The Left and National Security

Posted on May 16, 2011 by Trippy Traveller

In the battleground of American Politics as well as British politics the left wing party is often characterized as being too compassionate; as being soft on national security. This is a stereotype foisted on the left by right wing politicians hoping to sway opinion polls.

In America George W Bush got re-elected to a second term in the White House largely on the promise that he was the man needed to protect the country. After the fear engendered by the terrorist attacks of September 11th the electorate were persuaded to dismiss Bush’s overspending and his other policy blunders and vote for him because he would sort out Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

In Britain a similar situation exists. The right wing for 16 years controlled government. They fostered an image as being tough on crime and those abroad who interfered with British interests. Margaret Thatcher was the ‘Iron Lady’ and she too gained another term in parliament by staging a successful bid to recapture the Falkland Islands.

It seems that the right wing has done very well out of terror and fear. The perceived compassion of the left has cost them elections.

This situation has subtly changed.

Although Barack Obama repeatedly promised on the election campaign trail to pull American troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq he has not done so. Instead he has presided over an administration that has pushed for more funding for these two foreign policy initiatives. It doesn’t look that ‘our boys’ will be coming home any time soon.

The greatest coup of his presidency so far has been finding Osama Bin Laden. The left in America are not soft on terrorists. Quite the reverse: the left hunt them down and blow their face off and then dump the body in the ocean. It was an act of extreme belligerence. It was also a unilateral act. Surely that is what the right should be doing? If you want a safe pair of hands at the helm in times of crisis who better to turn to than Mr. Obama who gets the job done? Finding the World’s (or America’s) most wanted man and then dispatching of him in such a forthright manner is a tremendous shot in the arm for Obama’s bid for a second term in office. He can hit the campaign trail having lain to bed the fear that he is too kind or compassionate to protect the homeland.

In Britain the Labour Party is widely believed to be opposed to armed conflict. In the past leaders of the left in the UK such as Mr. Foot were opposed to armed conflict. Mr. Foot was a confirmed member of CND ? the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. As with America, it was the right in Britain during the 1980s and most of the 1990s that were seen as being the party that were not afraid to take action against criminals both home and abroad.

Mr. Tony Blair did more to change the Labour Party in Britain than any other leader since the inception of the party at the end of World War Two. He dissociated the party from the Unions and he famously said he was going to be ‘tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’. A clever mantra that allowed the Left to maintain its supposed moral compassion while at the same time promising not to tolerate infractions.

After securing victory over John Major in 1997 the Labour Party brought in a number of left wing policies. They introduced the minimum wage, they banned fox hunting and they lowered the penalties for marijuana possession. At this point Tony Blair’s New Labour didn’t seem tough on anything other than fox hunters and those miserly companies who paid low wages to their workforce.

That all changed in the second term of the Labour Party. Tony Blair responded immediately to America’s call to invade Afghanistan. And then not long after he ignored the overwhelming public sentiment and used his executive powers to embroil the UK in the second Iraq war. Blair allied himself closely with George W. and started displaying a hard-nosed attitude to foreign policy and the threat of Al-Qaeda. As with Obama’s administration, Blair changed the perception that the Left was soft on terrorism and crime.

At the end of his tenure and into Brown’s leadership the Left was characterized by a bullying attitude to politics. They reversed the previous leniency over soft drugs. They introduced new laws curtailing the rights of people to protest outside the Houses of Parliament. By the time he left office Tony Blair had changed people’s belief in Britain that the Labour Party was the progressive party that valued freedom of speech and that preferred diplomacy to military action. Mr. Blair did the same as Obama in changing how people thought about the Left.

The interesting thing to note that whereas the Obama administration toughened up the image of the Democrats to the advantage of the party; Tony Blair and his militarism did nothing to endear the Labour Party to the electorate. It seemed that voters turned to the Conservative Party and the Liberals in the hope for a measured approach to foreign policy.

It seems that the Left in both Britain and America are prepared to sacrifice their image as being opposed to unilateralism and armed force; as being the voice of human rights in a bid to secure power. War made Tony Blair very unpopular; killing Osama Bin Laden might have just got Mr. Obama the World’s best job for the second time.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Is it Healthy to be a Vegetarian?

Posted on May 13, 2011 by Control

One thing that I’ve been thinking about a lot recently is the incidence of vegetarianism in countries like the United States. Culturally we are led to believe that:

Vegetarianism = good health

I agree with this attitude in certain respects, although I think there is much more to health than just not eating meat. My own opinion is more concerned with the other side of the equation:

Lack of vegetables in our diet = poor health

A survey that appeared in TIME magazine in 2002 reports that around 4% of Americans consider themselves to be vegetarians. Is this a good thing? I’m not really sure. My gut instinct tells me that it is not so much the lack of meat which is beneficial but rather, higher consumption of fruits and vegetables which provides positive health benefits.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) tells us to:

Consume a sufficient amount of fruits and vegetables while staying within energy needs. Two cups of fruit and 2½ cups of vegetables per day are recommended for a reference 2,000-calorie intake, with higher or lower amounts depending on the calorie level.

The definition provided by the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control is:

One cup refers to a common measuring cup (the kind used in recipes). In general, 1 cup of raw or cooked vegetables or 100% vegetable juice, or 2 cups of raw leafy greens can be considered as 1 cup from the vegetable group. One cup of fruit or 100% fruit juice, or ½ cup of dried fruit can be considered as 1 cup from the fruit group.

The Harvard School of Public Health states:

There is compelling evidence that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables can lower the risk of heart disease and stroke.

So we know from the research and government advice as well as our own experience that consuming fruits and vegetables is good for us. The question is, why are so many Americans today not eating enough of these foods?

I believe that the idea that we have to become a vegetarian to be healthy is wrong and is in some ways counter productive. Having the attitude that “I’m not going to be a vegetarian so why should I even bother having any fruits and vegetables?” is very dangerous.

A study in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association found that:

non-Hispanic African-American children and adolescents consumed significantly more dark-green vegetables and fewer mean deep-yellow vegetables than Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white children and adolescents.

This is not to suggest that the children eating more vegetables are vegetarians, simply that they eat more dark green vegetables. The point is that, we are looking in the wrong direction when we focus on avoiding meat consumption. Instead we should really be thinking about increasing the quantities of fruits and vegetables in our own as well as our children’s diets.

When we look towards Asian countries like Japan and Korea, we can see that meat and fish is a huge part of their diets. But at every meal, they also eat vegetables. The Japanese eat greens on a daily basis and in Korea, kimchi is eaten at most meals. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the percentage of vegetarians in these countries is much lower than in the U.S. but actual fruit and vegetable consumption, much higher.

There’s a story in here somewhere. Hopefully we can interview one of our Asian friends in the future so we can learn more about diets and vegetarianism in the Far East.

Posted in Health | Leave a comment