In school, perfectionism is often rewarded, but in life, it can hold you back.
Perfectionism served me well in the 1980’s American public school system. I checked and double-checked my answers on tests so I didn’t make careless errors. I turned in highly polished work and received bonus points for good presentation (usually by adding a colorful picture). My handwriting was neat and I liked working alone to solve problems with straightforward answers.
Then, in high school, I started precalculus and took a baseline math assessment. I bombed the test. I didn’t have the pre-requisite skills for the class. Somehow I’d managed to do well on tests in the foundational classes, but I’d forgotten the equations I’d memorized and lacked a true understanding of the concepts.
Failure is not a weakness. It shows real strength of character to learn from your mistakes and keep going. Don’t give up. Mistakes only show us what we still need to learn.
You will have to move beyond many things you’ve learned in school. There is not always one right answer to a problem. There are many directions you can go. Learn to view these choices as exciting. Get clear on your values and they will lead you the right way.
Teaching yourself to adopt a growth mindset will help you rebound when times get tough. If you believe your brain can grow, you behave differently.
“Recent advances in neuroscience have shown us that the brain is far more malleable than we ever knew. Research on brain plasticity has shown how connectivity between neurons can change with experience. With practice, neural networks grow new connections, strengthen existing ones, and build insulation that speeds transmission of impulses.”
This is good news. It shows that traits like intelligence are not fixed. We can improve and change with practice.
What Next?
Now that we know perfectionism is holding us back and we have some strategies to help us let go of it, what next?
Get out there and enjoy your swim. You don’t need a perfect beach body to have fun in the water. Submit your story to a writing competition or share it in a critique group. You can’t improve it by keeping it hidden in a folder on your laptop. Pitch a project idea to your boss. What have you got to lose? If he/she doesn’t like it, figure out why and improve it. Or, come up with another idea.
I’d love to see what you do now that you’ve cast off your perfectionist anchor.
There’s a tradeoff between fitness and socializing, but you can have it both ways.
If we’re being honest, most of us aren’t into fitness for our health.
Sure, if you’re obese maybe your doctor told you to lose weight. But for the rest of us, fitness is really about looking good.
We want sixpack abs. We want a chiseled jaw. We want broad shoulders, a tight butt and a slim waist.
In short, we’re in this for the social benefits. We’re in it to look sexy, to get more dates. To look cool and win the admiration of our peers.
And that leads us to the great tragedy of fitness: our social lives have an unfortunate habit of derailing our diets and keeping us out of the gym.
There’s the game day pizza. The late night burritos. The after-work cocktails. The birthday cake.
Say it’s Friday, and you have a dinner with friends coming up later that night. Even if you don’t know exactly what you’ll be eating, you can make a few educated guesses about the nutritional content of that meal
You can almost guarantee that whatever you have for dinner will be higher in both carbs and total calories than a typical meal you’d eat at home. In all likelihood, it will also have more fat, less protein, and fewer vitamins and minerals.
The solution here is simple: make your non-social meals the opposite of that.
If you know you’re having dinner with friends, for instance, make every other meal that day high in protein and vegetables, low in fat, and almost completely devoid of carbs.
Additionally, keep the overall portion size small.
As examples: a following this strategy, a good breakfast might consist of a protein shake or a few turkey sausages, plus some spinach or carrots and celery. A good lunch might be a chicken salad, sans dressing.
Here’s a puzzle: You’re sociable. You’re fun to be around. You’ve got self-deprecating stories and an archive of jokes that lighten the mood of any group. You’re spontaneous. You’re good-looking — so much so, in fact, that a night out often turns into a semi-romantic escapade. You’re genuinely interested in other people, and you always listen intently to their problems and offer advice.
In short: You’re friendly.
Yet, if you choked on your dinner this week, there wouldn’t be a need for a casket. By the time someone finally bothered to check up on you, you’d be decomposed and intermingled with the perennial filth and dust in your apartment.
In short: You have no real friends.
That’s the conundrum I’ve wrestled with for most of my life, from childhood to adolescence to my early twenties. I’ve provided great company, yet my interactions with my fellow classmates and co-workers have never gone beyond frivolous exchanges. I am not “one of the guys,” and I’m often only invited to large, impersonal parties — never to intimate gatherings of a few. For the life of me, for years, I couldn’t figure out what I was doing wrong.
Opening ourselves up to others is just another way to make our conversational partners feel appreciated. In trusting them with our personal matters, we’re implicitly asserting their importance — their trustworthy character and valuable opinions. “Wow, he unleashed such a cascade of candor towards me. I must be quite a sage, indeed,” they think. Our companion’s subconscious pats itself on the back. Madeline Miller put it better than I ever could: “He showed me his scars, and in return he let me pretend that I had none.”
If we die a little every time a friend succeeds, as the writer Gore Vidal observed, why not give our friends a bit of life by telling them about our failures? I was rewarded for it, and I bet you will be, too.
You might worry that by making a habit of broadcasting the personal issues that pester you, you’ll come across as needy and self-centered. Indeed, Nelson’s advice sounds like doing the thing most relationship gurus admonish against: focusing too much on ourselves. For example, one of the central tenets of the classic book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, is that we ought to become good listeners and talk in terms of the other person’s interest, not in terms of our own. But this is the same sentiment Nelson offers, just explained in a different way.
Encouraging others to talk about themselves, about the things they treasure the most, makes them feel valued and important. We’ll be held in high esteem as the rare individual who allows others to indulge in themselves uninterrupted. As the psychologist John Dewey put it: “the deepest urge in human nature is the desire to be important.”
Opening ourselves up to others is just another way to make our conversational partners feel appreciated. In trusting them with our personal matters, we’re implicitly asserting their importance — their trustworthy character and valuable opinions. “Wow, he unleashed such a cascade of candor towards me. I must be quite a sage, indeed,” they think. Our companion’s subconscious pats itself on the back. Madeline Miller put it better than I ever could: “He showed me his scars, and in return he let me pretend that I had none.”
If we die a little every time a friend succeeds, as the writer Gore Vidal observed, why not give our friends a bit of life by telling them about our failures? I was rewarded for it, and I bet you will be, too.
Dear Thin Friend, we’ve been planning this trip for months, and the day is finally here. I’m so excited to be embarking on this adventure with you. It fills me with joy to be traveling with you to far-off lands to experience new cultures and reach a level of relaxation neither of us has felt for months. The prospect of getting out of our comfort zones makes my soul tingle, as does jumping headfirst into new and exciting territory with you. I just want a cocktail in my hand and you by my side and I will be a happy person.
Before we embark on this journey together, though, I think we need to chat.
You’ve never lived in a body like mine. Your view of the world and of experiences like traveling are viewed through the rose-colored glasses of thin privilege. For this I do not blame you, but I know from living in a bigger body my entire life that there are things we need to consider when traveling: things that might not have occurred to you. I hope that after reading this you will go on our vacation with freshly opened eyes and a newfound respect for what it’s like to be a fat traveler.
My dearest Thin Friend, I know that you are so excited about your new vacation wardrobe. It’s full of colorful matching sets, new bikinis, and dresses that show off your body. My suitcase is full of colors and crop tops, mesh skirts, and bikinis, too, but they won’t fit you. Nor will your wardrobe fit me. So let’s not engage in the charade of optioning each other’s clothes, and please don’t make me try to squeeze into your wardrobe. I am just as fierce as you, but there is no way my curves and swerves are fitting into that dress and that’s okay.
We haven’t traveled together before, so I want to let you know something — people stare at me, but that’s not always a bad thing. Some of them will stop and ask to have their photos taken with me. People will call out “Yas, queen!” as we are walking down the street. Society isn’t used to seeing fat people confidently owning their space, let alone fat people with a wardrobe like mine. I’m okay with the staring; I like to talk to people, and I don’t mind having my picture taken, either. I love you, but you don’t need to defend me. I’ve got this. I have been defending my life and body for as long as I’ve been alive. I do welcome your support and I love that you care about my wellbeing, but haters gon’ hate, and I can deal with that. Watch me.
Traveling together is going to be great. After two weeks of adventures and new experiences we will learn new things about each other, explore our differences and similarities, and come away with memories that will last a lifetime. I hope that spending time with me in my bigger body gives you a new appreciation for your own body and respect for me in mine, because I can do everything you can do — and I can drink you under the table.
Most would see Trump’s comments as being outlandish and undeniably racist as “go back home”, is a line heard to further racism towards people of colour.
Subha Nagalakshmi Munchetty-Chendriah is an English television presenter and journalist, from an Indian and Mauritian background.
The clip of a brief discussion between Munchetty and fellow journalist Dan Walker went viral. The BBC’s own accounts pushed the video out on social media reaching thousands of people. However, after a viewer complained, the corporation’s complaints unit decided that Munchetty, expressing her personal opinion, breached broadcasting guidelines as a BBC journalist.
"I've been told as a woman of colour to 'go home'…"@BBCNaga shares her experience as we discuss the reaction to comments made by President Trump. pic.twitter.com/u0HL5tEdgt
A BBC spokeswoman said the complaints unit “ruled that while Ms Munchetty was entitled to give a personal response to the phrase ‘go back to your own country’ as it was rooted in her own experience, overall her comments went beyond what the guidelines allow for”.
Sir Lenny Henry and Krishnan Guru-Murthy in solidarity were amongst a group of Black and Asian journalists and broadcasters calling for the BBC to reverse its ruling over Ms Munchetty’s outspoken criticism of the US president.
It said that requiring journalists to “endorse racism as a legitimate ‘opinion’” was an “abrogation of responsibility”.
The response from the BBC
The Executive Committee of the broadcaster sent a message to employees making clear its stance on Ms Munchetty’s case and racism.
The message said: “You will have heard a lot of comment over the past few days about the BBC and the reporting of racism. The BBC is not impartial on racism.
“Racism is not an opinion and it is not a matter for debate. Racism is racism.
“Naga Munchetty – one of our stars – was completely within her rights to speak about the tweets of Donald Trump which have been widely condemned as racist. We completely back her in saying ‘as a woman of colour, to go back where I came from, that was embedded in racism’.
“She was speaking honestly and from the heart about her own experiences. We admire her for it and she was completely justified in doing so.
The message has been sent to all BBC staff on behalf of the Executive Committee, which includes Lord Hall.
The Ones Who Complained
Naga Munchetty speaking out proves that we have reached a point where journalism has become anything but impartial?
Some would argue that the BBC is a platform paid for by taxpayers and must therefore remain neutral. Personal stories and becoming emotional and making opinion statements could be read as journalists taking a side, in this case a political side. With a platform that is paid for by the people, some have argued (and indeed did complain) that Naga Munchetty should have not given her opinion. It is almost akin to the Pope taking sides and blessing one American football team over another.
The tweet that went viral with the Pope seen to be blessing one American football team over another just hours before they win a game
Surely a giant corporation like the BBC should be impartial. Let the people decide for themselves, as journalists we should speak the facts and let the facts influence peoples decisions. Our personal opinions should never factor into it.
Was she right to speak out?
The BBC initially suspending Naga Munchetty, begs the question, in another time and era, would the BBC have taken back their decision? I doubt they would have, this is why racism needs allies, solidarity and a true sense of community to envelop its tragically strong hand.
Journalism is however, in its opinionated ascendancy, as the world becomes more polarised and politicised, Munchetty’s comments are not the first against figures of esteemed power.
We cannot limit people to be simply the messengers, sometimes the messenger has a view that they feel personally they must speak out against.
Racism is racism, and we should seek to call it out from wherever we can. It hides in plain sight, but to Trump, it doesn’t hide, it’s out there like a dog whistle. His presidency comes with a remarkable amount of controversy, his critics are as outspoken as his supporters as Munchetty has.
Prime Minister Johnson and President of Ireland Prime Minister Leo Varadkar agree they can “see a pathway to a possible deal” after talks, Downing Street says.
In a statement met by optimism by some and scoffs by detractors, Downing Street revealed that the leaders spoke for over two hours, including a one-to-one discussion during a walk in the grounds of Thornton Manor in north-west England. The talks were “constructive” and they believe a deal “is in everybody’s interest”, the statement said.
The joint statement issued after the meeting between Mr Johnson and Mr Varadkar said the prime minister and Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) said the parties involved had a “detailed and constructive discussion”.
“Both continue to believe that a deal is in everybody’s interest,” the statement said. The talks concentrated on “the challenges of customs and consent”, Downing Street said. “They agreed to reflect further on their discussions and that officials would continue to engage intensively on them.” Mr Johnson put forward fresh proposals for a Brexit deal last week, but Mr Varadkar had previously said “big gaps” remain between the UK and the EU.
Markets react positively
The markets reacted positively to this news. The pound which hadn’t been doing well since uncertainty engulfed the Brexit negotiations shot up higher than the dollar after the statement was issued. Sky’s economics editor Ed Conway tweeted
Pound shoots higher vs dollar after PM concludes talks with @LeoVaradkar and says: "both continue to believe that a deal is in everyone's interest. They agreed that they could see a pathway to a possible deal." pic.twitter.com/Lt1LPLUWS9
This news is welcome by businesses too. Just this week Nissan reported that a no-deal Brexit would jeopardize their entire European business model and have dramatic impacts on their Sunderland plant in their firmest warning about Brexit yet.
Gianluca de Ficchy, the chairman of Nissan Europe, said the imposition of a 10% tariff on exports under World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms would threaten the future of its large Sunderland plant.
“If we are in a situation in which tomorrow we have to apply 10% export duties to 70% of our sales, the entire business model for Nissan Europe will be in jeopardy,” he told the Guardian.
Workers on the production line in Sunderland, where Nissan employs 6,000 people. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian
The Japanese carmaker, which supports 30,000 jobs in Britain, said it could not guarantee the new Qashqai model would come to Sunderland given the uncertainty surrounding Brexit.
Nissan promised in 2016 to build the new version of the car in Sunderland after receiving assurances from Theresa May’s government that it would be protected from the impact of Brexit. The carmaker, which employs 6,000 people at Sunderland and supports another 24,000 jobs in the supply chain, has previously made only measured statements about the impact of the UK’s departure from the EU. This news will be reassuring for Nissan and many other businesses who face the most immediate threat from no-deal Brexit.
The boy who cried wolf
Because of the temperament and character of Prime Minister Johnson which the British public has become all too familiar with, some have scoffed at this news and still believe Johnson prefers a no-deal. He has reiterated this in the public space numerous times.
The key stumbling block so far to a deal for Ireland have been Johnson’s proposal to take Northern Ireland out of the EU customs union on Brexit day, and his plan to give the defunct Stormont assembly the final say on whether the region should also stay aligned to EU rules on goods and agrifood.
Earlier this week, Varadkar said he thought it would be “very difficult” to secure an agreement by the time EU leaders meet next Thursday, but all efforts were focused on doing so because the stakes were so high.
The statement issued doesn’t actually say much and cannot be taken as intent. The parties revealed that a ‘way could be seen’ which may result in a deal, however, this is no way a statement revelling a deal was imminent or even close.
Timeline: What’s happening ahead of Brexit deadline?
Monday 14 October – The Commons is due to return, and the government will use the Queen’s Speech to set out its legislative agenda. The speech will then be debated by MPs throughout the week.
Thursday 17 October – Crucial two-day summit of EU leaders begins in Brussels. This is the last such meeting currently scheduled before the Brexit deadline.
Saturday 19 October – Special sitting of Parliament and the date by which the PM must ask the EU for another delay to Brexit under the Benn Act, if no Brexit deal has been approved by Parliament and they have not agreed to the UK leaving with no-deal.
Thursday 31 October – Date by which the UK is due to leave the EU, with or without a withdrawal agreement.
We are awaiting a response from Labour about this statement.
On World Mental Health Day, the backlash surrounding the government’s Every Mind Matters campaign backed by Royals has been palpable.
Every Mind Matters is an NHS and Public Health England initiative. A website that allows people to take a short survey with four parts, focusing on their stress, mood, and sleep patterns. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Duke and Duchess of Sussex narrated a campaign video broadcast earlier this week in an ad break across ITV, Channel 4 and Sky channels.
“Everyone knows that feeling when life gets on top of us. We think there is nothing to be done, nothing we can do about it.” “There’s a new way to help turn things around”.
After answering questions on the online form, participants will be provided with a free online plan to help with stress, mood, sleep and “help you feel more in control”.
Whilst the free resource is welcome, the Government’s overall messaging on mental health seems to be ringing slightly hollow. People are routinely stuck on NHS system waiting lists for talking therapy for upwards of 18 months. Journalist Ilona Burton on Twitter was among the detractors, saying If every mind matters, there should be enough funding to help every mind that struggles.”
Imagine running an ad campaign for checking your breasts and then more people go to their GP having found a lump and be told 'Sorry, come back when it's got bigger/worse/you're actually dying.' Because that's kind of what mental health ad campaigns are doing.
Similarly, Ant and Dec revealed the ‘Britain Get Talking’ campaign during the Britain’s Got Talent final last Saturday, supported by YoungMinds and Mind mental health charities. It is the first stage in a five-year commitment from ITV to promote mental wellness and to help 10 million people improve their mental or physical health by 2023. Again, the emphasis was on having conversations and getting together to talk, with a focus on how this builds resilience in young people.
Now, raising further awareness, of course, is always needed, and should not go away. However, similarly to having a ‘World Mental Health Day’, it walks a tight rope between highlighting the issue and also being something tokenistic. It is sometimes frustrating seeing mental health equated to a national coffee day. Where is the line between making something relatable and accessible, or just watered down? There is no doubt having the hashtag has encouraged people to tell stories and share experiences. However, when social media is treated as a highlight reel, there is often a weight on stories being ‘acceptable’ and palatable versions. Sanitized versions of experience are not helpful.
Job Centre Plus advisers have told people looking for work to ”avoid words that sound worse than they are” and “avoid terms such as depression” when applying for work. This came to light after a jobseeker in Dorset posted a leaflet he had received online about writing a “positive health statement” from his jobcentre. In essence, disabled people and those with mental health problems are being encouraged to downplay their condition or feelings, reinforcing the stigma that they then are of lower value. Mental health charity Mind described the advice as “really worrying”, as “anyone who discloses a mental health problem deserves to be treated with respect”.
Couching mental health problems in this way is damaging, and reinforces the idea of depression and other mental health conditions as something shameful to be confessed; a burden and inconvenience to any employer who may have to make reasonable adjustments. Information like this also discourages people from actually exercising their rights as a worker, and to access support for specific symptoms and aspects of a condition.
Source: fircroft.com
It seems it’s ok to talk about mental health until it’s not ok to talk about your mental health. It’s ok to talk about mental health until it affects others. After years of cutting mental health services, closing youth centres, having only 100 rape crisis centres in the country, cutting alternative education programs and access to hospital beds, for the government to spend £15 million over three years on a campaign that effectively puts the emphasis on people themselves to be proactive and take preventative measures, leaves a bad taste of hypocrisy in the mouth. The effects can be seen keenly in statistics released in 2018 by charity Young Minds, showing the prevalence of 5-15 year olds experiencing emotional disorders (including anxiety and depression) has increased by 48% to 58% in 2017. Further, only 25% of that same group with a condition had any contact with mental health services in the past year.
Without ring-fenced funding available for mental health services, the very public campaigns encouraging people to talk about their conditions and experiences will be null and void. One of these campaigns may be the tipping point for someone to finally open up, only to find the support in the entirely overstretched NHS is just not there. Without this infrastructure, no matter how much people ‘talk’, fundamentally this mental health crisis will not be turned around.
As someone who lives with the impact of a mental health condition, has been on an NHS waiting list for over 18 months and privately funded my own therapy after I left my job for months, I cannot support inaction.
Last month saw the long awaited return of the London based crime drama, Topboy, picked up this time by TV streaming giant Netflix. The series which first aired in 2011 on Channel 4 was inexplicably cancelled after just two seasons only for Drake to petition for it’s return some six years later.
And now, the series written by Ronan Bennett, currently sits at the well-deserved top position of the most streamed shows on Netlfix.
This week's full top ten series list is below: 1) Top Boy 2) Unbelievable 3) Power 4) Criminal: UK 5) The Good Place 6) Disenchantment 7) Suits 8) The Politician 9) Top Boy: Summerhouse 10 The I-Land
When news hit that Drake had teamed up with Netflix to revive Topboy, many feared the UK hit show would be ruined by all the makings of an American drama series: pointless car chases, excessive explosions and endless shootouts; not to mention a cameo from the rapper himself. But thankfully, the series still breathes London through and through with standout performances from home grown talent in rappers David ‘Dave’ Omoregie and Simbi ‘Little Simz’ Ajokawo.
Netflix’s Top Boy Premiere, London, 4th Sept 2019. (Source: GRM Daily)
Topboy gave viewers unreserved access to a slice of British life that’s seldom brought to attention in such depth. Set in an East London council estate, the series followed the trials, tribulations and emotional pulls of a protagonist caught in the web of a fierce drug war.
In a time where there are endless question marks around London’s knife crime epidemic, Topboy did well to humanise the widely marginalised and vilified members of our society.
Rapper Dave featured as a newcomer in the new series. Source: Telegraph
In the character of Jamie, played excellently by newcomer Michael Ward viewers see the characters struggle of growing up in a home without parents and feeling compelled to provide for his younger siblings by any means necessary.
Broken families were one of many themes the series so poignantly touched on: the series also explored the challenges of immigration and status of migrants within the UK, drug abuse among young people and the exploitation of youths in county lines operations.
Michael Ward played lead character Jamie in Topboy. Source: NME
The series authentically brought to light an experience that’s been long lived by too many in the UK. And where impassioned performances from Ashley Walters and Kane ‘Kano’ Robison made for a nail biting series, the grittier story lines drawn out in Topboy were unavoidably sobering.
Topboy’s missing pieces
The justifications of some of the characters’ actions in Topboy doesn’t romanticise the struggles of the marginalised, but it is a cry for help to solve the plethora of issues that can give birth to a life in crime. In seeing these realities so explicitly depicted, the only proper response is to consider how society can support at-risk people and communities with both short and long term solutions.
The series ends with somber scenes pointing to a continuing cycle of drug peddling and broken families. So if there was a piece missing in Topboy, it’s certainly how communities or society at large can break the cycle of violent crime that is prevalent among marginalised groups across the country.
Many of the Topboy episodes were shot in East London. Source: Capital XTRA
In an interview with Capital Xtra, host Robert Bruce asked the Topboy cast how the new series could break this cycle. Ashley Walters who played Dushane said: “Growing up in areas like in Topboy and dabbling in the things that are in the show, one thing I did have was inspiration. My mum took me on holiday once a year, she made me read. Those things showed me my immediate environment wasn’t my only environment.”
Ashley added, “As a community we have to inspire our children and cater for them in a way they want. We need to give people opportunities in abundance.”
Topboy is just a drama series though, so we can expect things in the lives of our protagonists to spiral more and more out of control. It’s unlikely that we’ll see a new series where drug operations are traded in for community empowerment projects. But we do live in the real London, not Summerhouse, where partnering with communities to meet their needs can actually be effective. As for Topboy’s missing pieces, society should wake up to how it can fill the gaps through real solutions.
Thunberg, 16, from Sweden, first staged a “School Strike for Climate” in front of the Swedish Parliament alone in August last year which has since inspired an international movement. Since that moment the world recognises Greta as the face of climate change that we have all become accustomed to, yet those who oppose her believe she is being “weaponised” by political elites, even meeting world leaders such as Barack Obama.
Greta meeting Barack Obama. Course: twitter.com
Her emotive speech at the UN took the world by storm, saying: ‘How dare you – you have stolen my dreams and my childhood’, demonstrating the issues at hand for her generation.
Greta delivering her speech at the UN Source: theworldnews.net
Greta is the medium between science and activism simply she is a spokesperson on a global level. Every movement needs a face and Greta is a “weapon” that has instead become a battering ram online.
She has inadvertently caused “eco-anxiety”, which Prince Harry also allegedly suffers from. Eco–anxiety is anxiety about ecological disasters and threats to the natural environment such as pollution and climate change.
Greta’s explosion on the scene has come at a time when the future is uncertain. In a society where being young comes with the burden of lack of capital, a changing environment and divisive politics. Greta epitomises this in her call to action. One persons eco-anxiety, is anothers awakening.
Greta Thunberg threatens the patriarchal order of the day
Greta threatens two climates, the environmental climate and the climate between men and women. Many men in particular have spoken out against Greta, recently Jeremy Clarkson has called her a “spoilt brat.”
Jeremy Clarkson left & Greta Thunberg right Source: huffingtonpost.co.uk
Clarkson in his weekly column for the Sun said: “Pause for a moment to consider how soundly you sleep at night, knowing that adults are building and servicing and flying Sweden’s fighter planes to keep you safe. We gave you mobile phones and laptops and the internet. We created the social media you use every day and we run the banks that pay for it all.”
In the eyes of Clarkson, Greta is nothing more than a “spoilt brat”, who should be thankful for the inventions of adults. Wasn’t Clarkson the one who punched a Top Gear producer when there wasn’t any hot food? Sounds familiar to white people who proclaim black people who should be grateful for abolishing slavery, letting us assimilating into society and giving us the illusion of equality.
It appears many men are threatened by Greta’s defiance and her refusal to step down, in the face of her virulent criticism. Clarkson even attempts to evoke rights as a father figure, saying ‘and no, you can’t go out in a skirt that short’. It’s interesting how a man that has made his fortune from the automobile industry and old media seems to have to resort to mocking a 16 year old girl for her age, telling her that to make change she should quietly go back to science class. If he was acting out of true fatherly concern, he would be supportive of her, working passionately for something she believed in, rather than react with ridicule and condescension. Especially when your own daughter comes out to put you in your place.
Despite being by far the newspaper with the largest circulation in the UK, Sun readership has more than halved in less than a decade, according to the Audit Bureua of Circulations. From it’s mid 90’s daily peak of 4.7 million copies sold, it now stands at an average of 1.2 million per issue as of August 2019. Clarkson’s comments smack of desperation to cling to relevancy. With his fortunes, he is no friend to the average Sun reader. They will certainly not be in the same metaphorical or literal boat when the effects of climate change are more widely felt. When children refuse to listen to adults they are reminded adults know best. Clearly the adults, in this case, don’t. Greta is some men’s worst fear, young, outspoken, independent and not sexualised.
Young people are the revolution
Young people are changing the world, and have become a part of the growing political engine. They are revolting, rebuking the capitalist order of the day. Activists do not get the recognition they deserve unless they are in the public spotlight and pushed by agendas behind closed doors. Chastising Greta for speaking on a public stage is trotting out the age old trope of shutting down female voices, for being too bossy, too young, too shrill. But to breathe new life into a debate that was not getting the recognition it deserved, how else was it supposed to happen? In the age old words of Heiroglyphs, “don’t hate the player hate the game”. Other activists deserve the publicity, and Greta should work alongside them.
One example is Autumn Peltier, 15.
Autumn Peltier, a young activist who speaks of the importance of water conservation and access Source: CBC.ca
At 8 years old Autumn Peltier, attended a ceremony at a reservation where she saw a sign warning that the water was toxic, according to the CBC.Growing up on a freshwater island in Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory in Canada, Peltier said she had never experienced toxic water. The sign sat long in her memory.
At the age of 14, Peltier fights for water conservation and indigenous water rights. Inspired by her great aunt, Josephine Mandamin, an indigenous activist who walked the shores of all five Great Lakes to raise awareness for water conservation.
At 12, Peltier confronted Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, telling him she was unhappy with his policies on controversial pipeline projects. Trudeau promised her he would protect the water. Since 2015, 87 long-term water advisories have been lifted; 56 water advisories remain in Canada. Sitting quietly in science class doesn’t really stack up now does it?
In 2018 , Peltier, like Greta spoke at the UN about the importance of water conservation and water access, as in her culture water plays a sacred role.”Many people don’t think water is alive or has a spirit. My people believe this to be true. … We believe our water is sacred because we are born of water.”
More light needs to be shone on the other activists who are doing just as good work. There is an evident whitewashing of the face of environmental change, and Peltier deserves admiration for her work.
My fear for Greta is that she will end up burning herself out from all the travelling and the emotional labour of being so committed to her cause. She needs to be protected in the media, with the right psychologist, however, it does not take away from her message. Those criticising her and attempting to invalidate her arguments are clutching at plastic straws, trying to use it as renewable energy to mount a character assassination of a valid scientific message.
Greta warms hearts for some as an evidence of the youth who care passionately, adamantly and fervently for the environment. Some hearts otherwise remain cold, but as time shows even those will defrost.
Now that the “Chinese stock ban” cat is out the bag, there’s a good chance Trump will follow through on this threat eventually if an acceptable trade deal is not reached. The SEC has failed, alongside the NASDAQ to prevent foreign companies fleecing US investors for 10 years. As the trade war escalates, Chinese firms may lose access to US Capital Markets. Stricter rules and auditing are needed to provide the same level of scrutiny that American companies receive. But too many hands in the pie for the Chinese Communist Party will ultimately block adequate regulation. This leaves Trump with few options if the October Chinese trade delegation to Washington collapses.
“The argument for barring China from the US capital markets is simple but compelling: Why should the United States government allow U.S. Capital Markets and the American people to fund the world’s most powerful adversary of freedom which threatens the very markets it participates in?” James Gorrie, author of ‘The China Crisis.
China has been abusing the system for decades by faking the
financial health of listed companies, to the detriment of investors and the
capital markets.
Since 2008, Chinese companies accessed U.S. stock markets through
reverse-takeovers in which they bought idle or failing listed companies and automatically
achieve that status – even if they completely alter the business’s sector or
output. This isn’t necessarily bad nor illegal, but predatory behaviour to
bestow unknown Chinese companies instant credibility. What’s more, many attracted investors
with virtually no oversight as to the viability of their operations or the
veracity of their accounting.
2017’s ‘The China Hustle’ film documenting > $50,000,000,000 stolen from US investors // Magnolia Pictures
The level of China’s fraud is staggering. According to
documentarian Jed Rothstein in his 2018 film “The China Hustle,” up to $50 billion or more was invested in fraudulent
companies listed on the New York, American, and Nasdaq stock exchanges.
But how could corporate fraud be so prevalent under the heavy
US regulations? The reality is, if the management wants to commit fraud, the
auditors are unlikely to find it.
Banning Chinese companies from US Capital Markets not off the table // South China Morning Post
Chinese deception is not limited to America. Various manifestations of pump-and-dump schemes have been ongoing in Shanghai and Hong Kong stock markets for years. A cycle of artificially inflated valuations, luring in unsuspecting Chinese investors by the millions, leveraging themselves to the hilt to participate. All the while insiders, often Chinese Communist Party members, sell at the market highs, reaping billions in ill-gotten gains.
Removing access to American investors
For these reasons, U.S. lawmakers such as Senator Marco
Rubio (Republican-Florida) proposed banning $49.5 billion of U.S. pension fund
money, known as the iFund, from being invested in Chinese companies. That would
send a clear message to China by halting a considerable amount of investment
cash from going into mainland companies.
This could be followed up with larger hits to Chinese
capital needs as the federal government pension fund refusal to invest the $578
billion in the MSCI All Country World Index, of which Chinese firms comprise 4%
of that index, expecting to double over the next few years.
Since 55% of all new U.S. listings in 2019 have been Chinese companies, without access to U.S. capital markets, mainland China firms would be scrambling for the capital they need to survive.
The geopolitical consequences would be immediate. U.S.–China
relations would sour further and push
the trade war further into the future. However that may be the price that needs
to be paid.
“Washington should
understand that the implications for the trade imbalance are the opposite of
what they want,” Michael Pettis, finance professor at the Guanghua School of
Management at Peking University, said in an email.
Many Chinese start-ups have chosen to list in the U.S. for a
boost to their brand and access to U.S. dollars.
Lower Growth for American portfolios
Global stock index provider MSCI has also been gradually
adding some mainland Chinese A-shares to
its key emerging markets index, and more than $1.9
trillion in assets were included in the benchmark index as of the end
of 2017.
Market Capitalisation of Chinese companies trading on U.S. stock exchanges not insignificant // Bloomberg
Full inclusion of Chinese assets in these stock and bond
indexes would mean that many Americans would be indirect investors in Chinese
capital markets through mutual funds and other widely held investment products.
More than 200 Chinese companies, including giants like Alibaba, have raised tens
of billions of dollars on U.S. capital markets through listings or American
Depositary Receipts, according to an August report by analysts from research
firm Gavekal Dragonomics, Andrew Batson and Lance Noble.
If this trend continues, regardless of how slowly, being
prohibited from China would mean “U.S. banks, U.S. mutual fund companies will
be at a clear disadvantage to their global competitors,” Ning Zhu, Tsinghua
University.
Steady rise in the domestic Chinese financial assets held by overseas investors / R Bolton Bloomberg Terminal // People’s Bank of China
If such U.S. investments were banned, American investors
would miss out on what many analysts expect will be a long-term growth story.
In favour of removing the fraud and transparency concerns
Investment restrictions in place would be designed to reduce
exposure to excessive risk due to lack of regulatory supervision of Chinese
companies: a decade of access and no real repercussions for gross malfeasance.
It is amazing that the NASDAQ and the SEC allow companies that don’t operate in the USA access to US capital markets without strict oversight from a certified audit like stateside companies require. They are ripping billions off US investors in the Options market very stealthily. The SEC roasted them on Friday with a warning shot and it is about time they cottoned on.
Beijing may never allow Chinese US listed books to be fully audited. There are too many Oliver hands extended from the Chinese Communist Party.
Bloomberg front and centre in the fake news accusations by the Trump Administration
The only real-world plan to delist was already introduced by
Marco Rubio and others. The bill is an amendment to the Sarbanes Oxley act and
had a 2025 date for compliance, but with no grandfather provisions ever
adopted.
Chinese firms needs the stable institutional inflows
Foreign investment in mainland-listed Chinese stocks remains
limited, even as Beijing tries to open its markets further to overseas
investors. Since the domestic stock market is dominated by retail investors,
authorities are trying to attract more stable inflows from institutional
investors.
Mainland China’s capital markets are among the largest in
the world, but often fall short of the governance and liquidity levels of more
developed markets.
Last week, FTSE
Russell decided not to add China to its widely tracked government bond
index due to issues such as lack of trading activity and long settlement
periods, according to Reuters.
Analysis by New York-based research provider Rhodium,
released in the fall of 2018, also found that 65% of Chinese companies included
in the MSCI emerging markets index at that time were ultimately controlled by
the state. The presence of SOEs (state-owned enterprises) is not a phenomenon unique
to China but common to many emerging markets.
Calmer seas may be behind us // iStock
All Red
All Chinese listed shares may retrace some of the losses from Friday’s fake Bloomberg delisting headline. The report stated officials had discussed limiting US investment in China and the possibility of delisting them from NASDAQ. Large players may re-enter their positions in Chinese U.S. listed stocks, with American epository receipts of several major CHinese companies rising after Trump administration pushed back against the false claims. For the time being, its an empty threat and non-event.
Bloomberg was irresponsible to run a story with no details, dates or who said what and when. It looked almost well timed to create more market uncertainty for increased volatility, creating more arbitage opportunities for market manipulators.
It shouldn’t be ruled out, “all cards are on the table”. And after all, for the man who took a games show joke to run for President and made it a reality, we shouldn’t dismiss this possibility in a trade war that has become personal between Trump and Xi.
Climate change has been increasingly in the news lately. The UN Climate Action Summit took place earlier last week and was notable for the widely-shared speech by Greta Thunberg, the 16-year old Swedish climate change activist. With the climate change debate there is always a lot of opinions, hyperbole and research that is often too academic for mainstream readers.
So what are the biggest issues facing us as a planet?
Amazon Fires
The Amazon has been repeatedly labelled the ‘lungs of the earth’ – a label that is not only a misnomer but has overshadowed the actual issues facing the Amazon rainforest. Similarly, a claim that it’s responsible for providing 20% of the world’s oxygen has been debunked.
Fires recorded in across the Amazon between 1 August and 11 September. Credit: INP
Whilst forest fires are a natural occurrence, a lot of the ones currently affecting Brazil are man-made. Most are a result of agriculture: either burning after harvest or clearing forest for cropland and cattle grazing. Deforestation has reached such a high that Brazil’s space agency found an area the size of five football pitches were being cleared, every single minute.
Vast areas of the Amazon have been destroyed for company use and this is having a catastrophic impact on the indigenous communities that still live there. They are displaced (often forcibly) from their lands by armed mercenaries on the behalf of logging companies. The government is not doing enough to protect their rights and lands and there is concern that some of the smaller tribes could die out altogether.
The biodiversity of the Amazon rainforest is practically unrivalled. Ten percent of all known species in the world are found there, including the largest number of freshwater fish species. Jaguars, frogs, Amazon river dolphins and many other species are all considered endangered, with some critically. As their habitat is increasingly put in jeopardy we risk losing some of them forever.
Great Coral Reef Bleaching
It’s hard to understand just how important the Great Barrier Reef is. At roughly the same size as the UK, Holland and Switzerland combined, it is an area of incredible biodiversity. From saltwater crocodiles to humpback whales, clownfish to turtles many species rely on the coral reef for protection and survival.
Bleaching of the Great Coral Reef (before and after)
But a recent survey of the reef has revealed the situation is critical. The team from the Great Barrier Reef Committee spent a year researching the reef and comparing it to surveys from over the last 100 years. They found that diversity on the reefs have declined massively, especially for corals.
This is the result of commercial fishing and wider global patterns of warming sea temperatures. As global temperatures heat up the coral is susceptible to bleaching – a state in which the coral ejects its main food source and then starves to death. Trawling (in which commercial fishing vessels indiscriminately dredge the ocean floor) has also destroyed large swathes of the reef and the move towards less destructive methods has limited the impact on the reef.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority released a statement last year stating:
If the Great Coral Reef dies, none of us here today will live to see it recover. Corals grow very slowly and it can take centuries or even millennia for a coral reef to form. It is imperative that action is taken now to prevent the complete breakdown of this incredible popular and loved natural wonder.
Fracking
One of the most controversial energy methods, fracking has been in the news a lot recently for the worrying side effects. It refers to the process of drilling into the earth, injecting a high-pressure water mixture (containing sand and chemicals) to ensure gas flows and can be extracted. Fracking refers to the fracturing of the rock as it is drilled and injected.
Fracking: a diagram explaining fracking
In the UK, Cuadrilla has been protested since it began looking for shale gas, predominantly in the North of England. In 2011, they ceased fracking after a number of earthquakes hit the area near their site in Blackpool, Lancashire. An initial government panel did identify tremors as a side effect of fracking but argued they would be too small to make any real impact on property. Yet earlier this year a tremor of 2.1ML magnitude on the Richter scale was identified at the Preston site – only slightly smaller than the 2011 earthquake which led to a seven-year suspension of fracking in the UK.
Fracking uses a large amount of water and increases the number of tremors in the areas surrounding drill sites. But the bigger issue with fracking is that it is still unrenewable – once the gas is gone it’s gone. Whilst touted by the government as a promising source of energy and employment, the emissions and environmental cost is still far greater than more green sources of energy.
The US is the only country that allows fracking on a large scale and has noted environmental impacts like ground water pollution, poor workplace safety and increased water usage.
A school boy in India walks in the smog caused by air pollution (source: WHO).
Air pollution is a general term for any pollutants released by human activity that impacts on the safety of the air we breath. Pollutants can range from carbon dioxide from transport, ammonia from agricultural waste, volatile organic compounds such as methane, or toxic metals like lead and mercury. Whilst some of these pollutants can be produced naturally, the majority of them are from man-made activity.
The health effects of these can be deadly: asthma, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke and lung cancer. For governments, these have a tremendous impact on health services and city populations. Some of the most polluted areas on earth are cities: Kanpur in India, Kampala in Uganda, Anyang in China – in London alone 2 million people live with illegal levels of air pollution. For industrially emerging nations that problems are particularly bad and we will all be familiar with the scenes from Chinese cities in which thick smog obscures everything in sight.
Whilst the world’s governments are predominantly able to limit the levels of air pollution, we can all do our bit to limit our emissions. We can ditch the car and switch to public transport, we can stop using airplanes, we can demand greener options and force governments to make the air we breath safe for us all.
Greta Thunberg, 16, made headlines for skipping school to protest climate change, inspiring millions of school kids to do the same. She addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos by crossing the Atlantic by carbon-neutral sailing to address Congress and the UN. Her impassioned speeches have led for a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. Miss Thunberg embodies the mantra of a generation:
“Why should I go to school to study if there is no future?”
Donald Trump at the World Economic Forum last year (2018)
There is no doubting her conviction or passion. But the Nobel Peace Prizes were left instruction by Alfred Nobel to award “the person who shall have done the most or best work for fraternity between nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses”. It remains unclear why Greta meets this standard.
Then again, the award has become less about the achievement and more the message, notably since Obama won in his first year of Presidency despite fighting two wars and carrying out drone strikes in 7 countries across North Africa and the Middle East.
Perhaps the committee wants to signal support for youth climate activism. It is somewhat problematic for the current state of adult authority. The message of stoking fear as a call to action is nothing new. Doomsday timelines shift from decade to decade. In the 1960s we were told the Earth would be overwhelmed by population, with scientists even calling for fertility sterilisation by medications in the water supply.
A continual transition from one environmental campaign to the next
It is troubling to see adults stand by and celebrate ‘panicking’ to enact political change. Maybe her message voices the internalised sentiment about climate change: sad and scared, blunted by life getting in the way.
The real issue is the misguided, kneejerk reactions this
plea will undoubtedly generate, void of efficient, prudent economic and science-based
policy. Instead, marred by fearmongering. The nomination for a Nobel Peace
Prize shows just how detached we are in passing the buck onto kids to push the climate
change alarmism agenda.
It becomes more borderline cult, drawn in by its own doomsayer
prophecies, that any challenge is dismissed.
The radical proposals are squarely an attack on average people. Contempt for how the masses live, with “meat heat” phenomenon to “flight shaming” or even contemplating “not having children” to help the planet.
The prosperity we experience which allows for individuals
like Greta to tell us all how to live is being brought into question.
From her position, it is entirely logical that if the world is going to end, it makes no sense to carry on as normal. If those radical climate activists truly believed the world was about to end, they would give up their jobs and march until something was done.
If Greta were presented a more in-depth analysis of climate
claims, she may not skip a beat to change her views to climate scepticism once
she realises what she has been told doesn’t add up.
There is no nuance in Miss Thunberg’s appeal: total
sacrifice of our way of life, abandon competition and focus on equity.
Extinction Rebellion is a noble movement. The call for large scale political solutions would seem to offer the greatest impact. Protesting is a tool to get those in control to act on what most civilians individually cannot.
School Strike for Climate Change
Alternatively, inventing new technologies and scientific discoveries or arranging clean-ups can create a positive lead-by-example impact. Ultimately, we are the power to change. Government can talk it to death with meetings. At the end of the day, if enough people don’t care enough to drive ourselves to create a solution, there will never be an end to all of this. It is easy for us to expect others to act for us and create a solution, but that’s passing the buck.
Al Gore nor Obama, did anything tangible to earn or deserve the Nobel Prize. To the extent that the Prize has now become a political prize for cult personality of the year, Greta’s nomination is another symbolic, yet meaningless celebration of disinformation.
Her nomination is a political statement by the “powers that
be” and that’s all there is to it, for per statute, it is rather speculative as
to why.
She has a lot going for her despite the inconvenient fact
that the past 18 years have shown no recorded global warming, a period the
climate alarmist now conveniently call “the pause”.
It is curious a Swedish girl is talking climate when they have far more pressing issues. Sweden is Europe’s rape capital, with rates quadrupling in 20 years, as the European Union commissioned report confirmed and corroborated by Amnesty International’s report on rape in the Nordic Countries was highly critical of Sweden for her abysmally low conviction rate for rape cases. ‘Social stigma and a lack of trust in the justice system often mean that women and girls fail to report attacks,’ says Amnesty International’s Secretary General.
Regardless of Miss Thunberg’s chances for the Norwegian honour, her efforts may be better directed to a real, pressing problems insofar as there has been no recorded rise in temperature since Al Gore won the 2007 Nobel.
Alternative Opinions
Alternative methods: A beach in India before and after the part of a large scale campaign to clean-up the environment.
Greta’s publicised appeal and voice of the world’s youth is the pinnacle of many initiatives by the youth to make adults alter our ways. They all deserve Nobel nominations. Giving it to one person doesn’t reward all the others that have sought to tackle the issues of their future.
Her precociousness and choosing the right cause have won the
backing of mainstream media, capturing their fancy with the cute youthful appeal.
Maybe she does deserve the Prize for calling us all out on our idleness.
September 19th 2019 it was unearthed that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dressed up in an Orientalist “Arabian Nights” outfit. His face and hands were also darkened.
The photograph appeared in the 2000-2001 yearbook of West Point Grey Academy, where Trudeau was a teacher in a private day school.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Brown Face
He responded in a public apology: “It was something that I didn’t think was racist at the time, but now I recognize it was something racist, I am deeply sorry.”
Trudeau continued: “I have worked all my life to try and create opportunities for people to fight against racism and intolerance, and I can just stand here and say that I made a mistake when I was younger, and I wish I hadn’t.”
This is massive due to who not only Trudeau is, but also the politics he espouses. Trudeau believes himself to be the example to which the rest of the world should follow, eradicating all the common “ism’s”. Racism, sexism and the many other forms of discrimination.
Should Trudeau be judged on his past?
If it was not for the findings of this blackface, he more than likely would not have admitted to it, as it would hurt his liberal credentials.
Trudeau in the same breath wanted “mankind” to be changed to “humankind”, more gender-neutral language to not be sexist towards women, yet this highlighting of blackface can serve to undo all of his liberal groundwork, as society seems to remember the negatives more than any positives.
Unpacking this issue deeper, we realise Blackface is more than the action of just one individual. It, unfortunately, has become a socially acceptable event or party trick encompassing many others. Further highlighting the sheer racial ignorance of whiteness.
Blackface Black Pete and the Golliwog
The Dutch Christmas character ‘Black Pete’ (Zwarte Piet) is an important figure for the Dutch Sinterklaas celebrations on December 5th.
‘Black Pete’ is black because he travels through a chimney, with soot covering his face. Every year ‘Black Pete’ was protested, as it was said to be a racist relic of the era of colonialism, before finally being removed from Netherlands TV Screens in 2018.
the Dutch Christmas character ‘Black Pete’ (Zwarte Piet)
Black Pete is similar to the ‘golliwog.’
The Golliwog is an anti-Black caricature in the United States. Golliwogs are grotesque creatures, with very dark, often jet black skin, large white-rimmed eyes, red or white clown lips, and wild, frizzy hair.
Golliwogs often reflected negative beliefs about Black people — thieves, miscreants, incompetents. It is very popular in European countries.
The Golliwog alongside Black Pete is racially insensitive in the contemporary climate. The Golliwog was even used by one of the worlds most popular children’s authors ‘Enid Blyton’ who wrote three books primarily about Golliwogs: The Three Golliwogs (1944), The Proud Golliwog (1951), and The Golliwog Grumbled (1955).
one of the worlds most popular children’s authors ‘Enid Blyton’ who protected the freedom to write about the ‘Golliwog.”
An excerpt from The Three Golliwogs is illustrative:
“Once the three bold golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and Nigger, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn’t quite ready so Woggie and Nigger said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woogie and Nigger, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song — which, as you may guess, was Ten Little Nigger Boys.” (p. 51)
Enid Blyton, Justin Trudeau and the Dutch Christmas celebrations have one thing in common, the common universal racially insensitivity of Black caricatures. It is woven into the European culture which is inherently racist, and insensitive, alongside seeing nothing wrong until modern-day society challenges it.
We universally can agree it is wrong. Each demonstrating the landscape of the time, but now we are coming to terms with such deplorable and outwardly racist actions.
To be liberal is almost to be self-righteous and to come from a place where you believe everything you say and do is morally upstanding and correct.
Malcolm X once said: “Don’t be in a hurry to condemn because he doesn’t do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn’t know what you know today.”
As Malcolm X once said: “Don’t be in a hurry to condemn because he doesn’t do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn’t know what you know today.”
Forgiving Trudeau?
Trudeau has apparently changed and through his own words “I made a mistake when I was younger, and I wish I hadn’t.” He has superseded his Blackface past and is the liberal beacon of hope across the Westernised world. He was unaware of his actions and he now knows it was wrong.
He should not be judged of his past actions, rather his current actions. However, if he was conservative the situation would have been largely different, the equal application of moral outcry and shaming should be distributed equally across the political spectrum. Trudeau reminds us no matter our political view, racism is a deeply conditioned element of the current human existence. He will outlive this blackface and will be forever red-faced when it is brought up again.
Impeachment isn’t a word that was thrown around too often Pre-Trump era. Now, it seems that impeachment is the newest fad that is thrown around just as frequently as “Fake News”. In American politics, impeachment was not a word that people took too lightly. However, since Donald Trump’s election, the impeachment talks have been more frequent. It is no surprised that the Democratic Party (and most of the Republican Party) were not huge fans of the President. Let the media persuade you that they were trying to find ways to get him out since his campaign. More importantly, they thought getting rid of Trump was going to be an easy task. It seems they were in for a huge awakening!
What is Impeachment?
Before I get into the minutia of the 2019 Impeachment proceedings here in America, it should be explained how this thing all works. The Founding Fathers of the Constitution established impeachment as a way to accuse a president of a crime and to hold a trial to determine if he (or she) is guilty of that crime. The Constitution has laid out a president would have to be accused of high crimes such as treason and/or bribery, but certainly, if the crime is bad enough and outside the “Oath of Office”, it will fall under the scope of high crimes.
Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House
In theory, it is not easy getting rid of a president. The first step in the impeachment proceedings is an impeachment resolution must be introduced by a member of the House of Representatives. The speaker of the House must then direct the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary to hold a hearing based off the resolution to decide whether to have the entire House vote on said resolution and when to conduct said vote. If the resolution passes (by majority vote) in the Judiciary Committee, it will move to the House floor.
Simply put, if the majority of those present in the House approve an articles of impeachment, the president is impeached.
Sounds simple, right?
Nope! Remember American Congress is comprised of two sides: House of Representatives and the Senate. Once the House approves impeachment, it will move on to the Senate for the actual “trial”. Please note, there is no criminal proceedings to come from an impeachment trial. The basic notion of impeachment is removing said president from office. The procedure in the Senate trial is directed by the Senate Majority Leader. Members of the House will serve as “Managers” in the trial, which is a fancy term for prosecutors. The chief justice of the Supreme Court presides of the trial while the Senate hears the evidence presented by the House. Once evidence is heard, the Senate retires to deliberate on whether the president is guilty of a crime or not. The Senate will then conduct a two-thirds majority vote. If the president is guilty, then the president is removed from office and the vice president is sworn in. In the history of America, there have only been two trials, which both ended in acquittals: President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton
Trump and the Impeachment Shenanigans
How does this tie into the impeachment proceedings of today? The Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump for a while now. Members of the Senate and House have called for impeachment inquiries since before the Mueller report even began. The new series of investigations begun with the Ukraine Scandal, where Trump allegedly pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate Joe Biden while he was Vice President. It is not completely suspect for a president to question another leader of the motives of another political official. What is suspicious is the manner in how it was conducted. From an outsider looking in, the transcripts (read it here) sounded real mafia like. It almost sounded like bribery, and that is the questioned being asked amongst many Democrats and some Republicans:
How far did President Trump go?
There are high odds for the current President to be impeached with a Democrat majority; however, the chances of Trump being removed from office due to an impeachment trial? There are a higher chances of hell freezing over than Trump being removed from office with a Republican majority Senate. Although it would only take 34 of the 54 senators to find Trump guilty, it is very unlikely that Mitch McConnell’s Senate will vote him out of office. At this point, something drastic would have to happen for Trump to be out of office via impeachment such as a series of events similar to the Watergate Scandal and President Richard Nixon. Nevertheless, there is no real possible way to predict that outcome.
So Why Go Through With It?
The Democrats know the likelihood of getting rid of Trump is a pretty slim margin; however, the one thing that will come from this is public perception of the President, which could possibly help them in the 2020 elections. There is no surprise that the Democrats are playing into the field of the media perception, and they cannot be blamed from doing so. If roles were reversed, the Republicans would do the exact same thing.
Truth of the matter is that the opposing team wants to WIN. Whether the public or politicians want to admit it, the election of Trump was a HUGE surprised that shocked the world. In many ways, the Democrats are desperate to take back the White House, but they need to be careful of this desperation because the Republicans can play into this as well. Media perception can be a good influence, but sometimes it can have the opposite effect on public opinions as well.
The public could look at this as a quick gimmick to take back the White House. In many ways, if a President is corrupt and not taking the Oath of Office seriously, they indeed need to be reprimanded. Nonetheless, it is very interesting to see how the next few months will unfold and if the Democrats can prove their case.
