English Social Studies

The first-past-the-post represemtation - is it a fair system?

2010-06-01T17:47:00.006+02:00

It is easy find loopholes in the British political system when it comes to ensuring democratic values. One is the fact that the House of Lords consists of peers who are appointed by the Queen as opposed to being a result of a public election. Another is the prime minister’s ability to call for a new election whenever he wants within a period of five years. A third one is the British electoral system of voting, namely the first-past-the-post representation. I have looked thoroughly at the system of voting in the UK trying to find the main negative and positive aspects to the first-past-the-post representation.

The UK is divided into 646 constituencies, each with the right to one seat in the House of Commons. Having just one seat in disposal, the representative with the most votes in his or her constituency wins the seat. This means that the total of representatives does not necessarily reflect the votes of the British people considering many votes are “wasted” in the battle of allocating the mandates. How can this be a positive thing?

Firstly, the representative who wins can perform an accurate and targeted policy. They do not need to compromise to meet the other parties’ demands as opposed to in a proportional system of allocating seats. In the UK, there are three parties, which dominate the politics: The Conservative party, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. When there are two or three parties that are clearly the strongest, it produces single-party governments that do not have to rely on support from other parties to pass legislation. This makes the first-past-the-post representation strong-handed, especially because the representatives do not need to spend time compromising their political views. Nevertheless, this can also be viewed as a negative aspect of the UK politics when we look at the position of the smaller parties. People tend to vote for the bigger parties, which they know have a better chance of winning. The minor parties do not have a chance of winning and therefore it is hard for new parties to have a say in the British politics.

As I have explained already, this type of electoral system does not benefit the minority as well as in a proportional representation. When the first representative is past the post it does not matter how close behind the other candidates were. You could say that those votes are wasted because they count for nothing. If you look at the winning party, namely the party getting the overall biggest representation in the constituencies, they rarely represent the absolute majority, meaning that they get more than half of the votes. Considering there are several candidates fighting to win in each constituency, it does not happen often that an MP gets more than 50 % of the votes in his or her constituency. On a larger scale, this means that the majority of the British population did not vote for the winning party. The plurality of the voters would rather have another party leading the country, than the party that legitimately won the election.

This thought seems quite bizarre and completely in lack of democracy. However, there are many who view proportional representation as a betrayal. In a proportional representation the voters do not get what the majority voted for. Instead, they get a coalition between several parties. Whether you believe proportional or first-past-the-post representation is more democratic depends on how narrow your reasons behind your vote are. If you view voting for a party as agreeing with most of their policies and wanting their politic views to interfere the whole society you might feel betrayed when the winning party have to "share" the power with the minorities. After all, people who voted for them are the biggest group in Britain agreeing on the same party's policies to dominate fully. In this way, a first-past-the-post system is easy to justify.

Having small constituencies, where each of them elects one candidate to represent them, gives more political power to the interest groups. Interest groups might have a lot more to say in the UK than in the Norwegian political system. If many people in a constituency are eager to prevent the installation of windmills, an activist working against the windmill installation might have good chances of winning a seat in the House of Commons. It might be that the population in that constituency holds their wish to prevent windmills so high, they vote for him. Having single-seat constituencies might nevertheless benefit the just representation of the UK population because local issues are being taken up on a larger scale. The MPs representing their constituency is stressing the fact that they want to do what is best for their constituency. This creates a system in which the politicians are better equipped to meet the demands of their voters.

Both the proportional and the first-past-the-post representational system have flaws when it comes to ensuring democratic values. In my opinion, I support the proportional system fully because it resembles the votes of the people in the best way. The fact that everyone has a say is more important than steady and focused politics in the charge of the party that got the most votes. However, I think the British political system has some aspects to it that makes it work sufficiently, for instance having the House of Lords, which can impose area expertise before deciding on a law or a passage.

The Election in the UK - debate

2010-04-27T10:09:00.004+02:00

Today we watched a debate between the three political party in the UK: The Labour Party, The Conservative Party and The Liberal Democrats. It is always hard to decide who wins such a debate. However, if I have to name one of them I would say that Nick Clegg from LibDem was the winner. He formed his arguments nicely without being aggresive. It is also worth mentioning that LibDem is a party which has not been represented as strongly as the two others in parliament. Therefore Nick Clegg does not have that much to apologize for, as opposed to Gordon Brown and David Cameron, whose parties have been the two most popular for decades.

"This is England"

2010-03-28T19:29:00.003+02:00

Previous lesson we watched a film called”This is England.” The film is written and directed by Shane Meadows. The film, which is characterized as a drama came out in 2006.

The film is about the skinhead subculture in England in the 1960. The subculture originated among the working class youth and was influenced by the mod culture and rude people. They shaved their heads and their clothing, music and lifestyle showed signs of West Indian and Jamaican influence. Originally, skinheads had no specific relation to politics but later they have become associated with racism.

In “This is England” we meet a 12-year old Shaun who lives with his mum. His dad died in the Falkland war. Shaun does not have many friends and he gets into a fight one day when someone at his school makes an offensive joke about his dad. He then gets in touch with skinheads on his way home. They are a lot older than he is but they accept him as one of them. The “leader” called Woody becomes some sort of a brother figure to Shaun. He also develops a romance with Smell, a girl with a punky new-wave type of style. Everything changes when a former member of the group, Combo, comes back from sentencing in prison. He is angry and tries to bring a nationalism into the group. Even if Milky, who is a black skinhead who has immigrated from Jamaica is a part of group, he tries to impose a conviction that immigrants and black people steal jobs from the British workers. Combo identifies with Shaun and becomes a father figure. Shaun adopts the racist and nationalist views and one day he even mugs his local shopkeeper who is also black. One day Combo snaps and beats Milky unconscious. The film ends when Shaun throws his flag, which is a symbol of the friendship with Combo, into the sea.

I really enjoyed this film. “This is England” nicely portrays the life of a young boy and how it is easy to be convinced by your friends to do things you would not have done otherwise. Especially if you do not have that many friends and are afraid of losing the ones you have. The film is also about the love and protection a mother has for her son. It was easy to indentify with the main characters even if the social environment of the film seems distant.

I can confirm that a lot of what we saw in the film teaches the views a lot about working class England. The people, the accent, the houses and the society were all very similar to what I experienced living in York last year. Even a subculture that is very similar to the one of the skinheads still breathes in the area I used to live. They are called “chavs” The term “chav” is typically associated with unemployed British teenagers, mainly with a white working class background. They are frequently involved in crimes and are among those people you would not want to provoke or approach with when walking alone. I liked watching a film about a society I felt I had some real life experience with. However, I do recommend other people to watch “This is England.” It paints a realistic picture of the subculture of working class England as well as being entertaining and exciting all the way through!

"The Catcher in the Rye"

2010-03-27T18:09:00.003+01:00

After some time I have finally managed to finish my reading of”The Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger. This book has fascinated and touched millions of readers. It has become one of the classics and many people hold this as their favourite peace of literature. “The Catcher in the Rye” is told from the narrator Holden Caulfield’s point of view. The book begins with Holden being kicked out of Pencey Prep. High school a few days before they break up for Christmas. He cannot go home because his family are not expecting him until a few days later. He decides to spend those days in between in New York. The whole book spins a tale around these few days. During these days, Holden is a bit of an emotional wreck. He goes from place to place, meets with strangers as well as some of his old friends. He spends his money on taxi rides, restaurants and drinks. “The Catcher in the Rye” conveys a story about self-evolvement and self-perspective. It is mainly about Holden’s thoughts about the people he meets.

What hit me the most when I read “The Catcher in the Rye,” was Salinger’s success in portraying Holden’s character. A lot of the writing conveys Holden’s thoughts directly. This is a very brave way of writing considering how hard it is to make a character appear realistic. With Holden, however, it feels exactly like you know him, even if you have only read a few chapters. I believe everyone can see a bit of themselves or a bit of someone they know in Holden. Due to Salinger’s brilliant work, it is hard and sad to think about the fact that Holden is only a fictional character. This is supported by the rough language and the slang Salinger uses. Words like “sonuvabitch,” “buzz” and “hellya” are examples of words Holden says all the time. There language resembles the one of a typical teenager with little variation and few advanced words.

This way of writing, makes Holden appear as a typical teenager. He is a bit on top of his head, but at the same time very immature and fragile. He seems very pessimistic and is annoyed easily. “It killed me” and “That depressed me” are phrases he uses a lot when small incidents happen that he does not like. Most people would never bother about these incidents or even consider them annoying. It seems like absolutely anything could bother Holden in some way, like for instance in this excerpt: “Oh sure! I like somebody to stick to the point and all. But I don’t like them to stick too much to the point. I don’t know. I guess I don’t like when somebody sticks to the point all the time.” Throughout the book, it becomes clear that there is a deeper depression behind his negativity. He is definitely depressed but I do not think it is more severe than an average “bad period” of a teenager’s life. Holden is also protective guy with his morals in place. We see this through the way he treats his younger sister, Phoebe, like for instance in this excerpt: “I sort of looked at her for a while. She way laying there asleep, with her face sort of on the side of the pillow. She had her mouth way open. It’s funny. You take adults, they look lousy when they’re asleep and they have their mouths way open, but kid’s don’t. Kids look all right. They can even have spit all over the pillow and they still look all right.”

This book is more a psychological observation of a typical teenager than anything else. It is therefore natural that the hidden message of the book surrounds this topic. In my opinion, the message in “The Catcher in the Rye” does not attempt to teach the readers anything, as it does in most other books. It is mainly an observation and confirmation of a teenager’s way of thinking. The purpose of this book is to show the readers that it is normal to have ups and down and to be filled with both love and hate at the same time. I believe the personality and behaviour of Holden is the message in itself.

I have to be honest and say that I did not particularly enjoy reading “The Catcher in the Rye.” It is a splendid book when it comes to portrayal of the narrator and I definitely see how this book has become one of the classics. However, it was nothing for my taste. Perhaps because I am a girl and I do not recognize the relaxed and “I can’t be bothered” attitude boys sometimes have when they are in their teens. Nevertheless, I would recommend this book for readers the ages above 12. It is worth reading it because if you like it, I believe it will be one of those you will never forget!

Question Time - is it even about politics?

2010-03-09T13:14:00.002+01:00

Today we got an assignment that was a bit different to what we are used to working with. We had to pretend we were journalists present at the Question Time session of 24th of February 2010 in the House of Commons. We were supposed to write for newspapers supporting either one of the three big parties, and Camilla and I chose to represent a newspaper supporting the Labour party. We chose to focus on the rhetorical aspects and the behaviour in the heated discussions.

The discussion went red hot during Question Time in Parliament the 24th of February 2010. David Cameron's poor attempts to strip Gordon Brown’s arguments for depth were weak. Even so, we cannot say that Brown was acting flawlessly either. Important political issues were discussed. However, they almost drowned in shouting, mocking and childish behaviour.

Firstly, a small induction to the formal frames of what seemed to be a fight between childish siblings, namely Question Time. Question Time in a parliament appears when the oppositional MP's and the other MP's hear the Prime minister and the ministers out on whichever topic they would like to ask. The Prime minster and the ministers are obliged to answer the questions. Such questions also appear frequently during normal days in Parliament. However, Question Time is a period of time with the sole purpose of asking questions. Questions by the opponents are asked with the aim of both attacking the leading party, but also to influence and make them aware of certain dilemmas.

Gordon Brown elegantly introduced his presence by taking a minute to tribute the seven British soldiers who bravely sacrificed their lives in the war in Afghanistan. He also mentioned the importance of these men as they have decreased the danger of terrorism in the streets of the UK. All other speakers followed up with similar tributes. Other topics that were on the agenda of the 24th of February Question Time were cancer treatment, the economy and hospital management failure.

No matter how interesting these topics are, what merely astonished me was the similarity between a kinder garden and the hullabaloo situation in the House of Commons. The amount of noise, aggressive gestures and provoking comments made the whole thing ridiculous. At one point, it seemed more relevant to mock the opposing party, rather than performing politics. For instance, David Cameron and the Conservatives laughed harshly when Brown mentioned how the Conservatives never talk about the economy. Cameron followed this up by tauntingly claiming that Brown will "leave the country poorer than when he begun." This is a completely irrelevant argument considering the impact of the global financial crisis, which you cannot blame Brown for. Other than that, there were rude pointing, slamming and shouting coming from both parties. Eventually it all resulted in a chaos which provoked Mr. Speaker to stand up and say: "If members do not stop shouting, I may have to ring some sort of help line myself - or, worse still, suspend the sitting. This sort of noise and ranting makes an extremely bad impression on the British public. I appeal to the House to have some regard for the way in which we are viewed by the electorate."

There were big differences in how Brown and Cameron approached each other. Whilst Brown mainly focused his attention towards his fellow "labourers," as if his purpose was to get their consent, Cameron addresses his arguments to the opposing party. This shows were the focus of the politics lies, namely on the Labour's policies. Many of Cameron's arguments are irrelevant to the conservative politics. In some cases, he seems more of a comedian than a serious politician. For instance, he claims that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are at war and states: "If they get any closer, they will start kissing." It seems like Cameron is merely trying to attack the personal Brown rather than conveying his own politics. Could this be because he lacks criticism of the Labour politics?

If you want, you can watch the filming of the Question Time 24th of February 2010 here! (Warning: It is more than 8 hours long!)
You can find the transcript here!

"Charlie Wilson's War"

2010-02-16T19:38:00.004+01:00

Charlie Wilson was an important American politician. He is mainly known for his efforts in the cold war and the war in Iraq. Wilson just died (10th of February 2010) and in this occasion we watched the film called "Charlie Wilson's war." The film is about the most recognized part of his career, namely the battle of the war.

The Soviet-Afghan conflict was a violent war during the period of the Cold War. There were attacks from 1979 up until 1989. Communist Soviet wanted to conquer Afghanistan in order to make it a part of the Soviet union and presumably to show the USA that they were a strong power. After being appointed to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defence he visited a refugee camp in one of the Soviet occupied territories of Afghanistan. He there experienced what terrible consequences the Soviet army had put on the Afghan people in the refugee camps. He met children who were amputated because on mines which they thought were toys, starvation, sickness, hatred and a lot of need. He therefore decided that the USA had to do something in order to help them. He therefore suggested that they would provide Mujahideen and with ammunition. Mujahideen was a group of Afghan oppositionists of the Soviet government of Afghanistan. The purpose for giving the weapons was for them to shoot down Soviet helicopters. It was a complicated operation which had to go through many links and persons due to the risk that Soviet would find out Afghanistan had received support from the USA. The mission succeeded and Soviet never managed to take over the power of Afghanistan.

However, there were downsides to this operation which I do not think the US government is particularly proud of today. After the Afghan people had fought against the Soviet communists the country was completely ruined and in desperate need of aid to both people and to build the country up again. But the Americans had already helped Afghanistan and withdrew from the country. This was a mistake. As Wilson's famous quote puts it so nicely: "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame." In the cold water of the Soviet and Afghanistan the well known political movement, Taliban, came into existence. It was also at this point that Obama appeared as a dominant leader. They were angry that the USA were leaving all responsibility behind when they left Afghanistan. They used the weapons and power Americans and Charley Wilson had given them and formed fundamentalist groups who strongly oppose the USA and the western world. This is an ironical twist to a story which originally had good intensions.

In my opinion the film portrayed Charlie Wilson very well. I feel that I learned a lot about him just watching it. In addition to experiencing how he was like as a political person we get to know about his personal life as well. He was find of women and alcohol and lived a rough life. I definitely recommend this film. It teaches the viewer a lot about an interesting man in American politics as well as how one man can change so much if he has the guts, wish and interest in what goes on in the world!

If you want, you can watch the film trailer here

The relationship between China and the USA - New topic for my senior project

2010-02-09T19:09:00.004+01:00

This is very last minute, but I have decided to change my senior project topic. I have worked quite a lot collecting information about Obamas foreign policies but I could not quite find a proper structure to it. Additionally it became too wide and I realised I do not have the time or capacity to cover such a complicated topic.
I therefore decided to choose one aspects of the American foreign policies, namely the relationship between the USA and China. This is an important issue of the years to come. These are some of the questions I will cover:

- Why is the relationship between USA and China so important today?
- How has the relationship between the nations developed historically?
- How is it today? (Chinas economy is decreasing rapidly. USA has a massive debt to China.)
- What are the prospects of the USA/China relationship? (Climate, defense, weapons, economics, international power and recognition, form of government etc.)

I have the whole weekend to work on this project, so I think I'll be fine starting from scratch such a short time before deadline :)

Working on Senior Project

2010-02-02T15:10:00.006+01:00

After over sleeping, falling over while running to the bus stop, waiting an hour in ten minus for several buses that never came I decided to walk back home before my horrible karma could ruin even more this Tuesday morning. The absence registration system even works in a stupid way which makes it more beneficial for a student to take a day than 3 hours off.

So today, I have primarily been working on my senior project. As mentioned earlier I am writing a senior project on Obama’s foreign policies, USA’s political role internationally with emphasis on Obama’s status as a world leader. I have studied which ideologies and ideas are behind the Obama administration’s foreign strategies. I have found out quite a lot and it amazes me what you can find out through Wikipedia. (Although you have to be critical as anyone can publish his or her article there) I have found material in which I can use to compare the basic ideas behind Bush’s and Obama’s foreign policies. Additionally I have made a disposition of my senior project article. This will make it a lot easier to put the whole text together at the end.

I am very much looking forward to see what I can learn from such a project and I am working eagerly as this is a topic that interests me :)

I have read the first chapters of "The Catcher in the Rye"

2010-02-02T14:33:00.002+01:00

Currently I am reading the well-known novel The Catcher in the Rye. It is the only novel written by author J.D Salinger and it was published in 1951. More than 65 million samples have been sold and the book has been translated to nearly every language in the world. The plot is about an American teenage boy who goes to New York after being expelled from his school, Pencey Prep.
Seeing how famous this book is I was and still am curious about it. Wanting to read The Catcher in the Rye rather than The Road (which were our other option) I started a few weeks ago and have now read 13 chapters.

To be honest, I am a bit disappointed. I have read nearly half of the book already and it has not really given me anything yet, not even the wish to carry on reading. I will finish it, however. Salinger is good at making his characters appear very much alive compared to former books I have read. We get to know the main character, Holden Caulfield, easily and suddenly it feels like we already know him. However, I do not identify with him at all. Normally I find it easy to empathise with the fictional characters but not this time. This is merely my fault though, and not about the quality of the book. To say that I am exited to continue my reading would be an exaggeration. Still, there are loads of chapters to be read. Perhaps the next few of them will catch a bit more of my interest.

NObama!

2010-01-26T10:22:00.004+01:00

Previous lesson we watched a documentary called “Right America: feeling wronged – some voices from the campaign trail.” Alexandra Pelosi, the film maker, took a road trip around the USA prior to the presidential election to interview some of the conservative voters. In Europe Obama is looked upon as a hero and world leader. We easily take it for granted that he is likewise popular in the USA. However, this is not the case, according to Pelosi’s documentary.

58 million Americans voted for John McCain during the election 4^th of November 2008. In “Right America: feeling wronged” we learn that some of the republican voters had a stronger opinion behind their vote than others. They have several reasons for rejecting Obama and some of them appear extremely engaged in the election. As it was a matter of life and death. Republican voters even cry and claim that Obama as a president will mean WW3. It is therefore important to take account of the fact that this documentary only shows the extreme “NObamaism.”

Many of the conservative voters are quite religious. They do not support homosexuality or abortion and believe Obama’s views on these topics are too liberal. Some quotes from the documentary are: “I hope there are enough Christians in the world to save us” and “We need a pro-life who is for the unborn”

It seems like the anti-Obama voters mostly represent people living in the country. In the documentary, they claim that Obama does not represent the average American at all. Obama attended prestigious schools such as Harvard University and has lived his whole life as a city boy in Chicago. People living in the country have the general opinion that Obama cannot rule USA when he does not know the what they claim to be “the real Americans.”

It is also a strong belief that Obama is an enemy among owners of small businesses. Obama’s fiscal policies involve levying higher taxes on the owners of small businesses. This is a part of the new health plan. A strong opinion throughout the documentary is that this will ruin many of the smaller businesses.

Objections to Obama as a president also involve the view that Obama’s foreign policies will not protect the USA properly. The conservative voters in the documentary claim that Obama’s role as a democratic world leader will weaken his emphasis to protect the American people from the threat of terror.

Personally, this documentary surprised me a bit. Obviously, there has to be millions of people who do not adore Obama to bits. Still I had never thought that there were this many people who object Obama to that extreme extent. T-shirts, anti-Obama songs, and massive petitions and demonstrations were held. There are also web pages such as http://www.hellnobama.com/, http://nobama.com/ and http://www.nobama.tv/ in existence.

I do not know whether this extreme protestation is unique in terms of dissenting presidents. However, I do believe all president candidates meet severe resistance, though in different areas and groups of people.

If you want, you can watch the whole documentary here:

This term

2010-01-12T10:18:00.003+01:00

This term I am going to write a senior project on America's foreign policies and Obama's role as a world leader. I will be studying how Obamas' foreign policies are different to those of former presidents. The American foreign policies and international role today will be also covered. I will also take a closer look at how Obama is more of a world leader than just a leader of the US.

This term I am planning to study really hard. As well as completing a vaster amount of the assignments we get I wish to learn as much as possible in order to be prepared for an exam. I will read my homework well and do my written work thoroughly.

"The Valley of Elah"

2010-01-06T18:59:00.005+01:00

A few lessons before Christmas we watched a film called “The Valley of Elah” which tackles a bunch of social issue as well as the other films we have previously watched. It is directed by Paul Haggis and the cast consists of famous actors such as Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon. The plot spins around the story of a father who gets the terrible message that his son is missing after just having returned from the war in Iraq. He cannot resist from interfering the investigation when he discovers the sloppy work the police investigators do. With his help and interpretations of the evidences, they conclude that he was killed innocently by a friend of his who is also a soldier. His body was found burnt and slaughtered to pieces. His death was a result of a post-traumatic co-soldier’s anger.

The film also tackles discrimination at work. The police woman, who investigates the case with the dead soldier, is being harassed by her male colleagues. She has a profession which is dominated by men. Still she is tough and tells them off when they do not act professionally. The film is about family relations as well. The importance of family and strong bonds between divorcees are emphasized.

I definitely enjoyed this film a lot! In addition to being entertaining it is frightening to face that what is being tackled in “The Valley of Elah” are realities of today. I think it was good to see a film which challenges our conception of how honest the work of the police is. Additionally we get to see how it is like for parents to lose their son and how your work life can suddenly take a step into your private life. I definitely recommend “The Valley of Elah.”

Lecture on the American Constitution!

2009-12-01T12:53:00.020+01:00

This lesson had the privilege of having an American visitor. Her name is Leann and she told us about the American Constitution. I was really impressed by what she taught us and the handouts and funny artworks she used to make us engaged. For instance, she made us read the constitution written on license plates for cars. (Try and read on the image above)It was also interesting to listen to a native English speaker, as her English is closer to how we aim to speak than our English, which is more or less influenced by Norwegian. We focused merely on the preamble, the first part of the constitution. It consists of as little as 52! Here it is:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, ensure the blessings of liberty and our posterity, establish this constitution for the United States of America."

It is difficult to see what the content of the constitution really is because the meaning behind it is compressed into short sentences. Today we saw what each line of the preamble stands for and what history lies behind them:

“We the people of the United States”
- Americans is a proud people and with this they want to ratify their unity.

“in order to form a more perfect union”
-Prior to the constitution the Articles of confederation held America together as a state. The five commissioners who wrote the constitution were only supposed to improve this confederation. Nevertheless they wrote a new American constitution.

“establish justice and ensure domestic tranquillity”
- There shall be tolerance amongst people to provide justice and people shall feel calm and safe in their homes.

“provide for the common defence”
- The United States of America shall have an army to protect the nation.

“promote the general welfare”
- The goal must always be to better the everyday life of the American citizens.

“ensure the blessings of liberty and our posterity”
- Take care of our freedom and bear in mind the America which is to be delivered to our children.

“establish this constitution for the United States of America.”
- This speaks for itself. However, the fact that the American constitution is the eldest constitution still in use today is quite interesting!

Harvey Milk

2009-11-30T21:27:00.005+01:00

Previous lesson we watched the American biographic film ”Harvey Milk.” (You may watch the trailer here!)The film is about a man by the same name who fought for the rights of the gay in America in the 60s and 70s. Early in the film, Harvey Milk and his boyfriend Scott Smith move to San Francisco, which is the only city in the US where gays can be more or less open about their sexuality. They buy a shop in which they in addition to running a business in engage homosexuals in different campaigns. In line of other accomplishments, the gays manage to boycott the beer label Coors and the gays are hired to do other types of campaigning as well. As the gays manage to get their voice heard through leading boycotts Milk realises he can expand his little gay community. He wants the acceptance for homosexuals to sweep the nation. As persistent as he is, he starts with the Castro Street where his shop is. He runs to for an election to be a supervisor for his constituency. His well-known statement: “It’s not just about winning” was important, as he did not win until the third time he ran for an election. Harvey Milk became a supervisor of San Francisco in 1977 and showed the US that homosexuals are well capable of running politics.

I have watched “Harvey Milk” twice and I really like this film. It shows us how it is possible to make a difference. As opposed to other films, “Harvey Milk” emphasises the difficulties and antagonism of trying to reach out in politics. This makes the film different to former films I have watched about making a difference. For Harvey Milk it was a long way to political importance but his activism never faded. This film can definitely be an inspiration and encourage people who wish to spread their opinion. Harvey Milk put down a lot of work and effort to reach the success he finally had which paid off for so many people other than himself. In my opinion, the most important message in “Harvey Milk” is that the people are the ones with the power to reform a society. You cannot expect the government to be rational. If you as a part of a minority feel as if you are treated unfairly, YOU are the person who has to do something!

The British Electoral System: First-past-the-post

2009-11-10T16:19:00.004+01:00

Today we learned about British politics. In addition to reading about the English legal system we watched two films. One was merely a joke about a man who wanted to be a dictator and the other one described the English voting system thoroughly. What really interested me was how the constituencies and allocation of mandates worked.

As opposed to Norway, which has a proportional representation of members in their legislative branch (Stortinget) United Kingdom has a first-past-the-post system. This means that United Kingdom is divided into 646 constituencies, each with the right to one seat in the House of Commons. The sitting Prime Minister can hold elections whenever he wants within a period of five years. If he is very popular in one period, he might run an election because he expects to be chosen for another five-year period. When there is an election, parties campaign in each constituency. Through the country 646 elections are held. In each constituency, the representative with the most votes wins. This means that the total of representatives does not necessarily reflect the votes of the British people.

There are both positive and negative sides to this. Firstly, on the positive side, the representative who wins can perform a more accurate and targeted policy. They do not need to compromise to meet the other parties’ demands. Many people view proportional representation as a betrayal because the voters do not get what the majority voted for. They get a coalition between several parties instead. This makes the first-past-the-post representation strong-handed, especially because the representatives do not need to spend time compromising their political views.

There are some negative aspects to the first-past-the-post representation as well. As I have said already, this type of electoral system does not benefit the minority as well as in a proportional representation. When the first representative is past the post it does not matter how close behind the other candidates were. In a way you could say that those votes are wasted. Another problem with this electoral system is that there are more difficult for smaller parties to be represented. People tend to vote for the bigger parties they know have a chance of winning. The minor parties do not have a chance of winning and therefore it is hard for new parties to get a say in the British politics.

Cross-country skiing!

2009-11-02T21:01:00.000+01:00

It is a common myth that Norwegians are born with skis on. Believe it or not, this is not true. However, most parents introduce their children to their first cross-country skis when they are very young- even before their balance is fully developed. Nevertheless, most Norwegians never get to the level of becoming professionals although we do have famous skiers such as Bjørn Dæhlie, Ole Einar Bjørndalen and Marit Bjørgen.

Most of us are satisfied when we get to a level in which we are capable of using our skiing skills for being as typical a Norwegian you could possibly be. This includes packing a rucksack with dry mittens, toilet paper, a chocolate bar called Kvikk Lunsj (quick lunch), juice and matches and everything else you might need during a skiing trip. In most cases, Norwegians go cross-country skiing with their family, even if the age and speed varies. It is nearly a written rule that either the skis are to clingy or they are too slippery. The wax is never perfect. Your hands are always cold and your parents are always annoyingly thrilled that the whole family does something as idyllic as this.

These are the rules of the Norwegian cross-country skiing, if you are not performing on a professional level of course. In spite of the fashion changes in ski outfits and ski-waxes, the rules have persisted and probably will exist for as long as the Norwegians and the myth that we are born with skis on does.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the ending of the Cold War!

2009-10-27T13:50:00.003+01:00

During the Cold War Soviet and USA had fought a war in which no battles took place. It was a Cold War, meaning that the two countries prepared for the breakout of a new war by aggressively building up their military equipment and armies. People feared that a nuclear war would happen, seeing both countries had developed nuclear weapons. Both USA and Soviet spent all their money on military expenses. Famine spread and in Soviet, people needed coupons to buy everything, even socks! Luckily, the Cold war ended when the Berlin wall fell between communist East Germany and democratic West Germany in 1990. We say that the Iron Curtain lifted. The countries that had been under the rule of Stalin and his communist USSR gradually became independent. Among these countries were Afghanistan, Moldova, Gerogia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Armenia and the Baltic States Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. By this time, Mikail Gorbachev was the leader of the communist party. He was known to be a milder leader than Stalin was and it was due to him that Soviet’s republics could gain independence. He opened up for more liberal ways of politics, as well as introducing new economic reforms; glasnost and perestroika.

Norway's Weather

2009-10-15T09:34:00.002+02:00

When I tell foreigners I’m from Norway they almost exepctionless burst out: ”Oh isn’t it freezing there and snow and everything?” It is. Still this is only the case a few months a year. What distinguishes the Norwegian weather from the weather in other parts of the world is the variation throughout the year and from place to place also. In Oslo, our summers can be really hot. Up to 30 degrees and sunny. Unfortunately this seldom lasts for many days. Our autums are beautiful with leaves in red, orange, brown and yellow. Around October time the frost arrives. This autumt is no exeption. As for today (13th of October) the sun is shining but the morning were frosty. The first fall of snow normally happens in November, for then to disappear again, before a proper snow fall in December or January marks the beginning of the white period of the year. The last bit of snow usually abandon us in the middle of april. After this a wet and blossoming spring is to come before summer arrives within the change from june to july.

Temperature and rain varies a lot from place to place due to the difference in how high and how far north people live. Norway merely is a big crowd of mountains which streches 1700 km from the south to the north so you can understand that people might live in different climates. You can see the same pattern of seasons in all parts of Norway though. However there are places where the snow never disappears and villages down south where it never lays. So if people starts complaining about our cold weather I say they should come to Norway and test out our variation!

"Down and out in Paris and London - a tramp's diary or a fictinal novel?

2009-09-22T12:54:00.002+02:00

In our previous lesson we read an excerpt of Down and Out in Paris and London written by George Orwell in 1933. It is a novel about the rough life of the tramps in London. Considering the time this novel was published I assume the poverty portrayed is due to the post WW1 economical recession. Loads of people in Europe and the United States lost their wages. Banks and businesses got bankrupt and people comsumes less and less. This was both because the crisis at the stock market in New York in 1929 and the general post war economical challenges. Down and Out in Paris and London deal with the consequences of this era in London.Through the eyes of a newly became tramp he explains how it is like living in a lodging house. The tramps eats only a meal a day of toast and margarine.
It is difficult defining what type of genre the story is. Considering George Orwell lived in Paris under sordid conditions while writing it seems to be a bit biograohical. Still, through style of writing and literary devices it appears as more of a short story, rather than a diary or recall. In The New Yorker Ligaya Mishan dwells on how we can categorize Down and Out in London and Paris. According to her article the difficulties of labelling the story is reflected by Orwell’s pickiness about the title. Before publishing it had various titles such as “Days in London and Paris,” “Lady Poverty,” and “Confessions of a Dishwasher” before the publisher and Orwell landed on “Down and Out in Paris and London”
I must say that when I first read the extract of Down and Out in Paris and London I got the impression that I was reading a historical novel. With its litertary devices such as symbols, dialogues and description of events the story appears as a fictional novel. Here is an example of which: “One morning we tried for a job as sandwich men. We went at five to an alley-way behind some offices, but there was already a queue of thirty or forty men waiting, and after two hours, we were told that there was no job for us” At the same time I suppose it is written with a personal view. Orwell writes from a first person narrative point of view. Additionally he resembles the life of the tramps so well and with a curiousity so vivid it feels like a diary. I do not believe Orwell could write such a realistic novel without adding a touch of his personal experience. I therefore conclude that Down and Out in Paris and London ia a fictional novel spiced up with personal experiences.

2009-09-14T22:11:00.000+02:00

Who to travel with?

As travelling is one of my favourite parts of life I have done some thinking about whom to travel with and why. Here are my results of resonation:

A travel contains many aspects which make them vary a lot and provide different experiences, knowledge and memories. In my opinion your travel companions is the most decisive of all factors. You can go as a group, a couple, with your friends, your family or by yourself.

Travelling alone does for many people sound like a lonesome experience. If you go to a country where they do not speak your own language it can be difficult to socialize and you could end up quite lonely and be eager to speak to someone. I think travelling alone requires you to be mature and independent; then you can get a good relaxation or have an educational experience.

When you are travelling with your friends you probably have other intentions, often primarily having fun. If you fancy getting to know people travelling with friends will make that a lot easier. You could do activities and meet new people together and go out at nights. The disadvantage of going on a holiday with a big group of friends is that you can find it difficult agreeing on how to spend your time.

When you are travelling to unsecured destinations or to get an instructive experience I think the best companions you can take with you are your family members. It is safe to travel with your family and you can get to learn a lot because family holidays are often recognized to contain a lot of museums and cultural experiences. What might not be so good about it is that it requires a lot of compromising because in a family there is most likely to be different ages and needs to be satisfied.

2009-09-01T10:59:00.001+02:00

Does it matter by Siegfried Sassoon (1886-1967)

DOES it matter?--losing your legs?...

For people will always be kind,

And you need not show that you mind

When the others come in after hunting

To gobble their muffins and eggs.

Does it matter?--losing your sight?...

There's such splendid work for the blind;

And people will always be kind,

As you sit on the terrace remembering

And turning your face to the light.

Do they matter?--those dreams from the pit?...

You can drink and forget and be glad,

And people won't say that you're mad;

For they'll know you've fought for your country

And no one will worry a bit.

Why does the poem appeal to us?
“Does it matter” appeals more to us than "The soldier" by Rupert Brooke (which was also in our book) because it is easier to understand the content. We manage to put ourselves in the position of the soldier spoken of, whereas in the other poem they speak more of England and the effort and consequently the lives given for the sake of England by the soldiers.

What three effects of the war on a soldier does this poem touch on?
Three effects of the war are mentioned in the poem:
- Getting hurt physically (losing your legs)
- Losing one of your senses (losing your sight)
- The dreams and thoughts you gain from being a soldier in which you will never escape (those dreams of the pit)

It is often argued that the two great wars were fought by working-class men on both sides and that the people they were fighting for, were often more the enemy than the people they were fighting against. Does this poem reflect this attitude? Explain!
This poem reflects the attitude that whom you fight for are more the enemy than the people you fight against. It does so by explaining how war can destroy you both physically and mentally and afterwards saying that “no one will worry a bit.” The people you fight against are often more your friends if you do not consider they are fighting for your enemy. All soldiers are in the same situation even if they fight for different teams.

This poem has enjoyed a bit of revival if late. What reasons do you think there might be for its newfound popularity?
The poem has experienced a revival of late. The reason is because of the glorification of war has been condemned in the previous decades. We now care more about how terrible it is being a civilian in a war. Additionally wars are still happening making this topic relevant.

2009-09-01T09:29:00.000+02:00

Me and my hometown.

My name is Ingrid and I am 18 years old. I am Norwegian and I live just outside Oslo in Norway with my parents and two younger brothers. I am currently doing my final year of a three year course at Sandvika college. Last year I did my second year at York college in England. It was a good year and I have learned to love England. I am most definately going back there for uni. I spend a lot of my sparetime being with friends and family, doing homework and working in an old people's home.

The place where I live is called Bærum. It is considered to be the snobbiest place in Norway even though this is mainly an exaggerated reputation. Norway is, nevertheless, a country in which the inhabitants are very rich in comparison with other countries. People around here are always dressed nicely and quite posh. Most people live in big detached houses with gardens. Bærum is a suburb outside Oslo. There are loads of local centers, one near me called Bekkestua. Bekkestua has loads of shops, services and a very cute red Mc Donalds. I really like it here but I am sure I will move somewhere a bit more interesting as soon as I get the chance!