Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Very, very stupid idea

I haven't had the chance to write about this yet, but yesterday in his conference speech, Brown proposed putting all young, single mothers on benefit into supervised homes. If there wasn't proof, you wouldn't believe he'd have said it...Well, maybe you would've. It's just the kind of stupid idea this party comes up with nowadays:

And I do think it’s time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken, the number of children having children. For it cannot be right, for a girl of sixteen, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own.

From now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes. These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly. That’s better for them, better for their babies and better for us all in the long run.

We won’t ever shy away from taking difficult decisions on tough social questions.

Some funny newspaper I read this morning called the homes "Victorian workhouses"! That description is right on the money. Yes, he said "all" 16 and 17 year old parents. Because all young women who get pregnant lack a support system of any kind, and are terrible mothers. And no, this isn't a waste of the taxpayers' money at all.

What? We're in a deficit??

About time!

I just read in the Telegraph that David Cameron is hinting that if elected, the Tories will not seek a Lisbon Treaty referendum...under certain conditions.

The Treaty has to be ratified by all other EU countries first.

I don't see how likely that is, given the word is Ireland is still not down with the Treaty, even after a little extra time to think about it.

Me, I think it's a brilliant idea to scrap the Lisbon referendum idea. All that was doing was telling moderate voters that the Conservatives were still a bunch of Eurosceptics. And the fear of that extremism goes along with what Labour and the LibDems have been saying, that the Tories are really much more conservative than everyone thinks - think Thatcher-years conservative.

I absolutely couldn't agree with this more. I am a Conservative, but I can't garner sympathy for the view that the EU isn't a good thing for Britain. Or that it needs to be stopped, because it's taking too much power away from the UK to govern itself.

Inverted Bowl Re-vamp

Hello all!

From today, I will be shifting the focus of The Inverted Bowl to encompass more issues - especially about Britain, and about being an American in Britain.

I hope you will enjoy being able to catch up on the news of the day. Politics in Britain is simply fascinating these days.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Immigration Equality

On a very important personal note, word is that today Rep. Jerrold Nadler plans on reintroducing the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) in the House of Representatives. It's not exactly the most opportune time to try to divert attention to something like this - really, anything other than the economic stimulus - but nonetheless.

The Uniting American Families Act is a crucial bill that would right many existing wrongs in immigration law. It would allow foreign-born "permanent partners" of the same-sex to be sponsored for immigration purposes. You see, currently the federal government does not recognize same-sex partners as "spouses" (even if they are married), because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which requires the federal government to define marriage as between one man and one woman. This means that for so-called bi-national couples like me and my wife, Eleanor (who is British), the American one of the two cannot sponsor his/her same-sex partner to come live in America. It is a right legal mess, and has caused thousands to live abroad. For more information, please visit And please, please. If you want to help grow support for this issue, please contact your Representative and tell him/her to co-sponsor the UAFA.


Good news! After two intense days of negotiation between the House and the Senate, the stimulus package looks likely to pass by the end of this week.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Excessive pork?

President Obama's stimulus package is in danger of major stalling. The New York Times reports that a group of centrist senators wants to cut back on pork in the bill before it passes the Senate. These talks come at a time when there are serious murmurs brewing that the bill contains too much pork, and that President Obama really is not out of the pocket of special interests. Some of the wrongful budget allocations include $1 billion for Amtrak, some billions for the fight against global warming, and money for Milwaukee schools. Ok, ok. There is "pork" in the classic sense of the word. But do not be short-sighted, people! A lot of the projects, at least the ones I have read about, are very needed for the US economy. Rebuilding the economy for the long-term is not just the duty of big businesses and taxpayers' pockets. The projects in this bill are valuable. The Wall Street Journal wrote that Amtrak has not turned a profit in 40 years. Yes, perhaps that is true - maybe they have not turned a profit. But the reason they do not turn a profit is because the trains never go anywhere! And as we prepare for a greener economy, and generally, a rough road ahead, the US needs to invest in the kind of change that it wants to see take place. This means putting some government money into worthwhile projects, even if it makes the total budget bigger.

For a searchable text of the bill, visit

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Gore's comments to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Earlier today, Al Gore spoke before the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and here's what he said, per The Washington Post:

We are here today to talk about how we as Americans and how the United States of America as part of the global community should address the dangerous and growing threat of the climate crisis.

We have arrived at a moment of decision. Our home - Earth - is in grave danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Moreover, we must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization at a time when our country must simultaneously solve two other worsening crises. Our economy is in its deepest recession since the 1930s. And our national security is endangered by a vicious terrorist network and the complex challenge of ending the war in Iraq honorably while winning the military and political struggle in Afghanistan.

As we search for solutions to all three of these challenges, it is becoming clearer that they are linked by a common thread - our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels.

As long as we continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars for foreign oil -- year after year -- to the most dangerous and unstable regions of the world, our national security will continue to be at risk.

As long as we continue to allow our economy to remain shackled to the OPEC roller-coaster of rising and falling oil prices, our jobs and our way of life will remain at risk. Moreover, as the demand for oil worldwide grows rapidly over the longer term, even as the rate of new discoveries is falling, it is increasingly obvious that the roller coaster is headed for a crash. And we're in the front car.

Most importantly, as long as we continue to depend on dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil to meet our energy needs, and dump 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, we move closer and closer to several dangerous tipping points which scientists have repeatedly warned - again just yesterday - will threaten to make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable destruction of the conditions that make human civilization possible on this planet.

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.

For years our efforts to address the growing climate crisis have been undermined by the idea that we must choose between our planet and our way of life; between our moral duty and our economic well being. These are false choices. In fact, the solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well.

In order to repower our economy, restore American economic and moral leadership in the world and regain control of our destiny, we must take bold action now.

The first step is already before us. I urge this Congress to quickly pass the entirety of President Obama's Recovery package. The plan's unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas - energy efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy grid and the move to clean cars - represent an important down payment and are long overdue. These crucial investments will create millions of new jobs and hasten our economic recovery - while strengthening our national security and beginning to solve the climate crisis.

Quickly building our capacity to generate clean electricity will lay the groundwork for the next major step needed: placing a price on carbon. If Congress acts right away to pass President Obama's Recovery package and then takes decisive action this year to institute a cap-and-trade system for CO 2 emissions - as many of our states and many other countries have already done - the United States will regain its credibility and enter the Copenhagen treaty talks with a renewed authority to lead the world in shaping a fair and effective treaty. And this treaty must be negotiated this year.

Not next year. This year.

A fair, effective and balanced treaty will put in place the global architecture that will place the world - at long last and in the nick of time - on a path toward solving the climate crisis and securing the future of human civilization.

I am hopeful that this can be achieved. Let me outline for you the basis for the hope and optimism that I feel.

The Obama Administration has already signaled a strong willingness to regain U.S. leadership on the global stage in the treaty talks, reversing years of inaction. This is critical to success in Copenhagen and is clearly a top priority of the administration.

Developing countries that were once reluctant to join in the first phases of a global response to the climate crisis have themselves now become leaders in demanding action and in taking bold steps on their own initiatives. Brazil has proposed an impressive new plan to halt the destructive deforestation in that nation. Indonesia has emerged as a new constructive force in the talks. And China's leaders have gained a strong understanding of the need for action and have already begun important new initiatives.

Heads of state from around the world have begun to personally engage on this issue and forward-thinking corporate leaders have made this a top priority.

More and more Americans are paying attention to the new evidence and fresh warnings from scientists. There is a much broader consensus on the need for action than there was when President George H.W. Bush negotiated - and the Senate ratified - the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and much stronger support for action than when we completed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

The elements that I believe are key to a successful agreement in Copenhagen include:

* Strong targets and timetables from industrialized countries and differentiated but binding commitments from developing countries that put the entire world under a system with one commitment: to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants that cause the climate crisis;

* The inclusion of deforestation, which alone accounts for twenty percent of the emissions that cause global warming;

* The addition of sinks including those from soils, principally from farmlands and grazing lands with appropriate methodologies and accounting. Farmers and ranchers in the U.S. and around the world need to know that they can be part of the solution;

* The assurance that developing countries will have access to mechanisms and resources that will help them adapt to the worst impacts of the climate crisis and technologies to solve the problem; and,

* A strong compliance and verification regime.

The road to Copenhagen is not easy, but we have traversed this ground before. We have negotiated the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we have banned most of the major substances that create the ozone hole over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support. President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill joined hands to lead the way.

Let me now briefly discuss in more detail why we must do all of this within the next year, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to show a few new pictures that illustrate the unprecedented need for bold and speedy action this year.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am eager to respond to any questions that you and the members of the committee have.

Let's hope this bill passes. The US House of Representatives is expected to vote on the bill today, and the Senate sometime this week.