Bobby Kennedy

Forty-three years ago today, Robert Kennedy was shot and killed as he campaigned at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.

Languishing in hindsight and speculation, I will say that I believe Bobby Kennedy would have been one of the greatest President’s the United States has ever had, had he not been cut short on the campaign trail in 1968. If he’d have lived, there may have been no President Nixon, No President Ford, and maybe even no President Reagan. If his ideas and sentiments not been crushed in the following years by a vicious right winged neoliberal elite, and less eloquent and less popular and far less charismatic liberal politicians made to sound like the ramblings of archaic socialists, the World might not have had to endure thirty years plus, of the rise of the Hayekian New Right. The spirit of the ’60s was firmly shot down in 1968.

I wanted a short blog today on RFK, and a quote that I felt summed up his political philosophy, and why he remains one of my political heroes.

“Our gross national product … if we should judge America by that – counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”

Perfect quote.

The pride in luck

My indescribably curious mind is unable to fully comprehend the statement “i’m proud to be British“. I stay clear of saying it, because it provokes a deep thoughtfulness that just exists to annoy me. I always finding myself questioning the sentiment, and then questioning my conclusion; the conclusion I always come to is that you cannot be proud to be a Nationality. And so by definition, I musn’t be proud to be English. Which begs the question, how can I be proud of our troops, the guys dying in far away lands so I can live free and in luxury? And here lies the paradox; I feel a deep sense of pride toward those guys. They are performing a task that I could never perform, and they do a damn good job. They are the lifeline of this country. And so, with that in mind, I must be proud to be English afterall, right?

So the next few paragraphs, is simply my mind trying to work this whole thing through. I apologise in advance if it doesn’t make much sense.

I always wonder what it is people mean when they say “I’m proud to be British” or “I’m proud to be American” or suggesting pride in any Nationality at all. It is much like those who insist that they are incredibly “proud to be White” or “proud to be Black“. To me, it’s never made sense. I’ve never been able to bring myself around to saying that i’m proud to be white, or proud to be British. To say “i’m proud to be British” would be like saying “i’m proud to have a nose“. It isn’t about being proud to be White, or black, or British. It’s about feeling relieved at how lucky you got to be where you are.

I think that language plays a strong role in this debate. There appears to be no middle ground. You either declare that you’re proud to be British, or you declare that you’re not proud to be British. There is no compromise. It’s language rather than intelligence. If I say i’m proud to be British, I go against my principles as a Humanist. If I say i’m not proud to be British, it suggests I dislike this country, which I don’t. So what other option do I have at my disposal?

I figure I was born in England, through luck through chance. I did not have a say in the matter. Similarly, I was born white. It was pure luck. I could have just as easily been born into a third World country and dead before my fifth birthday. I didn’t choose to be born here. I did not achieve anything to have significant pride in.

I love this country. I love the liberal values. I love that anybody is welcome. I love that we’re understanding. I love that we’re tolerant. I love that we live in relative luxury. I love the opportunities we are presented with on a daily basis. I love our foods. I love our sense of decency and friendliness. I love our TV. I love our willingness to contribute to social projects like the NHS and the education system because we’re happy to help those less fortunate. But I did not achieve any of that. I was lucky to be born here. I cannot show pride in something I haven’t achieved. I cannot show pride in luck.

I am proud of my ancestors for their struggle during Wars, including my great grandad who died during World War One. He was a kid, younger than I am now. I cannot imagine how scared he must have been. His sacrifice means I can sit here in comfort and write this now in freedom. My grandad fought in the Navy during World War II. I’m proud of him for his strength and courage. But I see this as completely different to being proud of a land mass.

Here’s where language comes into it again. Saying you’re proud TO BE British suggests you assume you’ve achieved something in your quest to be born here. It’s like me saying i’m proud to have two hands. I didn’t have a say in how many hands I have. It’s the same as somebody saying “I’m proud to be black“…. you cannot have pride in something you had no control over. You can however, be proud of the brilliant men and women of the black race (Like Dr King and Rosa Parks) who dedicated their lives so that as a black person, you are now free and equal to the white person. You can be proud of their fight. You can be proud that they stood up for what was right, you can be proud of them. I can quite happily say I’m proud of how far our ancestors have come, how much of a fight they have put up, how much they have sacrificed in order for their children to have more opportunities than they had themselves. I’m proud of our ancestors.

If you were to say “I’m proud TO BE an accountant”, you’ve achieved that level of success that has granted you the feeling of pride that you aim inwards at yourself. So by that very same logic, saying “I’m proud TO BE English” suggests you’ve achieved Englishness, which you haven’t.

I realise the statement “I’m proud of our ancestors” is somewhat contradictory to my original statement that you cannot take pride in something you did not achieve. Given that I had no say in the achievements of my ancestors, how can I be proud? Well, i’m not suggesting pride in myself, in the same way that people are when they say “i’m proud to be british“. I’m showing pride in others. You can show pride of your fellow countrymen during certain times. War perhaps. Or the fight for certain rights. The colonies were right to be proud of their fighters. They were right to be proud of people like Franklin and Jefferson, Hamilton and Washington. These people along with the other founders, freed them.

England is a mixed land. All that is actually truly ‘English‘ (in the man made sense) is the land itself. The people, are a mixture of Roman, Celt, Saxon, and Norse. Our technology owes itself to Japan, America, China, Europe and every other land of the World. Our clothes, our food, our medicines, our literature, our ideas, are all intermixed. Our history and culture, is intertwined with the history of the rest of the World. We are not a static entity free from outside influence. So by suggesting pride in being English, you must also suggest pride in the mixture of heritage that got us to where we are today. So by that logic, you cannot (as the BNP does) suggest pride in England, whilst wishing to close our borders to international trade of goods and a labour force. By doing that, you are not proud of England. You are the opposite.

People may ask “Can I be proud of my brother or sister then, given that I had no choice in them being my brother or sister?” This is much more difficult to answer. Love and pride are two different things entirely. When they’re born, you love them an incredible amount. The feeling of pride comes later on, when they achieve something. You may feel a strong sense of pride in their eagerness to learn to walk. Or their love of learning. Or their new University degree. Or how mature they have become, settling down to raise a family. Similarly, if your sibling were to murder someone, you might say “i’m not proud that he’s my brother“. This lack of pride is due to their actions rather than their relation to you. So why shouldn’t a sense of strong pride be down to their actions rather than their relation to you?

And so this brings me on to our troops. These guys, as I stated previously, I consider to be our lifeline. The reason we’re a strong nation. They are the pride of the people. And as we’ve seen, it is possible to be proud of those who fight for you, who give their lives to fight for you, without suggesting pride in your by-chance birth. You can be proud of English men without suggesting pride in being born here.

To conclude:
Is it possible to be proud to be English? No.
Is it possible to be proud of the achievements of those who have fought and shaped the privileged times we live in today? Yes.
Is it possible to be proud of little achievements of our friends and family? Yes.

One of my friends has summed this up perfectly, by suggesting that the word “pride” is the wrong word to use. We should say that we feel “privileged to be English“. I’d agree with that. Pride and privilege are getting confused more and more recently. I do not feel proud to be British. Similarly, I do not feel any animosity toward being British. I simply feel privileged to be British.

My head hurts. Too much thinking. Too much debating with myself.

The assassination of the Left

“As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?” – Alexis De Tocqueville

I over heard two little old ladies discussing Obama, on the Bus a few days back. One said to the other ..”..he’ll be assassinated before long, all the good ones are…” . This statement got me thinking.

According to The Telegraph, last year; “Security surrounding Barack Obama has been stepped up amid fears he could be an assassination target“. So the threat is there.

As I watched the Inauguration, the preposterous thought lingering at the back of my mind as the motorcade (As i’m sure it did with many people watching that day) made it’s way down Pennsylvania Avenue, was “If he gets out of that car, he could be killed“. He got out. He lived. I was clearly being a little over paranoid.

However, if you’d have asked people on November 22nd 1963, if they thought the President could be so easily killed, they’d have laughed at you too. They’d have claimed it ridiculous to even consider. And even afterwards, the blaming of such a colossal historical event such as the Kennedy Assassination is widely blamed on one crazed man, despite an incredible amount of evidence pointing to the contrary.

Strong Left Wing characters on the World stage with deep influence do not last very long. John Kennedy was one of many which to date includes Robert Kennedy, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, John Lennon, Fidel Castro (who despite being alive, has been the subject of many plots), Che Guevara, and half the establish Left wing of Chile. It’s something even the late comedian Bill Hicks picked up on. Especially when it comes to Kennedy, there could not be more evidence to suggest a connection to people like E.Howard Hunt (who even admitted his involvement in the assassination) Who was also involved in the removal of the Left wing government of Guatamala, Che’s death and in Watergate. It seems that when the Left wing becomes pretty powerful, the Left Wing pays the price. Do I believe it’s one big right winged conspiracy? No. Not at all. I believe that when the power of the rich becomes threatened, they act to protect themselves. Who do I believe the Kennedy assassination can be largely attributed to? Lyndon Johnson. It’s all about power, it’s all about money.
Unfortunately for the Kennedy conspirators… they didn’t count on a film of the event taking place that day. Nor did they count on Hunt being identified pretty conclusively by a Photographer that day. They should also be slamming their heads into the wall over the ridiculous notion that a gangster like Jack Ruby shot Oswald purely because he “felt for Jackie and the kids“.
Having read the Warren Commission’s report all the way through a couple of times, and having likewise read the Hutton Enquiry’s report into the death of Dr David Kelly over here in England, it’s not very long before you come to the conclusion that a Commission’s Report will never tell the entire truth.

A man named David Sanchez Morales, who is somewhat of a legend in CIA circles, who colleagues have claimed “if you see him walking down the street in a foreign country, then you know a coup is about to take place”… is quoted as saying to a friend and reporter in 1973; “I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard.” The evidence is overwhelming in that if they want to, the powers that be can eliminate the President of the United States and his brother, and get away with it.

So based on the logic, is it possible that President Obama could be assassinated? Yes… based on the fact that he’s clearly left wing and i’m not sure if America is ready to accept such a President for very long. I’m not suggesting that those who disagree as strongly as many do with him, are all out to see him dead, not at all. Like those of us who hated George Bush, we did not want to see him killed. We wanted to see him democratically removed from Office. Likewise, the majority of those who disagree strongly with President Obama want to see him removed Democratically and peacefully. But there will be those, who do not care for such notions.
Capping the wages of guys at the Companies who demanded bail out money; although a fantastic and much needed move, was also incredibly dangerous.
Princeton University professor of Political Science, Melissa Harris-Lacewell stated that ” “For many black supporters, there is a lot of anxiety that he will be killed. It is on people’s minds.“. The fact that he is Black is much less of a fear for those of us who like Obama, than it is that he’s a Left Winger. His ideology presents the most problematic of dilemmas.

The Hindustan Times referred to President Obama as the “biggest ever assassination target in US History“. I think that’s true. His skin colour is one thing, but mix that together with his ideology and he’s easily the biggest target for assassination that has ever stepped foot in the White House.

Now, i’m in no way claiming to hero worship either Kennedy brother. They were both a little bit dodgy to say the least. But as ideologies go, I relate to them. Much as I do to Obama.

The fact is, if the unthinkable were to happen and Obama were to be injured or worst still, killed, regardless who committed the act, it would be blamed on White Supremacists. The Kennedy assassination was blamed on an Anti-Castro lone gunman. The RFK Assasination was blamed on a disgruntled Palestinian.

Whatever the truth may be in these cases, the public will never know. We will never know why people heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll. We will never know why a man had an umbrella opened on a sunny day. We will never know why a tramp was arrested who looked like Howard Hunt and the interview that took place between the police chief and the tramp was never recovered. We will never know why Oswald chose to say “I’m just the patsy“. We will never know why Jack Ruby killed Oswald. But we have our own minds. We can look at the evidence, and we can use our common sense to come to our own conclusions. I conclude that Kennedy was killed because Johnson was a little bit too ambitious. I conclude that RFK and Martin Luther King were killed because they threatened the status quo. I conclude that if Obama is killed, it’s because agents for hope and change, even including President Lincoln, do not last too long in Politics.

Perhaps i’m wrong. Perhaps the 1960s was such a turbulent decade. Perhaps those who wanted such powerful change both economically and on the issue of civil rights, were ahead of their time. Perhaps they were easy targets. Perhaps the threat of Communism was such a worry that anyone with Left Wing values were considered a threat. Perhaps those days of such malicious undercover CIA operations is over. Perhaps Obama has inherited such a financial mess, and such a hated ex-President, that that fact alone will keep him safe. Let’s hope so.

The right side of history

” If by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal’, then I’m proud to say I’m a Liberal.” – John F Kennedy

This isn’t an attack on Conservatives as people, this is purely a defence of the Liberal, and a partial attack from my own point of view, on the ideals of Conservatism.

There isn’t a day goes by without a Conservative/Republican blog on WordPress dedicated to discussing how out of touch and ‘pansy’ Liberals are. It’s amazing, given that the current economic mess is the sole responsibility of a Conservative ideology dedicated to deregulated markets, allowing the greedy few to get away with murder. To be Liberal, is a proud feeling in these ever growing days of intolerance, hatred, war, and despicable propaganda.

Conservatives and Republicans alike, appear to be of the belief that it is some sort of crime to be Liberal. As a Liberal, i’m proud to hear the Conservative sentiment… “you weak Liberal“. It was a Liberal who ended slavery. It was a Liberal who gave women the right to vote. It was a Liberal that created the NHS and Welfare state. In fact, Liberals created America.
I’m yet to see a socially progressive act by a Conservative dedicated to ‘freedom‘ (Reaganomics like Thatcherism, cannot be suggested, for the very reason that their concept of ‘free’ does not apply to the less fortunate in society).

In 2004, George Bush referred to John Kerry as…. “The most liberal member of the senate.” And suddenly the label is dropped and “Progressive” was picked up by Democrats. Why is Liberal such a term of abuse rather than pride? Why is Conservative, not a term of abuse? Conservatives originally opposed the civil rights act; they STILL have serious issues with homosexuality; they continue to preach pro-life nonsense yet allow any American to carry a gun; whilst supporting the death penalty; they have decided that unborn children have healthcare rights that children born into poor families shouldn’t be entitled to because to do so would mean the dreaded Socialism; they consider the poor to be nothing more than a nuscience in the way of big business; they still think Obama is wrong to be closing Guantanamo suggesting that the Conservatives like to torture; and they produced Sarah Palin. How are Liberals considered worse than that?
The concept that Liberals are soft on National Defence is a weak one at best. No major terrorist attack happened on Clintons watch. It did on Bush’s watch. Nixon, a Republican was forced to resign, and Reagan was shot. Bush however, may have even known that Terrorists planned to hit America, and didn’t act in time. He then waged an unjust war, with no rebuilding plan, that sparked even greater hatred toward America and the West.

Franklin Roosevelt was Liberal in the sense that he created The Social Security Administration. Lincoln put an end to Slavery and so was Liberal. Martin Luther King was as Liberal as one get be, and is so widely respected he has a day named after him. The bill of Rights is a Liberal document. The Global Warming Lobby with their pesky evidence, need a Liberal to champion their cause. We saw the destruction that dripped disastrously from the mouth of Conservative Sarah Palin, whose main concern was not that we’re clearly killing the planet, but the profit to be made from oil drilling. John Adams is quoted as saying quite beautifully and eloquently, in a way that only Adams could… “Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially for the lower classes of people, are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.” …….And so from this, we can deduce that America was born of the virtues of the Liberal mind.

George Bush once said… “Only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would say that a 49 percent increase in funding for education was not enough. “….. He’s wrong. Not just a liberal from Massachusetts would say such an education funding increase isn’t enough, I would also say it’s not enough. A 70% increase is not enough, education should be a priority, whether private or state education, children should have the best. They should be at war with each other for the best teachers, paying a fortune to secure them, they are the future, they need the very best, the money needs to be going to the education of tomorrows CEOs and Politicians, so that they do not make the same mistake as this generation of CEOs and Politicians. 49% is not enough, when so much has been wasted on unjust and illegal wars.

Over here in England, The National Health Service Act of 1946 created a free healthcare service regardless of social status, implemented by Clement Atlee’s Labour Government; Liberal achievement. Liberals continue to invest more money in State Schooling than any Conservative Government has ever done. Liberals introduced both the Minimum Wage and the Education Maintenance Allowance, and made it possible for people on low incomes, like myself, to go to University. Conservatives, originally opposed the NHS and have cut funding to it ever since, opposed the minimum wage under the flawed idea that the Markets are best placed to deal with wages, and opposed the idea that we’re all entitled to equal levels of education, regardless of Wealth.
In 1918, “Representation of the People Act” gave Women the right to vote, a Liberal achievement. Less well known was the “Abandonment of Animals Act of 1960“, making it an offence to abandon an animal. A Liberal achievement. And what do we have to show for Conservative achievements? Thatcher. A nightmare of a woman.
“The Factories Act of 1961“, put great emphasis on the safety of Factory Workers, whose welfare had been ignored throughout successive Conservative Governments whose concern was merely “profit”. Let us Liberals deal with humanity, Conservatives should stick to greed. “The Suicide Act” of the same year, decriminalised Suicide, so that anyone who failed to take their own life, could no longer be prosecuted. Liberal achievement.
In 1988, the “Local Government Act“, in particular Section 28 stated “The Local Government Shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship“. This nasty little piece of hate filled legislation was the work of the Conservative Government. Local Governments worked tirelessly to ban any publications that suggested Homosexuality was ok. It’s nazi-esque approach was nothing short of disgusting, yet characterises the Thatcher years perfectly. In 2002, the Labour Government, having revoked Section 28, allowed Gay couples to adopt. Liberal achievement.

The Conservative Government of the 1980s may be considered Progressive in that they allowed those renting Council Houses to buy their homes at cheap prices from the local authority, with the Housing Act. Putting this into context is much more difficult. Whilst it’s a nice idea to sell council houses to tennants, you also have to keep building new council houses because suddenly the demand in the private sector shrinks and so available housing becomes less, and so prices shoot up, and we’re left with the mess of a housing market we have today. Not only that, but if you’re going to allow poorer people to buy their homes from the local authority, be sure you look after the economy. The Tories didn’t. When the recession hit, people suddenly couldn’t afford their repayments, and so many homes that wouldn’t have been taken from tennants had they been renting from the council still, were repossessed. Homelessness almost doubled in London. And people still appear to worship Margaret Thatcher. The Right To By, Housing Act was a disaster of a Government trying to win usually safe Labour Votes.

The bulk of Conservatives felt in necessary to allow the Bush administration to keep as many secrets as it liked as long as it cited “National Security” as it’s reasoning. You can bet that those same Conservatives wont allow Obama to do the same. Unless Obama’s White House is fully transparent, those Conservatives are going to become more and more hypocritical and more and more quasi-Liberal by the moment.

The term Liberal should be a badge worn with pride. Liberals are on the right side of history.

I now await an influx of Republicans trying to suggest how wonderful they are, how evil gay people are, how Obama is Lenin painted black, how weak liberals are, and how they will continue to pray for me. Oh joy….

President Barack Obama

****

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” – President Obama

My grandparents claim to have felt the hope that echoed around the World when John F Kennedy became the President of the USA way back in 1960, from as far away as we are in the United Kingdom. The glimour of hope that change had come, that the World super power was not in the firm control of the Business elite, and the anguish and sorrow they felt when they heard of Kennedy’s assasination. They both say that the feeling of hope rekindled was evident in their minds yesterday at the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

Sky News played a video this morning of an interview with a Black American child. The interviewer asked what the election of President Obama meant to him, the child said…
“It means that when people see a black man on TV, they won’t see only a criminal or an athlete. They’ll see a president, a lawyer or a doctor.” – How beautiful and powerful can one child’s voice be? This voice, this single sentence, encapsulates a new America spectacularly.

In the hearts of those of us who have become disillusioned with America, (which includes Democrats, and the entire World, apart from the Republicans) hateful of the Bush Administration, sick of out dated intolerant Republican policies, it was a monumentous occasion to witness the end of such intolerance, not just with a new administration, but with an African American President who less than a century ago, would have been banned from sitting on the same bus as the white man.

Often i’ll be searching online blogs and come across those of cynical Republicans who have already condemned Obama to political hell, judging his legacy before it’s even begun, purely because he’s a democrat. Ridiculous comments like “He’s socialist“, when Socialism is about as far from Obama as a word could be, “He wont hand over his birth certificate“… as if they don’t adequately vet a potential senator and President before they take the job. “His middle name….. Hussain….. like Sadam….. AARRRGH!!!“…this one speaks for itself. “He refuses to swear on the bible, proving he’s a muslim“…. as if it matters what faith a man is.
All of this before the inauguration, even though he did in fact swear on the Bible. Republican smear tactics, tactics of an extremist party with extremist views, and who put forward an extremist candidate for Vice President. It was hope versus continued fear, and hope presided, thankfully. Why wont those same Republican Bloggers admit that their President over the past eight years has achieved nothing short of criminal, and should be taking the place of those at Guantanamo.

Aside from the policies Obama has which are right, good, and above all, hopeful for a country that has relied too long on the reckless behaviour of the wealthy, it’s the symbol that is enduring and so attractive. The symbol of a new World based not on the colour of somebodies skin. The symbol that you do not have to be somehow affiliated with Oil production to be welcomed into Washington. The symbol that the last eight years is dead, and a new era based not on fear or on hidden corruption and lies is replaced by intergrity, human decency, and kindness. It’s a symbol that becomes increasingly difficult to avoid buying in to. I certainly buy into it fully. I do not expect Obama to be a sort of Jesus-like figure, like some do. I merely welcome the departure of the destructive nature of Republican Conservativism. It has to be fair to say that the Republicans, who have spent eight years killing, silencing, looting Nations for nothing more than individual wealth whilst all the time letting Americans know that if you feel guilty that America is causing so much pain and suffering across the planet, then you’re not a true American, is over. Already, my faith in the most powerful nation on Earth is slowly renewing.

For the past eight years, or four years at least, it’s been difficult to envisage a time when “President Bush” was no more. The moment Obama was sworn in, his speech; his passion for what he was saying, inspired a smile from me, knowing it marked the end of the Bush regime so beautifully and eloquently, it rolled back the policies of the past eight years. The speech needed to renew hope and faith in America, it did just that.

BBC News interviewed a Republican voting couple in their home in Kansas. Their home, was a 200 acre land, sixteen room house, who claimed to be “struggling“. The lady they interviewed, was speaking to them from her library. I thought to myself, this is the legacy that has died today, the stupidity of people like this, the absolute nerve of these kinds of people to claim to be “struggling“. The BBC did it beautifully with the voice over man saying “We interviewed the family from their 200 acre property, that they really don’t need.” That alone, embodies the passions of the Left.

As I sat watching the inauguration, I could not emit the image from my mind, of the Black Panthers, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali dumping his Olympic medals because they wanted to send him to war yet wouldn’t let him sit on the same bus as a white man, Rosa Parks, and all those who suffered the wrath of the Ku Klux Klan, the slaves who built the White House, the thousands of black Americans who have struggled for equality across America over the generations. Yesterday, was the greatest day in the history of black America, and a day that will be remembered forever.

The election of President Obama is not about one man. History alone will judge the substance of his Presidency. The election of President Obama is a symbol. A symbol of how far America has come. How America does not need to be all about slamming an iron fist across the World, that love and hope is not dead, that the Republican Party has not indoctrinated the American public in intolerance, disunity and callous individualism.

When it was all over, Obama was stood with his wife and children, the new occupants of the White house, smiling gleefully at the future, after a speech that should be carved into stone, it pained me to see them walk off without turning to George Bush and say “You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, whatever you do say will be used as evidence in court”….. maybe one day.

Still, Did the BBC really need to tell me what roads in Washington were closed today? My car barely gets me to Tesco in Wigston.