Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor – The Debate

INTRODUCTION
In my last post I was looking at the battle between the FBI and Apple, essentially a battle between security and freedom. To take this argument a bit further, another topical debate revolves around Edward Snowden – the well-known whistle-blower. Hero for some, traitor for many others, but which is the right classification – and do both sides of the argument  have valid points?

THE LIFE OF SNOWDEN
To begin with – Edward Snowden was born in 1983. After working for the USA’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Dell, Snowden was hired by Booz Allen Hamilton – a well-known National Security Agency (NSA) contractor. He left his job in May 2013, before a month later revealing thousands of classified NSA documents to journalists – with the story subsequently being picked up by worldwide media outlets. Needless to say, he had fled USA at this point, with the American’s hunting him for revealing classified information. The information revealed several privacy intrusions that the general public had been unaware of, what many saw as amounting to ‘spying’. He is currently holed up in an unknown location in Russia, having been granted three years asylum there. To some, Snowden’s actions made him a hero, but to others, he is a traitor.

HERO?
As mentioned previously, many people see Snowden as a hero. Knowing the consequences of such a move, Snowden left everything he had behind him when he left USA. He was in a well-paid job, surely had friends around him and certainly family – all really what anyone needs. And yet he felt he could leave all of this behind. It goes to show what he believed in was very strong. This overall could be seen as a selfless act, putting himself at risk for the good of others. There is no doubt a difficult life awaits him in the future. Furthermore, it could be agreed that the public had a right to know – it can be quite disconcerting knowing that your movements and data are being analysed by others. The sheer scale of the revelations were quite unprecedented, with this another reason for the support of Snowden.

TRAITOR?
The other side of the argument suggests he was a traitor. Whenever the argument between privacy and security comes up, there is always one question – asking if the person in question has nothing to hide, why should they be worried. This means that the public shouldn’t worry about surveillance if they have done nothing wrong. Others have suggested he was seeking publicity, with some comparisons being made to Julian Assange – linked to WikiLeaks. Moreover, there is the security issue. Terrorism is such an issue nowadays, that surveillance is necessary. Government officials can be damned if they do, damned if they don’t when it comes to surveillance. Surely, it is for the best if surveillance is done and leads to lives being saved. Finally, Snowden was trusted with sensitive information, and there are many others in similar positions, but while they have stayed loyal, he didn’t – leading to more weight for this argument.

WHICH IS CORRECT?
Neither argument is conclusive. The debate will rage on for many years to come, with the security versus privacy battle sure to continue for a long time yet. There are very good sides to both arguments. Public perception is normally split, with many people believing what Snowden did was good for society, with others suggesting the contrary. Overall, the key part of this argument that I would highlight is the before-mentioned potential of lives being saved through surveillance. This, coupled with the question over having nothing to hide, leads to question marks being raised over privacy issues. But, there are obviously ethical concerns regarding privacy that cannot be forgotten.

CONCLUSION
This is another interesting case. The revelations made by Snowden have had a wide-ranging impact. The Apple and FBI case shows that the Snowden case will forever be germane to the topic of privacy and security. It is near-impossible to make a fair judgement on this case, with everyone entitled to their opinion. Whatever the result is, there is no doubting the impact that Snowden has had on the world, whether or not that is a good thing, remains to be seen.

/MF/
(‘073’)

Thanks for reading, and again to my followers. I wish everyone reading this a Happy day.

UK Election: Time to Change the Voting System?

After the landslide result of the 2015 UK Election, the Conservative Party is set to stay in control, led by David Cameron. The Labour Party ended up with around 100 less seats than the Conservative’s. However a lot of the talk since the election has been surrounding whether or not it is time to change the voting system, in light of the unbalanced nature of the allocation of seats between the UKIP, Liberal Democrat and SNP parties.

The 2015 Election results saw the Conservative Party win 331 seats, enough for a sole majority, with Labour winning 232. However the majority of the rest of the seats causes great controversy. The SNP attained 56 seats, while the Liberal Democrats won 8. The controversy lies with UKIP – and the fact they only won 1 seat. The controversy is that UKIP received more votes than the SNP and Liberal Democrats combined! Yet, ended up with 63 fewer seats than the duo. It could be argued the current system isn’t offering a true representation in the House of Commons in regards to what the Great British Public really want.

The following graph shows the results of the 2015 election in the current system, with a revised result under the “Proportional Representation” system shown below.

Courtesy of “The Guardian”

The real winners of the election were the Conservative Party and the SNP. Interestingly, when you compare the results to the Proportional system, they too are the ones that have heavily benefited. The biggest losers are Labour and UKIP. Labour would have had a chance of forming their own majority, while UKIP would have had a greater influence in the future of the country. A proportional system uses the percentage of votes a party gets and turns it into a fraction of the 650 seats statistically deserved by a party. As the graphs show – the differences are huge.

Whenever the topics of “Politics” arises, a negative stigma is usually attached to it. It can be argued this isn’t surprising, when the results of the 2015 election are quite clearly not representative of what the country wants. Even the Green Party would have more influence – a move to a Proportional system would certainly benefit the small parties and not make it a near-Monopoly like it so often is.

Of course there is a reason why the current system is used. It has been used for a long time and shows no sign of change. There are renowned “stronghold” areas for some parties, where often any votes for the party not considered the “strong” one is near-redundant.  These sorts of votes therefore can skew the results. A move to a proportional system might also open the floodgates to a large amount of small parties winning the seats, should enough votes be won. This raises the prospect of having too many parties in Parliament. This could lead to disagreements that hinder the chances of progress. Moreover, any chance of a party claiming a majority would be unlikely, leading to a hung-parliament being the norm.

However, despite the negatives that have been identified to do with the move, if Britain wants a fair electoral system, a move to Proportional Representation surely must be made. There is no way it is fair that UKIP has so many less seats compared to others. While UKIP have some radical views that are probably best left out of Parliament, you can’t deny that the amount of votes they received calls for more seats. The calls for an electoral reform have been boosted in light of the results of this election, though it is ultimately unlikely that it will happen. However, it is likely to be the most fair thing to do.

/MF/
(‘053’)

The Value of Anything: It’s only known when Gone

“See you Again” is the hit song by Wiz Khalifa and Charlie Puth that acts as the soundtrack to the end of the famous “Fast and Furious 7” movie. The movie acts as a tribute to the now-deceased Paul Walker. The movie has been a huge commercial success and fans of Walker have found the ending to be incredibly emotional. However, one You Tube comment that gained particular attention was one talking about how only now Walker is appreciated. This is true of anything in life – something is only truly appreciated when it is gone.

Paul Walker was a well-known actor who passed away in 2013 at the age of 30. The cause of death was a car crash, before flames engulfed the car. Walker had completed much of the filming for the movie Fast 7 before his death. However, in a fitting touch, the Director changed the ending to accommodate a tribute to Paul Walker, where his character meets with actor Vin Diesel’s character, the two sharing a final drive together before driving in their separate ways, followed by a “For Paul” graphic. The scene has garnered rave reviews, with many finding it incredibly emotional. I mentioned in the Introduction that there had been a comment on You Tube that had inspired this post, written by a user dubbed “Austin K” – take a look at what he had to say:

This comment does beg the question – why is it that something is only appreciated when it is gone? But it is also quite a sad question, which I am sure many people can relate to in many different ways. Supposedly the answer is quite simple – when someone or something is no longer around, only then you realise you never had the chance to say all of those things you wish you had been able to say.

Moreover, it is interesting how the comment talks about being “nice and compassionate.” This also begs the question why society can’t be like this all of the time. There are always so many meaningless arguments in life, disagreements which shrouds friendships in disarray. It looks as if it would be near-impossible for society to always be compassionate about one another, until sadly the person isn’t around any longer.

As I said earlier, I am sure many people can relate to the messages in this post. As sad as it is – it is true that the value of something is only known when it is gone. It is highly possible that anyone reading this has lost someone or something that they wish had been treated differently. But sadly that is life, but it doesn’t mean that  the good times shared with the person can be forgotten and the happy times treasured.

Overall, the 2013 death of Paul Walker led to an outpour of grief, perhaps his true talent was only appreciated then. We often see with celebrity deaths, such as Michael Jackson and other famous singers, that only then are they appreciated. But it isn’t just celebrities, it is the friends, brothers, sisters of people who too are only truly appreciated when they are gone. A final message would be to therefore cherish every second of life, as we never know what lies around the corner – make the most of what life has to offer.

/MF/
(‘050’)

This is my 50th post. Thanks for all of the views up to this point. All the best for the forthcoming times, here’s to the next 50! Keep the Faith all!

American Police Black Person Shooting: A History

Not for the first time in recent history, an unarmed black man was shot dead by a member of the American Police a few days ago, prompting widespread condemnation of the incident. As mentioned, this is far from the first time something like this has happened, with down the years several black people shot dead. Perhaps what is most poignant about this story, is that it has led to black citizens in America to detail their plight, with several interesting images surfacing since the shooting.

American Police

In the latest incident, Walter Scott, a black man, was shot dead by a Police Officer named Michael Slager, who is white. Although White looks like he could be prosecuted, there have been several instances when this hasn’t been the case. Recent cases similar to this include Tamir Rice, Eric Garner and Michael Brown among others.

As mentioned, several images have surfaced, with many being shared heavily on social media. The first of these features “the talk”.

The image above was created by writer Derrick Jaxn recently, yet after the shooting of Walter Scott, gained mass notoriety. The talk suggests that parents need to tell their children to fully comply with authorities, but not as it is necessarily the right thing to do, but because it seems it is either comply or die, if you are black.

The next image shows how Walter Scott was linked with the military.

It is interesting in this image how there is a quote about how “black lives matter.” It is almost as if the recent incidents surrounding black people has led to them believing that black lives aren’t as important – which is highly harrowing. The fact that Walter Scott was a US Veteran could change any perspective on this incident.

This final one is perhaps the one that provokes the most discussion. The image shows protests taking place back in 1936, and now once again in 2015 – almost eighty years later. Quite rightly, it asks – “how far have we come?” This is a great question – in all of that time have things really changed? It doesn’t seem so, with again black people seemingly at risk from police brutality more than ever.

Overall, this is a another sad incident to engulf USA. For such a great country – there are many disappointing incidents involving their Police force. The images that have raised on social media since the incident sum up what life is like for black people in USA – it isn’t equal.  In this day and age there really should be equal rights, it also questions how far society has come in the last few years – it is highly apparent things need to change. In conclusion., may Walter Scott Rest in Peace, and hopefully time will help solve this issue.

/MF/
(‘049’)

For more reporting on this issue, a writer specialising in this topic, for whom much inspiration for this article was gained, can be found here: https://twitter.com/mwendling

Jeremy Clarkson: The Debate

INTRODUCTION
In light of the recent controversy against Jeremy Clarkson, host of the Internationally-renowned TV show Top Gear, there is a debate over whether or not the BBC will choose to keep Clarkson. After a string of controversies, the latest accusation is that Clarkson punched a Director, leading to a suspension.

TOP GEAR
Clarkson is known for his role alongside James May and Richard Hammond on Top Gear. Top Gear is a British motoring show with a huge International audience. The next episode was due to be released Sunday, though the episode has since been pulled in reaction to the incident.

PAST CONTROVERSIES
As mentioned in the Introduction – Clarkson is no stranger to controversy. There have been numerous accusations that Clarkson is a racist, noticeably referring to a Thai man as a “slope”, while also using the “N” word in a rhyme. The BBC have been forced to apologise to the Mexican Ambassador to the United Kingdom before thanks to his outbursts, while also partaking in derogatory comments about lorry drivers. He even suggested at one point, people striking in the Public sector should be “executed in front of their families.” Perhaps most infamously, Top Gear nearly sparked a riot with their actions in Argentina, with the film crew forced to evacuate after being attacked.

THE CASE TO REINSTATE HIM
An online petition supporting Clarkson has gained over 800,000 signatures calling for the BBC to reinstate him. His popularity is obvious – Top Gear is one of the most-watched shows around the world. The BBC have also stood by Clarkson throughout his past controversies, so why cant they stand by him this time – considering it is not as bad as some of the previous controversies. Top Gear is also one of the top-money spinners for the BBC, they would suffer as a consequence of letting Clarkson go.

THE CASE AGAINST HIM
It is apparent that through the past controversies, Clarkson is hardly the most pleasant man. Numerous racial slurs, homophobic comments and blatant tasteless comments hardly set a good example for someone in the public eye. While the BBC have stood by him, how much longer can they? The controversies continue to roll on, there seems to be no stopping them. In the world of s[port, if a player is embroiled in a controversy, the saying “no player is bigger than the club” comes to fruition, this could be the same for the BBC – as much as Clarkson is important. the BBC would survive without him.

CONCLUSION
A controversy involving Jeremy Clarkson is barely something new – however you would presume there is only so much patience the BBC can have. But in an industry dominated by money, there is no doubting the appeal of Top Gear, and judging by the vast array of signatures on the before-mentioned petition – Clarkson as well. It is a difficult situation for the BBC, but one would expect to see Clarkson back on TV before long, but stranger things have happened. Only time will tell.

/MF/
(‘045’)

University: Challenging the stereotype

University – a place where academic-minds have freedom to study what they want, surrounded by fantastic buildings and near-limitless resources, a place where world-class education can take place. However, at University, after spending six months here so far, I would question whether or not some people just attend a University for the night-life. The culture of going out and partying-hard seems synonymous with University, but is it really necessary?

Picture Credit: Social-Student

I am not personally one to go out most nights in a week with friends and drink copious amounts of alcohol. I attended University in order to enhance my skills in my subject area and ultimately, attain a degree for which I believe will lead to an improved life for me. Coming to the University I am currently attending, I was hugely excited to meet fellow students. However I was left disappointed. Considering how high up the University was in the League Rankings, I was unpleasantly surprised!

As mentioned, the culture is that alcohol is the most important thing in University life. Although socialising is great, sometimes people can take it a bit too far. Spending most evenings in the “Students Union” or out at one of the local nightclubs, it appears to me as dull and repetitive. Of course, it is each to their own and they are entitled to do whatever they like with their life. I remember when members of the flat and I stayed in one night and opted to play a board game, one commented how “sad” we had become. There lies the problem. Furthermore, it is almost expected that a student will attend the “Union” when open.

However having, as already mentioned, studied at University for six months, despite not going out frequently, I have had a fine time and work take the time in the evenings to avoid work and take a break. There is nothing wrong with staying in as opposed to going out at every opportunity. It should also be noted that I have no issue with people who do go out, as I mentioned they have the right to do what they want. I think overall what is most important in life is to be happy. If going out every day makes you happy – they should go ahead with it. But I would question those who come to University simply for the social side of it.

Overall, University is a fantastic place to be. Many people say that the University years are the best of their lives. I would tend to disagree, however when looking back in a few years I may think differently. What makes it great is the freedom that is involved. But this freedom doesn’t mean you have to go out every day consuming alcohol. Rather, it can be a place where people with strong-minds and a strong ethic for work can strive.

/MF/
(‘044’)

Radicilisation in Britain: The Problem

With the proverbial unmasking of “Jihadi John” – now being reported as Mohammed Emwazi, together with the disappearance of three young girls from England to Syria, England, the UK and the world in general continues to become more and more at risk of radicalisation.

The advancement of ISIL would have been near-impossible without the influx of foreign fighters into Syria and Iraq. It has been estimated that 30,000 foreigners have travelled to the war-torn areas to join the so-called caliphate. A few days ago, three schoolgirls based in England fled to Syria. For the families it is horrible, yet you would have to question the motive for anyone who is radicalised. First, to leave a successful life in England for a war-ravaged area would be near unheard of, this suggests that anyone who has done this is leaving little behind. While you could also suggest that there is always a choice in terms of choosing the radical ways of ISIL or staying with Western Values – this suggests people that are radicalised are weak.

As if three schoolgirls fleeing the country wasn’t bad enough, it has been reported that “Jihadi John” is the pseudonym for a man named Mohammed Emwazi. Emwazi was born in Kuwait, though spent many years in the UK, even graduating from the University of Westminster with a degree. It is such a shame, what could have been a highly successful life has turned into a horrible one, with the blood of so many innocent people on his shoulders. Though the real issue is how he became radicalised.

It could be argued that more needs to be done to help people that feel withdrawn from society. The more withdrawn they are, the more likely they are to be swayed by radical messages. However a bridge to that stage would be to shut down public speaking’s from known Jihadists. Incredibly, the University of Westminster were due a talk the very same day as the unmasking of Emwazi from an infamous Islamic preacher. Some would suggest you are just asking for trouble with events like this being held.

Overall, the fact is that radicalisation is not going to stop anytime soon. It is a shame, as in some instances people leave good lives behind to go and fight against freedom. What has happened to Emwazi is a shame, there have been many before him and many after him. Britain and the rest of the world needs to do something to stop radicalization, or things will only get worse.

/MF/
(‘042’)

“What colour is this dress?” (White, Gold, Blue, Black): Explained

INTRODUCTION
An Internet phenomenon doing the rounds at the moment is a picture of a dress. While some say the colours are white and gold, others say blue and black. The fierce debate has led to vast amounts speculating on the colour, while celebrities too have become involved in the discussion.

THE PICTURE

DEBATE
As already mentioned, the Internet has been awash with intense debate, with many disagreeing on the combinations. While some say “blue and black”, others suggest “gold and white.” The debate has received heightened media interest, leading to an experts’ opinion being canvassed.

THE CAUSE
The cause is that the colour differs due to the way our brains process what we see. Ashley Wood, lecturer at Cardiff University, suggests:

“The phenomenon of colour constancy means your brain will adjust the colour of an object depending on its surroundings or illumination. So if there’s a lot of blue in the environment, for example, the brain will subtract blue from the image your eyes see. There’s also a process of colour adaptation, where the colour you perceive is effected by what you have previously been looking at.”

CONCLUSION
So to be explained in a succinct way – it is the brain that causes the difference in opinion, with the surrounding environment and colour adaptation playing a part. On a personal note, I only saw white and gold, but since writing this post, mysteriously now I can only see blue and black! Try staring at a red background for 30 seconds, then looking again – it may alter your perception! The Internet never ceases to amaze, while World News is generally incredibly depressing, this is something a lot more lighter.

/MF/
(‘041’)

Millcent Meets: Solomon Akhtar

I recently had the pleasure to attend a talk given by Solomon Akhtar – contestant in the hit TV series “The Apprentice” – where Lord Alan Sugar puts some of Britain’s “brightest business minds” through their paces in a rigorous test. Solomon made it all the way to the final, eventually placing 5th. Opponents of the show suggest that all of the contestants are incredibly arrogant, with boastful comments at the fore of any episode. However, Solomon was incredibly likeable!

Picture Credit: BBC News

First of all, it is important to add that Solomon was invited to host the talk – with Solomon currently a public speaker. First of all, this is impressive. Anyone that is paid to talk has obviously done a good job! On the show, as mentioned, Solomon finished 5th. His business plan was ruthlessly torn apart by Claude Littner, leaving Lord Sugar little choice but to fire him. But he shone through throughout the process and was a favourite of many.

In the talk itself, he took us through his achievements in business. What shone through was how much of an enterprising individual he was – with several business ventures leading to success. It was both impressive, and inspirational, to listen to his wise words. We also learned some interesting facts from Solomon based on the inside of The Apprentice. Solomon has had a great deal of success in business and received a warm applause from the crowd at the end before posing for pictures, he truly was a class act.

In conclusion, this was an interesting talk. Learning a lot more than what we see on TV about someone was interesting. Although the picture painted of him in the media was of a “part-boy” nature, in reality Solomon was great fun, down-to-Earth and highly likeable. He will certainly deserve the success he is sure to have.

/MF/
(‘040’)

Board Games: Ranking the Top 5!

Introduction
Board games – where would we be without them? Each different board game has something about them – something that sets them apart from the others. With the advancement in technology, perhaps board games aren’t such a prevalent activity as they used to be. However, board games are still, and always will be, a great source of entertainment. Everyone has a different opinion on what is the best board game – below is my personal top five.

#5 – The Game of Life
As the name would suggest, this game gives the player a range of choices they have to make, just like life. The intention is to navigate successfully through life e.g. choosing whether to go to University/College or getting a job, while trying to amass as much money as possible. The game takes around an hour to complete, with this game ensuring plenty of fun.

#4 – Scrabble
A game that not only tests strategy, but also intelligence. Finding words using letter tiles isn’t easy, yet choosing when to use certain letters is almost an art! Again, it goes down to whichever player has the most points once all tiles are used up and neither player can make a move. I have had many Scrabble contests, enjoying them all!

#3 – Risk
The game of global domination! This is a highly strategic game which requires both luck and a defined strategy. Some games are based a lot on luck, but it is near impossible to win a game of Risk without using a sensible strategy. The game takes around an hour to play, with the different versions throughout the years all working to the same idea – the player who attain “world domination” wins.

#2 – Cluedo
In the runner-up position is the murder-mystery game Cluedo. It is the sign of a classic when a game that was first released in the early 1900s is still being played to this day with little changes made. The game sees players choose between 324 possible scenarios, looking to find out the classic, Who, What, Where of the murder of Dr. Black. Again, this game requires a lot of focus and strategy – something any good board game should include!

#1 – Monopoly
Without doubt in my opinion – the greatest board game of all time is Monopoly. Monopoly is the ultimate test of strategy, luck, skill and tactics. This is what makes it a classic – it is one of the most popular games in the world, with sales always high! I have had many memorable games of Monopoly, there is quite simply nothing like it! Everyone you seem to play against has a different strategy, making each game a classic.

Conclusion
I will leave you with an image to do with board games in general. Whether or not you should take this too literally is open to opinion, though the message is clear!

/MF/
(‘039’)