My London 2012

London 2012 ended with the closing ceremony of the Paralympic Games Sunday as we said goodbye finally to a fantastic summer of sport. The Games, these games, were always going to be a little bit special, for me anyway, than other games just for my ability be part of the Games, in so many ways.

I knew it would be that way from the day London won the final shortlisted contest to hold the games, against Paris, beating the chic French capital which had a sensible and sustainable plan for using existing world class sporting facilities and exploiting its experience of holding world class sporting events. London's bolder plans, would involve reviving a dilapidated part of East London, but not before first tearing it down. That part of the East London district of Stratford was my home. That put me right in the middle. But at first, what I was in the middle of was a real mess!

Even as my own neighbourhood was spared the demolition ball, my relationship with the Olympic park that was being constructed nearly across the street from my home started badly. Initially the view of the Park was of nothing more than a barren expanse of rubble and mud. Oh, and don't mention the noise, the roaring and rumbling of construction vehicles in and out of the gateway and down our street.

But you take the good with the bad. In time the views of this rising phoenix improved, and you couldn't forget that the site was providing employment and economic activity at a time when words like the housing bubble and credit crunch entered our vocabulary. But the likely prospect of gentrification rared its head, lovely new condos started going up just down the road from public housing estates. Housing not aimed at East London's well established working class. Landlords bought up existing housing with dreams of making an Olympic sized killing.

As he economy tanked, the media turned its attention to the the (inevitable) cost over-runs and the general extravagance of holding the Games in such bad times. As the Olympics approached issues like the failure of the outsourced security firm to provide enough security guards for the Olympics focussed the media hype-machine on London's likely inability to organise the Games. Anyone who wasn't then obsessed with the possibility for terrorist attacks and general Armageddon had to worry about the simple things in London life that are about to be a little more difficult during the games. Even Transport for London, the people who run the trains were telling us it might be better if we could sometimes walk.

Then something special happened. The big clock at Stratford Station counting down the years, months and the hours to these games counted down to zero. Somebody said 'Let the games begin!'. I think it was the Queen, in fact fresh from jumping out of James Bond's helicopter. I was really her, I'm sure. Anyway, the best thing to actually happened to these games is that finally they were actually taking place.

16 wonderful Olympics days followed by 11 days of Paralympic Games, after a short break. Unprecedented television coverage for both sets of games including the ability to choose to watch just about any sport going on at any time. That's paradise for those obsessed with Takwando, Wheelchair basketball, or who could forget the beach volleyball. So, which team won again?

Helping Britain to fall in love with their Games was the fact that British athletes did so well, finishing third in both the Olympic and Paralympic medal tables. Oh, and when I say Britain, I refer to a country that I wasn't really sure existed until now. Of course we know Britain as a island household where a dysfunctional family of English, Scottish and Welsh nationalities reside, but given common Scottish disdain for anything English and English disregard for the rest of Britain I was amazed at the unifying ability of these Games. That was no more clearly evidenced by the newest fashion statement, the Union Jack now proudly placed anywhere where it could be seen, such as on a t-shirt on the top selling official Team GB gear. The Games brought the Union Jack out of the closet, and showed a country newly pleased with itself clearly not still embarrassed by that 300 year colonial empire thing.

Consider also that the three most popular sports in this nation of nations normally are, in the following order: football, football, and football. Other than the hype over David Beckham's NOT being selected to Team GB we were all amazed when the country's nation's obsession turned to sports like sailing where Britain were winning medals instead of losing on penalty shootouts.

As for the Games naysayers, well if they persisted they must have either had not much to say, or no one was listening. If pessimism was really the national trait of the British it was hard to see it now. Even the early summer soggy weather let up. The Games were great, well organised, and bearable even for Londoners who just wanted to get on with daily life, save a few minor inconveniences. That was the minor price to play in return for the festival atmosphere that descended upon London the last half of the summer, with thousands of flag-waving visitors from all corners of the world. I have yet to meet an Olympic or Paralympic Games hooligan.

There were those outstanding Gamesmakers, a gimmcky name, I thought at first, for the 70,000 volunteers who really do make the games happen and they made these Games what they were by directing people, high-fiving people and just making us remember, for a few weeks anyway, that although we're Londoners, we could try to speak to each other and maybe even to say something nice. Anyone who thinks they know should have seen us during the Games. You would hardly recognise the place. The good cheer among citizens was like nothing I had seen since the 2007 London Underground bombings. The theory then, was that it takes a disaster to bring out the best in Londoners. The 2012 Games, much to many people's surprise, was something well short of a disaster and the effect that it had on the city, nothing short of a miracle.

My one regret is that I had to leave my Stratford home, priced out of the area by a greedy landlord who will one day rot in hell. But I made it back there, anyway. Not as a local resident anymore, nor as a challenger to Usain Bolt's 100 metre record in the main stadium but as a journalist and a volunteer where several athletic performances lived up to the billing of 'inspiring a generation'.

But like all good things London 2012 has come to a end, leading people to turn their attention to 'legacy'. Stratford is now a bizarre social mis-match of gentrified areas located next to slums. But both rich and the poor are left with amazing transport links and some of the best sports facilities in the world. Some of the venues will remain open as training venues for elite athletes, future stars and ordinary guys like me just fighting to stay in shape.

The Games will return, first the winter games to Sochi in 2014, then the next summer games in Rio two years after. Then to other places where they will surely touch the lives of others the way like they have touched me in London my home for many years. You see, whenever the Olympics arrives practically in your own backyard, and you see the way that it changes the collective mood of a moody nation at a difficult time in its history, you understand then that you have just experienced a once in a lifetime event. And then you can only wait for the next one.

Who are you calling a foreigner?

It's a familiar story. I'd heard it so many times before. The article was about ingrate immigrants who steal jobs from more entitled homelanders, how they increase crime, poverty and infect otherwise sane societies with a host of unwanted social problems. One official quoted in this particular article was said to be considering getting rid of the 'immigrant scum' all together. According to the recent Economist article, this official went on to further denounce 'foreign trash', who come only because they can't find work in their own country. He talked about foreigners who would stoop to the ploy of entering romantic relations to legitimize their stay in the country, calling one woman who had allegedly done this a 'foreign bitch'.

Now, that's pretty strong stuff, but you might have heard this kind of language in the pub in your own hometown, or maybe even in certain newspapers. Such words are normally directed at the influx of immigrants, generally from poorer countries into rich Western nations. Yet, the article I refer to was about the 100 day crackdown in China against Westerners staying illegally there, working, doing business and taking advantage of that country's favourable economic conditions. That means that the 'trash' and 'scum' that they are talking about could pretty much be you or me.

So, consider that one more reminder that the world that we live in is changing before our eyes. Take the way that the so-called BRICS countries; Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa have come through a relatively long period of high economic growth, while at the same time banks in the West have flopped, public and private debt levels remain unsustainable, the U.S. housing market has collapsed like a deck of cards and, at the time of writing, the European monetary union stands on the verge of disintegration.

The oil-rich African nation of Angola is lending money to Portugal, its former imperial lord. Brazil surpasses the U.K. as the sixth largest economy in the world. China stands at number two, ready to topple the mighty U.S. at the summit of world economic power during the lifetime of the post baby-boom generation. British workers now flock to the United Arab Emirates to do jobs that are not attractive to citizens of those wealthy oil-states.

But what does this could mean for immigration? Economic migration, as it’s called isgenerally the movement of people from poor countries to richer ones, from unstable to stable, for the purpose of increasing their own opportunities while contributing to the economy of their new home. Such movement is neither free nor easy. The destination country sets the rules. Many rich nations are not even accepting applicants. In other cases, like the U.S.A., there are so many more applicants than places that a 'lottery' has been established. Then a lengthy, costly and uncertain process would follow before the applicant can ever step foot in their new country.

But wait. Aren’t we supposed to be in the era of globalisation, the process that dictates that goods, and capital can much easily move around the globe like chess pieces, and that all of this is done for the good of economic growth? In reality globalisation only favours multinational corporations in their search of the cheapest and most desperate workers and the most favourable government and tax policies. Workers generally do not have any such mobility rights to help themselves go to where the jobs are. You could conclude that immigration policy is just protectionism where governments places the needs of corporations over people.

Writer Ha-Joon Chang illustrates the unfairness of immigration control in 23 Things They Don’t Tell You about Capitalism. A hypothetical taxi driver in Sweden, whom he calls Sven, makes 50 times more money than Raj, an imaginary taxi driver in India, as Chang states, but why?. Is it because Sven is a 50 times better driver? Hardly possible. The more chaotic road conditions in Mumbai would naturally make Raj a better driver. We are left to figure that the only reason that Sven is better paid is because he is protected by his government’s policies.

But the European Union supports such mobility of workers within its zone of 27 countries, you might say. Yes, and so, when 1 million people left former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, most headed for Britain because British employers successfully lobbies government to encourage migration from other EU countries into Britain. Those migrants were able to fill numerous minimum wage vacancies in the expansive British service industry. All that went on while Gordon Brown, the British PM at the time, famously called for ‘British jobs for British workers’. The trouble is, that would have involved raising wages and (heaven forbid) driving down corporate profits. So the corporate community still dictates government policy, but this time in favour of immigration. Profits are kept high and the immigrants get the blame for stealing jobs. What a result!

But what if immigration policies really reflected the mantra of the free market in this way more often, wouldn't locals sometimes lose out to foreigners? Don’t schools, hospitals and other social institutions struggle to meet demand, and wouldn't we need to find solutions to more and more social problems like integration, social cohesion and xenophobia? Is open immigration really the answer?

There are many downsides as well as benefits to immigration so adjustments would be necessary. But national governments will always want to control the numbers of foreigners for many reasons, so it's not likely that we will ever have to deal with these challenges. Still, the world is changing in many ways and now even economic migration is due for change, starting with a shift in migration patters.

We know that economic growth continues to be driven by developing countries. Won't Westerners want to move to the more dynamic developing world? My own time in Hong Kong gave me a great perspective on tremendous growth taking off in mainland China. Finding work was a cinch. Pay was good. Optimism was in the air. Being a young man living in a boom town was a buzz. Nowadays, many young Westerners have lost that confidence in their own economies to provide such good opportunities as they enter the workforce.

These massive changes in world economics might cause a partial reversal in the East to West, South to North poor to rich countries' flow of migration. I’m hoping that change will also affect our ideas and perceptions. Even the word 'immigrant' has a negative connotation. That's why Westerners who migrate call themselves 'expats.' How could it be if we now still consider that the poor should stay in their own countries while westerners wander the earth in search of opportunities (as we have for many centuries). We might be about to feel the resentment of the developing world which is quickly catching up .

All this means that the next time you hear the debate about immigration from only one perspective it might be important to understand another way of seeing things. Choosing to leave your country and live in another place live does not make you a parasite. It makes you a braver and far more interesting person, in my eyes, and much more valuable to the global economy.

Although open immigration is not going to happen anytime soon, more international agreements that offer workers the chance to offer their skills in a place other than where they were born, in a place where those skills are in demand would benefit us all. That's called the free market. The game so many people preach but don't really practice. It's always been 'all good' when the immigrants were always one of ‘them.’ Don’t look now but, all signs point to a future where some of those people may also be ‘us’.

America, America...

Many of you have already formulated an idea on what this blog must be about. America, the large, influential, but culturally dominant superpower? Or perhaps it's about America, the wider continent which contains the gigantic superpower? Or perhaps America, the huge landmass unknown to the rest of the world (Europe) until it was 'discovered' by Columbus as a stubborn obstacle in the way of India. But this blog is not about any of that. It's actually about nothing at all. It's about a place called America, a place, that I'd argue, doesn't actually exist.

America, as many of you know, is neither a country, a continent nor a hemisphere. There's nowhere quite like America, because America is nowhere. 'That can't be true' I hear some of you say. 'American' is a nationality so it must be that a place and its people somehow exist. But the term American as we use it identifies something or someone that comes from the United States of America, and it's a simple fact that to be an 'American' sounds a whole lot cooler than to say you are United Statian.

So, Americans must be from some place called America, you'd figure. But that's a point that can't be proven. There's no place called America and if you don't believe that, just take a second to try and find it on a map. The USA is part of North America, which is distinguished from South America, being considered a separate continent by some or a sub-continent by others. That's another issue for another day. Never mind.

Together, North and South America are properly called 'The Americas' in English. Oh, but there's also a Central America too, leading anyone to think that anyplace that has a north, a south and central part must actually exist in of itself, right? Check the map.

But this is all semantics, of course. It is common British English usage to use 'America' as the short version of USA yet this misnomer is annoying and confusing and not really that much shorter after all. It's also not very international. The French use l'Amerique, to mean both Americas but the Spanish use Americano to identify the Spanish speaking part of the Americas and norteamericano to mean American, I mean from the USA, which leaves out the Mexicans, because they're just Americanos. and Canadians, who consider themselves North Americans, but definitely not Americans.

Confused? Well,that's the whole point. Somebody should have come up with a less vague and confusing name for all these people. An American could be from anywhere the North Pole to Terra del Fuego but they don't come from America because that is properly is a name without a place. In fact, I'd like to say that I'm an American, but after all this you'd would have no idea what that actually means.

The End of the News

Not a great week for British tabloid journalism. A  167 year-old red-top bites the dust this weekend, I wonder out loud if the real world isn't actually a better place without the News of the World.

For those who haven't heard, the campaign for ethics in journalism took a giant leap backwards this week after further sickening allegations about how the paper employed phone-hacking as a method of information gathering. When it was discovered that journalists hacked the phones of the aggrieved family members of victims of terrorist attacks, and fallen soldiers the public decided it had had enough. The paper lost credibility with its readers and (much more importantly for its corporate ownership) its advertisers abandoned ship.

This (news)paper is quite well known for its effective, yet shady investigative journalism including the sting operation that cost England football manager, Sven Goran Erikson, his job. The Erickson case demonstrated the tabloid's reporters zest for getting to the 'truth' by using dishonesty.

But even as the News of the World dies, the paper's corporate owners, News International will survive. The company chairman, Rupert Murdoch may have to tread a bit of hot water for a while as the man at the helm of this mess, but he's not the one who will truly suffer. He'll get back to counting his money sometime soon after this scandal blows over. News Corporation still owns two of Britain's biggest titles, the Sun and the Times, (Hello, competition Bureau, are you there?) but if anyone believes that the unethical practices exposed at the News of the World aren't endemic throughout the organisation and the entire industry, stay tuned. You'll be hearing more about this shortly.

As for the 200 journalists losing their jobs today, I'm not shedding any tears for them. Ethics come from the human soul, not soulless corporations. Anyone asked to do anything against their conscience has clear options. One option is to say no. The reality is that the culture of journalism is inherently hyper-competitive. The race to get the story, to get there first, to get an exclusive to make the biggest splash that can change your career and change your life is heightened in an industry where it is incredibly hard to get a job and increasingly harder to keep it. Journalists develop a carnal survival instinct which is the explanation, but not an excuse, for using any means possible to get the big story. You can always blame the corporate culture afterwards, when everything goes wrong.

Believe it or not, trainee journalists spend a lot of time studying ethics. The issue of privacy, what you can and can't say about the private lives of public figures, is currently a hot topic in journalism schools. Hacking phones to get private info about private people is illegal, not to mention unethical and disgusting and completely unnecessary.

Does the public have the right, and the need, to know everything? The public appetite for 'news,' which is often  nothing more than public gossip, is not only part of British tabloid culture, it's part of the national culture. The public is therefore not blameless in any of this. We are all affected by the in-your-face tabloid headline grabbing stories and we are under the influence of these very efficient commercially owned opinion makers. What to do? Well, for one thing, I hope in the future we will come to see the tabloid headlines as something like a car crash. We need to try much harder to look away