We’re Right, You’re Wrong

Last night, a man was killed.

He was killed by the state. Well, a particular state.

He was killed, deliberately, intentionally, and in cold blood.

Because that’s what was required. That’s what the killers were told to do.

More than one person was involved in this killing. State-sponsored murder, some might call it.

Of course, that happens all over the world. Why should we be so surprised that so-called governments exercise their will and control of their population by liquidating their citizens?

The orchestrators of such terror usually have something severely wrong with them. Perhaps some sort of mental deficiency that doesn’t fit our expected social norms.

But throughout history, such people have invariably claimed they were doing it for the right reasons. They always had some sort of justification. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, bin Laden – they all had some distorted and warped notion of what was right; or that their actions are justified because of the sins of the person or people being put to death.

The funny thing is, the murder last night also had its backers crowing in the same way.

That it was an appropriate response to the crimes committed by the executed person.

That it was “justice”.

It didn’t really matter that the person being murdered may well have been mentally unstable. In previous episodes, it hasn’t really mattered that the person being killed was young.

They argue that the person being killed showed no compassion for humanity. Why should they get any in return?

And it’s a convincing argument. An eye for an eye. The spilling of blood is often a cathartic experience, we’re told. It is about retribution. Of getting even. And wouldn’t you want that if it had happened to someone you love?

It’s hard for any of us to answer that unless we’ve been in the desperately sad same situation to have lost a loved one or friend to a murderer.

I’m talking, of course, about the execution last night of the Washington sniper – John Allen Muhammad.

But – as you might have guessed – whenever the state sponsors an execution, it sits extremely uneasily with me.

I cannot justify state killing in any circumstances. Even one that has a so-called due process involved. A due process that has resulted in the deaths of countless innocent people. A due process that puts the world’s so-called greatest democracy in cahoots with Iran, China and North Korea.

It is not for the state to kill people. Just as people cannot have the right to kill other people, why should the state be any different?

After all, the state is made up from people. It’s just as fallible as any of us.

And that is my fundamental objection to the death penalty. It is too final. It is a statement of “this is the way it is, and there can be no other possibility”.

Almost like a religious dogma.

The state does not and should not have the monopoly on what is right.

We should never treat it as if it does.

Should Fireworks Be Banned?

Can't beat a good fireworks display though. Let someone else worry about the risks...

The obvious answer to this question from most people is surprisingly knee-jerk libertarian. For a nation that loves banning things though, we would be loathe to give up our yearly dose of gunpowder. “How dare the political correctness brigade try to infringe our British culture”, might be the cry from the Littlejohn pages, despite it having nothing to do with political correctness…

This is an issue, though, that I’m torn upon. I have some sympathy with the idea that these things are actually extremely dangerous and probably shouldn’t be put in the hands of the general public.

It’s one of these things though that is purely based on anecdotal experience. And, as everyone knows, anecdotal evidence makes for bad policy. But bear with me…

The other night round here there was a “run the gauntlet” atmosphere surrounding the local supermarket. The area is particularly scummy, and the local youths were having their fun setting fireworks off and aiming them at cars. The staff in the supermarket told me they’d been terrified all night – as several fireworks had managed to get into the shop – phoning the police on several occasions, only to be told they were too busy with other calls.

That kind of behaviour is somewhat expected round here. In truth, while it’s not great, it’s no worse than the behaviour of drunken adults pouring out of the local pubs at closing time. That’s what everyone’s used to. Maybe we shouldn’t be, but this tends to be what it’s like in the forgotten corners of Britain.

Anyway – that’s not sufficient for me. What makes me ask the question though is that, on many occasions, we have had many near misses on a number of different occasions. From Roman candles tipping over and firing horizontally, to badly designed imported (read “dodgy”) fireworks which were inherently unstable – with the consequence that after a few shots, they had wobbled enough to also be on their side, with the resulting rockets firing past people standing at a door and into the house, where they proceeded to explode…

Then the rockets, firing off at all different directions, hitting other people’s houses, exploding on roofs. And the ones that don’t seem to have the power to lift off, and end up exploding at ground level. Leading to much screaming and ducking for cover…

And on Thursday night, the absolute clincher. A rocket that essentially turned into an artillery shell.

The blue touch paper was lit, the rocket started screeching… it just about managed to go into the air, and then started coming down in a perfect arc. A one in a million shot. And as it reached the bottom of its parabola, it landed perfectly into the garden of someone living in the street behind us.

And exploded.

We were all, as you do, pissing ourselves with laughter. And hoping that there wasn’t anyone actually out there. We ran indoors and turned all the lights out.

That was the end of the festivities. But someone could have been out amongst that. Imagine a firework coming in at you as if it were a Hamas rocket and then exploding in front of you.

These things are bloody dangerous. And judging by the sheer amount of things that we’ve witnessed going wrong over the years, I’m convinced most other people must have had similar issues happening to them.

I wonder what the evidence suggests on the number of firework related injuries each year. It must, if you pardon the pun, rocket on 5th November.

Maybe they should just be confined to official displays. But they’re so embedded in culture that people would just get hold of them anyway.

Politics ain’t easy…

Why The Afghanistan War Will Continue

Perhaps we need more white poppies this year...

The question I’m beginning to wonder is simple. How much longer can the political class go on supporting the deaths of British troops in the face of public opposition?

The answer is nuanced and requires a combination of all the following factors:

While opposition is merely “opposition” and not being demonstrated extremely and forcefully, they could conceivably go on for a long time. After all, millions made their feelings known on the Iraq War, and that made no difference. Right now, people may say they oppose the war, but do they have a place to go to express it?

While the main Opposition party supports the war, that too will ensure little changes. When the two main parties are both agreed on a course of action, there is almost nothing stopping it. The Tories support the war as much, if not more, than Labour. Perhaps when Labour are in opposition they may elect a new leader who takes a populist stance on Afghanistan. For governments to be truly put under pressure, it is essential that the Opposition is the articulate voice of the nation’s feelings. That isn’t happening now.

While there is a relatively convincing and wonderfully rhetoric-laced riposte to all opponents of the Afghanistan war. It’s very easy for me to get into a debate with someone and tell them the war must end, but I have to admit I am always put on the back foot if they respond by saying we must remain there or the country will collapse, and then tens or hundreds of thousands will have died in vain. Then there are arguments about terrorism, which, while mostly bogus, give easy soundbites for the warmongers.

While there is a government at utter rock-bottom which knows it really doesn’t matter that it’s backing an unpopular war. Labour couldn’t sink any lower if they tried, and so the party leadership is free to ignore populist demands. Perhaps when the Tories are in government, and it soon becomes “their war” and the poll ratings start to slip… maybe that will encourage a change in direction.

While there is nowhere to go. None of the three major parties are outlining a case for withdrawal. That makes such a view extreme, espoused only by cranks from Stop The War or loony lefties. As such, the only people who appear in the media news cycles to say we need to pull out are figures that don’t look, sound or feel like they represent Britain. Paul Flynn MP made a superb case on Newsnight for pulling out immediately, but until such voices are heard consistently and forcefully across all media, opinions will not harden.

While not enough people refuse to make the issue the number one priority for how they will vote. In the end, it is down to the electorate to make their feelings fully heard.

While politicians don’t have the bottle to say “Enough is enough”. We’ve got into this bizarre situation now where no one wants to be the first to back down or they will be accused either of being unpatriotic or overseeing a defeat for “our boys”.

While tabloid media are not opposed. The government doesn’t necessarily listen to the tabloids, but if it’s being remorselessly attacked by this group as well as other media and the public at large, it all builds up a convincing case.

While Obama refuses to take the lead. It would be rather odd if the world’s policy on Afghanistan was set by the fact that Obama doesn’t want to lose face against the rhetoric of the Republican Party, but that is what’s happening. I get the sense that he’s not prepared to take them on on this issue. In any case, I don’t think he opposes the war anyway. Which is a mistake; this will be his very own Vietnam.

Conclusion

Afghanistan is a total mess, and the sooner we’re out, the better. There is nothing more we can achieve there. Our efforts have succeeded in putting in place a corrupt administration in Kabul, while the rest of the country is run by local warlords. Meanwhile, we allegedly defeated the Taleban in 2002, yet we’re still fighting them seven years later. That is not a good enough return for the deaths of thousands of soldiers and huge, untold numbers of civilians.

The bloodshed, and the madness, must stop.

If it doesn’t, the corrosive effect of politicians failing to appreciate or understand their electorate will continue.

And then maybe our own country will need to be invaded in order to restore “democracy”.

The Problem With The Kelly Report

Rumours that the report contained one of these appeared to be exaggerated.

Yesterday’s release of the Kelly Report into MPs expenses was largely overshadowed by the fact that it had been leaked horrendously in the week before. Worse, it was then pushed for airtime by the nonsense that is Cameron’s new EU policy, which has made Dan Hannan even more of a muppet than before, and which will completely isolate us within it.

But there was a gaping hole in the middle of the Kelly Report. For those who thought it might lead to a brigher era, with new spiffy MPs that are respected because of their hair-shirtedness, it is something of a disappointment.

The big problem is that the report says absolutely nothing about what MPs ought to be paid. Bear in mind that MPs pay is the elephant in the room, and that Kelly’s recommendation to farm it out to an independent body is merely buck-passing.

It’s far more important because the MPs expenses and allowance system got so grotesque because MPs pay was being artificially kept low. It’s the classic con-trick. Watch my hand as I only raise MPs pay by small amounts per year, while my other hand is furiously filling in expense claims, to which I attach no receipts, and simultaneously speculate on the property market…

A number of MPs and organisations made submissions to the Kelly inquiry hoping that MPs pay would be front and central of his recommendations. Instead, the issue has been dodged. Maybe by some miracle the new independent regime to handle expenses will finally come to the right conclusion and recognise MPs genuinely do deserve a pay rise…

But the right time, surely, was now. While the issue is live and the public are keen to see reforms. While the media are paying close attention is the honest time to have this debate. Not in a couple of year’s time when the expenses affair, nullified by a general election and a new system, has died a death. That would only be seen as, yet again, greedy, grasping MPs trying to claw back what they’ve lost.

Worse, it would start to bring down the reputation of the newly elected Parliament, something we could avoid entirely by doing it now. After all, the reputation of the current lot could hardly be any worse. Why not utilise the lame-duck status of it to deal with this issue once and for all?

The Kelly Report is otherwise a useful step. It stops all the obvious outrages. That’s what we expected it would do, and MPs would be foolish to try to derail it; that really would push the reputation of politics over the edge.

But maybe we could have convinced them by sweetening the deal a little.

Politics should be fair to everyone. Even politicians.

Democrats Throw Away The Baby And The Bathwater

Chris Christie (R) may indeed be corpulent, but it probably shouldn't be an election issue...

Over in the US, it’s been a pretty remarkable off-year election season.

The three races that became nationally significant were gubernatorial battles in Virginia and New Jersey, and a Congressional seat in the House of Representatives in the 23rd district of New York. The first two slots were previously held by Democrats, and the final one was held by a Republican.

The results are now in, and every seat has flipped. New Jersey, traditionally seen as rock solid for the Democrats, now has a Republican governor. Virginia, a state critical to the Obama tidal wave, also has a Republican governor, delivered in a landslide.

Meanwhile, in perhaps the result of the night, rural upstate New York now has its very own Democrat representative, after a spectacular implosion in the Republican field when a third party right-wing crank going by the name of Doug Hoffman managed to split the vote between the mostly moderate electorate. Oh, and he caused the official Republican to drop out, with the blessing of the national Republican party.

There is much to digest from these results, but in truth, the lessons to be learned are simple.

In Virginia, the Democratic candidate spent almost the entire electoral cycle running away from popular Democratic ideas, like, I dunno, improved access to healthcare. He seemed to forget that Obama carried his state on that very same agenda. Sure, everyone wants their own man, but perhaps the Democrats really picked the wrong candidate here. After all, exit polls from the state suggested that were the 2008 election to be rerun, Obama would still win with the same percentage…

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, the incumbent Democrat suffered a disappointing defeat when it had seemed he’d done so well to bring himself back in the game. I suspect the key thing that brought him down was a rather miserable governing record, the usual level of anti-incumbency during a recession, and a relentlessly negative campaign that even enjoyed a joke at the expense of his opponents fatness. In any case, it is a very poor loss: New Jersey is a solid “D” state, and to see it being thrown away again suggests that the candidate not wise. Perhaps he should have been “retired” before the voters did it for him.

Finally, NY-23 delivered the coup de grace of the evening. In a place which hasn’t elected a Democrat for an enormous length of time, they now have one. Why? Largely because the Republicans haven’t shown themselves as fit to govern. What a shamble, to tear their own party inside out and end up backing the third-candidate.

What they demonstrated was that there is no room for moderate Republicans in the new GOP. The Party of Palin and Limbaugh is now well on course for nominating a religious variant on a Barry Goldwater style candidacy for 2012, which will achieve a very similar electoral outcome. Pariah status is imminent. It’s all the logical conclusion of the George W. Bush playbook that brought the economic capitalist die-hards into bed with the religious right. Their funeral, I suppose.

In summary, Democrats have gotta find that spine that I wrote about last week. They need to be brave enough to be a truly progressive Democrat, because that is where the mainstream of America is, regardless of how much the corporate dollars and the talking heads on Fox News try to insist otherwise.

If they can’t do that, and instead sacrifice themselves to the lobbyists and see themselves held to ransom in the Senate by the fringe of an increasingly radical and suicidal Republican party, they’ll piss off the entire coalition from young to old that brought Obama to power.

And then they won’t see government again for a very long time.

Finally, for the record, in the immortal words of Meat Loaf, two outta three ain’t bad.

One Month Less

Here's another - less liked - form of Poll

Or fewer?

Today we consider the latest instalment in our Monster’s Poll series. And the bad news for Labour is that nothing has changed:

• Conservatives: 40% (N/C)
• Labour: 23% (N/C)
• Lib Dems: 23% (N/C)

The only thing that has changed, of course, is time. Labour now have one less month to tackle that major deficit.

Naturally, they aren’t going to overcome it. After all, they’ve spent the last year or more being way behind, and it seems to make no difference to the way they behave. They’re no closer to solving the problem, which makes me wonder if they’re even bothered about it any more.

We’re all humans, so there must come a point at which defeatism sets in. Most Tory members knew they would lose the 1997 election, but one thing they did demonstrate is that it was worth fighting back. In the year or two before the 1997 election, Labour often recorded over 50% in polls. They still achieved a landslide, but there is no doubt that Tory voters came home to a limited extent in the run up to the election.

Will we see the same thing here? I believe we will, but only if Labour voters get energised about the process. And yet… they just aren’t going to if the polls are this far apart.

Which is why the fightback, if one is going to happen, will not be organic. It will have to be lead in the first instance by the Labour top brass. Mandelson, you may recall, is a fighter and not a quitter. So there’s one for the battlebus. But what about the rest?

You get the sense that the expenses fiasco and the battle that is governing this country has taken it out of Labour. They are now lethargic, waiting for the end to come. Contrast that with the Tories, who have a spring in their step, desperate to get their hands on the levers of power, and can’t wait to turn off the taps of public funding. They haven’t had a better opportunity/excuse in decades to implement a radical Tory platform than the economic crisis. They have a raison d’etre.

Labour don’t. They know inevitable defeat will lead to an even more open party warfare than before. Perhaps that’s why most of them are so morose, because they know that just around the corner is the prospect of Ed Balls and Ed Miliband battling it out for the Labour leadership.

And if that’s not enough to fill anyone with dread, I don’t know what is.

To Ride Or Not To Ride

Everyone's a fruit and Nutt case...

The controversy in recent days over Home Secretary Alan Johnson’s sacking of his chief drugs adviser has been a joy to watch.

It seems the biggest problem was caused when Professor David Nutt asserted that riding a horse was more dangerous than taking ecstasy. Yes, it’s quite a surprising soundbite. No one would ever expected something so apparently genteel and middle-class as horse riding could possibly be equated with 20-30 somethings popping a pill to enhance their enjoyment of a good night out. Oh no.

If you’ll pardon the pun, Nutt’s comment must have frightened a few horses in Number 10 to elicit his sacking.

What we have here is a classic case of reality versus fantasy. On the one hand, we have a professor, an esteemed scientist, backed by a large number of his peers on a government appointed body tasked with looking at the evidence to inform sensible policy making. On the other hand, we have a society, comprising prejudices, social norms, cultural values and a big dollop of old wives’ tales.

Which side do political parties invariably come out on?

We place such a low value on evidence in policy making. After all, why let the facts get in the way of the beliefs you’ve held for many decades? So what if the evidence shows that prison doesn’t work? So what if burning the poppy fields in Afghanistan makes no difference to the amount of drugs on the world’s streets? So what if Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction…

George W. Bush ran his administration on faith that he had all the answers without needing to check if the ends justified the means. His religious values resulted in policies that made no difference, and made some things worse, but I guess made him feel a warm fuzzy glow inside that he was doing God’s work. Abstinence only “sex education”. Bans on stem-cell research. Restriction of the use of abortion. A belief in American exceptionalism so strong that its alleged ideology should be exported across the planet in spite of what the recipients actually want.

Our politics must have no place for this. When the facts change, and the facts are showing that current policies are doing more harm than good, we need our politicians to be flexible enough to respond. Not pursue dogmatic agendas in the hope that they’ll curry favour with the Daily Mail, Rupert Murdoch or the mythical beast that is middle England.

What does all this mean for ideology? These days, it largely doesn’t exist anyway. Some believe in more state control, others more individual liberty. But in the modern era, when science is answering more and more questions about the fundamentals of life, we cannot stick our fingers in our ears and carry on regardless.

Where science doesn’t give us the answers, such as on the economy (I don’t necessarily count economics as a science) then there is a little more scope for politicians to go with their gut instinct.

But otherwise, in the most ridiculous forced-choice question in history, if someone put a gun to my head and said, “Ride the horse or take the chill pill” I think I know which way I’d go…

A Tear For The Education System

Perhaps this scale of complexity makes sense to someone, but not me...

There was a story in the Guardian yesterday a few days ago how the government’s new fangled diploma qualification, a “better” alternative for those less academically inclined, have turned out to be “too hard”.

It’s enough to make anyone weep.

What a shambles the education system in this country is now. Endless “reform” and the exam culture have destroyed any semblance of point to what we put our children through.

Diplomas were first suggested by the excellent Tomlinson Report. The government had commissioned Mike Tomlinson to investigate the post-14 education system in light of continued accusations of narrow curricula, falling standards and teaching to the test.

He came up with a very radical solution, which was, in effect, to subsume the current bizarre arrangements of GCSEs, AS-Levels, A-Levels, NVQs, Key Skills and a multitude of other qualifications into a new National Diploma. The diploma would now be the qualification of choice. Earned at 18, it would consist of four years study, though its modular nature would mean a great deal more flexibility for schools.

The idea worked because it would pull together all these silly qualifications, many of which have been sadly undermined by years of abuse, into one national framework for the first time. It would give vocational subjects the equality they deserve, as a Diploma could be earned by achieving the necessary credits and criteria, regardless of which subjects or disciplines the credits come from.

It would also have the useful result of demonstrating that education should not be considered complete for some people at 16. Now you could only get your qualification by sticking it out.

The Diploma had the support of the teaching unions – vital to secure implementation – and the universities, who thought it would help them differentiate between students better than the present system. Amazingly, it also had the support of business, which had deemed that the Diploma would bring a better focus to the skills required from employers.

Unfortunately, it didn’t have the support of the only people that matter: the government. In the run up to the 2005 election, Labour didn’t want to be seen as being too radical. On the other side, the Tories were whinging about wanting to preserve the A-Level “gold standard”. Suddenly, Labour were on the wrong side of the PR battle, wanting to remove such a marvellous “gold standard” is apparently not what the country wants to hear.

After the election, Labour decided Tomlinson had some good ideas after all. They implemented the diploma system anyway. But in such a way that they were doomed from day one. Tomlinson only worked as a package deal. Instead, Labour brought in diplomas but only for vocational subjects.

The result: a total mess. Yet another qualification. The continued demise of the GCSE, leading to schools offering International GCSEs and Baccalaureates.  Which are yet more qualifications, promoting more confusion and making it impossible for employers, colleges and universities to compare standards.

Worse, the new qualification they have introduced is stillborn. By making it look like it’s only for the thickies, it hardly encourages uptake. Having more things for teachers to learn before they can even begin to teach it is not good either. And such a half hearted implementation will surely make students and teachers alike think: “Why study something that may be obsolete in just a few years?”.

But then to build the diploma in such a way that it’s actually much harder than the qualifications it is supposed to be equivalent to, thus adding to the unfathomable web of different qualifications, all at different levels of difficulty? That’s shambolic and unforgiveable.

In some ways, it can be likened to an attempt to build a free market in the education system. Choice and competition.

And that is why it’s a failure.

Spoke Too Soon

Yesterday I twittered that I would be back in business tomorrow.

Alas, I spoke too soon.

Through a combination of ineptitude, bad luck and downright lies, I am still without internet in my new abode.

Though it may not have been obvious over the past few days as I’ve steadily released a stream of posts I made earlier. Though the lack of topicality may have given the game away…

Anyway, the consequence is that blogging will again be light. I know, it’s as disappointing for you as it is for me…

The funny thing about not being able to blog is that I’m actually missing it. Not being able to write out my angry thoughts and turn them into something coherent and vaguely rational. It’s a very cathartic process.

I watch the news daily, listen to it on the radio too… and have been reading the newspapers from cover to cover, courtesy of the fine library I’m using now for the internet. And I read things and think, “I know, I’ll write a post about that!”

And then… reality returns.

Of course, reality is all around as I sit in this library. Some people are clearly insane. Others drunk. Others lonely. Others fallen on hard times. Others cheapskates. Others filled with the joys of being part of a public community and resource. Others are single parents, looking for ways to pass the time.

Funny thing is… most of them use Facebook.

Even the old duffers.

In Awe of Keith Olbermann

The man in action; it's all about the Special Comment...

In case it wasn’t already obvious, one of the things I’m interested in is the power of oratory. As everyone knows, it’s not just about what you say, but how you say it. Indeed, many of Obama’s speeches are not filled with anything particularly revolutionary, but his style of delivery, the timbre of his voice, the song-like qualities he brings to the delivery, make him all the more pleasing on the ear.

But there is one man whose speaking-style is more akin to an Alan Partridge sports journalist type. And yet, when he’s on fire, I could listen to him all day…

His name is Keith Olbermann. British politicos may not have heard of him, but Americans will know exactly who I’m talking about. He is the presenter of Countdown on MSNBC. His politics are distinctively liberal: but with plenty of fire in his belly. It’s often been commented that the only good shock-jocks are on the right, but in recent years pundits like Olbermann, Franken (before he became a Senator!) and Rachel Maddow have turned that preconception on its head.

And they owe it all to the trail-blazer, and very funny, Jon Stewart.

These people are razor sharp, quick witted and coherent. Their powers of reasoning are often brilliant…

But there’s just something about Olbermann that puts him ahead of the pile. About a week or so, he demonstrated his brilliance in a 20 minute “Special Comment” on the topic of US healthcare reform. If you have time to spare, watch this from start to finish – but even a couple of minutes will show you what I mean…

What is it that makes him so good? Like I said, his speaking voice and style is nothing particularly new. Indeed, he might even be compared to Gordon Brown in the speed and knockout nature of the delivery. Brown’s speeches tend to consist of pummelling you with wave after wave of statistics and soundbites – a style which makes him come over as appearing bold, confident and self-assured.  Olbermann is the same.

But the true shining quality of Olbermann is in the force of his argument. While Brown argues in prose, Olbermann argues in poetry.

Olbermann is the master of all those techniques that we once all listened to in GCSE English and got bored stiff of… and then quickly forgot once the exam was over.

Well, I was supposed to forget them but I didn’t.

Olbermann uses imagery, metaphors, hyperbole, alliteration, rhyming, rhetorical devices, rhythm and perfectly placed pauses for effect, He tears into his opponents by going for the most emotional response possible, and brings in concepts from other arguments and philosophers by referencing them to build up his case.

But the greatest asset is his ability to bring it all together to make it feel more like a poem or a song than a thesis. It feels like the paragraphs are short and direct, each one building towards a conclusion that you actually enjoy heading towards. The sentences are easy to digest and break down. There are no Charles Kennedy-esque 100 word sentences using colons, semi-colons, ellipses, commas, hyphens… filled with digressions and asides.

And the final thing that I like so much about him, the thing that makes him such a joy to listen to is the quality of his diction. Every single consonant, every single vowel, every speech-like noise is perfectly enunciated. At no point is there ever any doubt about what he has said. His voice has depth, richness and clarity. No annoying quirks of accent or anything else to catch the ear. Just unambiguous confidence and erudition.

Do we have anyone comparable over here? Am I wrong in thinking that we have a real paucity of public speakers in this country