(no title)

Madeleine McCann: Is this Europe’s final chance for closure?

Madeleine McCann aged three. Photograph via BBC

Police announced earlier this month that there is a new ‘significant’ suspect in the Madeleine McCann case.

The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is a case which shocked and saddened the world. Despite the last few tumultuous months carrying a host of unprecedented significant issues, new evidence has dominated newspaper attention regarding Madeleine’s case 13 years later.

Madeleine’s story is one that many know very well. It has been a topic that has travelled through Europe and dominated various countries’ media. The then three-year-old went missing from the holiday resort Praia da Luz in Algarve, Portugal on May the 3^rd 2007.

The new suspect, Christian Brueckner, is a 43-year-old German man who is currently serving a prison sentence for drugs and the rape of an elderly woman in Portugal in 2005. He is said to possess psychopathic tendencies. Portuguese police have discovered that Christian regularly lived in the Algarve between 1995-2007. Police voiced that they believe this is now a murder investigation.

Christian Brueckner, a new suspect. Photograph via BBC

The continuous thirteen-year investigation has remained controversial throughout its duration and has sparked fresh outrage amongst the public, particularly in light of the Black Lives Matter movement. .

The British Metropolitan Police conducted a new search into the case in 2011 due to the Portuguese Police failing to progress or make a breakthrough. Over 11 million pounds has been spent on the British investigation alone – a cost that rises annually.

Some have been angered by the media domination and have described the breakthrough in the case to be a fabrication of social and political movement that is rippling through the world as a white child’s face is almost burying a historical, significant moment for the liberation of black people due to the continual media attention it has received.

Thousands of people from various backgrounds have been pouring into Britain’s city streets over the last few weeks to show their solidarity and unity towards BLM. This monumental and revolutionary civil rights movement was sparked by the tragic, unlawful death of George Floyd. However, in the days that followed after these protests, British newspapers were splashed once again with Madeleine’s face.

Black Lives Matter protests. Photograph via BBC

Madeleine’s case has always been controversial as it raises questions as to why her case has always been so heavily funded. Many ask why other missing children haven’t been granted the same level of expense and thoroughness. It has raised various issues of class, race and wealth.

Scotland Yard detectives were granted another £300,000 on the 5^th June to continue their search. In light of the new German suspect, this has resulted in three countries now conducting investigations into the tragic, heart-wrenching disappearance of this little girl. But many ask what other missing person has been rewarded with this level of care? The Daily Telegraph described the girl’s disappearance as ‘the most heavily reported missing-person case in modern history.’

Due to the continued sparks of outrage, it seems almost imperative that the ‘significant’ suspect and evidence that the police have discovered, be accurate and bear fruition as this may be their last chance to conduct a thorough search into this case. This may be the final chance of peace for Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, who have continually asked themselves, what did happen to Madeleine?

Since last week when the new suspect was exposed to the public, UK Met Police received 270 calls and emails for their new appeal for information. The suspect Christian has now been moved to a single cell for his own safety, due to the severe allegations of the crime he is suspected of.

2020 has been a year dominated by issues that have affected extremely large factions of society such as COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter movement. Paradoxically, Madeleine’s case is one in which the UK is watching with intrigue. This is ironic as it only affects a select few individuals in comparison to other hugely significant, global issues. However, this case still receives as much attention, if not more.

Of toilets and men: why Scotland’s Gender Recognition Reform is anything but a threat to women

An article by Martina Currenti 17/06/2020

When a friend of mine tagged me under one of J.K. Rowling’s many controversial tweets a few days ago, I didn’t quite understand how I felt about her statements. I was disappointed, as you can imagine, and I kept reading and reading the same phrases, hoping that it was just a misunderstanding.

However, like it often happens with idols, once you get to know them either in person or through statements such as the aforementioned tweets, you’re very likely to change your mind about them, which is exactly what happened to me.

But as much as I love expressing my opinions, I reckon that newspapers, along with people on their social media, have covered this argument enough, and that you’re probably tired of reading the same story over and over again.

Thus, we’re directing the discussion towards a serious matter which is neither hating J.K. Rowling and her works, nor putting her again at the centre of an article, but educating ourselves together in order to protect a part of our society that is still seeing its right being denied.

On this matter, Scotland has been working on a reform of the Gender Recognition Act, and has introduced dozens of gender neutral toilets in Victoria Quay, a Government building with over 2000 civil workers, through the Smarter Workplaces Programme, and in other places such as the University of Edinburgh.

However, many people are afraid that the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform might be easily exploited by sexual predators, since it recognises that ‘the “gender reassignment” protected characteristic […] covers people who intend to, are transitioning, or have transitioned. To have the protected characteristic a person does not need to have undergone medical or surgical treatment.’

On the contrary, this reform was made in order to make it easier for trans people to have their rights fully recognised without having to seek any medical assistance, and reduces both the steps and the amount of time required to get a gender recognition. It also eases many processes such as changing a birth certificate, which is a really important achievement for the community.

Nevertheless, some people have shared their worries about this type of toilets, because they believe that it might put women in danger whereas men would have the access to the same spaces such as unisex toilets by just falsely declaring that they identify as women, without undergoing any medical or surgical treatment, thus putting every female, and most importantly young girls, in danger.

Shirley-Anne Somerville, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary, addressed these concerns:

“We recognise that there are men who seek to abuse women and we want women to be safe from that violence. We have taken action to change the law to protect women from such abuse. This is a global issue and not a new issue for Scotland or indeed the UK. And it is not the fault of trans people. It is the fault of the abusive men. Which is why we will continue to address violence against women and girls through our Equally Safe strategy which takes a gendered approach.”

Moreover, several researches show that gender neutral toilets have a long list of positive features: in fact, not only they are more inclusive and safer for trans people, drastically lowering the risk of them being victims of violent acts and sexual harassment, but they also avail people with disabilities, and the elderly — and they reduce the waiting time for women to around one minute.

These changes that are happening in Scotland should not be considered a threat at all, but the accomplishment of no longer denied rights — and should be admired and imitated by the other Countries. Because this is 2020, and nobody should ever experience discrimination against because of their sex, gender, sexual orientation, skin colour, religion, political preferences, and so on.

How is Bolsonaro leading Brazil through the Coronavirus crisis?

Since the beginning of the pandemic, before it had even arrived in Brazil, president Jair Bolsonaro always minimised the situation. He stated the new COVID-19 was ‘just a little cold’. When it finally reached Brazil he said the pandemic was a ‘fantasy’, while also claiming the disease would not affect him ‘thanks to his athletic historic’.

Across the country, governors took their own decisions concerning their states. Some decided to go in lockdown, while others kept everything as if the virus was not going to reach them. Conflicts arose as the country is vast and authorities all had different opinions on the situation. Bolsonaro even fired Luiz Henrique Mendetta, Health Minister at the time, for disagreeing with the decisions he took and the statements he made. Even if they did not agree upon the different matters concerning the pandemic, a helping plan was established for people with low, inexistent or no stable revenue. After the application process was completed, they were to receive 2,400 BRL (380GBP/420EUR). It brought the people some hope after their president said at a press conference: ‘Who doesn’t want to work, can stay home. But those who stay home will starve’.

To help understanding: Brazil is a republic with 26 federate states, each with a governor and slight different laws, much like the organisation in the USA.

The press gave the pandemic a greater importance and broadcasted constantly information on the subject, including the number of deaths and contaminations every day. The data was received around 7 pm and thereafter broadcasted the same evening, but since Wednesday 3^rd June, the government has been sending the information later at night, around 10 pm. The first time it was belated, an excuse message was joined explaining the delay was due to technical issues and that it was an exceptional circumstance, meaning it would not happen again. But only two days later, on Friday 5^th June, the same happened, only this time, there was no excuse note. In fact, it is believed the Government acted like so to impeach journalists and TV channels from informing the population on an immediate level of the COVID situation in the country.

On Saturday 13^th June, the death toll in Brazil was 41,901 and 829,902 confirmed cases across all 26 states, making Brazil the second most affected country in the world, right behind the United States. It has also become the new epicentre of the pandemic. Unfortunately, numbers keep rising, and the country registers an average of 1,200 deaths every 24 hours.

As cases keep increasing, the need to find a cure is more urgent than ever. Debates arose all across the world on the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat the disease.

Studies brought some hope it might be useful against infection. However, further trials proved it to be ineffective. Regardless of what specialists advised, Bolsonaro still promotes the use of the medicine, claiming it was working in Brazil and that they would continue using it.

Despite the lack of improvement on the COVID-19 situation, shops started reopening and other commercial sectors resumed after weeks of inactivity. Bolsonaro’s partisans were very pleased, as for them being in lockdown makes nonsense. However not all the population feels the same way. Here is what Marie Ilma do Nascimento, who lives in a town near Brasilia, had to say:

‘They have opened shops and malls but now everything is closing back again, these people do not know how to be reasonable and they don’t seem to care about others.’

And Felipe Neto, a famous Brazilian Youtuber, stated:

‘We are not staying home because of the virus, we are staying home because our medical system does not have the capability to hold all the patients if we don’t take precautions not to get infected, the system is overloaded.’

Nations are starting to reopen again, but the pandemic is far from being over. Specially in Brazil, where the fragile government is not providing the people with the reassurance and comfort they need.

George Floyd – How Will He Change the World?

An article by Charlotte Pollard 11/06/20

With racism dating back to the 17^th Century, it is a well-known and extremely wide-spread issue. Here at Exist, we were shocked and saddened to hear the news of George Floyd, a man in Minneapolis, being killed by a white police officer. We believe that every race and ethnic group is important and matters equally, and although the tragedy took place in America, we believe that everybody can personally do more to solve the inequality issue in countries elsewhere.

Thanks to the ever-evolving social media platforms, news events have never been able to spread quicker or reach more people than today. Social media, such as Instagram, has meant that the news of George Floyd rapidly circulated to any individual who owns an account, exposing the inequality and raising awareness much quicker than any 10 o’clock news programme on the television.

Social media is an extremely important tool when it comes to highlighting the societal issues we currently have, giving every person with access to the internet an opportunity to get involved, become educated and form opinions on the global crisis. Social media has allowed this very real struggle of racial inequality to be fought for more effectively than ever before, meaning we can finally rally enough support to end the battle of black discrimination forever.

With 90% of teenagers having used some kind of social media, whether this is Instagram, Facebook, Twitter or Snapchat, we are able to raise awareness and gather supporters and help from the local community almost instantly.

There are several ways people can become involved with the Black Lives Matter movement, whether this is through signing petitions fighting for change such as on Change.Org, donating money to help the movement through the many available sites, or going out into your local town to peacefully protest and raise awareness.

Just some examples of where protests are taking place are Reading, Henley on Thames and Hyde Park in London. Thanks to platforms such as these, now is the time to get involved and stand up for justice and freedom. With so many different opportunities and ways to help, there really is no excuse to not participate in such a powerful and passionate movement, so we can all come together to finally gain equality for black lives.

13th review, a Netflix documentary focusing on the history of racial inequality in the US, with a twist.

Ava DuVernay takes us on an investigative journey through the timeline of racial inequality and its unique correlation with the rise in numbers of people entering US prisons. DuVernay focuses on telling the story that racism hasn’t ceased to exist or even come close to it in the US. She tries to make you understand that racial inequality has actually been redesigned. At Exist, we felt it was right to do a review on the 13th considering the overdue protests. This documentary is a real thought provoker, an essential to watch right now and is designed to make you not feel comfortable.

What is it about?

The 13^th explains the links between slavery and the US’s criminal-justice system. My initial thought before starting the documentary was of apprehension, the idea of the two topics combing for the documentary was certainly something I wouldn’t usually watch. However, my experience was far from apprehensive as I was immediately compelled by the strong and clear narrative from DuVernay, which immediately took control of my consciousness. The documentary depends on the 13^th amendment to demonstrate the issue it’s exposing, with it beginning with one of many alarming figures. The statistic, ‘one out of four African American males will serve prison time at one point in their lives’, sets the tone for the rest of the documentary.

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
The 13th amendment, to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

From the constitutional amendment that freed the slaves, to the modern era of higher imprisonment rates and heavily monetised prisons, 13^th helps give you an insight as to why protests are happening globally, following the tragic death of George Floyd. The documentary exposes the hidden subliminal racist messages that are embedded in American society, which is easily represented by simply exposing the haunting documentation of American history.

Picture via https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2017/10/documentary-review-ava-duvernays-13th-offers-eye-opening-look-at-mass-incarceration.html

Conscious provoking

13^th covers a lot of ground, you come out of it learning so much. The presentation used by DuVernay helps explain the correlation between the rising number of prison inmates to what was happening at that point in history. You can see the clear effect white choices were having on black lives, when 13th would show political actions that were taken at the time, methods that would go on to keep the racial inequality infrastructure intact. When changes were taking place such as the removal of the Jim Crow laws, higher imprisonment, the war on drugs and prison labour would take its place.

Everything about this documentary was meant to send the message to your conscience that racism has been adapted to maintain inequality, while we have been sheepishly blindfolded in the process. The use of interviews of experts in the field, the documentation of very raw real-life footage and imagery, combine to create an unsettling and piercing feeling going hand in hand, as the documentary very effectively asked me to follow its conscious provoking story.

An inherently racist America

In the 13^th, DuVernay not only tries to make you get a taste of the level of racial inequality that was once was and still is existent in the US, she relentlessly force feeds you it. The documentary focuses on providing a feeling of shock from real life documentation. Moments near the end of the historical timeline DuVernay, holds your hand through clips of African American’s being verbally and physically abused with the voice of Donald Trump running over it. He goes on about the good old days when protesters were carried out of rallies in stretchers. Disturbing but considerably powerful when the two were compared, especially in this day and age.

This is a documentary designed to make you feel angry at the end of it, we see racial inequality being re-adapted up until today through the use of the criminal justice system, 13^th does a brilliant job at illustrating this. Very light criticism I have with the 13^th is its use of contemporary hip hop. I felt it was slightly shabby and that a more sensitive or familiar choice of hip hop would have placed more emotional emphasis, however I did appreciate the understandably angry message it was trying to send. Overall, this doesn’t affect the message significantly of the documentary, of an inherently racist America.

Picture via https://events.sunyjefferson.edu/event/documentary-13th/

What’s the verdict?

This documentary when released in 2016 was appreciated. In the midst of everything going on, I feel its cultural value in educating people on an important injustice has risen. As it educates an audience population on a matter so little people know about, 13^th educational tone, makes it easily understandable. DuVernay creates inspiration, not only in the making of documentaries but also for people to make sure nobody ever feels the need to make a documentary on similar matters for the next 100 years.

Overall, I am giving 13^th a score of 9.1/10.

SpaceX’s First Successful Rocket Launch: What Does This Mean for The Future?

The most anticipated space mission for over a decade was a blasting success.

On Saturday 30^th of May at 3.22pm, for the first time in almost a decade, astronauts Robert Behnken and Douglas Hurley were launched into space from American soil. The Falcon 9, operated and made by Elon Musk’s private company, successfully docked to the International Space Station the following day.

One might ask what significance this holds for the United States, and to what degree does this re-establish American presence in space travel.

Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and a host of other highly publicised issues facing the country, the thick cloud of swirling smoke left behind by the Falcon 9 may serve as almost a light at the end of the tunnel for the American people. Rather, a reminder of the scientific innovation they behold.

Feelings of pride and nostalgia was brought out by the elegant ascent of an engineering masterpiece, and an exciting future for private companies delving into space travel. That in itself, is revolutionary.

Although launched from a familiar location, the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida, the private company which sent the brave men up was a significant change.

Millions of eagerly anticipant fans watched online from around the world. President Donald Trump looked on from a front row seat, branding it “an inspiration for our country”.

The inspiring astronauts, Bob and Doug, have both flown twice before. The launch occurred three days late from the initial scheduled time due to Florida weather. The launch was a huge leap for space exploration and research, and many are excited about what this means for the future of space travel. Since 2011, the USA have been relying on other countries like Russia to ferry American astronauts into space making this launch incredibly exciting for NASA and those involved.

Bob and Doug. Photograph by The New York Times.

So, what does this mean for the future of space travel?

This is the first time in space travel history that a private company has flown NASA astronauts into space. These are promising but also unprecedented times for NASA, other private companies and entrepreneurs. This also means a change for the International Space Station. New vehicles could be making regular journeys transporting people to the Station from Florida. It truly is a new era for human space travel.

Other private companies have evidently been working on sending people up to space as well. Boeing is in the works of developing its own crew capsule. NASA has announced that they will be attempting to make the ISS available for commercial purposes. SpaceX has already confirmed that they will be attempting to send tourists up, although this would be far into the future due to the substantial cost of space travel.

Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner. Photograph via The Verge

The launch has further fuelled Elon Musk’s’ ambitions to travel to Mars. Musk formed SpaceX in 2002 and dreamed of building more affordable spacecraft that could one day take people to Mars and colonise it.

In order to begin to reach this goal his company had to prove that their rockets were indeed reusable (saving billions of dollars on rebuilding them) and they could successfully and safely launch astronauts into orbit. Due to the evident success, this proves that SpaceX is a viable company to achieve the goal of colonising. Musk has said that he plans to send an unmanned rocket to mars by 2022. The success of the launch has conveyed that Musk is on the right track to his goals and we must wait to see if his ambitions bear fruition.

Herd immunity or lockdown? Was the UK government caught in two minds?

Keep calm and carry on

When I asked my Chinese flatmate, what the people of China thought about the response of the United Kingdom, to the pending destruction of the coronavirus outbreak, she repeated the famous words of wartime spirit in Britain, ‘Keep calm and carry on’. While she was scared to go outside and baffled at the lack of people wearing face masks, I was working in retail for a dwindling number of customers each day, carrying on as usual.

When the nation reached a total of 206 cases, Boris Johnson attended the six nations rugby match between England and Wales. When Athletico Madrid played Liverpool in Merseyside, 3,000 fans flew over from Madrid, where 31 out of 47 deaths had been in Spain. While 250,000 people attended Cheltenham festival over three days, 11 people had died from the virus, professional football had been suspended and Spain had declared a state of emergency. Why didn’t the government stop people going to work earlier, why were these events allowed to go ahead. Were we heading towards a herd immunity strategy?

Cheltenham was shown to be a hotspot for infections. Picture via The Telegraph.

Was herd immunity ever an option?

The government were arguably allowing for infections to rise in number to build up the population’s herd immunity. Were the government trying to protect the economy? There is evidence to believe so, the government ordered, pubs, restaurants and large gatherings to stop later than most of its European counterparts. Devi Sridhar, chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, claimed the UK ‘seemed to accept that the virus is unstoppable and will become an annual, seasonal infection’, this was evidently shown by Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific advisor. Vallance told the public the government’s plan to work towards ‘some degree of herd immunity’, where the majority of the population would have to contract the virus, therefore becoming immune for an unknown period of time.

With the virus travelling throughout Europe at a devastating rate, it became clear herd immunity wasn’t an option for the UK and ‘drastic action’ was required. With news coming, that if no action was taken, a quarter of a million people would die. Actions were taken by Johnson, announcing people must work from home and refrain from unnecessary travel and social contact, before putting the UK into lockdown.

The government were caught in two minds over whether the economy or the public well-being should have been prioritised. With a high population density of 259 people per square kilometre, and being the 21st most populated nation in the World, the UK government should have implemented lockdown earlier.

Valuable time was wasted, in this period of indecisiveness, tying to realise the dream of a society immune to the virus, while maintaining the economy in the process. By resisting an early economic shutdown, time was lost in protecting people from unnecessary death.

Better late than never

In the weeks after the lockdown was implemented, the government found itself in a vulnerable position, facing up to a failure to prepare. With large focus prioritised on Brexit and free trade, the weeks leading up to March were certainly preoccupied, politicians clearly distracted.

If you felt symptoms, you were unlikely to get a test due to the UK’s lacking testing capacity, once again due to a failure to prepare, leaving the UK back of the queue for stocking up. I know from experience the difficulty in receiving a test. Not only was that a problem, if you were ill enough to get a test, the situation when in hospital was not an ideal one for doctors and nurses. Ministers came under intense criticism from the media for a lack of protective equipment for frontline NHS staff. Shortages of vital health equipment and tests snuck up on the British government, failing to protect the key workers.

Global problem, national solutions

Around the globe, different approaches and experiences to the outbreak, have had different levels of success. Noticeable approaches have been Sweden’s and New Zealand’s. The Swedish government trusted the public to voluntarily social distance and allowed most of society to carry on as normal, mirroring a strategy that is closest to herd immunity. To the other extreme, New Zealand applied a strict strategy to contain the virus, locking down the country after only 102 cases were confirmed with no deaths. New Zealand is considered one of the biggest success stories, highlighting the mistakes made by the UK government.

Could the UK have approached the outbreak like the kiwis had done? Well, unlikely. New Zealand, a remote island with easily closed borders, has a population roughly 13 times smaller than the UK, it isn’t a financial hub on the scale of the UK and it has much more societal compliance with government actions. Whereas in the UK, government’s scientific advisors were warning the public would have reacted badly to a hard and early lockdown, with only 14% of the UK population having trust in politicians prior to the general election. Could we have done what Sweden had done? The 250,000 predicted to die says no.

Each country has unique experiences with coronavirus, the UK government made clear mistakes from indecisiveness, however with each strategy pointing towards looming societal or economic destruction, no wonder the UK government struggled to make the difficult damaging choice.

If we can’t even get a haircut, how can they look after the children?

The Covid-19 outbreak has seen us face continuous lists of ‘do’s and don’ts’ from the government, with restrictions on who we see, what we do and precautions we should take. I would like to begin with a list of ‘Do nots’:

With such clear instructions to steer clear of situations that could be potentially harmful due to their contained natures, like getting a haircut, I pose to you the question; how can we send teachers into a classroom? As with every ‘’Don’t’’ that you see here, there is a contradicting order which primary and secondary teachers will have to undertake as of June 1^st.

On May 10^th, the Prime minister announced that there would be a phased return to primary and secondary schools beginning June 1^st; where the government have devised a ‘conditional plan’ in order for this to happen. Their ‘plan’ consists of various guidelines that the schools have to adhere to; such as investing in enough equipment to limit the spread of Covid-19. However, on closer inspection, these guidelines seemingly neglect both their ideals for the rest of the public in this pandemic, and also the nature of small children.

According to Schools Week, the list of instructions for schools is as follows; firstly, cap the school’s capacity to 50%, invest in equipment to create daily temperature checks and ensure sufficient hand sanitiser is in buildings. Secondly, there will have to be staggered opening times and breaks as well as management of toilet crowding, to name but a few of the supposed measures.

The intentions behind these instructions are clear in that as this pandemic unfurls, we must take more responsibility for the flattening of the curve; STAY ALERT. Yet these next stages disregard a small child’s desire to play and the fact that they would struggle to social distance. Does this suggest that this phased return is a social experiment to test the progress of lockdown upon curbing the rate of infection?

Potentially. In a recent interview Michael Gove said that ‘’if you really care about children, you’ll want them back in schools’’, but what about the teachers who are a lot more susceptible to the virus and will not be provided with proper PPE, as well as the mentally challenging environment that children will be put into.

Contrary to Gove’s statement, the environment that will be faced is one of isolation, where children as young as 4 will have to sit 2 meters apart in a classroom and separately on playgrounds, with no handling of shared toys and minimum contact from teachers. Despite the fact that children this young struggle with hygiene at the best of times and need a lot of contact time for learning, Gove suggests you do not care for your child if you do not send them back to school.

A statement, which in this current situation, is extremely misplaced. Following on from this idea of measures that are hard to implement regarding hygiene, is the notion that it is safe enough to return to schools. The housing secretary, Robert Jenrick stated that when teachers return to schools, they will not need PPE. In fact, according to ‘scientific advice’, items such as face masks would not be required for adults in schools. However, there is significant evidence to show that face masks are extremely important to slow down the spread of this disease, as stated by various clinics; face masks, combined with other preventative measures and social distancing help to slow the spread. This wearing of face masks helps to prevent the air born virus be passed on as quickly by those who have COVID-19 but do not realise it, in particular the period where the virus is harbouring before symptoms show. If teachers, who are predominantly aged over 30 with only 31% of primary teachers being 30 or younger, there is definitely cause for concern as they are sent in with minimal protection other than the instruction to wash their hands.

As we send our teachers, key workers and volunteers out into the frontlines to face this virus, we have to ask ourselves; are we doing what’s best for all or are we tempting a second spike. Risking the lives of others for what seems like a very hasty road to recovery.

It’s good to be back on the moon…

Vote: B+
[+ an individual A+++ to the second episode
because it’s comedy gold and I was laughing
and crying at the same time.]

… in Netflix’s latest creation Space Force, which was released on the 29th of May. The tv show is composed of ten episodes, each lasting around 36 minutes, and was co-created by Greg Daniels, one of the bright minds behind works such as The Office (the American adaptation) and The Simpsons, and Steve Carell himself, who played the role of the protagonist for an eight figure check.
Based on the real United States Space Force, which officially became the sixth branch of the American Armed Forces only last December, the tv show mixes real events with fiction elements from Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, becoming both a satire and a parody.
The story revolves around the now four-stars General Mark Naird (Steve Carell), who has recently been appointed as the Chief of Space Organisations, as he has to leave DC and move to Wild Horse, Colorado, in order to build the foundation of the Space Force. Afflicted by his controversial promotion, his wife Maggie (Lisa Kudrow) is later shown in jail for a serious crime that is never revealed, and his relationship with his daughter Erin (Diana Silvers) would crumble under his nose, if only he spent more than forty seconds with her.
Moreover, what was meant to be a simple and pacific study on the lunar environment and its potential colonisation, is now threatened to become an international conflict, and General Naird finds himself caught between following his superiors’ orders and doing the right thing. Fortunately, he can count on his aide-de-camp Dr. Adrian Mallory (John Malkovich), who is always there to guide him back to the right track.
Along with Steve Carell, John Malkovich delivers a terrific performance, carrying most of the tv show on his shoulders. His character can be seen as the voice of reason, the underlying purpose of Space Force, which is to criticise and unmask USA’s irrational side, with its racist and supremacist beliefs.
Space Force is not afraid of making fun of today’s biggest political and business personalities, like for example with the characters Anabela Ysidro-Campos (Ginger Gonzaga) and Edison Jaymes (Kaitlin Olson), who are clearly based on the Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the deceitful Elizabeth Holmes.
Another feature of Space Force is that although POTUS never appears on screen, his presence is still the main driving force of the story; we never learn his name, but we can immediately assume that his persona is based on President Donald Trump, thanks to elements such as his allergy to properly-spelled words (“Boobs on the moon by 2024”), or his many toddler-like tantrums throughout the episodes.
Aggrieved by the «Rocket gap», the Space Force is galvanised by the White House to establish the USA’s both intellectually and militarily supremacy over the other Countries through the accomplishment of yearly-planned missions over the span of three days. This is also aggravated by the idiotic rivalry with their sworn enemies China and Russia, against whom this fictional version of the Armed Forces is ready to declare war every other episode – just like in real life.
On one hand, America’s relationship with Russia is as clear as the sun, and represents one of the funny elements of the story. We follow Yuri/Bobby (Alex Sparrow), a Russian spy that works for the Space Force, while he repeatedly – and unsuccessfully – tries to steal classified information from the Space Force base by dating General Naird’s daughter, even though he cannot even get the answers to his security questions. On the other hand, there is China, extremely underestimated at first, only to become a petty and subversive partner in their mutually assured destruction.
I really tried to love Space Force, but I couldn’t go further than a simple appreciation of the ideas behind it. The first part of the season is clever and funny, and forced me to binge-watch it overnight until I reached a point where all I could think about was something like:
_{Aruba, Jamaica, oh I want to take ya
Bermuda, Bahama, come on pretty mama}
On the contrary, I found the second part to be a bit boring and over-stretched. I won’t go much into details, but I reckon that my feeling was due to the fact that I had too many expectations for this tv show, and I was also starting to realise that the story was going towards a different direction than its premisses.
I also expected to see more of Jane Lynch and Lisa Kudrow’s characters, but the former barely appears in a couple of scenes, while the latter has a ‘bigger’ role only during the last episodes. They’re both amazing actresses, so I hope they will find a way to take advantage of their talent in Season 2.
Another flaw is the use of sub-plots, which is a double-edged sword: on one hand, they enrich the tv show and can help it to stand out, often saving it from complete failure; on the other hand, the fact that they may have the ability to grab and hold the public’s attention and interest can be a high risk to the tv show itself, whereas it can lead people to care more about them than about the major plot. Therefore, since this feature is applied to a series with barely ten episodes that last half an hour each, in Space Force it makes it appear almost confusing and distracting at times.
At the end of the day, Space Force is an enjoyable tv show that stands out thanks to its irreverent and upstream ways. It might not be the best, but it is indeed good tv show with many qualities that could be exploited better, hence I give it a B+!