Good evening all. Since my last post a lot has happened as regards the Libya situation. But for now I have had enough ranting on that front. For now I want to talk about something a bit closer to home. Those who know me well know I love reading. So much so that I have more books than I can read at once. Online shopping and charity shops have more than once been my undoing. Being a committed user of the highly efficient (more efficient than walking at least) First Group Bristol bus network I find myself with nearly an hours worth of dead travel time in which I read. In the week after work I usually sit in a nearby local coffee shop over a mocha. For the most part I read to feed my politics fix and my curiosity about the world. Got a fair few books on the Middle East. A few on US politics (including some Memoirs I'll elborate on later). But my fiction collection is growing, and I am listening out for more potential authors to get into.
The latest furniture addition to my room was a wooden book case that myself and my dear mother cobbled together from a flatpack kit. So far, so sturdy. The books are in part author's name order, with fiction on the topside and the non-fiction ones below. And a special place for my favourite author Hunter S Thompson, who you could say specialises in both fiction and non-fiction. Not sure what people may think the first time they walk into my room and see the book case. Some may think I am smart. Some may puzzle at my political beliefs and think they are bizarre, spotting Hitler's Mein Kempf on the top shelf, and then seeing books about Che Guevara at the bottom.
I am going to mention some of the books that have been on my 'to be read' list but have been there a while. Circumstance and overall awkwardness in what I read next has prevented these from actually being read. After that I'll mention some of the books I have read and will definitely read again.
My Life by Bill Clinton- This was a find in a local charity shop. A bit beaten up, but holding together and functional (a bit like the guy who his the focus of the book). I actually started this one, but admittedly I didn't have enough patience to let this book get it's hooks into me. There was just a bit too much reminiscing about his family life to keep me interested. I will get back to this though. By handcuffing myself to the book if necessary. I have been told the campaigns, scandals, random bombings and general madness of being POTUS in the 90s kicks off after a slow start.
Postwar by Judy Thomas- This is a huge book. It was in perfect condition when I bought it from a bookshop in St. Ives. And then it got almost irrepairably damaged, via a mass of mould that grew through the wall it was stacked against. This was in my old room, in a house I lived in a few years ago. I don't tend to hold many grudges, but the landlord of that place is on my small Enemies List due to their gross negligence to correct the mould problem. The book itself is an overview of how Europe changed since the end of WWWII. From the creation of the Berlin Wall, to the destruction of it and beyond. I tend to read huge amounts about the Middle East and the US. This year I am looking to re-educate myself on Europe.
Mein Kempf by Adolf Hitler- The blurb on the back literally describes it as a "book of evil". Which is pretty app. But nonetheless it is arguably an important book. It's in party a autobiography (extremely airbrushed), and a political manifesto for the infamous madman himself. A part of my interest in this book is psychological, the other political. One to scratch my beard to. Good job I'm not single anymore. I imagine sitting in a coffee shop with this book is likely to turn heads in the opposite direction.
The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower by Robert Baer-After a few failed attempts at getting this book online, I finally managed to get it. Robert Baer is an ex-CIA agent, who co-wrote the film Syriana. His first book 'See No Evil' was basically his autobiography of being a spy. A brilliant and very accessible book it was too, I thoroughly recommend it. The mechanics of spying are laid bare. In this book Baer (a Farsi speaker himself) tackles the thorny issue of Iran, and portrays the country as a hidden superpower in the Middle East. Apparently he lays out a plan that he believes may be able to lead to an alliance of sorts with Iran, taming it's aggresive at the same time. Sounds like a tall order, but I am sure if anyone can lay down a good argument, than Mr Baer can do it.
The Long Walk to Freedom-Nelson Mandela: I guess you could call this the anti-Mein Kempf, told by a lucid and very honourable man. I am still learning more about South Africa. Unfortunately I think the ANC is on the slippery slop to becoming a corrupt monolith, not unlike the Indian Congress Party. Nearly 17 years on from the end of apartheid, there are still pressing problems that need to be addressed in the country. I am particularly interested to learn about Mandela's pre-prison days with the ANC. While he was struggling for an honourable cause, many people forget that before he got arrested he was planning to go to the Soviet Union for paramilitary training. In this, he was no Ghandi. Not that I hold it against him. His cause was definitely worth fighting for. It's a mammoth sized book, but I can't put something this good off too long.
Nixonland by Rick Perlstein- Why did the Americans vote in someone as insecure and psychologically unstable as Nixon? This book apparently explains all. Perlstein portrays an electorate tired of war, tired of civil unrest and overall scared at the social shockwaves sent out by the sixties. To the rescue comes Nixon, portraying himself as a vote for stability, to assure the so called Silent Majority. Conservatives fascinate me as much as frustrate me. I am sure this will be a good read.
Milk by Randy Shilts- If you haven't seen the film, bugger off and do so. This is the story of Harvey Milk, one of my political idols. The first openly gay man to be elected into public office in the US (I admire politicians with conviction and unshakeable honesty, a somewhat endangered species). His political awakening came at a time the Bombs and Jesus crowd started on their warpath to 'cure' homosexuality. The film told an inspiring if ultimately sad tale. I find films made from books are good, but the book behind the film usually has hidden depth worth looking into.
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Ghadaffi's Libya vs. the world (that cares)
It's rare that pretty epic and long running stories like the ongoing struggle in Libya between the rebels and Ghaddafi come about, and pick up so much attention. What started out as a few protests, turned into a protestor crushing excercise by the security forces, and then quickly turned into something else entirely within weeks if not days. Libya is now effectively in a state of civil war.
Mercifully the rebels seem to be at least for the most part of the pretty democratic variety, making claims by Ghaddafi that they are Bin Laden fans on crack somewhat unconvincing to say the least. The rebels seem to have taken control of much of the east of the country. They have a real chance at removing Ghaddafi and creating....well something else as yet undetermined in his place. There is no love lost really between us and the Ghaddafi regime. We scared them something stupid about 5 years ago with the removing of Saddam Hussein from power into giving up his WMDs, as far as we know that is. Our government even went sligthly overboard in our new friendliness towards the Libyans, by sending our elite SAS troopers over to train the army that is now slaughtering the rebels. A nice turn of political amnesia mixed pure shamelessness lead this week, to Ed Miliband calling the Coalition incompetent in foriegn affairs, conveniently forgetting among other things that particular episode with the SAS under HIS party leader's premiership. It seems everyone has an opinion on how to proceed with dealing with the current state of affairs. I applaud the enthusiasm for discussion, although the longer this goes on I wonder what will be left once we get down to options.
Last year I read a brilliant book on the Spanish Civil War by Anthony Beevor. This precursor to WWII essentially involved the Spanish Republican and Nationalist factions fighting each other. While this got on we largely took an observer approach, and tried to enforce an arms embargo and basically bullied all of Europe bar Germany and Italy from joining in and arming either side. This approach essentially lead to the Fascist powers arming (and in some cases fighting for) the nationalists (who already had good access to arms stockpiles and manufacturing centres), and the Republicans materially deprived for fear on the part of the western democracies arming commies. What we got in return was a facist dictatorship in Spain that lasted 30 years, not exactly a great legacy of keeping order in one's backyard.
In some ways I can almost clearly see a tragic and at the same time frustrating ending to this possibly eventual debacle. Some practical ideas have been floated around. One of them (at least on paper) is an idea floated by David Cameron to impose a no fly zone. Interesting point David. Sure enough, I hear from Frank Gardner the BBC Security Correspondent that Ghadaffi has a fleet of helicopter gunships, perfect for mowing down pesky rebels. But now the US all of a sudden throwing history to the wind, has actually decided to consult the UN on this before acting and may actually heed it's advice. What frustrates me is this is nearly a fortnight or so since the shooting has started, and we are still talking. Not just talking but talking ABOUT.........talking. And by the time we have done this what then? Will there even be anything to be acted on? What about arming? A Conservative backbencher this week openly advocated arming the rebels, and I have to say I am almost persuaded.
Then again one has to look at Africa and the obvious question comes: is an injection of arms and munitions a healthy solution by a continent with a depressing history of continous war? A difficult moral conundrum if ever I have seen one.
What is frustrating me more nowadays is the inverted logic used by those who reject any notion of practical action on the Libyan crisis. The name Iraq is annoyingly, and in my view quite unnecessarily on the tip of many people's lips. While there is some merit in bringing that skeleton out of the closet, it can inconveniently cloud our judgement, and make us forget that was a situation with very unique circumstances. All wars are different, just as there are similarities between them. The horrors of the Iraq one I fear, will steal away our balanced judgement today.
At times like this I feel an almost uncontrollable urge to grab Tony Blair by the collar, and punch him in the nose repeatedly, and howl at him with a bloody rage. And then in no uncertain terms express my displeasure at his past actions (and inactions) cursing this country into raising a new generation of people in this country. One that is deeply cynical in many ways, and take events for granted on the world stage. Like someone passively watching a town go by, while sitting next to a window on the train. The cynicism of some people has reduced them to the most ridiculous arguments. The so called "Arab Spring Uprisings" have lead many people to the conclusion that the Arab world largely consists of countries ruled by dictators or at the very least petulent playboys. But when it comes to dicussions about action in this crisis, it's "WHOA SLOW YOUR ROLL THERE". "Let's go and talk to those wisened statesmen over there" and those wisened statesmen just happened to be the members of the Arab League, at which that person a few minutes ago was spitting venom at. I think one only needs to look at the state of Palestine, to consider how wise the judgement of the Arab League really is. Last time I checked it was more of a warzone than a utopia.
If you will take anything away from this rant (apart from utter confusion and bewilderment), then here it is in a nutshell. I am all for discussion. But sometimes, the worse thing to do is to do nothing, or the same things again which haven't worked before (like the sanctions we used some 20 years ago, that we are now reinstating on Ghaddafi). But Libya may be presenting us with a rare oppurtunity. We are as a nation state always apprehensive about what the Arab world think of us. I ask, what will they think of us if we are still eating crumpets and watching the fireworks when the lights of Benghazi go out? That's all for now.
Mercifully the rebels seem to be at least for the most part of the pretty democratic variety, making claims by Ghaddafi that they are Bin Laden fans on crack somewhat unconvincing to say the least. The rebels seem to have taken control of much of the east of the country. They have a real chance at removing Ghaddafi and creating....well something else as yet undetermined in his place. There is no love lost really between us and the Ghaddafi regime. We scared them something stupid about 5 years ago with the removing of Saddam Hussein from power into giving up his WMDs, as far as we know that is. Our government even went sligthly overboard in our new friendliness towards the Libyans, by sending our elite SAS troopers over to train the army that is now slaughtering the rebels. A nice turn of political amnesia mixed pure shamelessness lead this week, to Ed Miliband calling the Coalition incompetent in foriegn affairs, conveniently forgetting among other things that particular episode with the SAS under HIS party leader's premiership. It seems everyone has an opinion on how to proceed with dealing with the current state of affairs. I applaud the enthusiasm for discussion, although the longer this goes on I wonder what will be left once we get down to options.
Last year I read a brilliant book on the Spanish Civil War by Anthony Beevor. This precursor to WWII essentially involved the Spanish Republican and Nationalist factions fighting each other. While this got on we largely took an observer approach, and tried to enforce an arms embargo and basically bullied all of Europe bar Germany and Italy from joining in and arming either side. This approach essentially lead to the Fascist powers arming (and in some cases fighting for) the nationalists (who already had good access to arms stockpiles and manufacturing centres), and the Republicans materially deprived for fear on the part of the western democracies arming commies. What we got in return was a facist dictatorship in Spain that lasted 30 years, not exactly a great legacy of keeping order in one's backyard.
In some ways I can almost clearly see a tragic and at the same time frustrating ending to this possibly eventual debacle. Some practical ideas have been floated around. One of them (at least on paper) is an idea floated by David Cameron to impose a no fly zone. Interesting point David. Sure enough, I hear from Frank Gardner the BBC Security Correspondent that Ghadaffi has a fleet of helicopter gunships, perfect for mowing down pesky rebels. But now the US all of a sudden throwing history to the wind, has actually decided to consult the UN on this before acting and may actually heed it's advice. What frustrates me is this is nearly a fortnight or so since the shooting has started, and we are still talking. Not just talking but talking ABOUT.........talking. And by the time we have done this what then? Will there even be anything to be acted on? What about arming? A Conservative backbencher this week openly advocated arming the rebels, and I have to say I am almost persuaded.
Then again one has to look at Africa and the obvious question comes: is an injection of arms and munitions a healthy solution by a continent with a depressing history of continous war? A difficult moral conundrum if ever I have seen one.
What is frustrating me more nowadays is the inverted logic used by those who reject any notion of practical action on the Libyan crisis. The name Iraq is annoyingly, and in my view quite unnecessarily on the tip of many people's lips. While there is some merit in bringing that skeleton out of the closet, it can inconveniently cloud our judgement, and make us forget that was a situation with very unique circumstances. All wars are different, just as there are similarities between them. The horrors of the Iraq one I fear, will steal away our balanced judgement today.
At times like this I feel an almost uncontrollable urge to grab Tony Blair by the collar, and punch him in the nose repeatedly, and howl at him with a bloody rage. And then in no uncertain terms express my displeasure at his past actions (and inactions) cursing this country into raising a new generation of people in this country. One that is deeply cynical in many ways, and take events for granted on the world stage. Like someone passively watching a town go by, while sitting next to a window on the train. The cynicism of some people has reduced them to the most ridiculous arguments. The so called "Arab Spring Uprisings" have lead many people to the conclusion that the Arab world largely consists of countries ruled by dictators or at the very least petulent playboys. But when it comes to dicussions about action in this crisis, it's "WHOA SLOW YOUR ROLL THERE". "Let's go and talk to those wisened statesmen over there" and those wisened statesmen just happened to be the members of the Arab League, at which that person a few minutes ago was spitting venom at. I think one only needs to look at the state of Palestine, to consider how wise the judgement of the Arab League really is. Last time I checked it was more of a warzone than a utopia.
If you will take anything away from this rant (apart from utter confusion and bewilderment), then here it is in a nutshell. I am all for discussion. But sometimes, the worse thing to do is to do nothing, or the same things again which haven't worked before (like the sanctions we used some 20 years ago, that we are now reinstating on Ghaddafi). But Libya may be presenting us with a rare oppurtunity. We are as a nation state always apprehensive about what the Arab world think of us. I ask, what will they think of us if we are still eating crumpets and watching the fireworks when the lights of Benghazi go out? That's all for now.
Friday, 18 February 2011
Why everyone should buy Colin Powell a pint and strange times and unstable people talking about stability
Well today has been frustrating. For the first time in about a year I have been forced to call in a sick day at work. Confirmed by a quick call to my recruitment agency that gave me a blunt 'ok'. Nice to be appreciated for one's hard work. No "hey you ok?". Well for the most part now I'm fine. To be honest I shouldn't really have gone into work yesterday, but well I can be a stubborn dickhead at the best of times. So I crashed in my bed in fits of shivering pleased at least I had managed to finish the bloody good book "The Ascent of Money" by Niall Ferguson in my lunch break. So I dully collapsed when I got home, had my tea while watching Inception (damn good film), my batteries were pretty much flat by then so I conked out about an hour or so earlier than usual. I woke up today feeling slightly better, but not great I thought a few seconds about what to do. And then dooly decided to give myself a break.
In the new day's worth of time I had suddenly to spare, I promptly carried on my reading regime. And moved on to "Savage War of Peace 1954-1962" by Alistair Horne. The funny story behind this book is I borrowed it from a friend (of infinite patience), and knowing he read it recently and would likely not want to bother with it for a long time I decided to delay it in my reading list. Several times over. Till now, a space of a year. Yes that is pretty insane. But you have to understand that I am a bit moody when it comes to reading. I like to make good progress on a book over a week, mostly because I am always curious about what is coming on the next page (usually I am well rewarded). And two because there are always many other things on the reading list to sink my teeth into after. Occassionally I go on reading sprees on certain subjects, like the Middle East or WWII. On one of these blogs I'll list a few of the books I am waiting to read that are resting in some container in my room, but I don't honestly know how that list will end. May take a while. I may well have to sell some, time will tell if I will.
Anyway let's get to the subject matter of this blog. Colin Powell, heard of him? You may well remember him as that man giving the unfortunate speech at the UN 8 years ago making Saddam Hussein look like a modern day Genghis Khan on Crack armed with a nuclear missile under each shoulder and shoes stuffed with Anthrax. Alas the speech turned out to be somewhat overblown and in more than one way, exagerrated. Now I am assuming that some people will jump on this as proof that he is a fool to have risked his reputation on something that flimsy so lightly. Well in some ways I wouldn't blame you. But I have done a lot of reading around the run up to the infamous speech, and it has become obvious to me that he was basically assigned as a fall guy to deliver one of the weakest cases conceived to the international scene. Whispers from several different sources have informed me that behind close doors he read the intelligence that was to be presented in his speech, and proceeded to fume at that worm of a man Donald Rumsfeld for making him carry the ball for it. One report claims he shouted at Rumsfeld that the intel was full of a brown substance that begins with c (there is no profanity on my blog people, exagerrations, character assasinations and lots of bitching but NEVER profanity).
We all know what happened. We ate the story up, the Iraq War happened. But instead of the shameless showboating that many of the Bush Administration refugees took (books etc) Colin seems to have taken a more subtle exit from the public political sphere. His resignation in itself was pretty much a non-event. The way I see it, it was an action that showed great humility. One that calmly said, "I've done my job, now I'm out". And he was allowed to go, as oppose to Rumsfeld who clinged onto the Bush ship like a limpet till he evenutally (and belatedly in my opinion) was told to jump ship before the mid-terms. For me then Colin Powell is something of a personal hero, and in many ways has the right to be for many other people. Have their been times when you have had to be fed lies and live with it? Have their been times when you have worked for people above you or next to you who you know are pinheads(either currently or ever before)? Of course you have experienced one of these situations. But this man like us towed the line, jumped when he was told to....but still had the humility and honesty to admit that he did wrong. A few days ago was the anniversary of his infamous speech to the UN when he waved a vial of anthrax in front of the international community (a fake one, a live one may have been highlighted as a security risk). I only wish I could give him a reassuring nudge on the shoulder and buy him a pint, when he looks back on that ugly part of his career. The I could tell him, "don't feel bad Colin, there are plenty more parasites among your former colleagues that historians are going to spit ink at". But somehow I think he's more happy enjoying his retirement with his wife and grand-kids.
Obama is a Saladin-Stalin-Osama Bin Laden-Satan all rolled into one. And he's a socialist, probably a hermaphrodite and he's not even Christian. NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN!!!! AAAAAGGGHH!!!! That is a prospective slogan for Republican Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. One can expect the opposition to scream bloody murder at some point, especially this close in the electoral cycle and after a mid-term result that has almost certainly re-energised their ranks. Now the nerdy political side of me makes me genuinely interested in the greviances the Conservative base has with Obama. But when out and out smearing and cheap political point scoring takes over I begin to lose patience. Such it is when outrageous claims are made such as that Obama is not a Christian, he is, calm down and shut up. And that he isn't even American, he is, but unfortuantely for him he didn't have the good fortune of being born English instead (HUZZAH! HUZZAH! Land of Hope and Glory! etc). He won and he beat your McCain fair and square Conservative base. Perhaps not entirely McCains fault because he was living in the unusual shadow of an apparent small government and fiscal Conservative Republican who somewhat confusingly vastly expanded the government and HUGELY increased the national debt. Hence why the Tea Party folk treat Bush as some kind of an embarrassment, foreign policy shenanigans notwithstanding.
A long critique of the US Conservative base could easily turn into a book with several law suits pending at the end of it, so I will just stick to one bone I have to pick with them. We come to the current troubles in the Middle East.
It's a rare thing to see such a spectacular butterfly effect in foriegn affairs such as that which has taken place in the Middle East over the past month or so. All sparked off from one harrowing incident. A university graduate in Tunisia, recently prevented from selling vegetable from a cart by his corrupt government gave up on his life of being humiliated by the powers that be and set himself on fire. In a short space of time, people were out in the streets in the major cities of Tunisia. Such protests (albeit not on that scale) have taken place before and have usually been dispersed by the govs security forces. Not this time, the army made it's presence known but refused to crack skulls. This sent a very definite sign to Ben Ali, the dictator of Tunisia and he promptly left with money he stole from his own people. And now the future of Tunisia is still being decided.
Then came the big one, Egypt. A classic case of a democracy on paper ruled by a strongman 'reliable' to the West. We had a kind of unwritten deal with him, he makes some democratic reforms (and decide how much 'some' is by himself) and we give him lots of aid and recognises his rule. At the same time he can keep those ever angry Muslim extremists out of the political scene. Unfortunately the faustian pact's bad side started to rear it's ugly head. Democracy became a very bad joke in Egypt, as did the blatantly fraudulent elections that came with it (or Mubarak's version of it). Corruption rose, with the ruling family getting suspiciously rich. Reform slowed to a grinding halt, and torture by security forces became an open secret. But mainstream opinon largely ignored all this, the economy was booming, the tourist sector in particular.
The Tunisia changed everything. A country who's population has a record low participation in elections that have pre-decided outcomes, realised that people power could acheive a lot more than they thought. And so the people revolted. The army reared it's head, tanks and jet fighters on display. But the ever present eye of the 24 hour media was prepared to catch the first shots live, if the Tahrir Square incident turned into one resembling Tainnenmen Square in 1989 (which wasn't caught on camera, but a suspicious amount of people walked into the square and never came out). But the military stood firm and watched. Then one day they suggested that Mubarak should leave, which he did just like that. And now they are the apparent gaurantors of the writting of a revised constitution for the nation. We'll see what happens.
The domino effect may not be over. Trouble still persisits in Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya. The first three are US allies in it's War on Terror. The people in charge are either kings or 'strongmen' before given a blank cheque to govern how they see fit. Time will tell how these events and the US's reaction to them plays out.
What frustrated me was how quickly the Conservative base in the US (mostly although there were some rumblings in this country too). All of a sudden in their book, selling him out was like selling an old friend. And the very implication that we were selling him out took root. No one one blaring the conservative horn in the states admitted underlying facts that underminded their time old realpolitik philosophy on foriegn affairs. One fact being that Mubarak had over the year being effectively making the radicalisation of the opposition in Egypt a self-fulfilling prophecy by holding fraudulent elections, and allowing corruption in his family to reach new heights. The doctrine of stability seemed to trump the one of democracy, like Arabs aren't good enough or smart enough for the latter. The arrogant suggestion was made that we should somehow reign in this revolution, despite the fact that Mubarak had now control of it let alone the Western nations. The role of the Muslim Brotherhood was exagerrated by shameless commentators like Glenn Beck who ruled all of this event out as some masterplan by Iran. As though every demonstrator on the streets was some nutter prepared to light their shoes or underpants on fire and take out a bunch of westerners. Ignoring that religious and cultural divides alienate the Muslim extremists in Egypt from those of Iran.
I doubt the so far encouraging way events have turned out will make the creators of these comments eat their words. More comments will be made I am sure. Especially now the US's key ally Bahrain is now experiencing turbulence. Worryingly close to the potential motherload, Saudi Arabia. As for what message the West should send to our strongmen allies I think it is obvious. We need to let them know that they are tolerated by us, not liked. We live in an imperfect world, and we have to do business with imperfect people. Doesn't mean we have to like them, or even compliment them. When asked about our opinions on their conduct we should say straight, that they are running laughably fraudulent regimes that are barely disguised as legitimate. A policy of see no evil with our foriegn allies won't help anyone, I think that's what Obama has realised. I applaud him with how he dealt with the situation. He knew there was a chance that the protests could die down and he may of had to deal with Mubarak again. But when the chips were down he saw that the people weren't going to give way till Mubarak did. In that I believe he excercised good judgement.
In the new day's worth of time I had suddenly to spare, I promptly carried on my reading regime. And moved on to "Savage War of Peace 1954-1962" by Alistair Horne. The funny story behind this book is I borrowed it from a friend (of infinite patience), and knowing he read it recently and would likely not want to bother with it for a long time I decided to delay it in my reading list. Several times over. Till now, a space of a year. Yes that is pretty insane. But you have to understand that I am a bit moody when it comes to reading. I like to make good progress on a book over a week, mostly because I am always curious about what is coming on the next page (usually I am well rewarded). And two because there are always many other things on the reading list to sink my teeth into after. Occassionally I go on reading sprees on certain subjects, like the Middle East or WWII. On one of these blogs I'll list a few of the books I am waiting to read that are resting in some container in my room, but I don't honestly know how that list will end. May take a while. I may well have to sell some, time will tell if I will.
Anyway let's get to the subject matter of this blog. Colin Powell, heard of him? You may well remember him as that man giving the unfortunate speech at the UN 8 years ago making Saddam Hussein look like a modern day Genghis Khan on Crack armed with a nuclear missile under each shoulder and shoes stuffed with Anthrax. Alas the speech turned out to be somewhat overblown and in more than one way, exagerrated. Now I am assuming that some people will jump on this as proof that he is a fool to have risked his reputation on something that flimsy so lightly. Well in some ways I wouldn't blame you. But I have done a lot of reading around the run up to the infamous speech, and it has become obvious to me that he was basically assigned as a fall guy to deliver one of the weakest cases conceived to the international scene. Whispers from several different sources have informed me that behind close doors he read the intelligence that was to be presented in his speech, and proceeded to fume at that worm of a man Donald Rumsfeld for making him carry the ball for it. One report claims he shouted at Rumsfeld that the intel was full of a brown substance that begins with c (there is no profanity on my blog people, exagerrations, character assasinations and lots of bitching but NEVER profanity).
We all know what happened. We ate the story up, the Iraq War happened. But instead of the shameless showboating that many of the Bush Administration refugees took (books etc) Colin seems to have taken a more subtle exit from the public political sphere. His resignation in itself was pretty much a non-event. The way I see it, it was an action that showed great humility. One that calmly said, "I've done my job, now I'm out". And he was allowed to go, as oppose to Rumsfeld who clinged onto the Bush ship like a limpet till he evenutally (and belatedly in my opinion) was told to jump ship before the mid-terms. For me then Colin Powell is something of a personal hero, and in many ways has the right to be for many other people. Have their been times when you have had to be fed lies and live with it? Have their been times when you have worked for people above you or next to you who you know are pinheads(either currently or ever before)? Of course you have experienced one of these situations. But this man like us towed the line, jumped when he was told to....but still had the humility and honesty to admit that he did wrong. A few days ago was the anniversary of his infamous speech to the UN when he waved a vial of anthrax in front of the international community (a fake one, a live one may have been highlighted as a security risk). I only wish I could give him a reassuring nudge on the shoulder and buy him a pint, when he looks back on that ugly part of his career. The I could tell him, "don't feel bad Colin, there are plenty more parasites among your former colleagues that historians are going to spit ink at". But somehow I think he's more happy enjoying his retirement with his wife and grand-kids.
Obama is a Saladin-Stalin-Osama Bin Laden-Satan all rolled into one. And he's a socialist, probably a hermaphrodite and he's not even Christian. NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN!!!! AAAAAGGGHH!!!! That is a prospective slogan for Republican Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. One can expect the opposition to scream bloody murder at some point, especially this close in the electoral cycle and after a mid-term result that has almost certainly re-energised their ranks. Now the nerdy political side of me makes me genuinely interested in the greviances the Conservative base has with Obama. But when out and out smearing and cheap political point scoring takes over I begin to lose patience. Such it is when outrageous claims are made such as that Obama is not a Christian, he is, calm down and shut up. And that he isn't even American, he is, but unfortuantely for him he didn't have the good fortune of being born English instead (HUZZAH! HUZZAH! Land of Hope and Glory! etc). He won and he beat your McCain fair and square Conservative base. Perhaps not entirely McCains fault because he was living in the unusual shadow of an apparent small government and fiscal Conservative Republican who somewhat confusingly vastly expanded the government and HUGELY increased the national debt. Hence why the Tea Party folk treat Bush as some kind of an embarrassment, foreign policy shenanigans notwithstanding.
A long critique of the US Conservative base could easily turn into a book with several law suits pending at the end of it, so I will just stick to one bone I have to pick with them. We come to the current troubles in the Middle East.
It's a rare thing to see such a spectacular butterfly effect in foriegn affairs such as that which has taken place in the Middle East over the past month or so. All sparked off from one harrowing incident. A university graduate in Tunisia, recently prevented from selling vegetable from a cart by his corrupt government gave up on his life of being humiliated by the powers that be and set himself on fire. In a short space of time, people were out in the streets in the major cities of Tunisia. Such protests (albeit not on that scale) have taken place before and have usually been dispersed by the govs security forces. Not this time, the army made it's presence known but refused to crack skulls. This sent a very definite sign to Ben Ali, the dictator of Tunisia and he promptly left with money he stole from his own people. And now the future of Tunisia is still being decided.
Then came the big one, Egypt. A classic case of a democracy on paper ruled by a strongman 'reliable' to the West. We had a kind of unwritten deal with him, he makes some democratic reforms (and decide how much 'some' is by himself) and we give him lots of aid and recognises his rule. At the same time he can keep those ever angry Muslim extremists out of the political scene. Unfortunately the faustian pact's bad side started to rear it's ugly head. Democracy became a very bad joke in Egypt, as did the blatantly fraudulent elections that came with it (or Mubarak's version of it). Corruption rose, with the ruling family getting suspiciously rich. Reform slowed to a grinding halt, and torture by security forces became an open secret. But mainstream opinon largely ignored all this, the economy was booming, the tourist sector in particular.
The Tunisia changed everything. A country who's population has a record low participation in elections that have pre-decided outcomes, realised that people power could acheive a lot more than they thought. And so the people revolted. The army reared it's head, tanks and jet fighters on display. But the ever present eye of the 24 hour media was prepared to catch the first shots live, if the Tahrir Square incident turned into one resembling Tainnenmen Square in 1989 (which wasn't caught on camera, but a suspicious amount of people walked into the square and never came out). But the military stood firm and watched. Then one day they suggested that Mubarak should leave, which he did just like that. And now they are the apparent gaurantors of the writting of a revised constitution for the nation. We'll see what happens.
The domino effect may not be over. Trouble still persisits in Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya. The first three are US allies in it's War on Terror. The people in charge are either kings or 'strongmen' before given a blank cheque to govern how they see fit. Time will tell how these events and the US's reaction to them plays out.
What frustrated me was how quickly the Conservative base in the US (mostly although there were some rumblings in this country too). All of a sudden in their book, selling him out was like selling an old friend. And the very implication that we were selling him out took root. No one one blaring the conservative horn in the states admitted underlying facts that underminded their time old realpolitik philosophy on foriegn affairs. One fact being that Mubarak had over the year being effectively making the radicalisation of the opposition in Egypt a self-fulfilling prophecy by holding fraudulent elections, and allowing corruption in his family to reach new heights. The doctrine of stability seemed to trump the one of democracy, like Arabs aren't good enough or smart enough for the latter. The arrogant suggestion was made that we should somehow reign in this revolution, despite the fact that Mubarak had now control of it let alone the Western nations. The role of the Muslim Brotherhood was exagerrated by shameless commentators like Glenn Beck who ruled all of this event out as some masterplan by Iran. As though every demonstrator on the streets was some nutter prepared to light their shoes or underpants on fire and take out a bunch of westerners. Ignoring that religious and cultural divides alienate the Muslim extremists in Egypt from those of Iran.
I doubt the so far encouraging way events have turned out will make the creators of these comments eat their words. More comments will be made I am sure. Especially now the US's key ally Bahrain is now experiencing turbulence. Worryingly close to the potential motherload, Saudi Arabia. As for what message the West should send to our strongmen allies I think it is obvious. We need to let them know that they are tolerated by us, not liked. We live in an imperfect world, and we have to do business with imperfect people. Doesn't mean we have to like them, or even compliment them. When asked about our opinions on their conduct we should say straight, that they are running laughably fraudulent regimes that are barely disguised as legitimate. A policy of see no evil with our foriegn allies won't help anyone, I think that's what Obama has realised. I applaud him with how he dealt with the situation. He knew there was a chance that the protests could die down and he may of had to deal with Mubarak again. But when the chips were down he saw that the people weren't going to give way till Mubarak did. In that I believe he excercised good judgement.
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Ulysses S Grant vs. Tony Blair
Well it's been an up and down past month to tell you the truth. Why? Well the inevitable consequence of one spilling all the beans online and subsequently remembering you actually did it at the last morning, may have something to do with it. So I will be suitably vague but end cheerfully and leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling inside like Obama. Basically I left my last temp job which was due to end anyway a few weeks ago on a downer. Some frank words were exchanged, and then I moved on. Not exactly the warmest case of leaving a job. If you can't stand the vagueness then private message me. But for all viewing this wall, the rest of the information is classified. If I told you I would have to kill you. And survivors will be shot again etc. All a bit of a hastle really. The point of this (indeed there is one) is to say that I feel I have regained my confidence after it has taken a severe knock. I look back disappointed but not bitter, as JFK said "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".
Having a prolonged period of stability and success and then going into an unnecessary and thoroughly knackering downward slump which defies logic takes me neatly to..........Tony Blair! Recently I finished his book. Much like the individual himself the book half satisfied me and half infuriated me. Some of the usual arguments you would expect from him are there. But some controversial points (for him at least) are made. Likely trying to maintain moral highground he very rarely speaks directly against people, even those he was obviously at odds with. Such as Mo Mowlem. To a certain expect it appears to be an honourable way of saying he didn't get on with them, but it does come off as rather patronising in a curiously kind of paternal way as if to say "oh it's OK he's a good guy, just a little misguided. He'll learn when he grows up".
The actual political ideas expressed in this book share many striking realities with many of the centrist leaning people in the Tory-Lib Coalition at the mo, perhaps tellingly almost no venom is thrown at the current government. Most of the time in fact Tony Blair's criticism (people such as him rarely muster venom) is against the New Labour doubters within the Labour party who now apparently dominate the party (a viewpoint not without merit). The most prominent among them was his sometime friend and sometime political nemesis Gordon Brown, one of the most interesting and at times puzzling politcal feuds in our history. More on that later.
Tony Blair basically preached the gospel of New Labour, our expression of the Third Way politics that took it's lead from Clinton. In a nutshell an amalgamation of fiscal conservatism (eg. not spending more than one can afford) with preserving but reforming public services. Tactically sensing attacks about New Labour being perceived as just a media gimmick Tony quickly counter-attacks to attempt to assure the reader that New Labour represents a way of life more than it does a mere bumper sticker. But in a perhaps stereotypical Liberal messianic fashion, he continues the theme throughout the book of him as some kind of rejected reformist Jesus. Persecuted by the Romans in the form of the dregs of the old Labour Party, stopping them from seeing the light. I can imagine many of these elements reading this book and feeling as though they are being talked down to, by a school teacher they never liked.
It's not that I necessarily disagree with all of the things he did do or tried to do (many of them were honourable), but I just felt short changed reading with his meager excuses for leaving things the way he did. He harks on about irresponsible government spending and debt, which HE presided over! But he blames Brown! He tip toes around the strange issue of their feud several times until he sort of hits the nail on the head (not that I was satisfied when he eventually did). Basically he outlines a kind of gentlemans agreement between the two of them, for one leader to pass the entire country over to the other. He only remarks on how slightly it may (and indeed was in my many quarters) be perceived, to simply let party leadership elections take the place of actual general elections. So much for principle and going for broke on honest reform, when power is unexpectedly passed on in a blatantly onesided leadership battle. He practically ignores how short changed people felt in the beginning of the Brown era of government. Of course his ultimate downfall is mostly attributed to his abandonment of his New Labour baby, of which absolutely nothing is wrong.
And then we come to Iraq, this issue is faced off by him with a pincer movement of victimhood arguments (ie."what else could I do?") and some admittedly intelligent arguments (close but not completely air-tight). In a nutshell he claims that the original Gulf War UN resolution technically still authorised the use of force in 2003. Second he argues that Number 10 could not of 'sexed up' the intelligence in the Iraq dossier, because it was the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) not Downing Street that made it. More plausible, but perhaps not airtight. OK he's not an intelligence expert and neither am I. But surely the correct approach to finding out about a subject matter that you don't have much on (and the stakes are high), is to check and then recheck your sources. And appreciate that much like with the news, it matters who is telling you what and different interests exist. On that basis, some Iraqi dissident making Saddam sound like some kind of nuclear Genghis Khan when the truth is perhaps differnt, becomes a possibility.
He in many ways intelligently recognises that much of the criticism the public has for the Iraq debacle is nowdays more about how unprepared we were for the aftermath, as oppose to how we handled toppling Saddam himself. This is where I admittedly started to lose patience with the author in the book. He more or less ignore the background of Iraq being a country of years old tensions between rival ethnic groups. Basically his simple formula is power gap+Alqaeda-in-Iraq+Iran= chaos. I know Alqaeda and Iran played a part in stirring up trouble. But many of the prominent agitators in the near civil war were Iraqis representing grieviances many ordinary Iraqis faced in an uncertain future, shaped by centuries of leaders playing on ethnic divides. How could Blair be so naive of Iraq in this regard with our empire history there. Basically us putting the Sunnis on the pedestal above the majority Shias, albeit in a less extreme way than Saddam. I think his biggest mistake was not planning for the worst scenario, that unfortunately made itself a very real reality.
As if to make up for all that I disagree about him, there is also much to appreciate in his book. He owns up to some well known embarrasing moments, such as his "Hand of History" quote. The book is also very informative about complex issues such as the Northern Ireland chapter. Chapters such as this are often interspersed with light-hearted humour. For instance during one Northern Ireland negotiation Tony tried to keep calm with a particularly prickly person he was negotiating with, only to ignore insults to his position to have his aide leap up furiously in his place and do the "how dare you!" angry retort. Some of the controversial characters in his term of power are elaborated on, to make them real and often interesting people. This is particularly the case with Alistair Campbell, like him or loathe him, I bet you if you read this you may even respect him. And for my generation this book especially will bring back a lot of nostalgia, good and bad. The 1997 election, the millenium, Princess Diana's death, 9/11. In a sense I felt I had to read this book, and in many ways I am glad I did.
For now I am onto a book about the American Civil Warm, hence the wierd blog title. Thanks for reading.
Having a prolonged period of stability and success and then going into an unnecessary and thoroughly knackering downward slump which defies logic takes me neatly to..........Tony Blair! Recently I finished his book. Much like the individual himself the book half satisfied me and half infuriated me. Some of the usual arguments you would expect from him are there. But some controversial points (for him at least) are made. Likely trying to maintain moral highground he very rarely speaks directly against people, even those he was obviously at odds with. Such as Mo Mowlem. To a certain expect it appears to be an honourable way of saying he didn't get on with them, but it does come off as rather patronising in a curiously kind of paternal way as if to say "oh it's OK he's a good guy, just a little misguided. He'll learn when he grows up".
The actual political ideas expressed in this book share many striking realities with many of the centrist leaning people in the Tory-Lib Coalition at the mo, perhaps tellingly almost no venom is thrown at the current government. Most of the time in fact Tony Blair's criticism (people such as him rarely muster venom) is against the New Labour doubters within the Labour party who now apparently dominate the party (a viewpoint not without merit). The most prominent among them was his sometime friend and sometime political nemesis Gordon Brown, one of the most interesting and at times puzzling politcal feuds in our history. More on that later.
Tony Blair basically preached the gospel of New Labour, our expression of the Third Way politics that took it's lead from Clinton. In a nutshell an amalgamation of fiscal conservatism (eg. not spending more than one can afford) with preserving but reforming public services. Tactically sensing attacks about New Labour being perceived as just a media gimmick Tony quickly counter-attacks to attempt to assure the reader that New Labour represents a way of life more than it does a mere bumper sticker. But in a perhaps stereotypical Liberal messianic fashion, he continues the theme throughout the book of him as some kind of rejected reformist Jesus. Persecuted by the Romans in the form of the dregs of the old Labour Party, stopping them from seeing the light. I can imagine many of these elements reading this book and feeling as though they are being talked down to, by a school teacher they never liked.
It's not that I necessarily disagree with all of the things he did do or tried to do (many of them were honourable), but I just felt short changed reading with his meager excuses for leaving things the way he did. He harks on about irresponsible government spending and debt, which HE presided over! But he blames Brown! He tip toes around the strange issue of their feud several times until he sort of hits the nail on the head (not that I was satisfied when he eventually did). Basically he outlines a kind of gentlemans agreement between the two of them, for one leader to pass the entire country over to the other. He only remarks on how slightly it may (and indeed was in my many quarters) be perceived, to simply let party leadership elections take the place of actual general elections. So much for principle and going for broke on honest reform, when power is unexpectedly passed on in a blatantly onesided leadership battle. He practically ignores how short changed people felt in the beginning of the Brown era of government. Of course his ultimate downfall is mostly attributed to his abandonment of his New Labour baby, of which absolutely nothing is wrong.
And then we come to Iraq, this issue is faced off by him with a pincer movement of victimhood arguments (ie."what else could I do?") and some admittedly intelligent arguments (close but not completely air-tight). In a nutshell he claims that the original Gulf War UN resolution technically still authorised the use of force in 2003. Second he argues that Number 10 could not of 'sexed up' the intelligence in the Iraq dossier, because it was the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) not Downing Street that made it. More plausible, but perhaps not airtight. OK he's not an intelligence expert and neither am I. But surely the correct approach to finding out about a subject matter that you don't have much on (and the stakes are high), is to check and then recheck your sources. And appreciate that much like with the news, it matters who is telling you what and different interests exist. On that basis, some Iraqi dissident making Saddam sound like some kind of nuclear Genghis Khan when the truth is perhaps differnt, becomes a possibility.
He in many ways intelligently recognises that much of the criticism the public has for the Iraq debacle is nowdays more about how unprepared we were for the aftermath, as oppose to how we handled toppling Saddam himself. This is where I admittedly started to lose patience with the author in the book. He more or less ignore the background of Iraq being a country of years old tensions between rival ethnic groups. Basically his simple formula is power gap+Alqaeda-in-Iraq+Iran= chaos. I know Alqaeda and Iran played a part in stirring up trouble. But many of the prominent agitators in the near civil war were Iraqis representing grieviances many ordinary Iraqis faced in an uncertain future, shaped by centuries of leaders playing on ethnic divides. How could Blair be so naive of Iraq in this regard with our empire history there. Basically us putting the Sunnis on the pedestal above the majority Shias, albeit in a less extreme way than Saddam. I think his biggest mistake was not planning for the worst scenario, that unfortunately made itself a very real reality.
As if to make up for all that I disagree about him, there is also much to appreciate in his book. He owns up to some well known embarrasing moments, such as his "Hand of History" quote. The book is also very informative about complex issues such as the Northern Ireland chapter. Chapters such as this are often interspersed with light-hearted humour. For instance during one Northern Ireland negotiation Tony tried to keep calm with a particularly prickly person he was negotiating with, only to ignore insults to his position to have his aide leap up furiously in his place and do the "how dare you!" angry retort. Some of the controversial characters in his term of power are elaborated on, to make them real and often interesting people. This is particularly the case with Alistair Campbell, like him or loathe him, I bet you if you read this you may even respect him. And for my generation this book especially will bring back a lot of nostalgia, good and bad. The 1997 election, the millenium, Princess Diana's death, 9/11. In a sense I felt I had to read this book, and in many ways I am glad I did.
For now I am onto a book about the American Civil Warm, hence the wierd blog title. Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
End of an Era
In many ways the past few weeks have been eventful. A good book has been finished, another begins and the reading regime proceeds without delay. My eardrum randomly decided to perforate itself, by a twist of fate 1 hour after the new year started. Strange but true. In other news my current temporary has come to an end, a few weeks prematurely. All thanks to some kind of internal switch around. Not a firing, just a polite shrug to the agency temp and off I go from this Friday. A part of me is sad, a part not. While much of what I do now is rewarding, without going into too much detail I find it very stressful. I can safely say I won't be applying for more reception work in the near future. Thankfully a new temp job (with the possibility of being permanent) will begin for me immediately from monday next week. So no rest for the weary.
I named the post as it is because in many ways this has been a recurring theme in the past few weeks. I have finished reading massive biography of Hitler by Ian Kershaw. A very good book about a rather repulsive and often grim subject (the person and the circumstances that brought him about), more about that later. The next book I have courtesy of a bookstore voucher I got for Christmas is Tony Blair's book 'A Journey'. This also conveyed the end of an era sense. While I was reading the book in the staff room a colleague politely interrupted me to ask how the book is. I assured them that it is worth a read and more self depreciating than you would expect the man to be. She commented that in a sense the era of his leadership was an interesting one. And I guess in many ways it was. The whole New Labour craze, Diana's death, the Good Friday Agreement, the Millenium Dome, the War on Terror and yes Iraq as well. Like or loathe Blair I guess there is going to be a point when my generation is a bit older, when we tell the then younguns about those strange, exciting and often tragic times. Everyone remembers where they were when Diana died and when they heard about 9/11, such are the times.
On a more serious note the end of an era sense came to me on a more personal level this week. I have to be careful with what I say here because of the danger of raising Facebook hell and gossip. All I can say is I made a personal decision to end something this week, those who know me well know what I am talking about. And the rest, well just rest assured that I am OK. It was a hard decision to make at the time but I am proud I made it. I know now that although memories are good, but nothing lasts forever. Sometimes you have to move on.
Often after finishing a book I often spend many weeks after wondering about it. Such is the case with 'Hitler' by Ian Kershaw. In many ways the book is a myth-buster. Hitler wasn't superhuman, nor was he a demon. He had mental baggage (and then some!). But his views were receptive to a wide audience at the time. What Ian reveals that is most astonishing about Hitler's life is the oppurtunism in it. There were so many oppurtunities for him to drift off into obscurity and away from any path remotely attached to the one he eventually followed. He could of died as the homeless vagrant that he actually became in his later days in Vienna. He could of been sent to prison as a draft dodger in Austria. He could have got into the Vienna Fine Arts Academy (IF he put the work in that is).
But these things didn't happen, and as they say the rest is history. I guess in that way the book is a clear cautionary tale. In some sense swathes of the German population made a faustian pact with Hitler to regain national pride and at the very least survive. The extraordinary times distorted the political picture many times over. At best we hope for placid times for young democracies. No such luck for Iraq today, or the Weimar Republic in Germany. The Great Depression were a god-send to the right and left extremes of the German political spectrum. This mixed in with a lack of forsight on the part of the victors of WWI effectively lead straight into WWII.
In many ways the oppurtunism worked both ways in Hitlers life. Seemingly random figures took advantage of the unusual form of government, which heavily favoured sychophancy to the leader. Himmler started out as a chicken farmer and ended as an immensly powerful genocidal figure. Goebbels started as a failed playwrite and ended as a Propaganda Minister, murdering his entire family at the very end, and then himself. And Goring started out as a playboy aristochrat, became in charge of an airforce and then also commited suicide in the end. Many of the excesses of the Third Reich would not of been possible without them. All had some vested interest in the 'project'. Yet the most remarkable of Hitler's acolytes was Albert Speer, a maverick architect who became the armaments minister, and a very successful one too. Remarkably at the last minute he stood against Hitler and refused to follow his orders in condemning the German people's chances of survival through the ordeal of the war.
It's a story of freakish extremes, yet there are many strains you can still see in contemporary politics. Obsession over following the 'message' in party politics. Propaganda set-pieces. Political oppurtunism. Leaders picking court favourite's. And ever present backstabbing. And last but by no means persistent vagueness by politicians in their commitments, to remain "flexible", but crucially reducing commitments and avoiding broken promises (by not making any). In many ways scarily like today.
I named the post as it is because in many ways this has been a recurring theme in the past few weeks. I have finished reading massive biography of Hitler by Ian Kershaw. A very good book about a rather repulsive and often grim subject (the person and the circumstances that brought him about), more about that later. The next book I have courtesy of a bookstore voucher I got for Christmas is Tony Blair's book 'A Journey'. This also conveyed the end of an era sense. While I was reading the book in the staff room a colleague politely interrupted me to ask how the book is. I assured them that it is worth a read and more self depreciating than you would expect the man to be. She commented that in a sense the era of his leadership was an interesting one. And I guess in many ways it was. The whole New Labour craze, Diana's death, the Good Friday Agreement, the Millenium Dome, the War on Terror and yes Iraq as well. Like or loathe Blair I guess there is going to be a point when my generation is a bit older, when we tell the then younguns about those strange, exciting and often tragic times. Everyone remembers where they were when Diana died and when they heard about 9/11, such are the times.
On a more serious note the end of an era sense came to me on a more personal level this week. I have to be careful with what I say here because of the danger of raising Facebook hell and gossip. All I can say is I made a personal decision to end something this week, those who know me well know what I am talking about. And the rest, well just rest assured that I am OK. It was a hard decision to make at the time but I am proud I made it. I know now that although memories are good, but nothing lasts forever. Sometimes you have to move on.
Often after finishing a book I often spend many weeks after wondering about it. Such is the case with 'Hitler' by Ian Kershaw. In many ways the book is a myth-buster. Hitler wasn't superhuman, nor was he a demon. He had mental baggage (and then some!). But his views were receptive to a wide audience at the time. What Ian reveals that is most astonishing about Hitler's life is the oppurtunism in it. There were so many oppurtunities for him to drift off into obscurity and away from any path remotely attached to the one he eventually followed. He could of died as the homeless vagrant that he actually became in his later days in Vienna. He could of been sent to prison as a draft dodger in Austria. He could have got into the Vienna Fine Arts Academy (IF he put the work in that is).
But these things didn't happen, and as they say the rest is history. I guess in that way the book is a clear cautionary tale. In some sense swathes of the German population made a faustian pact with Hitler to regain national pride and at the very least survive. The extraordinary times distorted the political picture many times over. At best we hope for placid times for young democracies. No such luck for Iraq today, or the Weimar Republic in Germany. The Great Depression were a god-send to the right and left extremes of the German political spectrum. This mixed in with a lack of forsight on the part of the victors of WWI effectively lead straight into WWII.
In many ways the oppurtunism worked both ways in Hitlers life. Seemingly random figures took advantage of the unusual form of government, which heavily favoured sychophancy to the leader. Himmler started out as a chicken farmer and ended as an immensly powerful genocidal figure. Goebbels started as a failed playwrite and ended as a Propaganda Minister, murdering his entire family at the very end, and then himself. And Goring started out as a playboy aristochrat, became in charge of an airforce and then also commited suicide in the end. Many of the excesses of the Third Reich would not of been possible without them. All had some vested interest in the 'project'. Yet the most remarkable of Hitler's acolytes was Albert Speer, a maverick architect who became the armaments minister, and a very successful one too. Remarkably at the last minute he stood against Hitler and refused to follow his orders in condemning the German people's chances of survival through the ordeal of the war.
It's a story of freakish extremes, yet there are many strains you can still see in contemporary politics. Obsession over following the 'message' in party politics. Propaganda set-pieces. Political oppurtunism. Leaders picking court favourite's. And ever present backstabbing. And last but by no means persistent vagueness by politicians in their commitments, to remain "flexible", but crucially reducing commitments and avoiding broken promises (by not making any). In many ways scarily like today.
Wednesday, 29 December 2010
Must you Hope so damn much?
When thinking back to a time not so long ago, when I was fighting the good fight at the General Election for a (at the time) underdog politcal party I look back to a funny and rather forthright conversation I had with a colleague. Around this time another colleague planted the seed in my brain of myself one day running for some kind of elected office. After this happened, in one lazy day in the office folding endless reems of leaflets with the candidate's grinning mug on I turned around and asked him if he ever aspired to run for a local council seat.
His reply in short was an emphatic "no".
"Why is that?" I asked, slightly disappointed that my attempt at small talk to rid us of office tedium had sank like the Lusitania.
My colleague's reply summed up in part what I saw as the possible negative parts of being a politician: "Because at the end of the day, everything that you do is wrong".
He couldn't really have put it better. People HATE politicians giving promises, people HATE politicians not making promises about things they care about, people HATE politicians who are know too much and are too academic, people HATE politicians who profess to be common with buttoned down shirts swapped in place of their suits (ala Clegg, Cameron etc) to appear less threatening.
On some days I can understand this public's mentality. On other days I feel like throwing a brick in the face of one of these whiners and patting myself on the back for a job well done. Not one of them stops to think that some of the reason these strange people are fusing more over "image" than making sense is that nowadays people are more likely to engage with what is "interesting" or "fun" as oppose to what is relevant. Why would they bother doing it, if it was just for show? But NOOO the public can't be blamed, the poor sweet innocent public. Give me a break.
Yet on another level I think this year has seen a few knockback lessons being taught to two particular public figures, both of whom have started out as hopeful underdogs and are now tainted by decisions in power (good and bad). I speak of Nick Clegg and Barack Obama. The latter of whom I believe has shown more humility, on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (a risky media spot as any) Obama endured ridicule to concede that the "hope" and "change" urgency message in campaign while not entirely wrong, certainly had a reality deficeit too great to withstand the rigours of the jungle of US politics. As a politician I think Obama is going to have to learn to grow up quickly, I imagine by now he has gauged the consequences of his decisions and where they have left him now. In particular with Afghanistan, at least I hope he has.
Now Obama faces a difficult game. Not an impossible one. Bill Clinton put through real (and very positive) changes with a hostile congress. As in the case of any struggle though, the game always depends on who your enemies are. And I must say we have some beauties in the rogues gallery of Republican presidential hopefuls, to compliment the incoming reds in Congress. All with real pros and cons. Mitt Romney (Massachussetts Mormon) is a possible. He has a smiley face, has mastered basic personal hygiene, speaks clearly and is a fiscal conservative (as is fashionable nowadays) and is already pretty rich so campaign funding is no biggy. The cons are that he has supported a version of Obama's evil Sovietised healthcare system in Massachussetts that senselessly allows universal access to healthcare. Oh and the religious tolerance of the Republicans cannot handle having a Mormon in their ranks.
Some of the new Red governors in the Mid West such as Mitch Daniels in Indiana have rising stars that may prove popular in this time of austerity, as the populace is looking for governors who can come up with workable budget squeezes.
And then there is Newt Gingrich who I understand is the Republican equivelant of a rockstar. That is a rockstar who's past times include throwing moral stones in glass houses and promoting religious agitation. He is certainly starting to bang the social conservative gong rather deafingly, but he may in the process scare away the moderates. To counter that he could burnish his fiscal conservative credentials.
And then there is who I am rooting for: Sarah Palin. I support her because I wholly believe she is a one woman political party shredding machine. I thoroughly support her fight for the common person, millionaire fortune in tow and all. Her "power to the people" type message in front of lefty central government-tendencies is looking evermore credible too. This shows every time she destroys a hapless hard working moderate Republicans career in the favour of some Tea Party blood-spitting non-moderate, like some kind of Caesar unleashing a proverbial tiger in the ampitheatre of US politics, and watching it tear apart moderate Republican scum. Hang those consensus builders and hang them high! Your not all suppost to agree with the other side dammit! Look angry! ANGRIER! That's better.
As for the politics in my country. What can I say? Well I can say one thing to my leadership which I feel needs saying. It's OK to be told by our colleagues in the Tory Party, to "shut up and enjoy being in government". I have been living with Tories not making sense for many years, and long may that traditon continue. But I have NO respect whatsoever for Nick Clegg sending that same message to his own grassroots activists. If he doesn't want to consul with us over our worries, TS I have a barrel full for him with his name on it. I am proud of many of our successes. But many things depress me. It depresses me when we drop one of our main reform ideas in favour of some half backed electoral system idea, that came out of the last and VERY desperate days of our adversaries, and parade it around like a badge of honour. As of now I openly admit, I am not convinced that the Alternative Vote is something we should throw ourselves behind. For me, right now it's Proportional Representation and failing that what we have now. That will probably upset some people I know in my party, but I cannot in good conscience support something I do not believe in.
For me though this year has been an especially eventful one in terms of my involvement in politics. At the start of this year I helped in the Parliamentary Election campaign of a good man who I am sorry to say did not make it into the job he thoroughly deserved. If I am still in this city when the next general election is up, you can bet your ass I will do everything I can to make sure that score is settled and the House of Commons becomes one seat less a cesspool of lies, narcissism and empty promises.
The other big event for me was putting my name in the hat for local candidacy. This was a big move for me, and one I made after considerable thought was given. Unfortunately I didn't quite make it, and was beaten at selection by some trully remarkable and hard working candidates. Towards the selections of the seats I was given much useful advice. And as time got closer to the decision times it became more clear to me that in some instances I was up against some candidates who in many cases had more connections in the particular areas I competed in. That in itself I believe is fair enough, if they have put the work in then I can only respect that. But that in itself leaves me in a somewhat difficult position. Having had most of my campaigning experience spread over several areas in the city (as oppose to one or a few), it could be harder to sell me as a local activist. My roots to a certain area can potentially be seen to be lacking. Be that as it may, I think this deserves to be looked at in context. I am committed to my party to the extent that I worked for it for 3 months full time without pay. So local campaigner in the traditional sense or not, I feel I have enough credentials to take my activism to the next level as an elected official. When? Who can say. Sometime.
I guess this is a "you haven't seen the last of me" in some ways, not in the megalomaniac Hitler Munich Beer hall way you understand, it is mean't in a kindly way. Getting rejected is not a nice experience, but getting motivated enough as I did and actually trying to go for something so important is something I feel proud of. I am not ashamed, and after learning from my mistakes I will try again. It may be a while, but till then I will keep myself busy somehow. I am determined the wait won't be my "lost years" in the Nixon sense. Watch this space.
I believe what politics in the UK and the US are both experiencing now is kind of the rollback of the "hope" and "change" tidal wave. Both of the making of the politicians and people in both countries. Obama and Clegg somewhat cynically and for the right reasons (in equal measure), started it and now both have to learn how to deal with the consequences. Because people become unpredictable and potentially aggressive when they realise their hopes and dreams are becoming unfulfilled. The higher the hope stakes gamble, potentially the higher the reward OR fall. Both now need to engage in dialogue with their respective public spheres to make the public and their grassroots know that they are talking on the same wavelength. On that level, something can be salvaged out of broken trust. And a more mature approach to one's enemies cannot hurt. As JFK said (or more accurately Ted Sorenson) "forgive one's enemies but NEVER forget their names".
His reply in short was an emphatic "no".
"Why is that?" I asked, slightly disappointed that my attempt at small talk to rid us of office tedium had sank like the Lusitania.
My colleague's reply summed up in part what I saw as the possible negative parts of being a politician: "Because at the end of the day, everything that you do is wrong".
He couldn't really have put it better. People HATE politicians giving promises, people HATE politicians not making promises about things they care about, people HATE politicians who are know too much and are too academic, people HATE politicians who profess to be common with buttoned down shirts swapped in place of their suits (ala Clegg, Cameron etc) to appear less threatening.
On some days I can understand this public's mentality. On other days I feel like throwing a brick in the face of one of these whiners and patting myself on the back for a job well done. Not one of them stops to think that some of the reason these strange people are fusing more over "image" than making sense is that nowadays people are more likely to engage with what is "interesting" or "fun" as oppose to what is relevant. Why would they bother doing it, if it was just for show? But NOOO the public can't be blamed, the poor sweet innocent public. Give me a break.
Yet on another level I think this year has seen a few knockback lessons being taught to two particular public figures, both of whom have started out as hopeful underdogs and are now tainted by decisions in power (good and bad). I speak of Nick Clegg and Barack Obama. The latter of whom I believe has shown more humility, on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (a risky media spot as any) Obama endured ridicule to concede that the "hope" and "change" urgency message in campaign while not entirely wrong, certainly had a reality deficeit too great to withstand the rigours of the jungle of US politics. As a politician I think Obama is going to have to learn to grow up quickly, I imagine by now he has gauged the consequences of his decisions and where they have left him now. In particular with Afghanistan, at least I hope he has.
Now Obama faces a difficult game. Not an impossible one. Bill Clinton put through real (and very positive) changes with a hostile congress. As in the case of any struggle though, the game always depends on who your enemies are. And I must say we have some beauties in the rogues gallery of Republican presidential hopefuls, to compliment the incoming reds in Congress. All with real pros and cons. Mitt Romney (Massachussetts Mormon) is a possible. He has a smiley face, has mastered basic personal hygiene, speaks clearly and is a fiscal conservative (as is fashionable nowadays) and is already pretty rich so campaign funding is no biggy. The cons are that he has supported a version of Obama's evil Sovietised healthcare system in Massachussetts that senselessly allows universal access to healthcare. Oh and the religious tolerance of the Republicans cannot handle having a Mormon in their ranks.
Some of the new Red governors in the Mid West such as Mitch Daniels in Indiana have rising stars that may prove popular in this time of austerity, as the populace is looking for governors who can come up with workable budget squeezes.
And then there is Newt Gingrich who I understand is the Republican equivelant of a rockstar. That is a rockstar who's past times include throwing moral stones in glass houses and promoting religious agitation. He is certainly starting to bang the social conservative gong rather deafingly, but he may in the process scare away the moderates. To counter that he could burnish his fiscal conservative credentials.
And then there is who I am rooting for: Sarah Palin. I support her because I wholly believe she is a one woman political party shredding machine. I thoroughly support her fight for the common person, millionaire fortune in tow and all. Her "power to the people" type message in front of lefty central government-tendencies is looking evermore credible too. This shows every time she destroys a hapless hard working moderate Republicans career in the favour of some Tea Party blood-spitting non-moderate, like some kind of Caesar unleashing a proverbial tiger in the ampitheatre of US politics, and watching it tear apart moderate Republican scum. Hang those consensus builders and hang them high! Your not all suppost to agree with the other side dammit! Look angry! ANGRIER! That's better.
As for the politics in my country. What can I say? Well I can say one thing to my leadership which I feel needs saying. It's OK to be told by our colleagues in the Tory Party, to "shut up and enjoy being in government". I have been living with Tories not making sense for many years, and long may that traditon continue. But I have NO respect whatsoever for Nick Clegg sending that same message to his own grassroots activists. If he doesn't want to consul with us over our worries, TS I have a barrel full for him with his name on it. I am proud of many of our successes. But many things depress me. It depresses me when we drop one of our main reform ideas in favour of some half backed electoral system idea, that came out of the last and VERY desperate days of our adversaries, and parade it around like a badge of honour. As of now I openly admit, I am not convinced that the Alternative Vote is something we should throw ourselves behind. For me, right now it's Proportional Representation and failing that what we have now. That will probably upset some people I know in my party, but I cannot in good conscience support something I do not believe in.
For me though this year has been an especially eventful one in terms of my involvement in politics. At the start of this year I helped in the Parliamentary Election campaign of a good man who I am sorry to say did not make it into the job he thoroughly deserved. If I am still in this city when the next general election is up, you can bet your ass I will do everything I can to make sure that score is settled and the House of Commons becomes one seat less a cesspool of lies, narcissism and empty promises.
The other big event for me was putting my name in the hat for local candidacy. This was a big move for me, and one I made after considerable thought was given. Unfortunately I didn't quite make it, and was beaten at selection by some trully remarkable and hard working candidates. Towards the selections of the seats I was given much useful advice. And as time got closer to the decision times it became more clear to me that in some instances I was up against some candidates who in many cases had more connections in the particular areas I competed in. That in itself I believe is fair enough, if they have put the work in then I can only respect that. But that in itself leaves me in a somewhat difficult position. Having had most of my campaigning experience spread over several areas in the city (as oppose to one or a few), it could be harder to sell me as a local activist. My roots to a certain area can potentially be seen to be lacking. Be that as it may, I think this deserves to be looked at in context. I am committed to my party to the extent that I worked for it for 3 months full time without pay. So local campaigner in the traditional sense or not, I feel I have enough credentials to take my activism to the next level as an elected official. When? Who can say. Sometime.
I guess this is a "you haven't seen the last of me" in some ways, not in the megalomaniac Hitler Munich Beer hall way you understand, it is mean't in a kindly way. Getting rejected is not a nice experience, but getting motivated enough as I did and actually trying to go for something so important is something I feel proud of. I am not ashamed, and after learning from my mistakes I will try again. It may be a while, but till then I will keep myself busy somehow. I am determined the wait won't be my "lost years" in the Nixon sense. Watch this space.
I believe what politics in the UK and the US are both experiencing now is kind of the rollback of the "hope" and "change" tidal wave. Both of the making of the politicians and people in both countries. Obama and Clegg somewhat cynically and for the right reasons (in equal measure), started it and now both have to learn how to deal with the consequences. Because people become unpredictable and potentially aggressive when they realise their hopes and dreams are becoming unfulfilled. The higher the hope stakes gamble, potentially the higher the reward OR fall. Both now need to engage in dialogue with their respective public spheres to make the public and their grassroots know that they are talking on the same wavelength. On that level, something can be salvaged out of broken trust. And a more mature approach to one's enemies cannot hurt. As JFK said (or more accurately Ted Sorenson) "forgive one's enemies but NEVER forget their names".
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
You Know You are Doing Well When People Call You Evil
So, I have managed to to be called evil by two seperate people within a week. Albeit the first one more by implication. Yes I have been busy charming people.
I think in many ways certain people resorting to the whole 'good and evil' struggle are usually either desperate to win an argument, or have suddenly realised they have a good argument to begin with. Sometimes a combination of both.
So my good athiest self was enjoying a good carol service in Bristol Cathedral (yes I am an athiest, I can still appreciate a good choir through all the worship to the Sky God) in polite company. And then came the Christmas message. The usual talk about the real meaning of Christmas ("real" in terms of ignoring it's pagan roots) drifted on, I listened politely. And there came nice uplifting talk about the remarkableness of human endeavour through the curing of the terrible plague of Small Pox. This was oh-so cunningly crafted to the Christmas message (ie a miracle happening in a cowshed with the birth of Christ and the discovery of Small Pox, clever eh? The vicar should consider speech writing in politics). All was still well and good, thus far.
Then came the rude upset at the end. The Vicar sung his praises about the so called "Alpha Course". For those not in the know the Alpha Course is apparently a 'free discussion' group about the meaning of life. So free in fact that sources inform me that nearly everyone who attends walks out as a convert to Christianity. To highlight how great it is the Vicar told us a story about a young couple, one agnostic and an ardent athiest. Long story short both were having a crisis of faith due to the death of their baby. Both were turned into happy Christians. What got my blood boiling was how much the husband (the athiest) was described as confused and "cynical" repeatedly. Until he changed his evil ways. Reminds me of the Santana song of the same name "Evil Ways" (listen to it, Santana is a great band).
So there we have it a nice and otherwise inoffensive message ending with "by the way, do the right thing and don't be evil like he was". This isn't the first time I have been implied as evil by a Christian before. About two years ago I was talking on an online chatroom with an Evangelical minister (it's amazing what boredom can bring you to do). The battle to have me converted to the ranks of the righteous began very shortly after introductions. What ensued was a battle of words. Exasperrated I came down to the mainstay of my position: Why am I still a sinner if I look out for my friends and family? Then came the answer: Every kind action I perform is MEANINGLESS, not weak, MEANINGLESS until I surrender to "God's Will". And that is what slapped me in the face and made me decide that further debate was pointless. I congratulated him for his efforts, but politely let him know that he had lost this battle. After that we had a few laughs since he put my online avatar on a bonfire in a Witch burning scene, I congratulated him for his with. He departed on his Stairway to Heaven, I descended on my apparent crevice to hell.
So here's the deal. I am athiest, and I am avowed secularist and will be for the forseeable future. Maybe I'll one day change I don't know. What someone else believes in, insofar as it doesn't single out hategroups of people (ie various forms of extremism) I couldn't care less. It's quite literally your funeral guys. If I like what I see on the Christian side of the fence, rest assured I will come and ask what I need to ask and find out what I need to find out. Otherwise, please leave me alone. If I ask for your opinion, by all means give it. But I believe that so called "spreading the gospel" or "preaching" in contemporary Britain or anywhere else demeands religion, and makes it seem evermore suspicious and threatening to agnostics and athiests. I don't appreciate arrogance, and the deepest arrogance is to proclaim oneself eternally good over someone eternally bad. Are Christians that surprised at how much athiests relish in speaking about their ideas (to be sometimes dubbed militant) when instead of showing their views respect, they liken secularists to an evil Genghis Khan-like horde? In my book, the only time we should become such a threatening horde is when one of the believing camps tries to get more of a foothold than the other. Ideally one religion shouldn't have an an entrenched position more than the other. Yet the C of E does majorly. And yet certain people in the Christian hierarchy still have the nerve to talk about their faith being under threat. And it being the fault of us secularists. I suggest, people having differing opinons notwithstanding (heaven forbid they do), maybe the church would be more successful in maintaining it's appeal by looking at problems in it's OWN camp. No one is perfect, believers or non-believers included.
In large part what we have seen is not surprising. The US State Department and the Presidency writes Silvio Berlusconni off as a degenerate, corrupt, alcoholic sex maniac who is doing his best to keep his country more corrupt than Botswana (which is factually true by Transparency International Figures). That hardly surprises. Yet Prime Minister David Cameron is seen as at loggerheads with that unstable mafioso (called president in polite company) Hamid Kharzai chief in Afghanistan. This promptly lead to the two shaking hands and playing nice for the cameras. How sweet. All comments from Cameron about not being able to trust Kharzai, and Kharzai verbally urinating on the graves of British falled soldiers was quickly hushed up. More disturbing news has arrived though about Pakistan where the details of essentially a secret war in Pakistan, bordering on the scope of the pre-troop deployment stage in the Vietnam War is rearing it's ugly head. Among this, disconcerting noises are made by the US about it's confidence in the Pakistan Civilian Government being able to stave off threats by the military.
What is extraordinary is how the left and right on the political spectrum have already politicised the positions in this debate. For the right (sensible and otherwise) this is a case for law and order and protection of state secrets, Sarah Palin typically has called for Assange to be executed. The left consider the releases important, and potentially a powerful stick to wave at the blatant dishonesty of their governments. Perhaps unsurprisingly I stick to the latter camp. If respective governments are embarrassed at some of the things being revealed, perhaps they should start at their root causes. Going on about how the information got their in the first place is a blatantly cheap way of getting out of answering the difficult questions they bring up.
And now I hear Julian has been arrested for the rape of a few women in Sweden (2 I believe?). If he did it (in politics anything is possible) then he is a fool who has squandered his heroic deeds. But I can't help thinking how potentially convenient this is to those who wanted him locked away for a long time. Not to trivialise rape, like I said if he did it then he should be processed accordingly. But recently the prospect of him being shipped to the states to get a spanking on espionage charges, via extradition has raised it's head. Convenient for some no? Time will tell how true the rape allegations are. Despite this I stand by my line that the information he released is a vital jolt of honesty delivered to contemporary western societies that have had their fill of whitewash. More lies are not needed to make things right.
I think in many ways certain people resorting to the whole 'good and evil' struggle are usually either desperate to win an argument, or have suddenly realised they have a good argument to begin with. Sometimes a combination of both.
So my good athiest self was enjoying a good carol service in Bristol Cathedral (yes I am an athiest, I can still appreciate a good choir through all the worship to the Sky God) in polite company. And then came the Christmas message. The usual talk about the real meaning of Christmas ("real" in terms of ignoring it's pagan roots) drifted on, I listened politely. And there came nice uplifting talk about the remarkableness of human endeavour through the curing of the terrible plague of Small Pox. This was oh-so cunningly crafted to the Christmas message (ie a miracle happening in a cowshed with the birth of Christ and the discovery of Small Pox, clever eh? The vicar should consider speech writing in politics). All was still well and good, thus far.
Then came the rude upset at the end. The Vicar sung his praises about the so called "Alpha Course". For those not in the know the Alpha Course is apparently a 'free discussion' group about the meaning of life. So free in fact that sources inform me that nearly everyone who attends walks out as a convert to Christianity. To highlight how great it is the Vicar told us a story about a young couple, one agnostic and an ardent athiest. Long story short both were having a crisis of faith due to the death of their baby. Both were turned into happy Christians. What got my blood boiling was how much the husband (the athiest) was described as confused and "cynical" repeatedly. Until he changed his evil ways. Reminds me of the Santana song of the same name "Evil Ways" (listen to it, Santana is a great band).
So there we have it a nice and otherwise inoffensive message ending with "by the way, do the right thing and don't be evil like he was". This isn't the first time I have been implied as evil by a Christian before. About two years ago I was talking on an online chatroom with an Evangelical minister (it's amazing what boredom can bring you to do). The battle to have me converted to the ranks of the righteous began very shortly after introductions. What ensued was a battle of words. Exasperrated I came down to the mainstay of my position: Why am I still a sinner if I look out for my friends and family? Then came the answer: Every kind action I perform is MEANINGLESS, not weak, MEANINGLESS until I surrender to "God's Will". And that is what slapped me in the face and made me decide that further debate was pointless. I congratulated him for his efforts, but politely let him know that he had lost this battle. After that we had a few laughs since he put my online avatar on a bonfire in a Witch burning scene, I congratulated him for his with. He departed on his Stairway to Heaven, I descended on my apparent crevice to hell.
So here's the deal. I am athiest, and I am avowed secularist and will be for the forseeable future. Maybe I'll one day change I don't know. What someone else believes in, insofar as it doesn't single out hategroups of people (ie various forms of extremism) I couldn't care less. It's quite literally your funeral guys. If I like what I see on the Christian side of the fence, rest assured I will come and ask what I need to ask and find out what I need to find out. Otherwise, please leave me alone. If I ask for your opinion, by all means give it. But I believe that so called "spreading the gospel" or "preaching" in contemporary Britain or anywhere else demeands religion, and makes it seem evermore suspicious and threatening to agnostics and athiests. I don't appreciate arrogance, and the deepest arrogance is to proclaim oneself eternally good over someone eternally bad. Are Christians that surprised at how much athiests relish in speaking about their ideas (to be sometimes dubbed militant) when instead of showing their views respect, they liken secularists to an evil Genghis Khan-like horde? In my book, the only time we should become such a threatening horde is when one of the believing camps tries to get more of a foothold than the other. Ideally one religion shouldn't have an an entrenched position more than the other. Yet the C of E does majorly. And yet certain people in the Christian hierarchy still have the nerve to talk about their faith being under threat. And it being the fault of us secularists. I suggest, people having differing opinons notwithstanding (heaven forbid they do), maybe the church would be more successful in maintaining it's appeal by looking at problems in it's OWN camp. No one is perfect, believers or non-believers included.
In large part what we have seen is not surprising. The US State Department and the Presidency writes Silvio Berlusconni off as a degenerate, corrupt, alcoholic sex maniac who is doing his best to keep his country more corrupt than Botswana (which is factually true by Transparency International Figures). That hardly surprises. Yet Prime Minister David Cameron is seen as at loggerheads with that unstable mafioso (called president in polite company) Hamid Kharzai chief in Afghanistan. This promptly lead to the two shaking hands and playing nice for the cameras. How sweet. All comments from Cameron about not being able to trust Kharzai, and Kharzai verbally urinating on the graves of British falled soldiers was quickly hushed up. More disturbing news has arrived though about Pakistan where the details of essentially a secret war in Pakistan, bordering on the scope of the pre-troop deployment stage in the Vietnam War is rearing it's ugly head. Among this, disconcerting noises are made by the US about it's confidence in the Pakistan Civilian Government being able to stave off threats by the military.
What is extraordinary is how the left and right on the political spectrum have already politicised the positions in this debate. For the right (sensible and otherwise) this is a case for law and order and protection of state secrets, Sarah Palin typically has called for Assange to be executed. The left consider the releases important, and potentially a powerful stick to wave at the blatant dishonesty of their governments. Perhaps unsurprisingly I stick to the latter camp. If respective governments are embarrassed at some of the things being revealed, perhaps they should start at their root causes. Going on about how the information got their in the first place is a blatantly cheap way of getting out of answering the difficult questions they bring up.
And now I hear Julian has been arrested for the rape of a few women in Sweden (2 I believe?). If he did it (in politics anything is possible) then he is a fool who has squandered his heroic deeds. But I can't help thinking how potentially convenient this is to those who wanted him locked away for a long time. Not to trivialise rape, like I said if he did it then he should be processed accordingly. But recently the prospect of him being shipped to the states to get a spanking on espionage charges, via extradition has raised it's head. Convenient for some no? Time will tell how true the rape allegations are. Despite this I stand by my line that the information he released is a vital jolt of honesty delivered to contemporary western societies that have had their fill of whitewash. More lies are not needed to make things right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)