Entangled Alliances

Some will always make a spirited eloquent speech about the need for total free speech, without restriction or those Orwellian authority standards. While the speech may sound good, and the argument logical, just take a look at what happens on America’s most popular new channel, at primetime, with no regulation at all even a standard most of us can agree on that flat out lying shouldn’t be allowed, for those of you that don’t know, this is Glenn Beck:

On Healthcare ( although this clip to be fair is on his radio show)

Read more…

The run up to Copenhagen has begun and by all accounts it was a little more fiery than expected. I’m not referring to the Climate Camp in London, whose location was kept so secret, nor am I referring to Sen. Chuck Grassley’s remarkable comments that there are an increasing number of scientists who have doubts about Climate Change…really? This sounds a little like Sen Inhofe’s infamous list, many of whom were horrified to learn they were including on his list ( yes, he basically made it up). All of these are mere broadsides in the contemporary Climate Change debate.  The fire in this debate, which we’ve only seen glimmers on touches on the elephant in the room for environmentalists and even governments, Population control. India’s Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh issued a response to efforts by the US to bring India’s population into the debate:

Read more…

photo credit: the_repairman

What connects U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking and your Grandma? The answer, if you’re a right-wing American, is that all three would be left to die if the NHS – Britain’s world famous universal health service – had its way.  Yes, that’s right, welcome to the madness that is the current debate in the US over health-care reform: a bizarre dumping ground for crazy that has now – thanks to self-serving Republican politicians and the loonier fringes of the right – set its cross-hairs on Britain’s health care.

Thus Kennedy, who is battling a brain tumour, was cited by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley last week as someone who would be denied treatment for his tumour if he had the rotten luck to find himself in England. Grassley is one of the leading Republican players in negotiating a health-care bill. Needless to say, his claim is a lie.  Then there’s the claims that the NHS has “death panels” that refuse costly treatment for old people, thus sentencing them to a premature death. Another lie.

And Stephen Hawking? According to a now legendary editorial by the Investor’s Business Daily, people such as Hawking  “wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.” Unfortunately for the editors of this fine publication Hawking is, obviously, British and has lived in Britain, under the Nazi-like grip of the NHS, his whole life.  Oops. “I wouldn’t be alive were it not for the NHS” was his rather definitive response.

Naturally, these kind of accusations tend to focus the debate on the relative merits of the NHS . Defenders of British health-care can point to the incredible, mind-boggling cheapness of the system compared to America: according to OECD figures, in 2007 Britain spent a staggering $4000 dollars less on health-care per person than the U.S. And yes, there is rationing in the British model (a logical inevitability in a universal, free system) but the common sense, cost-effective decisions of NICE – the body that gives advice on the effectiveness of treatments – are much preferable to America’s idea of rationing which is, you know, leaving 45 million people without any form of health care. And considering how incredibly cheap it is, Britain’s health-care is not that far behind America in terms of patient outcomes and even ahead of it in many areas.  Moreover, despite its lower levels of health spending, Britain still manages to be second only to the US in terms of pharmaceutical innovation, which rather puts a sword to the lie that government health-care stagnates medical progress.

But all this is in danger of overlooking what is surely the most startling element of America’s health-care debate, which is that so much is being made of the merits of the NHS despite the complete absence of anything at all like it in any of the health-care reform proposals. This is a really crucial point, so I’ll say it again: Nothing remotely like the NHS is being considered, in even the smallest measure, in any of the health-care bills currently on the table.  The current debate, then, is like attempting to reform the rules of cricket and getting mired in a row over the merits of baseball. It’s just not relevant.

Read more…

I toyed with Gordon Brown’s talk on communications creating a global conscience but….. this is more time out.

Actually, I’ll feel a little guilty if I keep copying and pasting in these links. De Botton is spot on, the meritocratic society has at its core an individualistic notion. That has as he points out, an obvious flaw, losers really are losers. Is it fair? Yes and no, certainly concrete barriers are less evident that before, but the problem with a meritocracy is that its a bit simplistic and all to perfect, unlike reality, so perhaps we should be a little less judgemental and focus a little more on public good… *cough* Denmark *cough*, ahem.

Newcomers tuning in to the G8 meeting may have been surprised by recent events. On balance it looks like an event where things get done, everything about it oozes action and dynamism. Firstly, just who they are ought to be enough: USA, UK, Russia, France, Germany, Canada, Japan and errr Italy ( it is rich at least). Secondly, there are as the name would suggest, only 8 of them. 8 is quite small, not like the UN, a system perfectly matched to ensure gridlock if any real global policy ever had to take place. Just 8, market based democracies this ought to be packing with leadership and vision.

Read more…

Entangled Alliances is at the OpenTech 09 conference in london, looking at how technology can help foster democracy. We’ll be tweeting throughout the day, our updates will be appearing on the right.

photo credit: db™

Ronald Reagan, that master of the quotable quip, once said that the nine most terrifying words in the English Language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. But if the Gipper were alive today and in President Obama’s shoes he might well change his mind, since right now there’s only one phrase that should strike fear into the hearts of all, and this time it’s only eight words: “The bill will now move to the Senate”.

Last week America’s first real legislation aimed at tackling climate change – The American Clean Energy and Security Act, better known as the Waxman-Markey Bill – passed the House of Representatives by a razor thin margin of 219-212. It will now move on to the Senate, which is often said to be the place where good legislation is sent to die. Where the House of Representatives is full of progressive reformers, the Senate is full of cautious moderates. Where the House often sees bills passed largely to the whipping efforts of Speaker Pelosi, the Senate is full of obstinate minded grand-standers who won’t be corralled by their party leaders.

It’s no understatement to say that the final bill that lands on Obama’s desk could well determine the future success of world efforts to halt global warming. The problem is, not only is it at risk of being sautéed à la Senate, but it’s not exactly in the best of states after having been through the meat grinder of various House committees. Legislation is often said to be like a sausage – you don’t want to watch it getting made. True to form, the various special interests and lobbyists that virtually own many key committee members have managed to make a meaty mess of the bill as it made its torturous way through the House. And you know what? It wasn’t even the most ideal piece of work to begin with.

Read more…

photo credit: Gernot Poetsch

Not too much closer union

In a wide-ranging and fascinating judgement, the highly activist German Constitutional Court has ruled that the Treaty of Lisbon is compatible with its Basic Law. There are, however, certain provisos that significantly affect the force of some of the parts of the Treaty that could lead to deeper integration without an amending treaty. It also has a lot to say on the future scope of European integration.

The press release is certainly worth reading in full, and it’s only seven pages if you copy and paste into Word – useful for highlighting. If you have time to read the judgement in full it’s more like 119 pages, but I think for those geeks of European integration and judicial philosophy out there it will be well worth a look.

I was going to wait to comment on this before I’d seen what the highly-recommended German Law Journal had to say about it (its discussion of a 2006 ruling is a great example). Then I noticed this evening that Nosemonkey had come out with some very interesting analysis into the ruling, and thought I’d try and get my initial thoughts down before seeing what any more people had to say on the matter.

Read more…

photo credit: Thomas Roche

Last month Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor, a federal appeals court judge, to replace the retiring David Souter on the Supreme Court. As battles go, the battle between Democrats and Republicans over Sotomayor hasn’t been particularly hard-fought so far – at least in comparison with some of the legendary heated nominee battles of the past. This is because, with 60 Democrats in the Senate,  Republicans have about as much hope of sinking her confirmation as the media does of pronouncing her name correctly (for the record, it’s Soh-toh-my-YOR). However, this hasn’t stopped the Right from attacking her and it’s important that Democrats are effective in rebutting these attacks, especially since they won’t always have the votes to waltz through their chosen nominee in the years to come.

Luckily for liberals the main form of attack on Sotomayor – aside from a liberal dose of racism & sexism from the ever-vocal conservative fringe – has come from the worn, dog-eared folder marked “judicial activism”.  Accusations of being an “activist judge” are par for the course for liberal nominees to any high court in America.  But what is judicial activism? In the fevered minds of conservative Republicans, activist judges are those who frequently strike down state or federal legislation so they can impose their liberal policy agenda on America. Instead of acting like judges, they act more like politicians: legislating from the bench. They are frequently contrasted with conservative-minded judges, who simply “apply the law of the land”.  The nomination of Sotomayor has brought these old accusations back into the open, with a new twist that as part of her liberal activism Sotomayor favours the rights  of minorities over those of whitey.

The main problem with the “activist judge” critique is that it’s really, really dumb. For a start, the idea that judges, when faced with controversial cases, should simply “apply the law” doesn’t make any sense. The whole point behind the kind of case that ends up in an appeal court is that it’s impossible to “apply the law”, since the application of the law in this case isn’t particularly obvious – thanks in no small part to the fact that the constitution is full of phrases that are incredibly vague (hello, second amendment!). Indeed, the existence of these “hard cases” is virtually the first thing a law student of any legal system learns about, but the last thing that many conservatives would ever acknowledge. But those attacking Sotomayor aren’t (just) making this attack out of stupidity; they are using it as a way to disguise their real, extremist aspirations within misleading but effective populist rhetoric. To see the proof of this deceit in action, we need only do something that the American Right (and in large part the American media) can’t really be bothered with: that is, actually examine the cases decided by Sotomayor that have got conservatives so hot under the collar.

Read more…