, black man has to face everday in a country and a culture controlled by a rich white people.....it just came to me in the past few weeks why so many folks are hating on Barack Obama. He doesn't fit the model. He aint white, he ain't rich, and he ain't privellaged. Hillary fits the mould..Europeans fit the mould, rich white men fit the mould. Hillary never had a cab whizz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong colour, Hillary never had to worry about being pulled up in her car as a black man driving in the wrong ...Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home Barack was. Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and culture that is controlled by rich white people.....I am so glad i have a God who knows what it is to be a poor black man in a country and a culture controlled by and run by rich white people. Jesus taugh me how to love my enemies...and not be reduced to their level of hatred, bigatory and small mindness."
are damaging to Obamas campagin is an understatement. (You can watch it on YouTube for yourselves and judge whether or not he seems as hypocritical to you as he does to me (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcOOSpvC2JI).
So you could probably see why Obama had to take control of the situation asap and turn a moment of great political importance into another landmark slide amongst supporters. He talks about the pitfalls in black and white mentality, and his love of the pastor but disagreeing with him on a crucial point - something which puts him in favour with the modern American - America can change! In true genius fashion he uses that point to sweep aside the intial issue of controversial racial remarks claiming that "race" is just a distraction and that for this election voters should see past it and not make the same mistake in his election.
The beauty of this speech is that its passionate and cleverly side steps the initial issue by making all those outraged feel guilty of having them in the first place. I think im right in saying that his speech will go down in presidential race history as one of the best speeches made. There was no theatricals or over exagerated or enthusiastic facial expresssionas or hand movements, just mere words empowered by one mans belief. However, whether he wrote this himself or it was the creative genius of his speechwriters remains uncertain. Nevertheless, Obama's tuesday speech is another victory over Clinton.
Some of you might be interested in Daniel Finklstein's guide to opinion on the web.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
