fightingthecage: (WW - Leo or Gerald?)

I read a tweet this morning that made me blink - no, not the one I already posted about. This one was a bit more serious, and I made a fairly cool reply. I expected to forget about it, but twelve hours later it's still annoying me.

The author of said tweet was someone called Lisa Bloom, who I'm not really familiar with. I followed her because she wrote an excellent article on raising little girls with the focus on their intelligence, rather than their looks. Most of her tweets are intelligent and positive, and I've no problem with her.

Then this morning, this:

"Hard to get excited about new gender equality for UK royal succession
since they'll still all be white, rich and NOT ELECTED by anyone."

OK. Well. As I replied to her; the royal family - recent revelations about Charles notwithstanding - do not, or are not supposed to, shape government policy. So how is their 'unelected' status relevant to anything? They're figureheads. Sure, the Queen gives permission for a government to be formed, and dissolved, and technically has the power to stop any bill becoming law. But it's all done by convention. The Queen would no more veto a bill than she'd grow another head. She would never stop an elected Prime Minister forming a government, because that's not how things are done.

A lot of our 'constitution' is made up of conventions, rules that we treat as laws, even though they're officially not. That's what comes of having a Parliament that's around eight hundred years old, though admittedly the monarch was more involved for the first four hundred years or so. Yes, we have an unelected Head of State. Does that Head of State  do anything that directly controls the lives of her citizens? No. More people complain about the unelected nature of the House of Lords, than the Queen. That's understandable, as the Lords are involved with shaping our laws (should also point out, that while they have to pass our laws, they can also be bypassed. So it's not like these unelected people have the very final word, if the government wants to get something through badly enough).

I would also point out that in the UK, after any given general election, we generally end up with a government that more than fifty per cent of the people in the country did not vote for. Tony Blair ruled with, I believe, 39% of the vote. Gordon Brown, 36% (stats from memory, so not 100% accurate).  I have never voted Labour in my life. They still got to run the country. And some American is mouthing off about the Queen being unelected? Please.

As for rich, and white - last I heard, that wasn't a crime, dude. Again, look to government. The majority of politicians in power - rich and white. And yes, that's sad, and wrong. But they have influence. Government should definitely be more diverse. But the royals = not Government. They're a family. There are many, many families in Britain - mine included - that are entirely white. We're not rich, but we're not poor either. Should we be getting slagged off on Twitter, because none of us have, yet, married a person of colour?

I like to think that if Prince Harry wanted to marry a black woman, or an Asian woman, or anyone non-white, that it'd be fine. There would undoubtedly be comment on it, and we'd never know what conversations went on behind closed doors. But in this day and age, guess what? The royals are not the archaic, blind institution they once were. No matter what private thoughts on the matter were, they would never be able to stop Harry marrying someone of colour, because of the PR angle. It's bound to happen eventually, and when it does, I hope that no one gets on Twitter and starts sighing with relief about how the royals have finally stopped being a racist, outmoded organisation, with some kind of agenda. They're people. OK, there are expectations of them, but that's as much the media as actual knowledge about them themselves. If Harry married a black girl, you can bet your bottom dollar it'd be all the talking heads, and satire merchants, and spin doctors that would get all up in arms about it.

I don't know. Stuff like this bugs the hell out of me. And much as I don't like what it says about me, I have to admit - the majority of my ire, I think, comes from this comment coming from an American. Given Lisa Bloom's background as a Yale-educated lawyer, and an author, I would have expected better. You know what, Lisa Bloom? Your country elected its first black President three years ago. Three. Not three hundred. Three. Every single other President before that? Rich and white. We've had monarchs in this country for thousands of years, and the current lady that sits on the throne can trace her line back to William the Conqueror, in 1066. This lady was not brought up to sit on the throne, but had it forced upon her. And she didn't bitch and moan, or run away because it didn't suit, like her uncle did. She took responsibility, and has given her life to what she sees as her duty. As of next February, she'll have been doing the job for sixty years. And you know what? Any Prime Minister, any President in the world, would give their right arm for the kind of approval ratings she's had during that time. Including yours. So bag on your own Head of State, and STFU about ours.

...right. OK. I feel better now. /royalist rant
fightingthecage: (Angel Walking Alone)
OK, I have to get this off my chest before I can get anything else done tonight.

Opinion... )

Right. Now I am shutting up, and going to do something productive. Feel free to agree or not, as you will. Choice, see?
fightingthecage: (DC Bond - Suit and Gun)

I absolutely love it when real life turns out to be better than a spy novel. Who needs Spooks when there's a real life shadowy organisation attempting to buy the UK government?

This has seriously just made my day.

Also, hi flist! ILU.
fightingthecage: (Books)

So, who wants to explain Prop 8 to me and why its such a big deal? I've only ever heard of it on my flist and am far too lazy and chilled after ten bad days to look it up for myself.



Sep. 12th, 2007 06:55 pm
fightingthecage: (...the fuck?)

Holy crap. The Iranian president is giving a live interview on British TV right now.

Apparantly, Iran is a great and peaceful nation. And he is grinning and dodging the direct questions being asked about whether Iran plans to 'break the American's teeth.'

America is against the progress of Iran. It wants to do 'many things that it doesn't have the power to do.' And Iran 'knows how to defend itself.'

...and also railing on the journalist that's asking him the questions. He's not wanting to even let the dude ask him questions regarding Iraq.

Man, he certainly knows how to blather. And apparantly Iran and Iraq are 'great friends' and the interview was just finished....with him accusing the journalist of 'wanting to convey sentences, not answer questions.'

Wow. That was bizarre. And I had an open mind on Iran and its intentions up until now, but now I'm a bit more wary. Anyway. He's giving an interview to America tomorrow apparently so hopefully we'll get to see some coverage on that over here.

Odd. Very odd. Is this his idea of a charm offensive? Because he's achieved the opposite.

ETA: Oooh! He's given Channel 4 an interview as well. *watches*

...OK, the start of this is hilarious. Because the correspondent is sitting opposite the President in the gardens of his palace or wherever, and he's introducing the news, then going back to the studio so they can announce the rest of the headlines, then back to Tehran...and now a report on the political situation with Iran at the moment - and the whole time, the President of the country is just sitting there, looking quite bored and pissed off and being made to wait. BWAH!

Cut for length and random musings (I quite like his beard, by the way) )

Well. He's quite blinkered and full of shit. And I still don't know what point he's trying to make with these interviews, apart from seeming to want some kind of worldwide group hug to occur. And not being very convincing about it either.

And in squee-inducing news, Led Zeppelin are reforming! AWESOME! Even if it is only for a one-off concert.
fightingthecage: (WW - Discuss)
I was checking my flist and came across this in the journal of [ profile] newredshoes.

It's a...rant? No...POV, I guess, of an ex-Southern Conservative in American. And it's just given me a new insight into why people can vote for George W. Bush. Because I've asked myself a lot how people can do it - but this, this make sense.

It's not that long and very readable. And the person writing it is not a fan of Bush - she's just explaining how, from a religious standpoint, a large portion of the South think that Bush is stamping out Satan and doing God's work.

Maybe everyone in the US already knows this. But as a Brit, I found it fascinating. *recommends*


Feb. 7th, 2006 04:25 pm
fightingthecage: (MR - Party's Over)

...I'm Robert Redford! )

WTF is a 'Social Liberal' anyway? Meh. It confirms my belief that if I were a Yank I'd be a Democrat - but I'm not over here! Bwhahaha! *hypers about the place* :D

Meme ganked from [ profile] xandra73
fightingthecage: (Default)
FUCK! Labour have just won the election. FUCK!

OK, so its no surprise. But the numbers that have come in so far says that Labour have got 36% of the votes nationwide. Thats not even close to a majority approval - two thirds of the country dont want 'em in! FUCK!

Still, gotta look on the bright side. The Conservatives made quite a lot of gains and its been said frequently tonight by the pundits that Labour have 'hemorrhaged votes' this time round. Also, their majority has been cut quite dramatically.

DAMMIT! though. I frickin' hate Tony Blair and Labour. GRRR!

**End political moan**


fightingthecage: (Default)

December 2011

4567 8910


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 12:07 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios