Hotspur School of Defence – Sword fighting feature

This is the feature I wrote for the press journalism course I'm currently on.

Sadly it is not going to be published but I've posted it here so some people (both of you) at least get to read it. 

All pictures are copyright Paul Norris and NCJ Media in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

“And all I need to do from here is twist my wrist and I’d cut your belly open.”

In any circumstance those words would be threatening, but when the blade of a medieval longsword is resting on your stomach they become particularly terrifying.

Fortunately the blade is blunt and the man holding it is Rob Brooks, 41, a keen hobbyist and the teacher at this Hotspur School of Defence session.

I went along to St Nicholas Parish Hall in Gosforth for a night to find out more about the world of medieval swordplay, what enthusiasts call historical fencing.

Many of us would probably expect this to look a bit like Hollywood battles – big lunging movements that involve heavy swords and epic amounts of muscles.

But Rob says this depiction simply isn’t realistic.

“None of the research supports what people see in films because if you make big movements you simply won’t be able to defend yourself.

“You’ll end up being killed pretty quickly.”

Instead the people at Hotspur practice skills that come straight from the time, using newly discovered manuscripts from the 14th and 15th centuries to better understand warfare.

They even use the original German and Italian terms as Rob and his students drill different methods of attacking and defending.

The first step was footwork, using Italian terms to advance and retreat and learn about body position.

Feet and body positioning would have been vital in combat as a way to gain an advantage over your opponent.

It was made very clear that even a slight slip or showing too much of your chest could have proved fatal.

After that the blades, specially made by experienced swordsmiths in Europe and blunted for people’s safety, started to make an appearance.

It wasn’t long before the rasp of metal hitting metal fills the hall as the group began to duel.

True to what was said earlier, the style used was nothing like a Hollywood portrayal.

Footwork was based on the balls of the feet, meaning that mobility was easy.

With the hands, a lose grip and swift but small wrist movements ensured the swords, which weigh only a couple of pounds, sliced through the air cleanly and quickly.

The end result was that, far from oafish heaving and panting, the movements were graceful, rapid and almost dance-like as the members moved across the hall.

Clearly though this was the result of years of study and practice, something I as a mere beginner could only watch and aspire to.

The School is very welcoming to newcomers and its structure allows them to progress through different types of weapon, becoming proficient in various types of medieval weaponry.

Complete beginners started with a broadsword and then go on to the messer, a German sword with a curved ending that was the most commonly used weapon of the period.

Members progressed through other weapons, such as the spear, pollaxe, and dagger and also learn unarmed wrestling, known in German as 'ringen' and in Italian as 'abrazzare'.

Rob said that holding onto these skills was vital.

“These are martial arts, and they represent a real link to our past.

“Like any martial art we learn discipline control, but we also learn about the history, science and the culture of the period.”

The amount of knowledge they had in the period was made all too clear when I faced up to Rob and his blade rested on my neck.

“Just six millimetres below your skin there are nerves that control your heart rate and your diaphragm.

“Cut there and your enemy hasn’t got a chance.

“People back then knew how important the neck and torso were and there are hundreds of methods outlined in attacking opponents to ensure a quick victory.

“Barely anyone concentrates on attacking the legs as all you do is leave yourself open to attack.

“Why go for someone’s legs when they get a clear strike on your head?”

Time to gulp and reflect on the detail and finesse involved and the brutal time Rob was talking about.

Warfare was common in the medieval period and noblemen could expect exposure to training and even battle from a young age.

One of the most prolific was Tancred, a Norman knight on the First Crusade who was famous for killing 40 men in combat by his 15th birthday.

Another fighter, Harry Percy, nicknamed “Hotspur” by the Scots (and from whom the School gets its name), took part in the siege of Berwick aged only 14.

The School is however for over-18s only because of the danger involved, though they have an unblemished safety record over their ten-year history.

Rob says that the methods used by historical fencers creates a much more realistic atmosphere for learning.

The main sources for historical fencing are recently studied 14th and 15th century books written in old dialects of Italian and German.

English sources would be used but, perhaps surprisingly given a long history of border battles, crusading and rebellion, there are very few manuscripts from the period.

Rob says that armed with this new academic research, interest in the martial art is growing.

“The whole area of research has grown massively in the last three decades, and we know so much more now then when I started in the 1990s.

“This has meant there is a renewed understanding of the whole area.

“The historical fencing community has grown from a handful of practitioners during the early 1990s to many thousands of enthusiasts today, spread across Europe, North America and Australasia.”

Having seen the group practice and had a go myself I was tired out and sweaty but certainly understood the interest and felt inspired by their efforts.

Backed up by good quality research they all have a passion to ensure important skills aren’t lost, even if they are currently misunderstood and misrepresented.

Watching them count out the moves and responding to orders in old German, I can only say I admire their efforts and interest.

Perhaps it’s best I say that though, I don’t want Tancred paying me a visit.

You can find out more on the Hotspur School of Defence by emailing hotspurschool@aol.com or by searching for them on Facebook.

Sidebar:

Hotspur School of Defence is part of the growing movement known as historical fencing.

The group particularly focuses on the works of the Italian master Fiore dei Liberi, who wrote “Fior de Battaglia” (Flower of Battle) around 1409.

“De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi” (On the Art of Swordsmanship) by Filippo Vadi of Pisa, written between 1482 and 1487, is also used during their training.

German manuals are also consulted, especially the tradition and teachings of the 14th century grand-master Johannes Liechtenauer, though others, all original sources from the 15th century, are frequently used.

Diagrams found in Liberi's manual.....

....and another from a 15th century work by Hans Talhoffer.

LBJ was a great President

I will happily admit right now that I love LBJ. He is my favourite 20^th century President (different from “the best”, which is FDR, whilst Lincoln and Jefferson have to fight it out for my “best ever”) and whilst he made mistakes (some of them, especially concerning Vietnam, were absolutely terrible), out of his time in power come some of the most amazing stories and incredible legislation.

                                            

He is still underappreciated but I am convinced the time will come when people will really start to see him as one of the great Presidents of the USA.

First a bit of background – Lyndon Baines Johnson was a Southern Democrat, a beast that was becoming rare at the time as the South slowly became red all over.

He worked his way through both the House and the Senate, spending 30 years on Capitol Hill before running for the Democrat nomination.

Ultimately he failed to the bright, young and rich JFK but the man from Massachusetts offered him the ticket and he accepted.

It was a genius move from JFK, meaning that the scary, liberal and Catholic Northerner gained Southern votes and ultimately won the White House.

After the election, Johnson didn’t enjoy being VP – he was left powerless and was snubbed by many of those who were close to Kennedy, though the President himself tried to keep his VP in the loop.

His main role became taking part in diplomatic missions though he also headed up the task force that recommended to JFK that NASA try to land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s.

This plan is commonly credited to JFK, and not many people know that LBJ played a leading role in both its creation and (once President) its completion, though Nixon got to hog the limelight when the crew of Apollo 11 returned.

All this changed though on November 22 1963. JFK is shot and LBJ (who was in the motorcade, though not the same vehicle) is sworn in on an aeroplane with the slain President’s widow at his side.

It was a shaky start, but over the next few years LBJ helped pass some of the greatest pieces of US legislation of the 20^th century.

His used both his Congressional experience and his Southern roots, twisting arms and guiding those who were unsure.

Aside from that he swore like an absolute trooper, and some of his insults are the best known amongst Presidents.

For what was needed, he was absolutely the best man for the job.

A quick rundown of what he achieved:

1964 saw the signing of the Civil Rights Act, which JFK tried hard to promote in public but about which actually did very little. If anyone doubts this, the only published study on JFK’s role in the civil rights fight is called ‘The Bystander’. Blunt but true.

Once in the White House, LBJ invoked JFK and was able to ride the national grief, but it was mainly his use of his Southern connections that helped him defeat a 57 day filibuster and pass the heavily pork-barrelled Act. Martin Luther King was at LBJ’s side when he signed the legislation that outlawed almost all forms of racial segregation.

1965 was a bumper year.

Johnson signed the Voting Rights Acts (again with MLK at his side), another victory for civil rights campaigners as it enforced federal monitoring of elections and removed blocks such as quizzes on current affairs as barriers to voting. This meant blacks were no longer (in all but law) banned from voting in many states and so could express their opinion, in turn electing their own black representatives.

LBJ also approved the Education Act, ensuring schools for all, signing it in the one room Texan school house he had been taught in.

Healthcare reform also came in, with the President approving help for those who struggled with health bills. Medicaid supported those who couldn’t afford it, whilst Medicare helped the over-65s who obviously had much bigger bills to pay.

Both systems remain in place and whilst they have many failings (and will have to adapt as the baby-boomers get older) they have done a great job.

All this was part of LBJ's “Great Society” (not Big Society!) campaign, which was supported on the Capitol by a Democratic majority and a divided GOP.

These promised bits of legislation also helped Johnson to victory in the 1964 election where he received 61% percent of the popular vote (still the largest share in US history) and an incredible 486 electoral votes (a record that was later beaten by Reagan in 1980 but still a remarkable tally).

LBJ’s domestic work was however overshadowed by the growing spectre of Vietnam, with the chant “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” becoming synonymous with the war.

LBJ himself hated the conflict, even calling it “that bitch of a war on the other side of the world”.

However he was committed to the cause and it was on his watch that thousands of US soldiers first got involved as combat troops rather than as the vaguely named “advisors” that Kennedy approved.

Other campaigns, in particular the highly controversial aerial bombing operation named Rolling Thunder, were approved by Johnson and led to the deaths of thousands.

Although he sought peace through the Paris talks they floundered at the basic level of the shape of the table that should be used and so he got nowhere.

Under LBJ public opinion changed, so these mistakes surrounding a futile and unpopular war in Vietnam helped bring him down.

LBJ realised this and announced on national TV that he wouldn’t run for election again in 1968, even though he could have done under the terms of the 22^nd Amendment.

His actions surrounding Vietnam ultimately split the Democratic Party as anti-war campaigners and LBJ fans supported different candidates, which led to a divided Convention and in turn gifted the Presidency to Nixon.

LBJ’s watch also included the other two great political assassinations of the 1960s, that of MLK on April 4^th 1968 and of Bobby Kennedy (Attorney General to his brother and at the time an anti-war candidate for the Democratic nomination) on June 6^th of the same year.

He spent his last few months in the White House reportedly pacing the corridors at night and staring at Presidential portraits, taking a particular shine to Woodrow Wilson.

I can’t help but think that he was all too aware that his name would always be linked to his mistakes in Vietnam, whilst his Presidency would be sandwiched between the assassinations of the most popular and divisive politicians and leaders of the period.

No doubt this was also the truth with the Moon landing – JFK announced the plan, Nixon welcomed home the heroes. LBJ recommended it, funded it and watched over its progress but doesn’t get the praise he deserves for his involvement.

Even more  is all the more unusual when one considers that LBJ did mull over the idea of bursting into the 1968 Convention, which could not decide on a candidate over multiple votes, and claiming the nomination.

The plan was turned down by the Secret Service (fortunately on security grounds, though also you hope some Democrat stooge told them it was a stupid idea) but you can’t help but think what might have happened. Nixon would have had a harder fight and LBJ might have overseen more of the Vietnamese negotiations. Whatever the case, I think he would be better appreciated than he is nowadays.

LBJ died in January 1973 after a massive heart, a day before the Vietnamese ceasefire was signed and just a few weeks after he would have resigned the Presidency had he won the 1968 election. Again, I just can’t help but wonder what might have been.......

Debate warmly encouraged.

JFK was not a great President

Initially I wrote the notes for this during a train journey back from London and I had aimed to put it online on Nov 22nd. However I chose to differ posting it to today so as to not cause any unnecessary offence. Sorry it is so long, it was a topic I was passionate about then I expected!

Two days ago the US and the world remembered the assassination of JFK.

In death he was made near-perfect and an American martyr was created.

Jack Kennedy was already known to be a war hero, a Pulitzer Prize winner and an international peacemaker.

Now through death he was elevated, immediately becoming a ‘great’ President and a model leader to which others would aspire.

Sadly though this version of JFK is mainly myth, a story that was created and fostered throughout his life and which was heavily promoted after his death.

The reality is that, although he didn’t waste his time in the White House, Kennedy’s martyr status is an illusion.

Instead, although through tragic circumstances, his death led to one of the great Presidencies of the 20^th century as Lyndon Baines Johnson took over the Oval Office.

Kennedy

JFK was part of a family which was carefully guided towards greatness by the Patriarch, Joseph.

Jack was a war hero as his boat (PT109) was rammed and he led his men to safety. He got his medals and ran for Congress and later the Senate, representing the state of Massachusetts in both.

His time in Congress was haphazard as he didn’t like the House and didn’t spend very long in the Senate. All in all he missed one third of the votes that took place during his time there.

Along with his political work, he had a spellbinding private life, marrying the incredibly beautiful Jackie and starting a family, whilst also winning the Pulitzer Prize for a book that profiled eight Senators (which was later revealed to have been written by his speechwriter).

Eventually JFK ran for the Big Job, gained the Democratic Party nomination and adopted LBJ as his running mate.

He beat incumbent VP Richard Nixon in a close election (the TV debate didn’t nearly have the affect the myth about it claims) and settled in to the White House.

And so the time of ‘Camelot’ was created, where beautiful and happy people lived a perfect existence in Washington DC basking in the glow of the youthful and vibrant President and First Lady. 

The look was made all the more amazing when the President solved the Cuban Missile Crisis and went on a glamorous tour of Europe.

The reality however was far from what the public saw.

Firstly the President was sick. Very sick. He denied through clever semantics having Addison’s disease during the 1960 election campaign.

However his condition, which affects the immune system, was coupled with searing back that he had had for years, and meant that JFK took large amounts of steroids and painkillers each day.

Perhaps most controversially the President was treated by Max Johnson (aka Dr Feelgood) whose methods were opposed by many medical professionals at the time.

Johnson would load up his patients (others included Marilyn Monroe and Elvis) with amphetamines without asking why they were needed or warning about health issues the treatment might cause.

Secondly JFK was not the family man that he liked to be portrayed as. Having followed his father’s advice to “get laid as often as possible” his conquests included the aforementioned Monroe and Marlene Dietrich along with several incredibly attractive secretaries.

Jackie endured the infidelity and their marriage was often saved due to the clear care they had for each other (witness Jackie’s reaction after JFK’s death), but the reality was that Kennedy traded in image. He needed to be seen to be a family man, and Jackie played the part perfectly.

I’m not saying that his being ill or sleeping around didn’t mean that he couldn’t be President, merely that he actively lived a different life from the one that was presented.

Politics based on style over substance already existed, but it was wholeheartedly embraced by the Kennedy team and the result is that sadly it remains with us to this day.

As for actual policies, JFK can claim to have helped the case for civil rights through an important speech that was broadcast on the major networks.

However domestically he did very little and his foreign policy isn’t much more impressive.

The moment that people refer to is the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it must be said that it was a massively important episode which he helped defuse, ending a stand-off that brought the Cold War closest to open hostilities.

However it must also be recognised that JFK helped create the problem through the Bay of Pigs fiasco the year before, where he tacitly supported an attempted coup against Castro but refused to give much US support to it.

1,600 dissidents invaded and several hundred were killed or executed alongside their CIA handlers. 1,200 eventually returned to the US but only after $500m was sent in food aid, a move that in essence helped increase the popularity of the regime Kennedy had hoped to topple.

Kennedy later announced a blockage of Cuba (a precursor to the illegal blockade the US still imposes today) but only after a friend managed to smuggle 1,200 of his favourite cigars out of Havana.

It is important to add that whilst Soviet missiles were removed from Cuba with great fanfare, the similar removal of US missiles from Turkey was done in secret.

Kennedy appeared as the victorious peacemaker, when in fact he helped create the problem and was dishonest about the solution.

Elsewhere on the foreign front JFK supported the South Vietnamese government and then supported their overthrow in a military coup which removed any democratic element from Saigon.

His further commitment of US troops only helped further the conflict, creating headaches for future Presidents.

Perhaps his biggest impact was out of this world when he committed the US to the space race and started off the Apollo project in 1961 when NASA hadn’t even got a man into orbit.

The agency’s budget was boosted by 30% and Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped onto the “magnificent desolation” of the lunar surface on July 20 1969.

This project though was based on an idea that Kennedy’s VP Lyndon Baines Johnson had, but more of that in my next post.

Overall therefore JFK’s legacy is shaky – pre-Presidency he was not an effective representative, whilst in the White House domestically his policy was very poor and when it came to foreign affairs he defused a potential nuclear war he had helped create and basked in the resulting glory during a European tour.

In short he was not nearly as effective as many biographers would want us to think.

I’m aware that I’ve been overly harsh in this and I don’t want to deny that JFK did some remarkable things. He just simply was not a great President, which people seem to just not realise.

Something in the human condition wants to us to think that deaths happen for a reason, something which is especially true when the death is of a young and supposedly ‘great’ individual.

However that just simply isn’t the case with JFK, and so the gloss of martyrdom that his death has been given doesn’t really ring true.

Perhaps though whilst his Presidency was ineffective, there is something that can be taken from his death which can so easily be forgotten.

After all, whilst done in the most brutal and unexpected way, Jack’s death summoned in the Presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson, the man who created and passed some of the greatest legislation in US history and the man who almost certainly wouldn’t have become President had JFK have lived through one (and possible two) terms.

My next post will have a look over the highs and lows of LBJ’s time in power, but I hope I make it clear that he was a remarkably effective (and flawed) leader.

LBJ is my favourite US President of the 20^th century, so don’t expect an unbiased write up!

Finally, while I’m here, just to put it down but not to go into it, there was no conspiracy within the government over the JFK assassination, so Alec Baldwin, Oliver Stone and others can shut up (my time in the Debate Society was not wasted!).

Debate warmly encouraged.

The (perilous) benefits of universal healthcare

After my last entry some Christian friends for whom I have an immense amount of respect challenged me on my views surrounding Obamacare considering the threat it brings to the unborn.

The very helpful articles they pointed out to me can be found at the following links:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/08/01/the-faqs-updates-on-the-contraceptive-abortifacient-mandate/

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/10/16/whats-a-christian-business-owner-supposed-to-do/

http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/page/ObamaCare

I'm very much aware of this awful predicament and really can’t see a way round it that is easy. However, below I have tried to answer, or at least give my opinion, on the issues the links raised:

Sadly I'm all too aware of the abortion issue and the affect it could have on Christian employers and frankly it scares me, especially when you think where it could lead in the future. Any system based on a state level would allow for variation within the country (and would be better for many other reasons, including financial - yay states-rights!). A nationwide move that is top down is always going to work badly for those who don't share values with the 'top'. I can only suggest we pray for those who need help.

However I would add that the real problem is that the church dropped the ball, especially in the US where church hospitals are common. If Christians had continued to provide healthcare (and taken on other things e.g old people's homes) free at the point of need rather than surrender that to the state then these issues simply wouldn't exist. Needless to say that is also true of other religious groups AND if put into practice it would have bypassed any issues over church-state separation that the US rightly has in its Constitution. However I can't pop in a time machine and solve that so we are left where we are today.

Ultimately, if Obamacare ends up actually working, millions of Americans will be covered for accidents and emergencies that they don't currently have cover for. Others will be helped out of drug dependency and addiction, which will in turn help them get to work and therefore boost the economy. Still more will be able to receive help that was denied to them through loopholes in Medicare (for the elderly) and Medicaid (for those on low incomes and especially those below the poverty line).

To me it is staggering that THE world superpower doesn’t have these basic rights sorted out and that its health system is such a mess. And, sadly, the US system is terrible. The US has the highest perinatal death rate amongst all developed nations. It also has the highest male mortality rate amongst developed nations. It is close to top in death tables (not panels) for deaths caused by diet and respiratory problems and US citizens are near the top of tables for deaths from problems such as heart disease, diabetes and HIV/AIDS.

The reasons for these problems are diverse (obesity could be helped by not selling Cokes at baseball games that are so big you are worried you might drown in them) but one solution is very clear – standardised medical coverage that is supported by a regulated system of insurance. Business Insider used WHO stats to analyse the US health system compared to others and concluded by saying: “nearly all these advanced countries, which provide better health care outcomes at a lower per capita cost, have a system of universal health care in place”. The US doesn’t and its poorer citizens suffer immensely.

I personally wouldn’t use the Obamacare system but there is no way the US can get rid of their health insurance magnates as they are too involved in the political system, so they have to develop a system around them. Again I would prefer a state system but Obama is big government and so you get a federal solution, which leads to Obamacare.

So that’s (part of) why I tolerate it (initially I typed “welcome” but I’ve realised while re-reading this that that would be far too generous). It isn’t perfect, it isn’t how I would do it and in some ways it terrifies me but it will help people and it will save lives given time.

Debate warmly encouraged

Is Obamacare going to survive?

A remarkable thing has happened in Washington DC in the past few days.

By rights, the Republicans, who stupidly closed down the government for 17 days in early October, should be in disarray.

The GOP led a campaign based on the opinions of one half of one third of the branches of government and it failed.

Recently one of the leaders of the campaign, Ted Cruz, said that he didn’t regret his actions, even though 80% of respondents in a CNN poll said it had harmed the country.

The Republicans should be scared and worried about their approval ratings.

But they aren’t, and it is all because of the policy they were seeking to bring down - ‘Obamacare’, the President’s attempt to introduce health insurance for every American citizen.

The arguments for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (its proper name!) are well worn, as are the ideas against it, whether it be enforced stealing from the rich, a Trojan horse for socialism or something that will lead to ‘death panels’ in US hospitals.

Overall I supported Obamacare, even if it was pork-barrelled to the max and had some glaring holes in it.

However, the policy is now struggling, as is the President who proposed it, after it emerged that voters were misled over their current insurance at its introduction.

Initially the fault with Obamacare was the website – it didn’t work and the number of signups was too low, with only 107,000 people having signed up at a point that half a million subscriptions were expected.

Now, however, there is a much bigger problem.

Obama is on record 29 times denying that people would have to cancel their current medical insurance if the ACA was passed – “if you like your plan, you can keep it.”

Now however there is a growing realisation that this isn’t true and that White House insiders knew this at the time.

However the President himself has yet to acknowledge this publicly, so far only acknowledging the failures of the website.

The fallout from this could be enormous as tens of millions of Americans could lose their insurance plans because they do not meet the requirements laid out in ACA.

House Democrats who helped pass Obamacare, which didn’t receive a single GOP vote of support, are now worried about their political futures.

Some are even changing their tack, with 39 Democratic Congressmen supporting a GOP bill to extend ACA into perpetuity, in effect cancelling the plan (something which Obama will veto if need be).

Obama’s approval rating is now at 39% and 55% of Americans think their President lied to them about his flagship healthcare plan.

As he enters his lame duck period but desperately tries to establish a legacy, Obama’s hopes could be dashed if these issues aren’t sorted out soon.

I sincerely hope the policy gets saved, but only in a way that helps the health of the American people, whoever's political career may suffer as a result. 

Debate warmly encouraged.

Moon flyby - Modified XBox camera and Skywatcher Explorer 150P EQ3-2

Just a quick blog post tonight and one that has NOTHING to do with US politics (cue whoops of delight from every reader – all four of you).

The other night I set up my telescope with a webcam attached and got a few photos.

I was quite surprised that a pic I put on Facebook got a few likes so I thought I’d write a post about how I did it (pics and video at the end if you want to miss the next few paragraphs).

The photos were taken with an Xbox webcam that I adapted to fit into the telescope viewfinder.

To do this I just copied some advice from another blog (see http://astrobeano.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/xbox-360-webcam-for-astrophotography.html).

In essence you open it up and remove the LEDs and lens before sticking on a tube to help the camera focus.

Below is a pic of my DIY – not brilliant but it got the job done!!

Next up, hook up the camera to the ‘scope (mine is a Skywatcher 150P if anyone cares).

Here is my set up, which was messed around slightly by a road light in my back yard.

Next all I did was point it at the Moon and get some pics and a video. Have a look below and enjoy!!  

Four seas - from top Mare Seranatis, Mare Tranquilum (home to the Apollo 11 landing site) and the top of Mare Nectaris, to the right is Mare Crisium

Two craters - Kepler and Copernicus, named after two great astronomers. Kepler is 110 million years old, Copernicus about 800 million years old. 

Crater at the 'bottom' of the Moon called Tycho - named after another astronomer, this crater is around 108 million years old.

Finally a video for your enjoyment. It is a minute long and pretty boring but I'm really pleased with it. The telescope is stationary as the Moon passes the lens.

If the US shutdown were a sweetshop

Up-to-date as ever and posting only just after the shutdown has been sorted I thought people might find this helpful (sorry, my course gives me NO free time at all!!).

A friend asked me on Facebook to explain the US shutdown and use sweets as a way to explain how money is handed out.

So, below is what I posted to help her out:

"......Let's give the sweets idea a try. Congress approves how the sweets are handed out and Obama signs that plan into law. However the Republicans won't approve a budget (the sweet distribution) if it still funds Obamacare (the inevitable trip to the dentist) whilst Obama won't sign a budget that doesn't. Obama is right as Obamacare is protected by a Supreme Court (or if you prefer a Cadbury's legal department) decision. However this means that atm most people who work for the federal government don't get any sweets and therefore aren't at work (the Army etc are protected, which is helpful as they have to exercise due to their sweet intake). Basically the Republicans are acting like toddlers with no sweets and sulk and strop about hoping that their behaviour will help them get their way. However, as all parents know, it won't."

Thankfully since then the GOP came to it's senses and approved a budget plan. 

The next fiscal issue will arise early next year when the current agreement runs out and once again there will be arguing over how the US Government gives out its money.

The fact that it is not "its money" and that most of US debt is based on Chinese bonds appears to be less of a worry to lawmakers than it should be.

Ho hum....

Debate warmly encouraged.

Another US government shutdown looms

This won't be much of a post as I've shared most of what I know US budget issues before (and here as well).

It is however important to note that once again the House of Representatives is pretty much going to close down the US government on Tuesday.

Congressmen need to sort out spending plans for the year to come but GOP members are using this constitutional requirement to register their hatred of the President's most cherished legislation - Obamacare.

The Republicans have actually created a full spending bill already, but it comes with the proviso that funding for Obamacare is deferred for a year.

This is anathema for Obama and he has already said he will veto any bill that threatens Obamacare funding.

On top of that, Harry Reid, leader of the Democrats in the Senate, which is Democrat-controlled and must approve any budget bill sent from the House, has supported Obama's position.

The budget must be resolved and if it isn't it will affect the running of the governmental system and the economy of the US and the world (that isn't an understatement).

Tea Party-ers in the GOP have every right to make their point but it is reckless to do so now when the stakes are so high.

They are playing with people's lives and will lose popularity - #gopshutdown is trending at the moment for a reason.

Lets hope this all changes and they work things out before 00:01 on Tuesday and before hundreds of thousands of government employees report for work a few hours later.

Debate warmly encouraged.

For more on the effects of any shutdown you can watch this video from CNN.

The REALLY keen can read this 66 point Q+A (!) from USA Today.

A Day on the NCTJ Course

The blog has been neglected the last few weeks as I've started a new training course with the Press Association in Newcastle. I am absolutely loving it as we have had some great teaching, heard some really interesting visiting speakers and I'm blessed with a group of cracking coursemates. As a quick and easy post I thought I would give you an insight into a day of my life at the moment. Busy times!!

Alarm. Bother, not enough sleep.

Up and out of bed, getting more cold and less easy, grab some breakfast, wash the face, shave, change.

Get the bike out, load bag, hit the road.

Dodge the buses, Chelsea tractors, get out of the bike lane.

Past that car, over the roundabout, GET OUT OF THE BIKE LANE!

Get into town, stop at the lights.

Stop at the lights.

Stop at the lights.

Arrive at the garage, lock the bike, through the door and up the stairs.

Sweat, wipe and change into suit.

Start the day with the papers, prep for news quiz at the end.

Syria, Cameron, cats and boobs.

It never changes.

The Express cures a disease or worships Diana, the other have some variety.

All show their colours, all worry about sales. Money is short and so are people willing to pay for news

On to shorthand.

Shorthand, the word that keeps grown men from sleep and tramples on their dreams.

Susan is lovely, teeline slowly goes into the brain.

“Ready?”

No, make it stop. I will give you money. Actually you’re lovely, I can’t hate you. Carry on.

One hour done, another hour to come later.

Next we have law. Or government. Or maybe a speaker to tell you how the newspaper business is dying. No problem, the solution will be found, it just needs its Columbus. They’ll get there.

Government means county councils or the joys of Local Education Authorities.

Community schools v. Community colleges. Academies v. Free schools.

Fight.

Law means magistrates courts and interesting precedents.

“There is no such thing, in my view, known to the law as the anonymous JP” – R. v. Felixstowe Justices ex parte Leigh 1987. I typed that from memory so something must be right.

Time for shorthand again, though in reality it never stops.

20, 30, 40 words per minute.

“Ready?”

Yep, born ready.....maybe.

Another hour down and we reach lunch. My head hurts.

An hour for lunch, chase up stories, read the papers for the news quiz, maybe revise for a law or government exam. Oh, and eat lunch.

The afternoons can be slower, so perhaps production (page design) or again a visiting speaker.

Other times we share stories or photos we liked, and soon we’ll be reviewing the stories we are writing.

That reminds me, you see ANYTHING happening in Newcastle then tell me. I will love you.

The news quiz at the end and a chance to show what we’ve read.

Page 3 is Aimii from Surrey, statistics from the news, spot the cat story du jour.

End of the day around 5pm but actually there is more to do.

Shorthand.

Again it rears its ugly head, just put in the hours and work on it hard.

Drill words and drill again.

“Before, before, before, before.

“Equipment, equipment, equipment, equipment.”

I’ll get it, just give me time.

7pm and time for home.

Load the bag, change into cycling gear, down to the garage, lights on the bike, fluorescent stuff on and go.

It’s getting darker so time to be careful, dodge the taxis who have their own laws.

Home and dinner followed by (guess what) shorthand, then some reading and revision for a test the next day.

Xbox killing followed by bed.

Tomorrow I do it all again.

I want to be a journalist.

Egypt's coup needs to be condemned by Obama and others

The Arab Spring has led to many interesting experiments, none of them (arguably) more important than the introduction of democracy to Egypt.

However the recent detention of Mohammed Mursi, the country's democratically elected president, casts doubt on its future.

Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt from 1981 until his overthrow in 2011, gained power without a mandate after the assassination of Anwar Sadat.

He brought in changes that fought Islamic fundamentalism, increased medical care for his citizens and raised the quality of housing.

However he also oversaw a regime rife with corruption and encouraged the imprisonment of individuals without trial under an emergency law that had been in force almost constantly since 1967.

Secret detention centres were set up, mosques and universities were spied on and thousands disappeared.

The Arab Spring put an end to this and Mubarak was eventually overthrown after trying to cling to power despite immense opposition.

The army took power but parliamentary and then presidential elections were held that led to the selection of Mohammed Mursi, head of the Freedom and Justice party and a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Once in power, much of Mursi's time was wasted.

Under him, unemployment rose to 13% and the country became increasingly dependent on foreign aid, with the International Monetary Fund loaning the country almost $5bn to save its economy.

Meanwhile he also botched the appointment of a deputy (having promised to appoint a Christian and a woman, he chose a Muslim man) and the affairs of the army, removing Field Marshal Tantawi, who helped him to power, and replacing him with General Sisi, the man who would eventually remove him.

Mursi's biggest mistake was though to oversee the work of the Constituent Assembly, the organisation trying to write a constitution for post-Mubarak Egypt.

His maneouvering led to claims that he was wanting absolute power and stirred protests against him that eventually led to his overthrow in popular protests with the main moves made by the army, whose interests had been under threat from the Mursi government.

Since then the army has raided with official sanction the protest camps that Mursi supporters set up, resulting in the deaths of at least 638 people (some of them police and army but the majority unarmed protesters wanting their president back in power).

Other actions involve the capture of the head of the Muslim Brotherhood and the death of 36 Brotherhood members in a prison van on Sunday.

In all this it is important to note that Mursi's supporters have not been docile, with Muslim extremists being held responsible for the ambush and killing of 25 policeman near the Gaza border on Monday.

Mursi himself remains under armed guard at an undisclosed location with his future unclear, with frequent references being made by the army to 'new allegations' that are under investigation.

As if to go full-circle, there are stories today that Mubarak could be released if a final corruption charge is thrown out, leading many to believe that the army may have betrayed the 'revolution' and simply brought Egypt back to the days of Mubarak, albeit with him almost certainly retired and a new man (Sisi?) put in his place.

That this state of affairs is unacceptable is almost something that doesn't need to be said, but that is exactly what several world powers have refused to do, with Obama only finally speaking out and cancelling a joint army training exercise last week.

His hands partly tied by the military necessity of access to the Suez Canal, Obama has still failed to give what one commentator called 'tough love' to Egypt, denying aid or trying to impose sanctions to support democracy.

Clearly the situation in Egypt is untenable and spirally out of control. 

As much as I do not admire his policies or his movement, Mursi is the democratically elected president and as such should be allowed to carry on his term in power.

If this is opposed by the people then the moves towards a written constitution should be encouraged with the power to recall or impeach a president enshrined through the clear implementation of a separation of powers.

Either way, Mursi should not have been removed in what amounts to a military coup and his supporters should not have been massacred in the name of security.

Crucially, democracy needs to be encouraged across the Arab world. 

Clearly a significant group of people want changes to the authority structures in the Middle East (the Arab Spring being only one of several signs of that) and the West increasingly needs a poster child for democracy that isn't Israel (as Arabs won't care).

Egypt could easily be that.

A diverse country with a great history which is held with a natural respect within the Arab League could be be used to show democracy works to the wider Arab world.

Instead, the West refused to condemn massacres and a coup that could undo the rhetoric of democracy that they have worked so long and hard to foster.

By doing so they threaten to unravel a lot of hard work and lose the support of many who (currently) want to move their country away from its past and into the modern world by embracing liberal democracy.

Debate warmly encouraged.

Cameron's stupid porn filter

At the beginning of August David Cameron unveiled a terrible plan to implement a filter on the UK's internet.

He proposed an opt-in service, with 90% of internet service providers agreeing to support a system where adults would have to ask to access pornography rather than have it available and then adding a filter (an 'opt-out' system, which is what we currently have).

The idea is that it would protect children from access to pornography as well as prevent paedophiles from viewing horrific images.

It is August, so you can understand some politicians are grasping at straws, especially as ministers have been directed to get stories into the news throughout the summer recess.

This however is a particularly badly thought through idea.

It is late so I'm going to be lazy and list my points, sorry:

1. Kids know more about technology than their parents - they will find ways round this (see below) and exploit them.

2. It is very hard to block content sharing sites and social media from sharing pornography - see, there's a way round already, but social media use only accounts for just over 50% of all internet activity so I doubt people will use it......

3. Filtering is hard to do and doesn't get that some sites might not be dangerous - for example you can block all porn sites, but they will just get a new domain name OR you could block all sites that use words like 'porn', but that would prevent access to news sites reporting on the porn filter!

4. The government would be restricting access to content that is legal - lots of illegal stuff yes, but lots of stuff that involves consenting adults. Cut out the porn element of the story and this is a pretty scary precedent

5. The filter would make parents lazy - trust the filter, don't teach or care for the kids.

This fifth point for me is a crucial one.

If all parents do is place their trust in the government, which has implemented something that they don't understand, then that is a recipe for disaster.

Instead parents should be talking to kids and guiding them through what is a very difficult topic, helping them to understand this important issue and not leaving it to the government to sort out.

Pornography is certainly something to be opposed. To mention just a few reasons:

- Women and men are exploited

- Men (in particular) are given illusions of what women and sex should be like that do not reflect reality

- Women (in particular) are then persuaded to take part in acts that would have been far less common 25 years ago

- Companies and individuals exploit people who are addicted to their product because they want to make money (in a recent BBC article a webcam performer said, speaking of those viewers who are clearly addicted to her content, “Do I think it's damaging? Yes, but I don't think it's my place to tell them to stop.")

However, a blanket filter is not the way to sort out what is clearly a problem. 

Instead, as already mentioned, firstly parents should step up and discuss the issue with their children.

Secondly the government needs to invest in internet policing, in particular catching those who exploit children for their sexual thrill, but also pursuing all those who take part in non-consenting adult (i.e. grown up) pornographic content, a market that is reported to be growing. 

Moves towards catching credit card fraudsters etc etc are also clearly needed as well, so any move such as this filter which takes money away from supporting these important police operations is a waste.

Finally, and moving to a more personal matter, it would be wrong of me to miss out saying that as a Christian I think the answer to this problem is the gospel.

The Bible says that sex is a good thing that should be encouraged, but also teaches the correct way to view people, as made in the image of God and worthy of love and respect, not exploitation.

I will not claim to have never looked at porn as such a claim would be foolish, unbelievable and misleading.

However I remain convinced that porn will be best dealt with by having a biblical perspective, caring for both those involved in porn and those who find comfort in it.

Debate warmly encouraged