Public Watchdog

Many have designated the press as a “public watchdog.”  It is more than that.  It brings news and information to the  public that it reaches.  It constitutes men, women, children, ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups.  Stations have carved out a niche to whom to focus their messages.  Many in America do so through advertisements.  Professionals at these stations are well aware of their responsibilities and report news that make it possible for citizens to vote at the polls.  These analysts dissect hard to comprehend issues and break them down into digestible bits and pieces.

The public watchdog role has often come under attack because the media have recently evolved in partisanship ways.  Some see the New York Times, CNN and CNBC as liberal, while FOX and the Daily Standard as conservative.  They argue that this divide is generated by a particular media’s desire to cash in on the sentiments of the time.  Hence some members of the mass media’s audience question their relevance in being fair and impartial.

Market Place of Ideas

Image via Wikipedia

Some persons bemoan the fact that the market place of ideas are shrinking.  They look at Rupert Murdoch that wields influence around the world with his media Empire.  He owns the Times, Sunday Times, Sun, and at one time the News of the World in the United Kingdom.  In the 1980s, he influenced the conservative politics under Margaret Thatcher.  In the 1990s, he switched his support to Labor and became quite a force for Tony Blair.  In 2001, the Express also endorsed Blair.

Many in America are concerned about state sponsored privileges provided by the media in Great Britain.  They prefer to see advertising as a free enterprise.  Some do not make the connection of the influences of such ads on the nature of programs, but rather see the British model as having sovereign consumers targeted in their informational role.  British programmers see themselves as being able to raise the standards of the viewing public.  In America, media is viewed differently.  It is concerned with the bottom line.  What sells is of prime importance.  Some Europeans view American media as appealing to the lowest common denominator.  That is why some Americans, refer to TV as “the idiot box.”

Media Rights

Media rights are fought for daily.  Some see the concept of “good and evil” being played out when they point to John Milton.  Individual rights may be foremost on the mind to those that subscribe to the philosophy of John Locke.  Attaining that ever elusive truth in reporting may buy into John Stuart Mill’s concept that he expresses so well in his book, On Liberty.

Despite these lofty concepts there is censorship with which to contend.  It may not be state censorship because of classified documents, but self censorship.  Some times it is media policy to protect the identities for good reasons of children and some persons.  Individuals that receive a bad press are also free to seek redress if they think that they have been maligned by malicious reporting. Such libel suits have been brought against some media companies but they are rarely successful.  In America, the First Amendment is still foremost among reporter’s right of free speech.  Each year we hear about freedom of press violations in the U.S.A., Great Britain, and many other countries around the world.

- – -

Unlike a Marxist system like in North Korea and Cuba, that is known for its propaganda, the mass media in the U.S.A. and Britain seek to be responsible to the public.  There may be problems, differences, and partisanship, but they have many attributes in common.

- – -

Image via Ekstrabladet.dk

Villy Søvndal is a member of SF (Socialist People’s Party). SF is part of the government in Denmark along with the social democrats and R (radical left). The government is furthermore supported by the far left party Enhedslisten. But mr. Søvndal has said something that has angered both politicians and the media. He has admitted that it may be hard for the government to reach an actual agreement on an important issue. He has gone as far as saying that Denmark can’t possibly agree on all the parts of the Euro Plus Pact.

But not everyone is mad at the poor socialist. In Great Britain the conservative government supports Søvndal’s statements. They do this because last week British Prime Minister David Cameron vetoed the new Euro Plus Pact, which seemingly made everyone frown at Great Britain. Now the conservative Brits can use this incident to show that Britain isn’t going crazy and there is more EU skepticism outside Britain even in EU-positive governments!

The British conservative member of the EU-parliament Sajjad Karim supports Søvndal:
“It does not surprise me the slightest that the Danish foreign minister says what he does. I’m glad that more politicians around Europe are taking this debate.”

So now Britain is pulling away from Europe in a way that some parts of our nation may not appreciate, what future Britain? What of Scotland, already nationalist drums call longingly for Independence. Closer European ties offer a perfect environment for there national ambitions to flourish within the wider family of Europe.

I respect nationalists, The Scottish and my locals the Welsh. They want and will get more say in there independent futures. I personally don’t fit any nationalist requirements, being half Scottish half English by birth, and having half Welsh children, I feel British to my very core and will do whatever our independent political futures holds.

Will Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales vote for European membership rather than continuing within the United Kingdom? Is it possible the unthinkable could happen? Could the death bell be ringing for the trusty old United Kingdom? Oh I am sure the new independent nations would thrive and live on together happily enough, but I truly feel, if Great Britain in her current form where to pass away, we will have lost a very dear, much loved, irreplaceable friend. 

So I say this, long live the Queen and long live our beloved United Kingdom.

Australia Victorius.

The Champions Trophy concluded on Sunday. Eight teams Participated in the Competition.  Group A was of World Champions Australia, Spain, Great Britain and Pakistan. Group B was of Germany, Korea, Netherlands and Home team New Zealand.

Great Britain defeated Pakistan 2-1 while Australia started their campaign by defeating Spain 3-2. Germany defeated New Zealand 2-1. Netherlands defeated Korea 2-0.

Great Britain were defeated by Australia 4-1 on Match Day two. Spain defeated Pakistan 4-2. Netherlands defeated Germany 3-2. New Zealand defeated Korea 6-1.

 Great Britain were defeated by Spain 8-1. Australia defeated Pakistan 6-1. Korea drew Germany 3-3. Home team New Zealand drew Netherlands 3-3 on Match Day Three.

 In The Second Round More Groups were drawn. Pakistan, Korea, Great Britain, and Germany made a Group. Netherlands, Australia, Spain and New Zealand made another Group.

Pakistan defeated Korea 6-2. Great Britain were defeated by Germany 2-1. Australia defeated Netherlands 4-2. Spain defeated New Zealand 3-2. Germany defeated Pakistan 5-0. Great Britain defeated Korea 4-3. Spain defeated Netherlands 3-1 to book their place in the finals. Australia continued their great run by defeating NewZealand2-1.

  Netherlands defeated NewZealand to win the Third Place. Germany defeated Great Britain 1-0 to win the Fifth Place. Pakistan defeated Korea 5-4 to win the Seventh Place.

World Cup Winners Australia defeated Spain 1-0 to win the Champions Trophy.

Part I: Introducing: The Gallipoli Campaign and it’s basic plan.

This essay will be explaining whether the Gallipoli Campaign was a TOTAL failure or not? I will set my opinion based on different sources during that time and historical written records from Primary and Secondary Sources. Basically, this essay will be based on my opinions backed up from facts and sources before, during and after the war. This essay is divided into 5 different parts to organize the facts and opinions of this essay. Before the Gallipoli Campaign was carried out, the expected results were:

• It would open up a sea route to the Russian Front so that the Allies could get supplies to the Russians.

• It would establish a new front. Allied troops could march through the Balkans and attack Germany’s principal ally, Austria-Hungary.

• It would relieve pressure on the Russian forces by drawing troops away from the Russian Front.

• Little Resistance, Quick Victory.

• No Land Invasion, No Trench Warfare

The principles of the plan were to attack Turkey past the Dardanelles Strait, a narrow stretch of water linking the Aegean Sea. The leader of this plan was Winston Churchill; head of the British Navy. This plan seemed to be very attractive because Britain had the most powerful navy in the world. There was going to be some infantry in support to attack any land-based guns that might threaten any of the warships. The plan involved no land invasions so there was no danger of troops getting bogged down in trench warfare like they had to on the Western Front. That was just the plan, but what really happened?

Part II : The Real Outcome

In March 1915 the warships began their assault in the Dardanelles Strait. The first thing they did was to bombard the strong forts that lined the strait and then they made their advance. As the British and French ships entered the strait, a chain of mines and shell fire from the forts sank 3 battle cruisers and damaged others. Thus, the British Navy was threatened. Now, the commanders have decided that this naval attack would not succeed and the risks of the ships continuing to Constantinople was just too great. They decided that they would launch a land invasion to capture the peninsula. They thought that once the Turks were driven off Gallipoli, the naval operation could continue. Later, in April, a force of French, British and the ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand) troops attacked Helles beach.

Unfortunately, the commanders have underestimated the power of the Turks. They were refused any aid from the Royal Flying Corps which could have provided them quite an advantage. A new German commander Otto Liman von Sanders helped the Turks to defend as they doubled the defensive forces and dug them into strong positions on hills. Later in the very morning, the first troops went ashore and charged up the steep hillsides and were hit by a hail of machine-gun fire.

Despite the losses against the Alliance, the troops fought very bravely and even managed to capture a number of Turkish trenches. The objective was clearly not achievable but the commanders still forced the troops to dig. With the dead corpses decaying along the front line, disease was imminent. On 20 May both sides even agreed on a truce. They buried the dead and some troops and even exchanged greetings. But the next day, the killing started again. In November, the troops faced another problem – frostbite. The harsh winter came and since the troops were badly equipped, they were attacked with frostbite and 300 troops died in a single snowstorm with 16000 reported cases of frostbite. In December, the win was impossible and the order to withdraw was a success and very well organized. In the end, the campaign was considered a failure and Churchill was badly humiliated.

Part III: Sources help us more.

“The expedition was plagued by inadequate resources. The question arose, if Britain lacked the resources to conduct such a campaign, was it wise to attempt it in the first place?” – From “The Great War: Myth and Reality” by D. Marshall, 1988. Source: 1

“… The men are kept too long and too thick in the trenches: they become stupefied after five days… Almost always in Gallipoli the attacks were made by men in the trenches and not by fresh troops… The Turks dig like moles and prepare line after line for defense; seven or eight close behind the other…” – Major H Mynors Farmar, Staff Captain, 86th Brigade, writing about fighting at Gallipoli. Source: 2

“… , the casualties were appalling. Again and again, battalions were all but wiped out; the trauma inflicted on the survivors must have been terrible” – From “Gallipoli” , by Michael Hickey, 1995. Source: 3

“ A successful military operation against the Gallipoli peninsula must binge upon the ability of the fleet… to dominate the Turkish defenses with gunfire and to crush their field troops during that period of helplessness while an army is disembarking, but also to cover the advance of the troops once ashore…” – From a pre-war report about the strength of the Gallipoli positions, which goes on to say that such an operation would not be possible. The report was not given to the commanders of the Gallipoli campaign. Source: 4

Part IV: So was it a TOTAL failure?

I disagree with this campaign being considered a total failure because soldiers still managed to capture some Turkish trenches and in the end the troops were able to retreat with ease. It was, however, a huge failure, because the primary objective was not completed due to miscalculations of the plan. They underestimated their enemies and many soldiers died to natural causes such as disease and frostbite. Churchill was demoted after this but in an optimistic side of view, not all of the soldiers died and that campaign did not last as long as the Western Front stalemate.

This campaign showed the strength of the Turks and this was a lesson to the Alliance. Source 2 clearly states how quickly the men were demoralized and how bad the decisions were made to send out stupefied men to No Man’s Land. Source 4 shows how they could have defeated the Turks at Gallipoli even before the actual campaign. Source 3 clearly shows how scared were the men and how dramatically were each of the battalions wiped out.

Part V: Conclusion

Basically, this campaign was not a TOTAL failure but it was a huge failure to the Alliance and Admiral Winston Churchill himself. This campaign could have been won much more easier if they would also send more land-based troops and better air support to destroy the forts and trenches. Air support should have been with the troops at all times; if possible that is.

In summary, this campaign was a huge embarassment for the Alliance and it would have been better not carried out in the first place. The conditions in the trenches was horrible. The trenches were packed with rotting corpses, heat, frostbite (winter), and flies everywhere. The casualties in this campaign were horrible.

Image via Wikipedia

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

Creation Of The United Nations:

After the wrath of World War ii, the world is seeking peace and prosperity again among all nations of the world. Before the world had over 170 states with their own territories, people and government. But the world has one world organization for peace which all states will meet in one conference table – The United Nations.

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

The United Nations had created with two group with nations that have oneness. In the year 1943 where where world war ii is about to find it’s final pace. The world leaders from U.S.A, Russia, Great Britain and China, with their significant meeting they agreed to settle world peace. They staged a meeting again fro August to October 1944. At Dumbarton Oaks in Washington D.C. Here they finalized to call world organization, The United Nations. In April 1945, world leaders set a meeting in San Francisco, California to write charters of the Organization.

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

There were ten world sessions for 400 delegations as their representatives from different nations. Finally, the charter of the U.N finished in June 1945.

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

A recent research conducted in Great Britain indicated that 25 % of the wives and only 15 % of the husbands were romantically involved with more than one partner at the same time. It was stated that in 18 % of the cases of formed love triangles the “culprits” for these statistics were Facebook and Twitter. More than half of the respondents in the questionnaires believed that it was possible for one to fall in love with more than one partner at the same time.

Usually men cheat driven by various motives like passion, given opportunity or some wrongful notion of having the right to do so. Unlike them, women tend to perceive such relationships in a much more complicated manner. The statistics showed preponderance of women being in love triangles based upon the fact that women never rely on opportunity, they control their passion in a very sophisticated manner (without losing the chance, of course), while at the same time tend to rethink the pros and cons of an eventual affair ouside the family. Besides, many women believe that having a romantic affair with another partner will be useful for the evolution of their regular relationship and this turns to a fantastic excuse if they find themselves caught in the act.

**************

Source: Internet News

At one time people thought that Stonehenge was a Druid temple. The Druids were a Celtic religious group who were suppressed in Great Britain soon after the Roman Conquest. Some people believe that they were a group of priests while others regard them as medicine-men who practised human sacrifice and cannibalism. It is also thought that the circle of stones was an immense temple in which to honour the sun god and perhaps even to offer human sacrifice.

Technically, the Lusitania was built as a Royal Navy cruiser as a result of an agreement between her owners, the prestigious Cunard Line, and the British Admiralty For War. This agreement stipulated that in the event of the outbreak of a general European War, she could and would be converted over to a warship quite easily. Because of this, she was designed with quite an impressive array of both transverse and longitudinal steel bulkheads, and dozens of watertight doors. This internal superstructure made the Lusitania very stout, and quite difficult to sink. Without question, she was one of the safest naval vessels of her day.

The overall dimensions of the Lusitania were simply astounding, even by today’s standards. For example, she was 787 feet from bow to stern, and 87 feet, 6 inches wide at her extreme breadth. Her gross tonnage was 31,550 tons, whlie her sea water displacement was 44,060 tons. The Lusitania contained seven decks, four funnels, four, 4 blade propellers, two masts, and could accommodate 2,198 passengers, along with 850 crew.

In addition to these very impressive specifications, perhaps the most incredible feature of this maritime giant was her speed. Simply put, the Lusitania was incredibly fast. Her 25 Scotch Boilers, and four direct-acting Parsons Steam Turbines, generated an astounding 76,000 horse power. This could drive the Lusitania through the water at 26.7 knots, or 31.2 miles per hour. This was an incredibly fast time for the early 20th Century, and pretty good by today’s standards as well.

The RMS Lusitania embarked upon her Maiden Voyage from Liverpool, England on September 7 1907. She arrived triumphantly in New York just six and one-half days later on the morning of September 13. In completing the historic voyage in less than seven full days, the Lusitania nearly earned the famed Blue Ribbon for the single fastest transatlantic voyage. In fact, she had just missed the mark by a few measly hours. The following month, though, she would take the Blue Ribbon from the Kaiser Wilhelm II, a German ship of the North Lloyd Fleet. During her award winning voyage, the mighty Lusitania averaged a stunning 23.99 knots on her way to New York, and an equally impressive 23.61 knots on her return voyage to England.

Ironically, in late November 1907, her very own sister ship, the indomitable Mauretania, took the Blue Ribbon from her, but only temporarily. That’s because on her very next voyage, the Lusitania would take it right back again. And, over the next two years, both awesome sisters would rule the Atlantic, like no ships before them, and very few since. The two of them would swap records back and forth a half dozen times over. This magnificent duel ended with the Lusitania finally setting the ultimate speed record of 25.85 knots in the spring of 1909. So incredible were their combined exploits, that people began referring to them as “Lucy and Mary, Cunard’s two greyhounds!”