I am in Cambridge!

Great. I finally decided to continue my blog after a long, long rest:)
Now I am in Trinity College, Cambridge in the midst of the Freshers' Week. Today I had a first meeting with my tutor, that is the man who is always "on my side" (as he himself said). This tutorial system, I guess, is unique for Oxbridge because these people are always there to help with various personal stuff and it is very good to know that there is always somebody you can discuss your problems with.
Also today we had a matriculation photo. It took about an hour to position all freshers on the lawn of Neville's Court to take a decent photo of all of us. I believe it looked a bit weird when people in strange gowns dressed like Harry Potter were queuing to get their photo taken. So I guess, the photo looks like a photo with like two hundred Harry Potters.
There are lots of activities for Freshers' Week out here but I'm a bit impatient to get actually to work. Reading Natural Sciences never promised an easy life but I'm really eager to experience it first-hand.
Anyway, in due time I will get this blog in order covering all areas of interest for me from current affairs and politics to physics and science to personalia.

Don't strike, go to the polls! - 1

It is the first time that Labour has come so close to losing London. As you know, on May 1 Londoners are going to choose their new mayor. And it is possible that on the next day they will wake up with old Ken ousted by popular vote and other man seating in his chair. Who will be that man? Last poll, conducted on weekend, put Conservative Boris Johnson one per cent behind incumbent mayor and Labour candidate. It means that result is still unclear and depends on you coming out and going to booth to make your choice.
However merely the prospect of losing London spells for Labour a serious trouble. For many years the centre-left party had massive support of London liberal or left-leaning voters. New Labour efforts to curry favour with the City and businesspeople were successful: the party got support and donations from super-rich people and transformed London into the global hub of financial world.
But something happened. Brown's government is faltering. Wealthy businesspeople got cross with tax system and are moving out. Brown himself is very unpopular. Actually his rating is now on a par with that of Neville Chamberlain in 1940 just after the beginning of WW2. Over the last few days the PM was facing a fierce critique of his policy and several senior figures associated with Labour party question his judgement.
Taking into account recent developments losing London will just underscore an already shaped tendency in Labour's fortunes. These fortunes are going down. And it will be emphasised by the fact that the other candidate, Boris Johnson, does not seem very strong politician. For too long he was trying to be funny that many people do not view him as serious politician. He remains untested because he has not had senior posts. Much is known about his personality but very little about his administrative qualities. nobody can say whether he has enough experience to run such city as London that is more similar to small European country (both in terms of population and economic output).
On the other side, Ken Livingstone do not fare better either. He did not deliver on issues of crime, transport, public services. He is associated with troubled Labour party. Many Londoners are just tired of him.
What we have now is unpredictable result. But we will know the answer in few days. This election will show how deep Labour has fallen already and how much energy Tories have got from this fall so far.

Returning to work

Since I haven't been posting here for a while, tonight I'm going to return back. This is a hot period in UK politics. Time has come to state your opinion and go to the polling stations on May 1. We should make our voices be heard in corridors of Whitehall.
In run-up to May 1 I want to present a new series of political articles under common title "Don't strike, go to the polls!". It will comprise four articles starting from today till the election day. You can read them above this post.

Woody Allen is really great...

Yesterday I watched on the DVD Woody Allen's recent film 'Match Point'. This film was acclaimed by critics and many considered it as the best film Woody Allen has made over the last decade. And I can understand why.
First of all, the screenplay was wonderfully written and chain of events and consequences is utterly logical and understandable. Plot twists are assumed to underscore the main theme of the film - that of luck and its influence over our life. But I will return to the philosophical justification a bit later.
Woody Allen chose an amazing cast and all the leading actors made their contribution to the film while at the same time not obscuring the message Mr. Allen hoped to convey. It was the first movie Allen made in England and filming all these complex nets of human relationships on such a beautiful sets that were provided by ever-changing London combining modern city landscape with old-fashioned houses and stunning weather added delicate flavour to this story.
Match Point has in parts close resemblance to film noir style but also some reverberations of authentic Allen's style. Still he departed from his usual manner in centring the film around some similar to him figure (in fact, often played by Allen himself). In Match Point there is no such figure. However, Woody turned to obviously enticing for him theme of how luck influences our lives. This film has very strong philosophical subtext that can be summed in one sentence: luck has ultimate influence on people's lives. Making such a uninspiring and somewhat controversial point, this film slips into illustrating this point. It is magnificently underscored in the ending when a culprit gets away with murder, gets loving family and good job due to his luck.
Before this the main protagonist wants to have all - money, sexual pleasure, love, position etc. His life is guided by greed and lust. He is very rotten from the very beginning. Still the women he is related to aren't angels as well. One - his wife - is very selfish, she just wants babies, she loves him but doesn't understand his soul. In fact, he is too deep for her. Another one - with whom he has a fateful affair - is neurotic. When this affair leads to pregnancy, the protagonist is facing a dilemma: he can lose family, job, money under the intense pressure of his pregnant lover who demands immediate revealing of the affair and solving the situation. Leading character is dithering but at last he comes up with the solution - murder. He murders his lover and his unborn child (and, in fact, one old lady - another one of many references to Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky) and gets away with it because of his unbelievable luck.

American problem

Two score years ago on April 4th 1968 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. He who sacrificed his life to make his famous dream come true died when he was only 39. Just a day before he delivered his remarkable speech "I've been to the mountaintop" when he said at the end following words:

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

These words inexplicably foreshadowed his death. And delivering this speech he really sounded like a prophet. But not all his prophecies were realised.
People still aren't nowhere near the promised land. All discrimination laws were repealed and anti-discrimination statutes are implemented. There is no place for segregation in education, transport and other public services. One can see black people in all areas of human endeavour from entertainment to politics to academy. All these achievements over the past forty years mark the transformation that American society underwent.
However this transformation is not completed. America is still bitterly divided along the old racial lines. Many African-Americans see Mr. Obama as fellow black guy and vote for him because of colour of his skin while many white Americans vote for him hoping to prove (at least, to themselves) that they torn apart their racist past. The issue of race was raised during this campaign only to make louder voices demanding the solution of this issue. It gives away a deep trouble in American society.
Solution can't be found during one electoral campaign. Serious decisions can't be made during political fight because in political fight one who shouts louder gets more attention. Now this attention is grasped by populist orators and hateful preachers. And so those people who want to make a difference should shift away from populist message and come down to earth, to lay men with all their anxieties, grievances and prejudice.
There is only one solution - changing the mindset. It means something that can't be done by politicians no matter how skilled they are, by academicians no matter how smart they are, by civil rights advocates no matter how assiduous they are. It should be done by people, by ordinary Americans. When we will stop taking into account colour of skin of our neighbours, friends, partners, people around us and beyond, then we will come to the solution. When we will get rid of our subjective assumptions and fears, then we will come to the solution. When we will understand that we all are brothers in battle with barbarism, inhumanity and prejudice, then we will come to the solution. And when we will come to the solution, we will be a little step closer to the promised land.

The case against uncontrolled migration - 1

Recently the House of Lords Committee produced a report on the benefits of uncontrolled migration that blossomed under Labour rule. In fact, it couldn't find substantial benefits to the economy of the UK and assessed the overall impact of net migration as close to zero in long-term perspective. Such conclusions make Government's argument in favour of migration weaker than ever for it was primary Labour assertion that migration ostensibly brings "enormous" benefit to country's economy. When this way of reasoning is shown to be entirely false and based on rigged in favour of Government statistics, voices of critics of Labour strategy - or lack of any - gain strength.
Why? Because migration puts a considerable strain on our welfare state, on housing market, on NHS, on other public services. Words, coming from ministers who lament "shortfall" in workforce in the UK and praise hard-working migrants taking over jobs where "nobody wants to work", are utterly preposterous. We have here in this country one and a half unemployed "on training schemes" and about three million on incapacity benefit - and still Government needs foreign workers to fill gaps on job market? Why Labour don't want to make easier for unemployed people to find the job rather than inviting migrants and doping unemployed with welfare benefits? Taking into account a looming financial crisis, the situation now begs the question of why Labour did not do their utmost to empower unemployed people with jobs and not risk our stretched public services (leaving aside community cohesion). Labour showed a great incompetence and mismanagement dealing with economy as if they thought it was going to boom forever. Moreover, as government was (and is) promoting multiculturalism and such hospitality to new "British" workers as even translating in their native languages various documents (seemingly forgetting that only official language here is English language), it makes one wonder if it was a special kind of malignant strategy aimed at making this country fully cosmopolitan (i.e., uprooting national identity) and boosting the economy (and number of Labour voters) with arriving foreign people.
Where did this strategy lead us after ten years of Labour in power, we can see now.
Our economy has serious problems, our public services are over-stretched and the worst of all - the sense of community is badly damaged. This rather socio-cultural than economical phenomenon makes argument against migration so sound. And I will explore it in details over the next couple of days.

Glamour instead of policy

Last week was marked by the state visit of Nicholas Sarkozy and his wife to the UK. This visit was widely reported by national newspapers and sparked much buzz about a new era in Anglo-French relations.
Mr. Sarkozy delivered a speech about virtues of British people and referred to our Parliament as historical ancestor to other democratic institutes. He heaped praise on British resolve during WW2 and wanted to look like an Anglophile. In fact, he is one. Gordon Brown didn't lag behind and promised a new "Entente formidable" with French. Carla Bruni tried to look like First Lady should look like and to put her rather frivolous past behind. Many journalists and members of public were fascinated by her glamour and now she enjoys some kind of admiration by British public.
Yet it seems like another example of emotion taking over sensible analysis. Should we actually scrutinise what Mr. Sarkozy has done in France over the last year and what he offers to his partners both here and in the US, we would be surprised. Because for all his talk during the election season about new France and the greatest reforms in our generation, he abstained from realisation of his programme. Having encountered the powerful resistance of France's almighty unions, he clearly prefers not to make any decisive moves. His dithering though has had a negative impact on his poll ratings because now he is criticised from both sides of political spectrum. For left wing he is dangerous liberal reformist and for right wing he is ditherer not fulfilling his promises.
As for his talk about bigger NATO involvement of France it is noteworthy that he wants it on French conditions. As it was noted by American experts Sarkozy wants France to have voice in NATO decision process. This may lead to possible rifts and arguments within NATO when France would act versus plans of Britain and the US. Also France wants by its involvement in NATO to be the main pillar of European defence forces and to influence European defence policy. And here we come to another important point. Mr. Sarkozy is very fond of European Union and he wants to further the integration during his spell as President of the EU Council. He denied his own voters a vote on the Lisbon treaty and it seems he will do his utmost to write his name in history of the EU. He has some Napoleonic ambitions and his policies may lead to conflict with other EU members. Angela Merkel was already angered by Sarkozy's proposal of "Mediterranean Union" and this might be just the first sign of Paris falling out with major European powers.
While Carla wooed British public, her husband tried to woo his Anglo-Saxon partners. But we should understand the true reasons of his policy and to follow his actual deeds. For it seems there were many right words but no right deeds. With his promises not fulfilled, his slumping ratings and looming financial crisis, his private life being opened to public doesn't add much gravitas to his person. Yet people were more interested here in wardrobe of Sarkozy's wife than in his policies just as people across the pond are more inclined to hear lofty rhetoric than analyse sensible reform proposals. As for me, I prefer Obama's speeches to glamour of Carla Bruni. At least, they have some political meaning.
In this time of emotions and mood running the world we should use our brains to make our future. We should be cautious and consider all options. Therefore we shouldn't' be deceived by Sarkozy's apparent addiction to Anglo-Saxons for he is trying to push his own agenda - so we should guard our interests. As for Mr. Sarkozy, it would be better for him if he tried to refrain from posturing and restrain his ambitions and actually do the reforms he promised. For if even leaders don't keep their promises, how on earth can people trust politicians again?

Race matters

Last Tuesday Democratic front-runner Barack Obama delivered a brilliant speech on race issue. It was the first time when he addressed this issue in such an eloquent, insightful and personal manner. I am not a supporter of Obama nor do I think he will make a good president but the words were so professionally chosen that one just couldn't disagree with his message.
At first I read his speech in full and after that I watched it on YouTube.

Yes, his oratory skills somehow struck even me, non-American. And it is absolutely clear why so many people consider him the best candidate in their lifetime. He perfectly mastered the words to make his point understandable and at the same time to inspire the people he addressed to.
But there is something that you will see only after scrupulous analysis of what he actually said. He properly described black anger and white resentment, he properly underscored remaining inequalities. But he still didn't say substance. The most certain policy-oriented passage that I have found was:

Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.

Here he wants to talk about deeds but still he refers to uncertain ladders of opportunity that obviously represent an absolute good but don't transform to detailed policy proposals.
Another point of his speech that struck me in his choice of words was:

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life.

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag.

We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

Do you notice what "we" want in his opinion? "We" want to talk about this, talk about that - but what about doing this or that?
We don't want to talk, we want to do. If Mr. Obama doesn't understand it, then he isn't the person who we need as President of the United States. His rhetoric can not save us from a looming economic crisis. Now we need not words but deeds, policy proposals, contingency plans and strategic vision.
All generations want change. Americans are tired of Washington politics and Mr. Obama represents novelty in American politics. But speeches and words can't steer country from the dangerous situation with two wars and an economic crisis at hand. Mr. Obama is right when he talks about unity of black and white middle-class and working people in face of mighty corporations and credit crunch. But this unity should express itself in form of policy blueprints and reform proposals and not in form of fanatic rallying around one man who hadn't yet proved his political efficiency.
Mr. Obama considers his campaign as change but if this is all the change he offers voters should turn away from him and turn to more reasonable candidates. We want change but we will not accept as change inexperienced President running the world's leading economic and military power. Mr. Obama didn't repudiate his pastor who in his sermons said "God Damn America" and even compared Rev. Wright with his grandmother. Thus he supports the man who hates America and while he explicitly rejected Wright's views he still didn't answer the question why he hadn't challenged his minister on these issues before.
And here we come to the conclusion. Race issue is very complicated and Mr. Obama showed a considerable bravery addressing this issue. But complexity of this theme forced him to use abstract words not leading to any reasonable policy proposals. The analysis of his speech led me to the point that undermines his perceived bravery. What is more admirable: to address a complex issue but do it in a way that doesn't give away any concrete thoughts or not to address this issue at all?
So if you want to see some real change in the way of doing things and not in the way of pronouncing them, turn away from Mr. Obama. He still hasn't proved his ability to conjure reasonable policy proposals and to make them real. Maybe, he is too young for it. But if you want to see an experienced seasoned man in the White House, you should turn to John McCain.

Clinton comeback

So, yes, we are entitled to follow the Democratic race for another couple of months. After Hillary won popular vote both in Ohio and Texas, it seems that we will even be forced to wait till August and the Democratic convention to know who will secure the nomination.
John McCain won in all four states that voted yesterday and was endorsed today by President Bush. Now Mr. McCain can focus on uniting Republicans behind himself t get ready for the final showdown in November. The victory of Mrs. Clinton guaranteed that Democratic candidates will continue fighting each other and thus making life easier for John McCain.
Mr. Obama was heavily criticised by Mrs. Clinton in the past few days. He was pushed to the wall by questions over his dealings with Tony Rezko, a businessman and a donor to his campaign, who is currently under trial over fraud charges. Also a leaked memo on NAFTA spelt bad news for Obama. In this memo a senior Canadian official says that one of the Obama's economic advisers has said to him that Obama's criticism of NAFTA was "just politics". The issue of NAFTA is very important for such states as Ohio where the free-trade agreement is blamed for big job losses. Once more the question was raised about the Obama's campaign: there's real difference between speeches and deeds, isn't it?
So we return to the core issue of this election: can a messianic message and lofty rhetoric substitute experience and substance? Here in the UK people know, for certain, they can't. Inspiration is very important, indeed, I shall say that we really need it (especially, from Gordon Brown because he really likes to figure the details rather than grasp the spirit). But they should go together - inspiration and policy. This mixture - vision and substance, insight and seriousness, rhetoric and policy, words and deeds - is what we need from our politicians in the hectic life of modern world.

Russian presidential election – outside perspectives

Today is the big election day in Russia. Millions of Russians are going to polling booths to cast their vote. While there is almost no doubt that the chosen Putin’s successor Dmitry Medvedev will won the poll, this election still attracts a considerable interest.

The big question is whether Medvedev as President will overthrow his mentor, Putin, and use the constitutional power of presidency to run the country in his own way? By now there are no signs of him conceiving that. He has worked with Putin since the beginning of the 90s when they came across each other in St. Petersburg mayor headquarters. When Putin became Prime Minister of Russia in 1999 he took Mr. Medvedev with him in Moscow. President Putin continued care for Medvedev and made him the chief man behind social reforms in last years, the so-called ‘national projects’ that were met with enthusiasm by Russian society shattered by social anarchy of Yeltsin years. For several years Medvedev along with Sergei Ivanov, Russian former defence minister, was considered as one of possible successors to Putin. A few months ago, the decision was taken and Medvedev was publicly endorsed by Putin to run for President. The ensuing presidential campaign underscored the continuity of Putin’s policy that was shored up by victory of Putin’s United Russia in parliamentary elections in December. The campaign of United Russia was based on notorious ‘Plan of Putin’ that was never seen by the majority of Russian voters but was nonetheless unequivocally supported in the poll. The magic word ‘Putin’ and the perception that he has some kind of plan for Russia’s future worked perfectly. They work today too. On the streets of Russian cities one can see various posters depicting Putin and Medvedev together and suggesting Medvedev’s role more as running mate to Putin than actual candidate for presidency.

Victory for Medvedev seems unquestionable. The opposition candidates are miserable figures comprising old Communist Zyuganov, ultra-nationalist Zhirinovsky and Bogdanov, previously unknown liberal politician who was, as many commentators suggest, covertly endorsed by Kremlin to discredit the liberal opposition. Medvedev refused to participate in debates with other candidates and has received more air time than other presidential hopefuls. By constant reporting of Medvedev’s speeches and meetings with voters by state-owned media it sometimes seems that nothing is going on in the country ‘except Medvedev’.

To make victory seem more ‘legitimate’ Kremlin will try to fix the poll stuffing ballot boxes with ballots filled in for Medvedev by personal of polling stations and ordering public-sector workers and dependents (doctors, teachers, students etc.) to vote for him. This will make Medvedev’s lead in final results more formidable and secure.

What should do the West in the aftermath of this sham election? Medvedev’s ties with Putin are very strong and although he made some liberal statements in the past, now he moves along the Putin’s lines. He supported the closure of British Council regional offices saying that these offices are rammed with spies. He was running the state corporation Gazprom and so he is responsible for using energy cut-offs as means of reaching political objectives.

Western politicians, and the Conservative party in particular, should not have false hopes about his liberal inclinations. British government should deal with him and Putin robustly and resolutely making the point of British national interests while understanding Russian interests.

Although Russia undergoes resurrection on the world stage, she still isn’t as strong as she tries to look like. Russian conscript army is inefficient, Russian economy is over-reliant on resources and though Putin has tightened his grip on the country, various social protest movements are emerging that are uneasy about high inflation, low pensions, corrupt bureaucracy and ineffective social policy. Russia depends on the West as much as the West depends on Russia and even more. Russian elite can not more imagine its life without London clubs, Paris shops or Milan fashion. Still this elite along with bureaucracy is the main pillar on which stands Putin’s popularity for these people amassed a huge wealth under Putin’s regime.

Russian rulers understand that Russia’s future lies with Europe – because of that they are still trying to represent Russia as a democracy and do not use the authoritarian Chinese model. It is often said that throughout history Russian leaders were much more pro-European than their own subjects. Putin postures against the UK and the US but this is the residue of the Cold War that is still being waged in minds of many Russians after humiliation of the Yeltsin era and this is the cause why Putin’s confrontational policy is popular. But Russians will understand that the greatest threat to the country will come not from old Europe or the faltering US but from resurgent power of China and anarchy of Muslim world. This means that the West may still forge an alliance with Russia while defending its own interests. Russia may be the British ally in fight with Islamic fundamentalism and may become a reliable source of various resources to diminish British dependency on Islamic world.

The common misconception is that you either love and yield to Russia or hate and wage war with her. But there is the third way – you can deal with Russia to the benefit of both sides. This is what the Conservative Party should do if they form a government after the next election.

Middle East mistranslation

All big media organisations broke today with news of Israeli minister warning Palestinians of looming Holocaust. It was reported by Times (under inflammatory title "Israel threatens to unleash 'holocaust' in Gaza), Daily Telegraph and other news outlets. What did happen was actually this. Matan Vilnai, Israeli deputy defence minister, used the term 'shoah' speaking of consequences of continuing missile attacks on Israel from Gaza. "The more qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," he said. This was either mistranslated or misunderstood as a statement of ensuing holocaust for the Palestinians. While the term 'Ha-Shoah' means the Holocaust in modern Hebrew, a shoah has a literal meaning of catastrophe or disaster. The Israeli Government made this point clearly in a statement it issued to mitigate the impact from alleged misunderstanding. It said that Mr Vilnai meant 'disaster' and was not referring to the genocide. However it was too late to stop supporters of Hamas who used Vilnai's words to make their point of the genocide being exercised upon the Palestinians. They compared Israelis with Nazis while deliberately forgetting that it was their stubborn position and interminable war against the Jewish state that led to current sufferings of people in Gaza. From the beginning of the year more than one hundred missiles were fired from Gaza at adjacent Jewish towns like Sderot and Ashkelon. However this has not received much media attention and Hamas statement was reported by major news agencies along with some horrific pictures of Israeli 'atrocities' in Gaza on this week.
Yet this issue deserves putting in wider context. The considerable inclination by Palestinians and their Western supporters to see Israelis as modern Nazis is disturbing. Europe has been a home for the most terrifying genocides in recent history and now many Europeans feel guilty for their countries' involvement in these atrocities. But considering Israelis as Nazis and Israel as an apartheid state makes this guilty less uneasy. This is fostered by Muslim population in Europe that makes its own case for fight with 'racist Zionists'. Unlike the US where Jewish electorate still has a considerable influence over foreign policy, in Europe it is Muslims that stand by their ideas and have a share of votes.
The biggest question is whether we want to be on one side with Islamic terrorists and fundamentalists or with the single democratic state in the Middle East, whether we want to reject our allies and support our bitter enemies? It is whether we want to stand together as the Free World or to bow under barbarism and cruelty (and it refers not only to Islamic but to religious fundamentalism and terrorism altogether). This is the question that needs an urgent answer. And we should hope that self-deprecation wouldn't occupy the minds of our politicians and the answer will be the right one.

Dipped into tensor calculus

Just finished doing calculations for tomorrow. I had to perform the procedure known as tensor contraction on the electromagnetic tensor to prove that it gives a Lorentz-invariant scalar. Never thought that people at the first year in uni should do such things. I had to spend half an hour to understand how to make this contraction. Because electromagnetic tensor is 2-rank tensor after contracting it with itself one obtains 0-rank tensor that is scalar. So I found out the actual value which equals to H^2-E^2 (H-magnetic field, E-electric field).

US Election - race goes on

Now Hillary has everything at stake in Texas and Ohio on March 4. If she don't win there by huge margin, her hopes for presidency will be completely dashed. Yet it seems harder now taking into account Obama's 11 victories and his unstoppable momentum. Her lead in Texas has shrunk to several points, while in Ohio Obama narrows the gap too.
In order to maintain her positions Hillary has gone tough on Obama on recent rallies. She has once again praised her experience over Obama's inexperience, underlined her substance vs. Obama's abstract wording and even mocked Obama's prophetic style.

What will be the result of this bitter Democratic contest? While Democratic candidates scorn, sneer, and gibe at each other, Ralph Nader has entered the race. All this coupled can seriously undermine once well established lead of Democrats over Republicans (confirmed by the last Senate election results). In this fight it is the Republican candidate, John McCain, who can emerge as the winner. While excited by the Democratic contest, Obama's inspirational speeches and urgent demand of change, we should answer the following question: is McCain's possible win utterly undesirable for us who are not US citizens. Many people are exhausted by sometimes mad and stupid, sometimes arrogant and assertive Bush Administration but McCain is different. His stance over climate change has made him a considerable support even amongst liberals and also he criticised the Republican policy of tax cuts that was unquestionable since Reagan's era. But what seems his most important asset is his experience in foreign policy and national security. And these are the areas that should worry us as non-US citizens.
Here John McCain is on the right side of debate. He understands the current threat from Islamic extremism and he is in a good way stubborn and resolve to fight it and win. He understands an important role played by US allies and in the first row by the UK. For sure he will treat our special relationship as we deserve after our support in Afghanistan and, more importantly, Iraq. So then it will be up to our Lefties if they will put up with such a strong and confident Republican figure. I hope that his win might bolster our defence spending and army development while at the same time lead to the greater confidence of the West in the looming battle with extremism and fundamentalism of all kind that employs murdering of innocent civilians as means of reaching political objectives.
We shall see how this race will develop but whatever will be the result in November I hope that this display of democracy in action gives a good example to some countries in the world how modern people should govern themselves.

Conservative's self-destruction

Yesterday the Conservative party revealed a list of what it sees as 'gimmicks' made by Brown's government. The 4th number on the list pointed at government-backed school trips to Auschwitz. This list provoked an immediate outrage from wide range of commentators, including Ed Balls, Schools Secretary, and various Jewish organisations.
Cameron aides made a mistake. To describe the government plans to raise education level about Holocaust as a 'gimmick' is very damaging to the Conservatives' own agenda especially now while a lot of schoolchildren in this country seem to have not a clue about what happened in WW2. Proper teaching of history will eradicate this problem and I believe that conservatives should support any proposals dealing with this issue even if they stem from Labour think-tanks.
And this gaffe is another sign of shabby policy of opposition. The Conservative party languishes in constant bashing of Labour and criticises all their policy proposals while refraining of doing sensible policy statements of its own. Cameroons criticise Brown's dithering over number of issues (Northern Rock etc.) and it is quite appropriate. But when they pick a sensible government proposal and describe it as a 'gimmick' it makes no good them at all. When they are just sitting and watching Brown's obstacles while hoping that Brown will destroy himself they are not going to win people's support. Conservative party should stop this pernicious practice and make adequate policy proposals (on tax cuts, on renegotiating of the Lisbon treaty etc.) to win over swing voters. Only then they will become the Opposition we want them to be. Only then they will have all the chances to become the Government.

Rendition scandal

Today Foreign Secretary David Miliband told MPs that British territory was used by two CIA rendition flights. It came after confident denials by then Prime Minister Tony Blair and Jack Straw in the last year. Mr. Miliband actually was forced to apologise over misleading Parliament. He said that Her Majesty's Government hadn't had any information about it before yesterday due to some errors in American bureaucratic machine. As soon as these problems were tackled, US officials informed ministers on this issue.
What seems to me absolutely stunning in this story is that the UK Government doesn't know what is happening on its own territory. As far as I know, Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean where CIA planes landed for refueling , is still British Overseas Territory. Yet it seems that the US can do whatever they want on their base situated on the island while not notifying their British partners. Just imagine that they could use torture on British soil and the UK government wouldn't know anything about it. It is absolutely unacceptable that it takes an US official to notify ministers on what is going in their land.
The so-called 'special relationship' has to be reconstructed on fair basis, providing that Britain's voice will be heard in corridors of Washington and Britain won't be obliged to sign up to another military venture of the US. Having overstretched army right now fighting on ground in Iraq and Afghanistan we just can't afford to be embroiled in another 'quick and victorious ' war.

Obama's Yes We Can Message

These days people all over the world are following the US primaries' season. I also keep my eye on progress. Having spotted this viral video featuring song performed by will.i.am and various artists in support of Obama I couldn't help but watched the infamous New Hampshire concession speech when he delivered Yes We Can message (see below).



Obama genuinely seems to be the most inspirational and gifted orator without doubt in this campaign. Yet the question is who will better run the country. Of course, this ability is not determined by the insightful and brilliantly delivered speeches but by substance and experience. It seems to me that Obama is on the wrong side in these points. As Gerald Baker writes in Times Obama's policy proposals strike the chord with the far-Left wing of the Democrat party. His wife, Michelle, said on this week that during this campaign it was the first time she felt proud about America. So she is about as patriotic as your fellow European could be. This is quite unusual in the USA, it must be said.
What worries me most about Obama is his foreign policy proposals. While making fair judgement about faltering American image in the world, he derives from it wrong conclusions. America must show leadership and resolve, unifying her allies to fight the common threats. Yet Obama proposes some kind of strategic retreat and suggests giving decision power to the obsolete and ineffective UN. Without doubt Iraq War was a great mistake of Bush administration but when the US are already in, it is quite unreasonable to go away leaving Iraq in the mess of possible civil war (now effectively stopped by the 'surge') and vulnerable to attacks from neighbouring Iran.
Our fight with terrorism is the question of our survival and being 'soft' does not greatly enhance our chances for victory. As American own history has showed, freedom and democracy are values worth to stand by. As FDR said Yes We Can Win on behalf of American people to Hitler's challenge, so today's world leaders (and American in the first line) should say on behalf of their people Yes We Can Win to fundamentalist challenge.

Crossing the start line

Hi

It's my first post on this blog. I am an undergrad physics student, having strong interest in theoretical physics, philosophy, history and politics as well as good movies and various music. And of course, I love going out and sometimes get drunk :).
As Einstein once said

All religions, arts and sciences... are directed toward ennobling man's life

so I will try to do a bit of all to ennoble my readers' lives. I hope you appreciate it.
Ready to go!