The American Presidency

A piece I wrote analysing the power of the American President.

Has the office of the American President has become too powerful?

The office of the President is an area of American politics which has come under much scrutiny and question in the past and equally so today. The President’s powers are often misunderstood as being either too powerful or in some cases too weak. As the President is in sole charge of arguably the world’s greatest superpower, it could be considered that he or she is the world’s most powerful political and economic figure. However, when looking deeper into the specific powers of the presidency and the limits imposed on it by the American Constitution, these thoughts are easily contested. The relative strengths and weaknesses of the President can be assessed by comparing the US system with that of the UK and by looking at the President’s excessive exposure in the media. All these major factors and more will be assessed, before coming to a definitive conclusion.

When looking into the powers of the American Presidency, a case can easily be made that the President is in fact, weak. On the global front, the President of America is seen as one of the single most influential figures in the whole world. Domestically however, there have been many examples where Presidents, or any American politicians or governors, have failed to deliver their promises. In some cases the fault has not been with the leadership but simply the state of the economy or other domestic affairs. Perhaps ironically, the current President Barack Obama is seen at the moment to be failing to deliver his pre-election promises. Ironic because, prior to the 2008 election, Barack Obama seemed to have a wealth of support from all across the political spectrum and seemed to attract the world’s attention as he portrayed a new way forward for America. Leslie writes, “Obama was a vivid embodiment of difference at a time when the country needed something new” (Leslie, 2009, p.21). There were even those from the Republican party of who showed support, they became known as the ‘Obamacans’. Today he is much criticised and recently in the mid-term elections, lost control of the House of Congress to the Republican Party. In February 2009, he signed the ‘American recovery and reinvestment act’, a policy which aimed to help the ever declining economy which has seen many parts of the world plummet into recession. Looking at the election results, this clearly failed to have any effect. Those supporting Obama believe that, following the mid-term elections, one of the reasons for failure was because not enough Americans had seen any changes in the economy. This brings up perhaps the most important factor when arguing for this case. Barack Obama has as much power vested to him as any other previous President. He however, has failed to utilise them to its fullest effect. Ryan Lizza, writing in ‘The New Yorker’ sums up the critical view of Obama and his Presidency so far, when he says,”[Obama] campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist” (Lizza, 2010).

It could therefore be argued that Obama has not taken significant enough steps to ensure an effective and successful reform of the economic situation. Similar thoughts could also be applied to President Herbert Hoover, who is criticised for his poor handling of the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Bowles says of Hoover, “Herbert Hoover was a moderate, but the Democratic landslide of 1932 swept him from the White House” (Bowles, 1993, p.26). Hoover’s successor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had great success in dealing with the bad economic situation and used his Presidential powers to good effect. Following the turmoil of the Wall Street crash, he is credited as one of the greatest American presidents of all time, thanks largely to a reforming policy that was both radical and inspiring, the New Deal. Williams says, “In his inauguration speech of 1933 Roosevelt pledged ‘a new deal for the American people’. Since then his proposals for economic recovery have been known as the New Deal. On assuming office Roosevelt summoned Congress on 9^th March and it sat for ‘100 days’ in order to enact the provisions of the New Deal” (Williams, 1998, p.20). This shows what can be achieved by a President willing to use all his authority necessary to move the economy forward.

At this time the Presidency could have been seen to be out growing the limits set upon it by the Founding Fathers of the constitution. The Presidency was beginning to dominate Congress, something which the Founding Fathers feared. Though despite the risk of a tyrannical leader, they accepted that to get things done; one sole figure needed ultimate authority. Walt gives his account of the Founding Fathers, “For Americans, the nation’s rise to world power is often portrayed as a direct result of the political genius of the Founding Fathers” (Walt, 2005, p.171). In order to control the Presidency, the Founding Fathers designed a doctrine of a Separation of Powers which divided the government into three parts, the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive. American politics then is often seen as simply a notion of compromise between the Presidency and Congress, although Roosevelt’s dominant and extended time in office was in exceptional circumstances.

Furthermore, even today the President can be seen as too powerful, not only because of the single powers vested in him but also by an over exposure in the media. The media drives politics and without it, many successful presidential campaigns would have been severely affected. Obama is perhaps the best example of this. Through the media he was able to construct a fantastic campaign, with television channels broadcasting a thirty minute advertisement for his case. Leslie goes on, “He became a cultural phenomenon in a way few politicians ever do, adorning magazine covers, T-shirts and websites before he’d even announced his candidacy” (Leslie, 2009, p.21). As the media industry grows, politics becomes far more accessible to the public thus further increasing a President’s impact and influence over the electorate. Often the President becomes the figurehead of American politics on the world stage, casting aside other issues.

It is true also that the President does have a vast array of powers consigned to him by the US constitution. He or she can have massive influence in all three branches of the American government, particularly in the legislature. Although the President is not seated in Congress, and cannot directly enforce legislation, the President does of course have influence aplenty over his or her party. This becomes especially useful if the Presidential party has a majority in Congress. He can then also outline legislative proposals in his State of Union Address, which can be very beneficial, giving the President indirect power over the legislature. In the twentieth century Presidents have used this provision to expand the legislative role of the presidency (Williams, 1998). It is the power of veto however, which is considered to be one of the most useful legislative powers the President has. Indeed, Roosevelt used this tactic six hundred and thirty five times in his time as President, further proof either that a truly powerful Presidency can exist or simply that politics were much more unstable at the time.

Clearly, where the President wields most power is within the Executive as, to a point, he is the sole executive figure. He does also however, have a presidential cabinet of which the members are chosen, thereby removed from congress if they were previously members and can be consulted on any important issues the president has. Unlike in the UK though, the president has full control over his or her cabinet and can overrule its decisions. The cabinet members then are seen merely as close advisors in their respective quarters and policy is rarely discussed. Bowles states, “Of all the politicians who sit around the table in the White House Cabinet room, only the President has an electoral base” (Bowles, 1993, p.103). Therefore, in contrast to UK cabinet politics, there is no notion of a collective responsibility. Crucially then, the President can make big decisions without cabinet approval. This also means that he has sole control over the armed forces and is deemed the Commander in Chief. This war power gives the President the authority to command US armed forces (Williams, 1998). In times of war the President ultimately has control over military strategy and foreign policy which could lead to crucial treaty negotiations. The President also has significant powers within the Judiciary as he can appoint federal judges to both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. This would not be without purpose, as this enables the President to shape the ideological nature of the Judiciary to his benefit. Williams outlines a way in which the President can therefore gain power over the constitution, “The Supreme Court is able to review the work of the other branches of government and, in so doing, becomes the interpreter of the Constitution” (Williams, 1998, p.95).

However, the President falls victim to many constitutional and congressional restrictions. The power of the Presidency can easily be questioned and is often not as powerful as first perceived. Although he has a crucial role to play in all three branches of government, the office of the American President has many checks and balances on it which can limit its role. In the Judiciary for example, the Presidents appointments first have to be ratified by the Senate before it can become official. Furthermore a court can damage a President and negate a particular activity (Watts, 2005). In the legislature, it is Congress which proposes and passes bills not the President. Even the Presidential Veto can be overridden by a two-thirds majority in Congress. Watts says, “The President needs congressional support, and in the more assertive mood of Congress in recent years’ incumbents have found this difficult to achieve even with their own party in control” (Watts, 2005, p.82). The Presidents executive powers are not complete either. Although the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, he cannot declare war without the approval of Congress nor can he sign treaties without the Senate’s approval. Perhaps the most crucial weakness the President has is that he can be impeached and ultimately removed from office. The impeachment process must be brought by a majority vote in the House of Representatives (Williams, 1998). This has happened on two relatively recent occasions, in 1868 though Andrew Johnson was acquitted by the Senate and in 1974 when Richard Nixon resigned, allowing the impeachment process to stop (Williams, 1998). So although the President is powerful and is intended to be, he or she is relatively well restricted by Congress. This is exactly the type of framework the Founding Fathers intended to set out.

To conclude, many see the President of the United States of America as perhaps the most powerful single figure in world politics. The office of the President has many powers on the global front and much authority over other countries and its own. Furthermore, the President has many significant influences in the three branches of government, the Judiciary, the Legislature and of course the Executive. This is the way the Founding fathers intended the powers of the President to be. It could be argued however, that on many occasions the office of the American President has overreached its power and has begun to dominate, not just congress, but the media and other global affairs. In my opinion though, the Presidency is far too restricted by the vision the Founding Fathers set out in the constitution. There are a series of checks and balances on his political powers and although the media has sometimes meant the President is allowed much influence, this is a far cry from a dictatorship or authoritarian rule. The media can both make or break politicians based on their performance and as such, the Presidents control is only as good as he or she can justify. Ultimately the office of the American Presidency is not too powerful as the American Constitution is sovereign.

Bibliography

Nigel Bowles, (1993), The Government and Politics of The United States, Hampshire: THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD.

Ian Leslie, (2009), To Be President, London: Politico’s Publishing.

Ryan Lizza, (2010), The Political Scene: Making It [Online], Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=15

Stephen M. Walt, (2005), Taming American Power, First Edition, London: W. W. Norton & Company Ltd.

Duncan Watts, (2005), Understanding American Government and Politics, Second Edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Andy Williams, (1998), US Government & Politics, Second Edition, Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers.

Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (1963) Case Study

A piece I wrote on the film ‘Saturday Night and Sunday Morning’, analysing the main theme of changing gender roles.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHsOSySZOyo

Case Study: Saturday Night and Sunday Morning

The film ‘Saturday Night and Sunday Morning’ (Reisz, 1960) was filmed and set in 1963 Nottingham. Based on a novel by Alan Sillitoe, it is very much of the social realism genre and could be used to view many sociological themes. The main theme that this essay will focus on however is gender, looking at the differences and divisions between men and women in 1960’s Britain. It will be important to analyse how men are represented by this film by looking at the differences between Arthur and Jack’s character. In order to do this, the essay will look at the sub theme of class before turning attention to their differing lifestyles. A similar analysis of the film will be conducted when looking at women in the 1960’s, by bringing in sub-theme’s such as abortion and marriage. Crucially, the characters Doreen and Brenda show how opinion’s of relationships can differ between women. Also, despite the film only containing few main characters, it will still be interesting to assess the contrasts between men and women at this time and the opposition they sometimes feel towards each other. This essay will also take into consideration a twenty first century viewpoint when looking at the various issues raised by the film, and how things may be viewed differently in contemporary society.

With regard to gender discourses, the film attempts to highlight two distinct variations of the male gender, with the characters of Arthur and Jack. Arthur, a twenty two year old machinist, is seen on the surface as a kind man with a good heart, he cares very much for his parents and is polite too to his friend Bert and to most other characters. The film presents however, many other sides to Arthur’s character which can be aggressive, selfish, certainly childish and most definitely stubborn. All these personality traits will become evident as we begin to look at how the film portrays gender stereotypes. The film allows us, as the audience, an insight into Arthur’s world immediately as the film begins. The introductory chapter is first shot inside the factory where Arthur and Doreen’s husband Jack both work. The working conditions look decidedly poor, with many of the machines packed tightly together and making lots of noise. As there is seemingly little opportunity for socialising, Arthur is first presented to us alone at his machine as we hear a voice over of his thoughts. He complains of the lack of pay, the working conditions and his simple desire for a fun life. Powell comments, “He sees work as futile and he prioritises fun ahead of any sense of duty, the downfall of the previous generation.” (Powell, 2009). It would appear that Arthur cares little for materialistic things and social status; he values only style and his care free attitude. During Arthur’s voiceover he makes a comment about Jack, he describes him as too career driven as he appears to take on any task given out by the boss. An example of this would be when Jack reveals to Arthur that he has been put on nights. Arthur scowls at this idea as it would be detrimental to his social life; whereas Jack views it only as a positive. Arthur also goes on to mention a work colleague named Fred, “he’s one of them who knows how to spend his money, like me”. As a consequence he looks down on Jack’s ambition and way of life, which is clearly of the previous generation in that it is more reserved, disciplined and materialistic. The first significant contrast between two male characters in the film is presented to the audience when Arthur is seen to be relatively happy to ride home on a pushbike, whereas the film also shows Jack arriving home on his motorbike. It is here where the film juxtaposes the class difference between Arthur and Jack, not just in their mode of transport but further as they both arrive home. It is clear that Arthur still lives with his parents as he shows angst towards his father’s laziness as he walks in from another hard day’s work. In contrast, Jack arrives at his own home to greet his wife and child; where life appears less hectic.

Following a hard day’s work, Arthur would most probably be found in the pub; partaking in a session of competitive drinking as a free spirit. It must be remembered that although Arthur’s working conditions were tough, nineteen sixties Britain was a time when the country was growing in prosperity. There are at least two points of evidence within the film that suggests this, firstly in how many people work at the factory and secondly how busy the pubs and cinema’s look. During the pub scene, the cinematography of the shots allows the pub to look extremely busy. The camera is often situated in a crowd to give the audience a real perspective. It is here where many of the characters appear to reject the idea of ‘the good old days’, as mentioned by Bert in a later scene, and appear happier in this post-war era. Powell says, “The idea that hardships of war brought out the best in the community does not make any sense to the younger generation” (Powell, 2009). It is made clear at certain points within the film that there is an inherent utopian view of the days gone by, which the film attempts to tackle by enhancing or even romanticising the working class lifestyle of the sixties.

Jack on the other hand is far happier to spend the evening reading the paper, as the film begins to show up differences between male lifestyle and desires. Jack is portrayed as a clearly professionally successful family man, judging by the possession of his own home and motorbike. In contrast, Arthur is seen as a wilder character or a player and is seen as someone who cares little for a long term relationship of his own. Instead he chooses simply to have fun and is happy sleeping with married women, even when they are the wife of his work colleague. As the film progresses, it becomes obvious that some of Arthur’s behaviour would certainly be more noticeable today but was seen simply as the norm in nineteen sixties Britain. Throughout the course of the film, Arthur gets up to much mischief as both a womaniser and a joker. Powell states, “There is something of the child in Arthur, constantly pinning the blame to others and it is no surprise that he takes up with a married woman for whom he has no responsibility” (Powell, 2009). The film offers up a sense of togetherness in its representation of men here, as Arthur’s friend Bert generally poses little opposition to his behaviour. This is noticeable in particular when the pair are seen fishing together, as Bert opens up to Arthur as a good friend to offer support for his problems and decisions. Furthermore, most characters in the film are seen to be turning a blind eye to Arthur’s actions. This is evident in the scene just before Arthur meets Doreen for the first time. This is a scene which involves both Arthur and Bert but also Arthur’s Aunt Ada who treats Arthur with utmost respect and brushes over any rumours. It is also here were Arthur’s character is presented as having more than one side to it. He is greeted into the pub by Bert and his Aunt with much rapture as an almost hero-like figure, but he then descends quickly into his default womanising character as he is left alone with his future acquaintance Doreen. Arthur is a character who is difficult to sum up and is something of a self confessed enigma. Nevertheless, the film attempts to offer the audience a fascinating character type who, despite the on the edge lifestyle, could be perceived as being realistic of the time.

Men in the sixties were seen as the dominant gender on many fronts, as they are depicted in the film to be controlling of both their relationships and work agenda’s. Although still considered dominant, men like Bert and Jack are common characters even in today’s society as they appear to be neutral and forgiving. In the conclusion of the film where Jack finds out about Arthur’s deception, he appears to be able to put things behind him in the interest of his work and family. It could almost be argued that his wife’s cheating has far less significance than it would have in today’s age. It would appear that Jack’s character, although clearly troubled by what went on between Arthur and Brenda, is able to move past the events in complete confidence that Brenda is his and that she is completely happy to be with him; despite this not necessarily being the case. During his conversation with Arthur, Jack says “she’ll be alright with me, I’ll look after her” with steely confidence. This sense of male domination of relationships can therefore be seen through both Arthur and Jack’s character but in entirely different ways.

The next section of the essay will look at the main female characters in the film, whilst reviewing some sub themes such as marriage and abortion. It is clear that there are differences between Arthur’s two female acquaintances, first Brenda and then Doreen. It could be viewed, as Arthur does, that Brenda is just another girl looking for fun. Indeed, Arthur has the audacity to blame Jack for the pair’s affair on the grounds that he clearly is not entertaining enough for his wife. This is most likely the truth as Brenda, in being willing to have an affair with another man, is seen to be showing little respect for her marriage. It is here where Brenda’s character appears to reject the norm of the time by showing little fear of divorce, something which makes the storyline of the film even more compelling. There could be many reasons for Brenda’s adultery; firstly as Arthur explained, it could be that she is simply looking for more fun from life. Perhaps another reason, noticeable particularly to a twenty first century audience, is that she appears trapped in a marriage where she is expected to be the stereotypical house wife. Although it could be argued that this is simply the way things were for women back in the nineteen sixties. Women were looked down upon in many areas of society, particularly in the world of work where there was a severe lack of equality in both pay and hierarchical positions. Duiker explains further, “Many European women also still faced the double burden of earning income on the one hand and raising a family and maintaining the household on the other. Such inequalities led increasing numbers of women to rebel.” (Duiker, 2010). In the scene after Arthur and Brenda had spent the night together, it would appear as though Brenda, just by way of duty, is expected to cook Arthur’s breakfast for him. This shows a stark contrast to today’s age, where women have full equality in the social realm as well as in work.

In contrast to Brenda, Doreen appears to be a typical sixties girl who values her relationships and could be described as being from the new generation. She first appears in the pub as Arthur attempts to ask her out on a date. She has a strong personality and, at first, seems reluctant to speak to Arthur until he starts to reveal his charm and wit. Late on in the film as the two appear as an item; Doreen appears keen on the idea of marriage and a new build home. This shows the real difference to Brenda, who appears not to value her marriage but instead her independence. Post war marriages were very much built on the idea of independence as most men were away fighting at war; this left the women to forge a life of their own. Baber explains, “For example, when large numbers of husbands go off to war for a protracted period, the wives must assume new responsibilities that bring with them new status and authority” (Baber, 1943). This sense of individualism carries on into the sixties where women such as Brenda appear to want more from life than just a steady marriage. Similarly, Arthur initially appears reluctant to the idea of marriage as he surveys the new build homes, he looks frustrated as he is someone who wanted more from life than characters such as Jack. Doreen on the other hand looks to be set on the idea of marriage, as she falls deeper into love with Arthur as the film progresses. Doreen, as Prince explains, “is one of the causes of Arthur’s change of outlook… she does not seem a real person in the sense that Arthur does, or even to the extent that the other women are” (Prince, 1960). Doreen is a girl who symbolises the new generation and represents the template for women of the future by being just as strong in personality as she is in her relationship with Arthur. So as the two walk off into the sunset and to the conclusion of the film, it would seem as though Arthur had met his match with Doreen and was beginning to accept a new way of life.

Turning to the sub theme of abortion, the film has a lot to say on the issue as Brenda falls pregnant. The issue is much debated in today’s society, with a clear division between those who endorse it and those who oppose it. Back in nineteen sixties Britain it was something of an unknown quantity, as the film demonstrates. Upon hearing of Brenda’s pregnancy, Arthur delivers Brenda to his Aunt Ada who attempts a home abortion. This shows an intertextual reference to Vera Drake (Leigh, 2004), as the method of abortion used is rather similar. Crucially, the film Vera Drake takes a much deeper look into the character similar to Aunt Ada in Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. With the main difference between the two characters being that Vera Drake was condemned for her actions and sentenced to imprisonment. This shows up the differences in when the films were made and even though they were set in a similar period, Aunt Ada’s actions are quickly brushed aside by the film; as was the whole issue of abortion at the time. With regards to the main theme of gender, abortion is viewed vastly different in contemporary society. The enacting of the process of abortion is very big decision for anyone to undertake, as they are effectively taking the life of another human being. In today’s age of relationship equality and the disputes surrounding abortion, the choice of a couple to do this is usually very much a joint and careful decision. In contrast, Saturday Night and Sunday Morning shows the decision to be taken by just Brenda, with Arthur appearing to have very little say in the matter. Furthermore, aside from Arthur initially providing a solution to what was deemed as simply a problem, Arthur shows little support for Brenda. As Powell evaluates, “…the audience could be forgiven for thinking that this will lead him to re-evaluate his life choices” (Powell, 2009). Instead he simply dumped Brenda with his Aunt Ada and hoped the problem would go away. These observations say as much about Arthur’s rather abrupt personality as anything else but does show how times have changed in the relationship between a father and their child. Building on this point, something else which is noticeable in the film is that at no point after Brenda declares she wants to keep the baby does Arthur then pursue any future relationship to either Brenda or his child. This was the reality of the time however as marriage came before anything else, with Arthur being warned by Jack to stay away from his family following his wife’s affair; such was the male dominance of relationships.

With regards to the main theme of gender, the film shows up a rather alarming difference between sixties society and the present day in the divisions and conflicts between men and women.  Violence, albeit only minor, is evident in this film between men and women. An example of this would be when Arthur deliberately spills a drink over someone in the pub before knocking into his interfering female neighbours without apology. More alarming with regards to Arthur is when he takes it upon himself to fire a pellet into the same neighbour using an air rifle. This mistreating of women simply would not happen in today’s age, with the film showing the conflict that was sometimes went on between men and women in the sixties. Even Jack, the naturally reserved character that he is, is seen striking Brenda in front of everyone at the fair such was his immediate reaction to realising the truth of his wife’s deception. Right throughout the film, this is perhaps the most important factor which the film attempts to bring to light about gender. During the abortion scene, Aunt Ada is heard to utter the words, “men get away with murder”. This alone shows the mindset and opposition women sometimes felt towards men. The greatest example of this occurs as Bert and Arthur wander down a poorly lit road. A man is seen throwing a brick through a shop window, but he is spotted by two women who attempt a citizen’s arrest. Bert and Arthur overhear the kerfuffle and head over as the two women hold the man down as they await the police. Had this have happened in contemporary society, the two girls would have been heralded as real life heroes because of their needless bravery. Indeed, men such as Bert and Arthur would be expected to run over and help the women but such is the contrast to the sixties, Bert and Arthur do no such thing. The actual act of vandalism becomes almost irrelevant as Arthur and Bert instantly take the side of the man guilty of committing the crime. The argument on the street then becomes more gender obsessed than anything as Arthur and Bert attempt to free the captive man, before the police eventually do step in. Afterwards, Bert makes the comment, “I don’t know how that rat face could do a thing like that”. Arthur, despite his love for women, replies, “Because she’s a bitch and a whore.” Powell expands on Arthur’s moral position, “Arthur’s perverse outlook on morality is shown when he condemns the man for being ‘spineless’ for not fleeing the scene” (Powell, 2009). This segment of the film shows the most severe difference between nineteen sixties society and the present day in the discussions of gender.

The film Saturday Night and Sunday Morning aims to address many sociological themes through just one storyline. The film manages to identify, perhaps age related, differences between the male characters of Arthur and Jack. Arthur’s character is somewhat fascinating to behold due to his outlook on life, an outlook which contrasts fantastically with Jack’s; who is surely more typical of the time. Despite his eventual comeuppance, Arthur’s refusal to conform to society means that he values fun over anything else in life as he proclaims, “all the rest is propaganda”. The film also manages to identify the differences in the female gender through sub themes such as abortion and marriage. As, particularly concerning marriage, Brenda and Doreen’s characters are polar opposites in viewpoint due partly to their age and social context of the post war period. Interesting also, is the divisions the film accurately shows up between women and men. This is present in the sequences of the film involving marriage and abortion but also in the conflict between men and women in the film, as men are seen as the dominant gender throughout. Many social issues and personality traits of characters would be viewed vastly differently in today’s age, making viewing of Saturday Night and Sunday Morning today even more compelling.

Film Analysis: Casino Royale (2006)

Casino Royale

Casino Royale, a new take on the James Bond brand is perhaps the most successful in modern times. Directed by Martin Campbell, who previously directed the 1995 Bond film Golden Eye, gathered together a great team of actors to bring to life this new rendition of Bond. The film was shot over a period of just six months between January and July 2006 at Barrandov Studios in Prague, although shooting did take place all over Europe before ending up at Pinewood Studios in the UK. The plot takes place at the very beginning of Bond’s story in his quest to become a secret agent. Upon achieving this position he is locked in a battle against the powerful, poker-playing criminal known as Le Chiffre. In the story, the poker tournament was to be contested at the Casino Royale in Montenegro and although it was not actually filmed there; it is presented as a haven for rich billionaires. As a place so corrupt, not even the CIA has authority and so Bond has to go undercover to exploit and expose his enemy. He eventually comes out on top after sacrificing mind and body for the sake of someone who he thought was one of the few people in his life he could trust. He was later betrayed by this person, the ‘Bond girl’ Vesper Lynd portrayed by Eva Green, who was being manipulated all along by greater powers.

One of the reasons for this film’s apparent success was due to the fact that it was such a big departure from Bond films of recent years. Daniel Craig initially turned down the roll of Bond until he suggested to the directors a new vision of what Bond should be; it seems he got his way. The Bond character created by Daniel Craig is far more rugged than his predecessors and thus injects the whole franchise with a sense of realism. The storyline itself is far more realistic also and could easily be imagined by the audience as something which could be happening in the dangerous and unforgiving world of the mafia.

The plot is focused centrally on money as the most important factor for all the characters to take advantage of. This is particularly prominent in the economic context of the film, as although Britain was still in a relatively prosperous position, this was the beginning of the economic downturn and the credit crunch in Britain. Therefore as the film is all about gambling and its adverse effects, it shows albeit in a rather extreme way, what many people could turn to in a quest for wealth and power. The final plot twist, as Vesper betrays Bond, shows what such value money has in this film. It portrays very much a dog-eat-dog world where everyone fights for them self, a prediction perhaps of the future we are facing due to the current economic downturn.

This film, in my opinion, is certainly one of the most enjoyable action films of recent years if not of all time. The film is also relevant in contemporary society due to the fact that it allows the characters to value cash, intelligence and wit over guns and fast cars. It still has the childish notions of escapism which comes hand in hand with any James Bond film but manages also to show a new aspect to realism thanks largely to Daniel Craig’s performance.

Topic: Human Rights, 2010.

This was a piece I wrote in 2010 in response to David Cameron’s opinion on the human rights of burglars.

Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/debates/7127250/Should-you-be-able-to-kill-a-burglar.html

David Cameron: burglars leave human rights at the door.

There is currently a big debate in the UK on how to deal with burglary’s, more specifically, the burglars themselves. This piece will look into David Cameron’s argument from the attached article.

Many feel that, even if one is committing a crime, people should never be denied their basic human rights. Others, like David Cameron, believe that human rights should not apply to a person who is violating someone else’s rights. People, particularly politicians, often feel reluctant to express their opinions on delicate matters such as this, where there is a clear division of opinions. David Cameron however, has boldly stated his opinion on this issue. So why has he felt the need to do this? Some feel that it is only for his personal gain; to come across as a straight talking politician. This could be especially advantageous right before an impending election, even if the opinion itself could result in him losing as many voters as he gains.

There is a simple moral stance to support David Cameron’s argument. Burglars who enter another person’s property with threatening intentions should not be supported by the law under any circumstances. It is many people’s belief then, that the term ‘necessary force’ is far too vague when attempting to stop an intruder entering and doing damage to your home. ‘Necessary force’ could imply the killing of a burglar, should the burglar in question be attempting to kill you or members of your family. However, even if the intruder has no intention of harming you or your family, how is one supposed to know this for sure? Indeed, as Clapham states, “The right to life would seem at first glance to be absolute, but on closer inspection, it is clear that some deliberate acts which result in the loss of life are not necessarily human rights violations” (Clapham, 2007).

On the other side of the argument, many would claim that although the burglar has no rights to the moral high ground; he or she should not be in fear for their own life. In the event of the burglar’s death, due to what is deemed to be excessive force on the part of the home-owner, the case is simply dealt with as murder like any other. Barry-Lee Hastings was convicted in 2002 for killing a burglar; he stabbed a certain Mr Williams to death and was later sent down for manslaughter. The article reads, “The judge said he had sympathy for a householder finding himself in those circumstances but said Mr Williams’ presence ‘did not justify the actions you took’” (BBC, 2002). Furthermore, Lord Mandleson responded to Cameron’s view, as quoted in the Telegraph, “It’s not a practical principle of law that you can operate and which you say that anyone who is attempting to burgle another house, thereby renounces all their rights under the law…it’s not a practical policy” (Telegraph, 2010).

To conclude, although many senior figures, such as Lord Mandleson, feel that murder should be dealt with in the same way for every case, it is my opinion that a court should be able to rule against significant charges in exceptional situations. For many in society, the term ‘necessary force’ is unclear, what in my opinion could be made clear is that the killing of an intruder should not be beyond its parameters.

Topic: Human Rights, 2010. (Free Speech).

This was a piece I wrote in 2010 about politicians and their relationship with the media.

All Parties Have a Duty to Champion Free Speech

The idea of ‘free speech’ is one of which has been widely discussed on the political scene for decades. Although the right to free speech has never been questioned in common society, the view is somewhat different when looking into the contemporary media and its influences. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. This seems fairly conclusive but many UK politicians feel that the media has now too much power and influence and therefore should be restricted in its output. However, it could be argued that British politics benefits from a politically active media industry and that basic human rights should be upheld; whatever the circumstances.

Politicians often see the media as a thorn in their side, especially if a controversial story is brought into question. The media industry houses some extensively clever people who can create a story which could either portray particular politicians in a good light, or more often than not, a bad one. Many people today believe that newspapers such as ‘The Sun’ have more political power than the parties themselves. Wilcox argues, “Not only does the mass media have extensive authority in political campaigns, but they can even exercise power over government officials and affairs” (Wilcox). Politicians increasingly fear that the media can scupper a party’s image or over-influence voters. Furthermore, the notion of free speech can be questioned on other levels too, as Clapham explains, “Freedom of speech is not absolute. As we all know, shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre can be punished” (Clapham, 2007). This view is reminiscent of what damage could be done by the media in politics.

However, the media has many positive benefits for society and political parties alike. Politics in the UK needs an open and outspoken media not only to ensure that the main issues of the country are addressed but also that the politicians themselves are held to account. Wilcox states, “The media need news to report, and the president may need coverage” (Wilcox). This point is conclusive and without the media, politicians have little or no way to keep in contact with the electorate.

To conclude, although there is an apparent dislike for the media in politics and that a politician’s argument can be justified, free speech is a basic human right which should be supported by all the major political parties. Large political parties and senior figures should champion free speech by taking into account its positive, rather than its negative, aspects.

Topic: Human Rights, 2010. (Homophobia).

This was a piece I wrote in 2010 in response to an article published by The Guardian on issues surrounding gay rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/03/tory-tape-gays-bed-breakfast

Secret tape reveals Tory backing for ban on gays

This is the issue of landlords of B&B’s being able to turn away anyone who they do not want in their home, in this case, two gay people. There are two sides to the argument which could be divulged from the article. On one hand, the gay couple felt that their basic human rights had been infringed under the ruling of the Equality act, while the B&B owners felt that they had the right to turn anyone away from their own home regardless of their sexuality.

The home owners feel saddened by what has occurred due to their actions but still feel that what they did was right. The BBC states, “She admitted she did turn the couple away because it was against her policy to accommodate same sex couples” (BBC, 2010). Their argument was weak but now has the backing of Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling, who was quoted as saying, “I took the view that if it’s a question of somebody who’s doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn’t come into their own home” (Helm, 2010). The B&B owners felt that they have the right to turn anyone away from their home on any grounds, as it is their property and their livelihood. There are many other occasions in life where officials have the right to refuse admission to business and private property. For example, a bouncer can turn people away from the door of a nightclub due to improper dress, so why should this case be dealt with any differently? Indeed, the thought of many is that this is simply an overreaction on the part of the gay protestors.

On the other hand, this could be seen as pure homophobic discrimination; something that should not be tolerated in today’s society. Crucially, there are no laws to justify the B&B owner’s actions. Indeed, Labour has publicly rejected the views of Grayling as they contradict the ruling of the Equality act, as Helm states, “no one should be refused goods or services on the grounds of their sexuality. Grayling voted in favour of the regulations, which apply to the provision of ‘accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or similar establishment’” (Helm, 2010). Due to this, Grayling’s view is easily unpicked, as LaFollete explains, “The fact that humans differ as individuals, rather than as races or sexes, is a valid reply to someone who defends a hierarchical society” (LaFollette, 1997).

To conclude, the article does take a view in support of the gay couple but also holds bias toward Labour who have openly criticised Grayling on his statement. In my opinion, the article appears to be more interested in the criticism of an opposition MP than finding justice for the gay couple. However, I too support the argument that the gay couple should never have been turned away as such actions are illegal. There is no longer room for homophobic discrimination in our politically correct society.

Dental Newsletter for K3 Dental Studio Barnsley

This was my first piece of freelance writing work which was completed in the early months of 2013. It is surprising how much planning and work goes into such a small piece from different people including the management, myself and the design and printing company.

            

Click here for the full view

https://practiceplan.proofhq.com/proof/d7479b2e59caf9bd7a6a7ded394d35220ca42