There are times when you are very lucky. For me, such a time is now. I have the joy of being surrounded by my family, for those of you who have shared such an experience you know what I mean, and I can only wish such an experience for those who haven’t been fortunate enough to share it.
On a recent weekend I had my four grand children staying over. Little Ollie is just a couple of weeks old, and is clearly going to be a little charmer. He smiles in recognition and the beginnings of focus as he greedily sucks in the world with his eyes as he drinks milk happily. Every part of him is a pleasure given to us by a generous nature, whatever name you give it. I don’t know about higher beings but I do know that if there is one he or she has been very generous to me recently. I looked up a dimly remembered quote by Robert Louis Stevenson; “I will make brooches and toys for your delight – Of bird-song at morning and star-shine at night.” If I could give these lovely children the world I would.
When I was a boy, two thousand years ago, we used to get on our horse and canter down to the corner street shops where such things were easily available. Now there are very few such corner shops, in fact there seem to be fewer corners!
Therefore I drove my fuel-eating car to purchase some water pistols at the ubiquitous Tesco’s. I suppose I was feeling the need to give the taxman some more money. You all remember that water pistols always came with a simple pump action and were made to look like mini guns whose purpose was to shoot a refreshing and annoying stream of water at our friends and enemies. No longer, now these are sophisticate apparatus, manufactured overseas. These devices operate on Double A batteries that are not supplied by the shop or the makers. You need a Philips screwdriver to open the battery compartment; fortunately we had the necessary equipment and batteries.
It only took a few minutes to undo the impossible packaging to gain access to the wonderfully designed guns that look more space revolvers.
Another few minutes of fiddling and unscrewing got us into the battery compartments where we inserted the batteries. We tested the device and noted it made all the right noises.
The grand children were, by now, hopping from foot to foot in excited anticipation. We filled the guns with water and, careful to go into the garden before soaking the general environment, we then fired the guns. Nothing happened, it was a wet fart on a sunny afternoon, no one can hear it and no one cares. In the kingdom of water activity this was a singularly wet squib.
The kids were distraught, looking at me as if I had intentionally and personally let them down. I was distressed as their perception of me descended from super poppa to my being slightly more evil than Stalin and Hitler combined.
Enormously relieved I handed the malfunctioning weapons to Mrs. Klinger, who is usually able to make anything work with just a withering look and a very strong, well chosen encouraging word or two.
No, even she who must be obeyed was unable to command performance.
It now fell to our number two daughter, Sarah, a frightening genetic hybrid between all that is good from the two of us. She can make a Mac do magic tricks, so she must be a genius. But even the smiling and serene Sarah, Deputy Director of a school no less, could not make these guns ejaculate their water.
Undeterred, the women advanced on the unfortunate supermarket to retrieve our money in exchange for their inoperative water pistols. The shop gave in without any resistance, plainly knowing that the pistols were defective before the women opened their mouths.
I wonder what John (Jack) Cohen, the founder of Tesco would have made of this approach, his slogan was, “Pile it high, sell it cheap” but he built an empire by delivering reasonable quality at a reasonable price.
Clutching this refund in hand the ladies then diverted to Toys R Us. Here they purchased bigger and better looking water pistols. In fact they look more like the water cannon the police use to break up particularly troublesome riots. Of course, you and I both know that the ladies had not learned their lesson. Just because these weapons were made of bigger and shinier plastic they still were doomed to fail the acid test, which is work how they’re supposed to. As Michelangelo said, “Trifles make perfection and perfection is no trifle.”
One of the water cannons didn’t work at all, and the other one’s batteries went down more rapidly than the elevator in the Empire State Building. There were a few moments of joy during which the water jetted forward in a long and happy arc, but it didn’t last. More sadness ensued, more promises given of replacements but kids want these things to work immediately, like us all, they are used to instant gratification. It isn’t much to ask is it, a water pistol that can fire some water?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
MurdermadeEasy
One of the most dangerous aspects of modern British society is the poisoning, intentional or otherwise, of our judicial system, by its political masters. This country was always certain of its underlying democracy because it had a bedrock of case and common law that has, by and large, insured there was justice. This is no longer the case. There are some glaring inadequacies that are getting worse with every passing day.
The most recent mistakes are comically beyond belief. The Government has a politically correct agenda that is especially right on when it concerns feminist issues we now have laws being made by stupid and fixed agendas rather than by fairness or common sense. In these, the first major changes to the homicide laws for half a century, the government provides us with yet further proof of it being totally divorced from reality.
As a consequence it is seriously proposed in England that if a woman has an abusive partner and then kills him she could escape a murder charge, and pleading this in mitigation will only face a manslaughter charge. This would automatically ensure that the convicted woman will not face a life sentence for her killing. Under this proposal it will be sufficient to establish that the woman who killed was reacting to a “slow burn of abuse”. This is a murderer’s charter! All of us men had better watch out or we can be killed in future with very little chance of justice for us.
This will remove the present crime of passion defense, in which it was argued that a person could claim a momentary and sudden loss of control. In fact these two elements, when brought together, actually reverses the traditional wisdom of centuries of jurisprudence.
In addition to this ill-conceived measure it is further proposed that the long accepted “partial defense” of killing a wife because she was discovered to having an affair is also on the way out.
Apparently Ministers have ruled that many categories of killer, in addition to victims of domestic violence, will be offered partial defense of provocation. This will specifically include those “seriously wronged” by an insult.
This could be imagined to include whole new classes of those seeking to kill without the threat of a life in jail. Perhaps you have been in a long-term dispute with a neighbor, well now you can kill them!
It’s only human to want to kill the rapist that commits his crime and then laughs and taunts the victim, but this must not mean that its OK to kill him.
It cannot allow a woman who finds her daughter being sexually attacked to kill her attacker, but this law will allow such an action, and the charge will not exceed manslaughter.
It is feminist rubbish when we are faced with the proposed defense of “killing in response to words and conduct which caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.” This is lousy law, with no basis other than feminism.
This series of proposals is riven with contradictions and misconceptions which add up to a man not being allowed to kill his wife under virtually any circumstance, including not being provoked by an unfaithful woman.
This sounds about right, to any sane person, there should not be any excuses to kill another human except in self-defense or in time of war.
But on the other hand this law does allow women a raft of bizarre reasons for them to kill. Basically it would result in women being able to kill their partner and either getting away with it, or, at worst, getting charged with manslaughter. Whereas, if a man kills his partner, he will be charged with murder.
The woman responsible for this botched, ill conceived, and grossly inappropriate set of legal proposals is Harriet Harman, and she has to be the most inept Minister in a totally inadequate government.
The most recent mistakes are comically beyond belief. The Government has a politically correct agenda that is especially right on when it concerns feminist issues we now have laws being made by stupid and fixed agendas rather than by fairness or common sense. In these, the first major changes to the homicide laws for half a century, the government provides us with yet further proof of it being totally divorced from reality.
As a consequence it is seriously proposed in England that if a woman has an abusive partner and then kills him she could escape a murder charge, and pleading this in mitigation will only face a manslaughter charge. This would automatically ensure that the convicted woman will not face a life sentence for her killing. Under this proposal it will be sufficient to establish that the woman who killed was reacting to a “slow burn of abuse”. This is a murderer’s charter! All of us men had better watch out or we can be killed in future with very little chance of justice for us.
This will remove the present crime of passion defense, in which it was argued that a person could claim a momentary and sudden loss of control. In fact these two elements, when brought together, actually reverses the traditional wisdom of centuries of jurisprudence.
In addition to this ill-conceived measure it is further proposed that the long accepted “partial defense” of killing a wife because she was discovered to having an affair is also on the way out.
Apparently Ministers have ruled that many categories of killer, in addition to victims of domestic violence, will be offered partial defense of provocation. This will specifically include those “seriously wronged” by an insult.
This could be imagined to include whole new classes of those seeking to kill without the threat of a life in jail. Perhaps you have been in a long-term dispute with a neighbor, well now you can kill them!
It’s only human to want to kill the rapist that commits his crime and then laughs and taunts the victim, but this must not mean that its OK to kill him.
It cannot allow a woman who finds her daughter being sexually attacked to kill her attacker, but this law will allow such an action, and the charge will not exceed manslaughter.
It is feminist rubbish when we are faced with the proposed defense of “killing in response to words and conduct which caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.” This is lousy law, with no basis other than feminism.
This series of proposals is riven with contradictions and misconceptions which add up to a man not being allowed to kill his wife under virtually any circumstance, including not being provoked by an unfaithful woman.
This sounds about right, to any sane person, there should not be any excuses to kill another human except in self-defense or in time of war.
But on the other hand this law does allow women a raft of bizarre reasons for them to kill. Basically it would result in women being able to kill their partner and either getting away with it, or, at worst, getting charged with manslaughter. Whereas, if a man kills his partner, he will be charged with murder.
The woman responsible for this botched, ill conceived, and grossly inappropriate set of legal proposals is Harriet Harman, and she has to be the most inept Minister in a totally inadequate government.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
TheJewishParliament
It is said that when there are two Jewish people you will have three opinions. Imagine the British Jewish Parliament, which is known as the Board of Deputies of British Jews when there are several hundred Deputies; as a consequence there are many hundreds of opinions.
Boris Johnson, the recently elected Mayor of London addressed the Deputies at his first official visit with the British Jewish community. He said that he would not be making doing two things, pronouncements on international events nor would he be inviting people like Al Qatari to London. These both seem like very good ideas after several major mistakes in this area from his predecessor as Mayor, Ken Livingstone.
Voting in the Jewish community’s Board of Deputies validates its claim to democracy in action simply not seemingly found within the Muslim community, nor from the recent happenings at the Church of England conclaves at Jerusalem and now in England.
There is no representative body that can claim to speak for an entire community, especially one that contains diverse opinions and agendas like the Jewish community. But it does appear to have a legitimate claim to speak for the vast majority of the Jewish people of Britain.
As Henry Grunwald QC, the President of the Board of Deputies stated so accurately, “We are proud to be British proud to be Jewish and proud to support Israel, especially during its 60th birthday celebrations”.
Judaism is a role model for all the other minority faith communities and many, especially the Muslim community, perversely, some might say, consider the Board of Deputies of British Jews the template for how they wish their own representative organizations should operate.
The Durban conference on anti racism which last year was hijacked and became an anti Israel and anti Semitic festival is about to recur. Because of what transpired last year, Canada has refused to attend and America and Israel will lead the Western countries to do the same thing if there is a similar occurrence.
July 14, 2008, The Washington Times, Ed Royce
In this Op-Ed, Ed Royce of the Washington Times surveyed the anti-Semitic propaganda activities of Durban I, resulting in the United States’ withdrawal from the conference. He anticipates a similar outcome, and because of this the United States withheld its contribution to the UN, which is intended to fund the 2009 Durban Review Conference. Royce believes that Durban II could well be even more extreme than Durban I, with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) setting its agenda, which includes the promotion of restrictions on freedom of expression, under the claim of Islamophobia. “Like the first Durban conference, some of the worst human-rights violators will serve on Durban II’s panel [Libya, chair, Iran, Pakistan and Egypt]. The hugely disappointing and worrying U.N. Commission on Human Rights - the same commission that only passed light condemnation of the regimes in Burma and Sudan, intentionally selected these member countries. Its passion, its all consuming pathological hatred is democratic Israel, which has been condemned 15 times over the past two years.” Royce concludes that the best way for the United States to handle this situation is by refusing to participate in the Durban Review Conference.
Isn’t it a terrible irony that this should be the case when the idea of the conference is supposedly the exact opposite of what they are now doing?
In the UK people of every type are confused by the different events centered on the Holocaust. There is Holocaust Memorial Day, Yom Hashoa, The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and The Holocaust Educational Trust. This is an all year round program, holocaust visits by British school kids, which receives about £1.5 million in government funding. It promotes visits to such places as Auschwitz for the young, who come back, write essays, then tell their fellow non-Jewish schoolmates what they saw, felt and experienced.
Why this is relevant, and why it is pertinent?
In a world where Iran is permitted to say, “wipe Israel from the face of the earth;” and “The Holocaust never happened,” it’s vital that our British youth understands where such anti-Semitic behavior can lead, and what it means in a very real outcome.
There are lesson to be learned and remembered and the more means we have to do so the better. The numbers who participate in Holocaust Memorial Day or Yom Hashoa is dwindling because of it being populated almost solely survivors and descendants of victims and as one of these people emotionally stated, “you should come, you have a duty to come, and you should bring your children with you or this will become just an empty day with no one to be there.”
Another Deputy at the Board suggested that Commemoration and education and prayer should be differentiated. All of these serving different purposes for a diverse audience.
Meanwhile the Holocaust section of the Imperial War Museum is seen by many thousands of kids and others who don’t have a Jewish agenda and nevertheless gives a true perspective of what happened.
It isn’t just an old boring trotting out of Jewish memory of suffering to act as an apologia for whatever we as Jews might want to claim or Jew haters seemingly think we want to excuse Israel for. If we don’t remind our children and they don’t commemorate the holocaust then who will in a few years?
The dead cry out to you all to spend at least two hours once a year to attend the Yom Hashoa event. In an emotional and very moving speech Ben Helfgot spoke out on the behalf of the dead and to prevent it happening again, anywhere to anyone.
There is probably more publicity and awareness in the UK about the Holocaust now than there was when I was growing up in post war Britain. Moral relativism is sneaking in and being used against the Jewish people. The victims didn’t get the sympathy at the time for their suffering probably because most people didn’t believe or know what had happened.
Proof of this still sometimes being the case can be found when you hear seemingly well educated young people tell you that the total Jewish dead via the Nazis was 50,000 and not 6 million. The need for education can never end.
Sometimes the “Jewish Parliament” can seem an empty talking shop, but when put into the perspective of its use for the entire Jewish community it quickly becomes apparent that it is more than useful to its members. When you realize the respect the Board has with the politicians of the UK and the rest of the world’s Jewish organizations it becomes obvious that the Board of Deputies of British Jews still has an important future.
Boris Johnson, the recently elected Mayor of London addressed the Deputies at his first official visit with the British Jewish community. He said that he would not be making doing two things, pronouncements on international events nor would he be inviting people like Al Qatari to London. These both seem like very good ideas after several major mistakes in this area from his predecessor as Mayor, Ken Livingstone.
Voting in the Jewish community’s Board of Deputies validates its claim to democracy in action simply not seemingly found within the Muslim community, nor from the recent happenings at the Church of England conclaves at Jerusalem and now in England.
There is no representative body that can claim to speak for an entire community, especially one that contains diverse opinions and agendas like the Jewish community. But it does appear to have a legitimate claim to speak for the vast majority of the Jewish people of Britain.
As Henry Grunwald QC, the President of the Board of Deputies stated so accurately, “We are proud to be British proud to be Jewish and proud to support Israel, especially during its 60th birthday celebrations”.
Judaism is a role model for all the other minority faith communities and many, especially the Muslim community, perversely, some might say, consider the Board of Deputies of British Jews the template for how they wish their own representative organizations should operate.
The Durban conference on anti racism which last year was hijacked and became an anti Israel and anti Semitic festival is about to recur. Because of what transpired last year, Canada has refused to attend and America and Israel will lead the Western countries to do the same thing if there is a similar occurrence.
July 14, 2008, The Washington Times, Ed Royce
In this Op-Ed, Ed Royce of the Washington Times surveyed the anti-Semitic propaganda activities of Durban I, resulting in the United States’ withdrawal from the conference. He anticipates a similar outcome, and because of this the United States withheld its contribution to the UN, which is intended to fund the 2009 Durban Review Conference. Royce believes that Durban II could well be even more extreme than Durban I, with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) setting its agenda, which includes the promotion of restrictions on freedom of expression, under the claim of Islamophobia. “Like the first Durban conference, some of the worst human-rights violators will serve on Durban II’s panel [Libya, chair, Iran, Pakistan and Egypt]. The hugely disappointing and worrying U.N. Commission on Human Rights - the same commission that only passed light condemnation of the regimes in Burma and Sudan, intentionally selected these member countries. Its passion, its all consuming pathological hatred is democratic Israel, which has been condemned 15 times over the past two years.” Royce concludes that the best way for the United States to handle this situation is by refusing to participate in the Durban Review Conference.
Isn’t it a terrible irony that this should be the case when the idea of the conference is supposedly the exact opposite of what they are now doing?
In the UK people of every type are confused by the different events centered on the Holocaust. There is Holocaust Memorial Day, Yom Hashoa, The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and The Holocaust Educational Trust. This is an all year round program, holocaust visits by British school kids, which receives about £1.5 million in government funding. It promotes visits to such places as Auschwitz for the young, who come back, write essays, then tell their fellow non-Jewish schoolmates what they saw, felt and experienced.
Why this is relevant, and why it is pertinent?
In a world where Iran is permitted to say, “wipe Israel from the face of the earth;” and “The Holocaust never happened,” it’s vital that our British youth understands where such anti-Semitic behavior can lead, and what it means in a very real outcome.
There are lesson to be learned and remembered and the more means we have to do so the better. The numbers who participate in Holocaust Memorial Day or Yom Hashoa is dwindling because of it being populated almost solely survivors and descendants of victims and as one of these people emotionally stated, “you should come, you have a duty to come, and you should bring your children with you or this will become just an empty day with no one to be there.”
Another Deputy at the Board suggested that Commemoration and education and prayer should be differentiated. All of these serving different purposes for a diverse audience.
Meanwhile the Holocaust section of the Imperial War Museum is seen by many thousands of kids and others who don’t have a Jewish agenda and nevertheless gives a true perspective of what happened.
It isn’t just an old boring trotting out of Jewish memory of suffering to act as an apologia for whatever we as Jews might want to claim or Jew haters seemingly think we want to excuse Israel for. If we don’t remind our children and they don’t commemorate the holocaust then who will in a few years?
The dead cry out to you all to spend at least two hours once a year to attend the Yom Hashoa event. In an emotional and very moving speech Ben Helfgot spoke out on the behalf of the dead and to prevent it happening again, anywhere to anyone.
There is probably more publicity and awareness in the UK about the Holocaust now than there was when I was growing up in post war Britain. Moral relativism is sneaking in and being used against the Jewish people. The victims didn’t get the sympathy at the time for their suffering probably because most people didn’t believe or know what had happened.
Proof of this still sometimes being the case can be found when you hear seemingly well educated young people tell you that the total Jewish dead via the Nazis was 50,000 and not 6 million. The need for education can never end.
Sometimes the “Jewish Parliament” can seem an empty talking shop, but when put into the perspective of its use for the entire Jewish community it quickly becomes apparent that it is more than useful to its members. When you realize the respect the Board has with the politicians of the UK and the rest of the world’s Jewish organizations it becomes obvious that the Board of Deputies of British Jews still has an important future.
Monday, July 28, 2008
BrownedOff
The expectation surrounding Gordon Brown’s ascendancy to the Prime Ministership has only been outweighed by the disappointment in his performance since he got the job.
If you ask the average person in the UK how they would have rated his predecessor in the same job, if Iraq had not happened they begin to talk kindly about Tony Blair. If Blair had enjoyed the luck to have got in and out of Iraq after a quick victory, like Margaret Thatcher did in the Falklands, we’d be having statues erected to the man in Parliament Square.
It’s hard to remember that just one year ago Gordon Brown was considered a financial genius who was secretly running almost everything that was successful in the British government whereas Blair was then considered just a vacuous front man who did some foreign affairs work. Now it’s commonly perceived that Brown was the fortunate inheritor of ultra successful policies of his Conservative predecessors and his astuteness was largely the ability to do as little as possible to rock the boat. His own economic policies were a rehash of old Labour party mantras in which central government spends like a drunken sailor. Now that has come to haunt him as British government spending as a percentage of GDP is dangerously high after a long period of it being kept reasonably low.
Now it’s David Cameron, the leader of the British Conservative opposition, and Barak Obama, the American Democratic presidential hopeful, who bonded this weekend, and who look like tomorrow’s leaders, whereas Brown looked like he was trying to gain something by association with Obama, and not, as you would anticipate, the other way around.
A great deal in politics is about perceptions rather than reality, and the clear feeling is that Brown is knackered. He looks old, beaten, puffy and aware that he’s lost the election well before it’s happened.
As if Gordon didn’t have enough problems the latest opinion polls have his party at their lowest point in collective memory. They’re behind in the marginal seats, amongst voters of every social demographic sector, and even in their core heartlands, the normally dependable poorer city centers. It’s inconceivable that they can come back from this position. It would be the equivalent of me winning a beauty pageant, the Pope winning Rabbi of the year, a bear not doing its business in the woods; and yet?
There was a time when Margaret Thatcher was in exactly the same situation when she was Prime Minister. She was, at that time, described as the most unpopular Prime Minister in the history of the UK. I am not describing her ignominious exit as leader, when the political pygmies from her own party did their best impressions of the midget sized Lilliputians bringing down Gulliver. No, her moment of transcendence came when the Argentine leader, General Galtieri, instructed his army to invade a forlorn piece of rock in the South Atlantic, that his people call the Malvinas, and which the rest of the world still knows as The Falkland Islands.
Through luck, bold political decisions, that could have gone horribly wrong but went gloriously right, Thatcher not only won that war but also restored British self belief after it had been a long time in the freezer of history. Maggie Thatcher’s popularity went from zero to hero overnight, and she became unbeatable politically. The country owed her, and it knew there was a moral debt for this achievement.
From that point in the UK’s modern history until now there has been a growing crescendo of British confidence as success on the world’s battlefields has been echoed in economic terms. The country became richer and with it came comfort and a long term feel good factor that peaked towards the end of the Blair years, and is now, very rapidly ebbing away.
Gordon Brown, whatever bad news he is presented with, comes back with the television sound bite in which he says words to the effect of; “the country wants me to get on with the job, so that’s what I’m going to do.” He smiles without conviction before hurrying off to his unremitting schedule, crushed by what he can’t seem to do, which is to improve the country’s luck. Actually Gordon, the country doesn’t want you doing the job at all. You look like a school bully who has just found out that there are bigger and stronger boys than you out there, and that you need to improve those listening skills.
It became clear yesterday that his own party chiefs harbor enormous doubts about Brown’s leadership becoming acceptable to the British public. There are two schools of thought about this. Either they hang onto him so that they get beaten at the next election, but hopefully not too badly. Then they get rid of Brown immediately thereafter, and give his successor a number of years to resuscitate the party’s fortune. Or they move against Brown immediately after the summer and replace him with a safe pair of hands type leader, so that the consequential damage to the party during the election isn’t an annihilation. Either way Gordon gets to take the long walk off the short plank. It seems probable that it will be the Prime Minister who will make the choice when the going gets even tougher. The fact is that his people are even more scared of Brown than the Conservatives were of Maggie Thatcher, and they were terrified of her until she was politically finished.
So Brown needs a miracle or a small winnable war, in which Britain can get in and out fast. Neither is probable, or even likely and the man looks like he needs the rest that fate is probably going to give him. You see Gordon, it doesn’t matter how clever you are, it doesn’t matter how hard you work, if you’re a loser and fate isn’t on your side, then the best plan you can make is what to pack in your bags and when to leave. The country is telling you the quicker the better, why don’t you listen?
If you ask the average person in the UK how they would have rated his predecessor in the same job, if Iraq had not happened they begin to talk kindly about Tony Blair. If Blair had enjoyed the luck to have got in and out of Iraq after a quick victory, like Margaret Thatcher did in the Falklands, we’d be having statues erected to the man in Parliament Square.
It’s hard to remember that just one year ago Gordon Brown was considered a financial genius who was secretly running almost everything that was successful in the British government whereas Blair was then considered just a vacuous front man who did some foreign affairs work. Now it’s commonly perceived that Brown was the fortunate inheritor of ultra successful policies of his Conservative predecessors and his astuteness was largely the ability to do as little as possible to rock the boat. His own economic policies were a rehash of old Labour party mantras in which central government spends like a drunken sailor. Now that has come to haunt him as British government spending as a percentage of GDP is dangerously high after a long period of it being kept reasonably low.
Now it’s David Cameron, the leader of the British Conservative opposition, and Barak Obama, the American Democratic presidential hopeful, who bonded this weekend, and who look like tomorrow’s leaders, whereas Brown looked like he was trying to gain something by association with Obama, and not, as you would anticipate, the other way around.
A great deal in politics is about perceptions rather than reality, and the clear feeling is that Brown is knackered. He looks old, beaten, puffy and aware that he’s lost the election well before it’s happened.
As if Gordon didn’t have enough problems the latest opinion polls have his party at their lowest point in collective memory. They’re behind in the marginal seats, amongst voters of every social demographic sector, and even in their core heartlands, the normally dependable poorer city centers. It’s inconceivable that they can come back from this position. It would be the equivalent of me winning a beauty pageant, the Pope winning Rabbi of the year, a bear not doing its business in the woods; and yet?
There was a time when Margaret Thatcher was in exactly the same situation when she was Prime Minister. She was, at that time, described as the most unpopular Prime Minister in the history of the UK. I am not describing her ignominious exit as leader, when the political pygmies from her own party did their best impressions of the midget sized Lilliputians bringing down Gulliver. No, her moment of transcendence came when the Argentine leader, General Galtieri, instructed his army to invade a forlorn piece of rock in the South Atlantic, that his people call the Malvinas, and which the rest of the world still knows as The Falkland Islands.
Through luck, bold political decisions, that could have gone horribly wrong but went gloriously right, Thatcher not only won that war but also restored British self belief after it had been a long time in the freezer of history. Maggie Thatcher’s popularity went from zero to hero overnight, and she became unbeatable politically. The country owed her, and it knew there was a moral debt for this achievement.
From that point in the UK’s modern history until now there has been a growing crescendo of British confidence as success on the world’s battlefields has been echoed in economic terms. The country became richer and with it came comfort and a long term feel good factor that peaked towards the end of the Blair years, and is now, very rapidly ebbing away.
Gordon Brown, whatever bad news he is presented with, comes back with the television sound bite in which he says words to the effect of; “the country wants me to get on with the job, so that’s what I’m going to do.” He smiles without conviction before hurrying off to his unremitting schedule, crushed by what he can’t seem to do, which is to improve the country’s luck. Actually Gordon, the country doesn’t want you doing the job at all. You look like a school bully who has just found out that there are bigger and stronger boys than you out there, and that you need to improve those listening skills.
It became clear yesterday that his own party chiefs harbor enormous doubts about Brown’s leadership becoming acceptable to the British public. There are two schools of thought about this. Either they hang onto him so that they get beaten at the next election, but hopefully not too badly. Then they get rid of Brown immediately thereafter, and give his successor a number of years to resuscitate the party’s fortune. Or they move against Brown immediately after the summer and replace him with a safe pair of hands type leader, so that the consequential damage to the party during the election isn’t an annihilation. Either way Gordon gets to take the long walk off the short plank. It seems probable that it will be the Prime Minister who will make the choice when the going gets even tougher. The fact is that his people are even more scared of Brown than the Conservatives were of Maggie Thatcher, and they were terrified of her until she was politically finished.
So Brown needs a miracle or a small winnable war, in which Britain can get in and out fast. Neither is probable, or even likely and the man looks like he needs the rest that fate is probably going to give him. You see Gordon, it doesn’t matter how clever you are, it doesn’t matter how hard you work, if you’re a loser and fate isn’t on your side, then the best plan you can make is what to pack in your bags and when to leave. The country is telling you the quicker the better, why don’t you listen?
Sunday, July 27, 2008
PastPresentFuture
When you spend some time with your children and grand children it’s natural to reflect on the past and look to the future.
As a baby boomer I have lived with some rationing in post war Britain, and especially remember not being allowed all the sweets (candy) I craved for. I well remember the American Air Force Sergeant who lived downstairs and my uncle, who lived in Los Angeles, arranging for me to receive different flavor chewing gum.
Dad came home with two Vauxhall Wyvern cars, a red one and a blue one, whilst I balanced on a table watching through the window. This was the time when no one could get one car in England. My father was, in the Cockney slang, ducking and diving, trying to make some extra money where he could. Times were a lot tougher in fifties England.
Then came the exciting 60’s which really did swing for my family and me. I had a terrific time, as the world re-discovered color and excitement and music. Everything was moving forward and seemed to have a reason. Cars were better, planes were faster, and homes were becoming more luxurious, seemingly by the day. We still had televisions without color, it was just starting in England, and there were only two channels, then three and finally four.
Most homes were beginning to get freezers and washing machines but dryers and dishwashers were yet to arrive everywhere.
The 70’s to the 90’s were even better for me and mine, now we had all the material possessions that you have come to expect in every modern home. Our family was growing, the children were getting exceptional educations, at a comparatively low cost, food, travel and entertainment and housing were excellent and we had them all.
This century started with great promise but soon was marred by Islamic fundamentalism, the additional scourge of regimes like those in Iraq and Iran and the uncertainties brought about by the collapse of Soviet style communism. These all brought about reactions which still resonate and continue to cause seismic shifts and some instability in the oil industry which underpin our already unstable global economy.
What of the future? It’s very easy to project forward from where we are in the mistaken belief that progress is straightforward and linear. It is not. There are always surprises, and as the name implies, we won’t be expecting them and therefore we can’t anticipate or predict them accurately.
The immediate past points towards a confused future buffeted between an ever increasing consumerism fuelled by the habit of brand purchasing on a greater scale set against the potential cataclysm brought about by global warming in which we might have to cut back on our carbon emissions between 50% and 80%.
If the latter were to come to pass our lifestyles will have to change drastically and fast, and not for the better. It will necessitate rationing of fuel, transportation, heating, cooling, manufacturing, clothing, food and possibly, even housing. In such a society there might also have to be martial law, mass identification programs, including biometric data and restrictions on travel.
There will be increased use of virtual meetings, working and studying from home to eliminate use of fuels and resources. The lack of going out from our houses will decimate businesses that rely on our presence, such as restaurants, cinemas and retail shopping. Only the rich and powerful will travel freely. These decreases of social interactions, especially with people who live far away, and therefore become inaccessible and unknown, will have results none of us can know.
There is every chance that, for the first time since the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the world’s slide into the dark ages civilization will actually go backwards. There is real concern that we will see medical pandemics, flooding of our major low lying cities caused by global warming and a lack of a choice of food in the first world and starvation in the third world.
Of course this apocalyptic series of visions could be total nonsense and we have to hope and work for this outcome. I remember working as a production assistant on a 60’s television magazine program in the UK. On it there was a projection scientifically calculated by the high gurus of academia that London’s population would double by the end of the last century and that we’d have to walk sideways to have enough space. It didn’t happen and we’re still not walking like crabs. Maybe we’ll continue to struggle but find answers, somehow, just in time, as we’ve usually done throughout history. When we didn’t, as with the dark ages, it can be a very long time before we can recover.
As a baby boomer I have lived with some rationing in post war Britain, and especially remember not being allowed all the sweets (candy) I craved for. I well remember the American Air Force Sergeant who lived downstairs and my uncle, who lived in Los Angeles, arranging for me to receive different flavor chewing gum.
Dad came home with two Vauxhall Wyvern cars, a red one and a blue one, whilst I balanced on a table watching through the window. This was the time when no one could get one car in England. My father was, in the Cockney slang, ducking and diving, trying to make some extra money where he could. Times were a lot tougher in fifties England.
Then came the exciting 60’s which really did swing for my family and me. I had a terrific time, as the world re-discovered color and excitement and music. Everything was moving forward and seemed to have a reason. Cars were better, planes were faster, and homes were becoming more luxurious, seemingly by the day. We still had televisions without color, it was just starting in England, and there were only two channels, then three and finally four.
Most homes were beginning to get freezers and washing machines but dryers and dishwashers were yet to arrive everywhere.
The 70’s to the 90’s were even better for me and mine, now we had all the material possessions that you have come to expect in every modern home. Our family was growing, the children were getting exceptional educations, at a comparatively low cost, food, travel and entertainment and housing were excellent and we had them all.
This century started with great promise but soon was marred by Islamic fundamentalism, the additional scourge of regimes like those in Iraq and Iran and the uncertainties brought about by the collapse of Soviet style communism. These all brought about reactions which still resonate and continue to cause seismic shifts and some instability in the oil industry which underpin our already unstable global economy.
What of the future? It’s very easy to project forward from where we are in the mistaken belief that progress is straightforward and linear. It is not. There are always surprises, and as the name implies, we won’t be expecting them and therefore we can’t anticipate or predict them accurately.
The immediate past points towards a confused future buffeted between an ever increasing consumerism fuelled by the habit of brand purchasing on a greater scale set against the potential cataclysm brought about by global warming in which we might have to cut back on our carbon emissions between 50% and 80%.
If the latter were to come to pass our lifestyles will have to change drastically and fast, and not for the better. It will necessitate rationing of fuel, transportation, heating, cooling, manufacturing, clothing, food and possibly, even housing. In such a society there might also have to be martial law, mass identification programs, including biometric data and restrictions on travel.
There will be increased use of virtual meetings, working and studying from home to eliminate use of fuels and resources. The lack of going out from our houses will decimate businesses that rely on our presence, such as restaurants, cinemas and retail shopping. Only the rich and powerful will travel freely. These decreases of social interactions, especially with people who live far away, and therefore become inaccessible and unknown, will have results none of us can know.
There is every chance that, for the first time since the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the world’s slide into the dark ages civilization will actually go backwards. There is real concern that we will see medical pandemics, flooding of our major low lying cities caused by global warming and a lack of a choice of food in the first world and starvation in the third world.
Of course this apocalyptic series of visions could be total nonsense and we have to hope and work for this outcome. I remember working as a production assistant on a 60’s television magazine program in the UK. On it there was a projection scientifically calculated by the high gurus of academia that London’s population would double by the end of the last century and that we’d have to walk sideways to have enough space. It didn’t happen and we’re still not walking like crabs. Maybe we’ll continue to struggle but find answers, somehow, just in time, as we’ve usually done throughout history. When we didn’t, as with the dark ages, it can be a very long time before we can recover.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
TheOldestHatred
What do the Roman Emperor Hadrian, Eric Newby the famed travel writer, Aldus Huxley, Roald Dahl, PG Woodhouse, all of these great writers, the French philosopher Voltaire, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler the Russian and German despots, Napoleon Bonaparte, the all conquering Frenchmen, have in common?
They all hated or despised Jews to a greater or lesser extent. They and many others like them, felt it was OK, even a good thing, to persecute, hate and malign an entire people just for being Jewish.
This was brought home to me this week in a series of jarring incidents. Two of these were insignificant and others that were far more profound.
Eric Newby was a famous travel writer and, in the documentary about him on television he came across as a very nice guy. That’s why the casual comment in his book, “A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush” was upsetting. He was describing the different groups of people to be found in the Afghanistan of a half-century ago. For all other groups and looks his attitude was romanticized until he came to the men who, he felt looked like Jews with their big hook noses and dark hair. I look around my Jewish family and friends and there is no one who fits this description, but this is clearly Newby’s casual, off hand, even unknown and self unaware anti Semitism.
Last night there was a comedy program on one of the British TV channels, I shall not dignify them by naming it, in which the comedians lampooned the dilemma of a woman given “Sophie’s Choice”, in which the idea of a woman having to choose which child of hers she has to send to the concentration camp to their deaths, is the subject of a joke. These bright boys and girls even thought it was funny to have a fake article condemning themselves in their program, as if from the British newspaper, The Jewish Chronicle.
Neither of these programs would have dared transmit the same, casual racism about Muslims or black people, and there would have been, correctly, mass outrage had they done so. Why is it acceptable to do this to Jewish people in a modern, politically correct society like Britain?
Currently there is a British Museum exhibition on the life of the Roman emperor, Hadrian. This led to TV programs and a few debates in the media, which in turn led to several in depth articles. Hadrian was, unquestionably one of the great emperors of Rome. He imposed Roman culture and methods of worship on the peoples under his control. In Judea this took the form of having statues of himself erected, expressly against the Jewish prohibition of a graven image, and banned the Jewish rites of circumcision.
This led to a Jewish rebellion both throughout the empire and in Judea, which Hadrian put down and then massacred over 500,000 Jews, dispersed those from Judea throughout the empire, sold the survivors into slavery, banned the religion and its teaching and destroyed the Second Temple and any Jewish social center in Jerusalem. Hadrian even banned the name of Israel and Judea, making the country known (in modern parlance) as Syria Palestine.
Throughout history it’s harder to find leading people in the world’s societies who were pro-Jewish than the other way around. Why is this, did the Jews, throughout history do something to bring this hate, vitriol and terrible acts of violent suppression down on the Jewish people?
Maybe the age-old calumny that the Jews killed the Son of God is the reason for all this hate? Yes, Jesus, a Jewish rabbi, was killed by the Romans with the connivance of some his fellow Jews. But if nations and religions are going to feel the vitriol of the descendants of victims throughout time, then surely the Jews could declare war on the entire world.
If you examine the facts the Jews were, almost without exception, a positive influence for the societies they inhabited.
The Jews, as a group but mainly as individuals, created such entities as monotheistic religions, such as Christianity, political creeds like Marxism, psycho analysis, the theory of relativity, from which flowed nuclear science, modern international banking, most of what makes the film and entertainment industry today, the list could go on endlessly.
Jews have, in addition, won an enormously disproportionate number of awards such as Nobel and Pulitzer Prizes, Academy Awards, Emmys, Tony’s, in fact any competition for excellence. Perhaps the Jews very success is what brings them into sharper focus and makes them a group to be jealous of.
The strange thing is that this group of people currently number just over 13 million in a world of over 6 billion, far less than .1%. But the Jews do have a disproportionate influence on the world around them, and this is clearly by accident, not design.
There are as many Kurdish or Armenian people but these nationalities simply don’t resonate the same way.
Perhaps if the Jews had simply been left alone in their original Middle Eastern homeland no one might have heard of them. Perhaps there is an accelerated form of Darwinian theory at work here. As the world kept mass murdering the Jews who were not quick or lucky enough to escape the pogroms, inquisitions and pillage of the last two thousand years, the ones who survived were the faster, more cunning or clever, physically tougher, or just plain luckier folks who were destined to produce tougher, brighter and more articulate survivors. The world, including the Nazis, in their efforts to categorize the Jews as sub humans had, in one of the great ironies of history, created their own nemesis, Jews who would be great achievers.
Whatever the reason, it would be great if everyone just left the Jewish people alone and in peace. We all know that isn’t going to happen, the question is why? The answer, when you find it, will tell you much more about the world than it does about the Jewish people.
They all hated or despised Jews to a greater or lesser extent. They and many others like them, felt it was OK, even a good thing, to persecute, hate and malign an entire people just for being Jewish.
This was brought home to me this week in a series of jarring incidents. Two of these were insignificant and others that were far more profound.
Eric Newby was a famous travel writer and, in the documentary about him on television he came across as a very nice guy. That’s why the casual comment in his book, “A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush” was upsetting. He was describing the different groups of people to be found in the Afghanistan of a half-century ago. For all other groups and looks his attitude was romanticized until he came to the men who, he felt looked like Jews with their big hook noses and dark hair. I look around my Jewish family and friends and there is no one who fits this description, but this is clearly Newby’s casual, off hand, even unknown and self unaware anti Semitism.
Last night there was a comedy program on one of the British TV channels, I shall not dignify them by naming it, in which the comedians lampooned the dilemma of a woman given “Sophie’s Choice”, in which the idea of a woman having to choose which child of hers she has to send to the concentration camp to their deaths, is the subject of a joke. These bright boys and girls even thought it was funny to have a fake article condemning themselves in their program, as if from the British newspaper, The Jewish Chronicle.
Neither of these programs would have dared transmit the same, casual racism about Muslims or black people, and there would have been, correctly, mass outrage had they done so. Why is it acceptable to do this to Jewish people in a modern, politically correct society like Britain?
Currently there is a British Museum exhibition on the life of the Roman emperor, Hadrian. This led to TV programs and a few debates in the media, which in turn led to several in depth articles. Hadrian was, unquestionably one of the great emperors of Rome. He imposed Roman culture and methods of worship on the peoples under his control. In Judea this took the form of having statues of himself erected, expressly against the Jewish prohibition of a graven image, and banned the Jewish rites of circumcision.
This led to a Jewish rebellion both throughout the empire and in Judea, which Hadrian put down and then massacred over 500,000 Jews, dispersed those from Judea throughout the empire, sold the survivors into slavery, banned the religion and its teaching and destroyed the Second Temple and any Jewish social center in Jerusalem. Hadrian even banned the name of Israel and Judea, making the country known (in modern parlance) as Syria Palestine.
Throughout history it’s harder to find leading people in the world’s societies who were pro-Jewish than the other way around. Why is this, did the Jews, throughout history do something to bring this hate, vitriol and terrible acts of violent suppression down on the Jewish people?
Maybe the age-old calumny that the Jews killed the Son of God is the reason for all this hate? Yes, Jesus, a Jewish rabbi, was killed by the Romans with the connivance of some his fellow Jews. But if nations and religions are going to feel the vitriol of the descendants of victims throughout time, then surely the Jews could declare war on the entire world.
If you examine the facts the Jews were, almost without exception, a positive influence for the societies they inhabited.
The Jews, as a group but mainly as individuals, created such entities as monotheistic religions, such as Christianity, political creeds like Marxism, psycho analysis, the theory of relativity, from which flowed nuclear science, modern international banking, most of what makes the film and entertainment industry today, the list could go on endlessly.
Jews have, in addition, won an enormously disproportionate number of awards such as Nobel and Pulitzer Prizes, Academy Awards, Emmys, Tony’s, in fact any competition for excellence. Perhaps the Jews very success is what brings them into sharper focus and makes them a group to be jealous of.
The strange thing is that this group of people currently number just over 13 million in a world of over 6 billion, far less than .1%. But the Jews do have a disproportionate influence on the world around them, and this is clearly by accident, not design.
There are as many Kurdish or Armenian people but these nationalities simply don’t resonate the same way.
Perhaps if the Jews had simply been left alone in their original Middle Eastern homeland no one might have heard of them. Perhaps there is an accelerated form of Darwinian theory at work here. As the world kept mass murdering the Jews who were not quick or lucky enough to escape the pogroms, inquisitions and pillage of the last two thousand years, the ones who survived were the faster, more cunning or clever, physically tougher, or just plain luckier folks who were destined to produce tougher, brighter and more articulate survivors. The world, including the Nazis, in their efforts to categorize the Jews as sub humans had, in one of the great ironies of history, created their own nemesis, Jews who would be great achievers.
Whatever the reason, it would be great if everyone just left the Jewish people alone and in peace. We all know that isn’t going to happen, the question is why? The answer, when you find it, will tell you much more about the world than it does about the Jewish people.
Friday, July 25, 2008
BarakinBerlin
Barak Obama was in Berlin speechifying to 200,000 Germans yesterday. As ever, he was very impressive. However, reviewing this as a European you could be excused for a certain uneasiness in finding Barak in this prominent a position at the center of Germany and our continent.
There have previously been two American Presidents who made outstanding speeches in Berlin since World War 2. The first was the famous John F. Kennedy, identifying himself and America with that city’s plight whilst they lived under the threat of the Soviets. The second great piece of oratory was delivered by Ronald Reagan when he told the Soviet leader, Gorbachav, to “take down that wall;” referring to the Berlin wall, then separating the West from the Eastern, Soviet dominated sector.
The big difference between both of those men and Barak is that they were the President when they delivered those speeches and Barak seems to have overlooked the fact that he is not yet in this position.
There is a man in America called John McCann who stands a very reasonable chance of winning the coming election and Barak Obama seems to have allowed a little triumphalism to creep into his campaign. The last time we saw something similar was when Neil Kinnock was standing for the job of Prime Minister in the UK and made the same mistake, and he immediately went from being hot favorite to loser.
Once again Barak’s public, set piece speech said nothing of substance whatsoever. In fact, other than producing wonderful sound bites you could find them the subject of fun, but when delivered by a master orator they can be spellbinding. What does this mean, “People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time. A new generation must make our mark on history;” or another of his phrases, “Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.”
Wonderful and generalized words, that without specifics attached are exactly like anyone saying, love your family and country, and be kind to everyone. That’s how we all feel until the other guy starts kicking sand in our face. Barak Obama, what do you believe in, and what, precisely are you going to do if you win the reins of power?
Watching Obama and the reaction to him in Europe is a little like watching Beatle mania at its peak in 60’s America. There was talent, a lot of it, and a certain charm and freshness about the Beatles, that have echoes in Barak. However there was little to warrant the wild adulation for the boys from Liverpool and similarly there is not enough known about Barak to justify the hero worship for him.
You can watch and listen to Barak a great deal without obtaining the answer to that old question, “where’s the beef?” It seems obvious that he has led his campaign to the center ground of politics from the left of the left where it started. You can’t blame him for doing this, as anyone wanting to win the Presidency would have to do so. But the specifics of what he’s actually planning for the USA are unknowable from his public utterances.
This is more reminiscent of another British politician, who was determined to win, and who reinvented the public perception of his party to win, his name is Tony Blair, and he transformed the unelectable Labour Party to the unbeatable New Labour Party for an entire decade. This was one of the most remarkable re-branding and marketing jobs in political history. It is hard to believe that the fingerprints of the British political spin-doctors of the Left have not been doing some work behind the scenes with Obama and his team. This is ironic when you consider the fact that Barak’s rise coincides with the simultaneous long-term decline of the British Labour Party under the leadership of Blair’s successor, Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
One thing we learned in the UK with Tony Blair was that after the too idyllic a honeymoon comes the inevitable messy divorce. If Barak’s popularity does sweep him to power in America there will be a glorious opening to his Presidency, to be followed by an equally terrible fall from power when the realization sweeps the nation, he promised more than he could deliver.
The primary reason for Barak Obama being adored in Europe is this; he isn’t George W. Bush. As much as Bush is hated and despised Obama is loved and admired as the new, black JFK. Next Obama will arrive in London, where no doubt the presidential candidate will enrapture another country’s population. Is it possible for a man like Obama to win the election in the US without our discovering how he intends to run that country?
There have previously been two American Presidents who made outstanding speeches in Berlin since World War 2. The first was the famous John F. Kennedy, identifying himself and America with that city’s plight whilst they lived under the threat of the Soviets. The second great piece of oratory was delivered by Ronald Reagan when he told the Soviet leader, Gorbachav, to “take down that wall;” referring to the Berlin wall, then separating the West from the Eastern, Soviet dominated sector.
The big difference between both of those men and Barak is that they were the President when they delivered those speeches and Barak seems to have overlooked the fact that he is not yet in this position.
There is a man in America called John McCann who stands a very reasonable chance of winning the coming election and Barak Obama seems to have allowed a little triumphalism to creep into his campaign. The last time we saw something similar was when Neil Kinnock was standing for the job of Prime Minister in the UK and made the same mistake, and he immediately went from being hot favorite to loser.
Once again Barak’s public, set piece speech said nothing of substance whatsoever. In fact, other than producing wonderful sound bites you could find them the subject of fun, but when delivered by a master orator they can be spellbinding. What does this mean, “People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time. A new generation must make our mark on history;” or another of his phrases, “Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.”
Wonderful and generalized words, that without specifics attached are exactly like anyone saying, love your family and country, and be kind to everyone. That’s how we all feel until the other guy starts kicking sand in our face. Barak Obama, what do you believe in, and what, precisely are you going to do if you win the reins of power?
Watching Obama and the reaction to him in Europe is a little like watching Beatle mania at its peak in 60’s America. There was talent, a lot of it, and a certain charm and freshness about the Beatles, that have echoes in Barak. However there was little to warrant the wild adulation for the boys from Liverpool and similarly there is not enough known about Barak to justify the hero worship for him.
You can watch and listen to Barak a great deal without obtaining the answer to that old question, “where’s the beef?” It seems obvious that he has led his campaign to the center ground of politics from the left of the left where it started. You can’t blame him for doing this, as anyone wanting to win the Presidency would have to do so. But the specifics of what he’s actually planning for the USA are unknowable from his public utterances.
This is more reminiscent of another British politician, who was determined to win, and who reinvented the public perception of his party to win, his name is Tony Blair, and he transformed the unelectable Labour Party to the unbeatable New Labour Party for an entire decade. This was one of the most remarkable re-branding and marketing jobs in political history. It is hard to believe that the fingerprints of the British political spin-doctors of the Left have not been doing some work behind the scenes with Obama and his team. This is ironic when you consider the fact that Barak’s rise coincides with the simultaneous long-term decline of the British Labour Party under the leadership of Blair’s successor, Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
One thing we learned in the UK with Tony Blair was that after the too idyllic a honeymoon comes the inevitable messy divorce. If Barak’s popularity does sweep him to power in America there will be a glorious opening to his Presidency, to be followed by an equally terrible fall from power when the realization sweeps the nation, he promised more than he could deliver.
The primary reason for Barak Obama being adored in Europe is this; he isn’t George W. Bush. As much as Bush is hated and despised Obama is loved and admired as the new, black JFK. Next Obama will arrive in London, where no doubt the presidential candidate will enrapture another country’s population. Is it possible for a man like Obama to win the election in the US without our discovering how he intends to run that country?
Thursday, July 24, 2008
SorryMax
It seems that we all owe Max Mosley a huge and groveling apology. Max is the man who heads up the world’s Formula 1 racing. He was wrongly accused by the British red top tabloid, the News of the World, of taking part in a Nazi oriented sadomasochistic sex romp with several women dressed in German prison garb and speaking in German. This was a private moment in a private apartment, paid for by Max, ever the gentleman; it was clearly not to be shared by everyone.
The News of the World reported this story in all its glory and was the loser in the British High Court this afternoon when Max Mosley’s case against them was won. He was awarded substantial damages and costs and this is a potential curb on the freedom of the press in the UK.
But, we all have to bow to the law; it was not a Nazi sex romp, just a private session for the discerning sexual tourist. Sorry Max!
The News of the World reported this story in all its glory and was the loser in the British High Court this afternoon when Max Mosley’s case against them was won. He was awarded substantial damages and costs and this is a potential curb on the freedom of the press in the UK.
But, we all have to bow to the law; it was not a Nazi sex romp, just a private session for the discerning sexual tourist. Sorry Max!
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
FundamentalistsVsAmerica
In yesterday’s blog we discussed the reasons why America was, and will remain an empire for the foreseeable future. I have received some comments regarding the fact that I didn’t mention the rise of Islamic fundamentalism amongst the threats to this hegemony.
This was intentional. Islamic fundamentalism is a force for danger, revisionism and sprinting backwards to a far worse time in history. However, Islamic fundamentalism is mostly a threat to the Arab and East Asian world it emanated from. American power is far bigger than anything this enemy can dream of mustering.
Never misunderstand this blog; this is not a rant against the followers of Islam, whose faith is respected alongside all the other major religions. It is a reminder of what is to be fought and why. The fundamentalists have sworn to destroy America such and America is entitled to defend itself. Such a defense can and should take many forms, ranging through the ideological, military and political. I suggest a strong offence will continue to be America’s best defense. Sometimes, as the Irish say, you have to get your revenge in first.
Let’s put the threat against America into perspective. The country was, in the past, threatened far more by its own native Americans (the red Indians) when it was becoming a nation, and in addition then had to fight one of the world’s mighty empires, the British, before it could become a nation.
Whenever and wherever Islamic fundamentalists have come into open conflict with the West they have either lost big or small. They are very clever at manipulating the media to make their defeat look like small and heroic victories. The majority of their own potential constituency rejects their ideas.
The biggest fear the common people share about this minority sect of fanatics is their fear of the unknown.
Put it in perspective, what can the fundamentalists really do to the American empire? What threats do they pose? How can this be countered?
9/11 demonstrated the type of damage a determined radical organization can inflict on America. The type of damage was awful, sudden, shocking and unexpected by many.
Israel, a tiny power when compared with America, has suffered the equivalent of hundreds of attacks of this proportion from the same sources. Despite having to live with this horrible situation it has not destroyed any aspect of that country’s life. Its effect, it could be argued, has been to toughen Israel’s stance militarily and politically. Israel, under constant attack from such sources, has, in fact, prospered.
If Israel can survive and prosper, so can America and its way of life. There are bigger threats, such as Islamic fundamentalists managing to inflict the destructive capacity of a nuclear device on American targets. In that context you could well envisage American bombers unleashing tactical nuclear weapons on the largely un-policed borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan where such orders to attack America would have come from. But even the made mullahs do not want to be nuked.
The ideal way to counter the threat of Islamic fundamentalism is to relentlessly expose them for the maniacs they are. The more they are put under the microscope the more they will lose any natural potential support.
Such support is much more likely in the UK or Germany or France than it is in America. All of the former countries have sizeable Muslim communities, which appear to be becoming more orthodox and far less tolerant than their parents in their religious observance. However, this should not be confused with their adopting the murderous attitudes or tactics of their fundamental co-religionists.
The West, led by America, must not lessen its resolve in dealing with the Islamic fundamentalists. These fanatics are the sworn enemy of every form of democratic and liberal ways of life. They must be eliminated.
This was intentional. Islamic fundamentalism is a force for danger, revisionism and sprinting backwards to a far worse time in history. However, Islamic fundamentalism is mostly a threat to the Arab and East Asian world it emanated from. American power is far bigger than anything this enemy can dream of mustering.
Never misunderstand this blog; this is not a rant against the followers of Islam, whose faith is respected alongside all the other major religions. It is a reminder of what is to be fought and why. The fundamentalists have sworn to destroy America such and America is entitled to defend itself. Such a defense can and should take many forms, ranging through the ideological, military and political. I suggest a strong offence will continue to be America’s best defense. Sometimes, as the Irish say, you have to get your revenge in first.
Let’s put the threat against America into perspective. The country was, in the past, threatened far more by its own native Americans (the red Indians) when it was becoming a nation, and in addition then had to fight one of the world’s mighty empires, the British, before it could become a nation.
Whenever and wherever Islamic fundamentalists have come into open conflict with the West they have either lost big or small. They are very clever at manipulating the media to make their defeat look like small and heroic victories. The majority of their own potential constituency rejects their ideas.
The biggest fear the common people share about this minority sect of fanatics is their fear of the unknown.
Put it in perspective, what can the fundamentalists really do to the American empire? What threats do they pose? How can this be countered?
9/11 demonstrated the type of damage a determined radical organization can inflict on America. The type of damage was awful, sudden, shocking and unexpected by many.
Israel, a tiny power when compared with America, has suffered the equivalent of hundreds of attacks of this proportion from the same sources. Despite having to live with this horrible situation it has not destroyed any aspect of that country’s life. Its effect, it could be argued, has been to toughen Israel’s stance militarily and politically. Israel, under constant attack from such sources, has, in fact, prospered.
If Israel can survive and prosper, so can America and its way of life. There are bigger threats, such as Islamic fundamentalists managing to inflict the destructive capacity of a nuclear device on American targets. In that context you could well envisage American bombers unleashing tactical nuclear weapons on the largely un-policed borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan where such orders to attack America would have come from. But even the made mullahs do not want to be nuked.
The ideal way to counter the threat of Islamic fundamentalism is to relentlessly expose them for the maniacs they are. The more they are put under the microscope the more they will lose any natural potential support.
Such support is much more likely in the UK or Germany or France than it is in America. All of the former countries have sizeable Muslim communities, which appear to be becoming more orthodox and far less tolerant than their parents in their religious observance. However, this should not be confused with their adopting the murderous attitudes or tactics of their fundamental co-religionists.
The West, led by America, must not lessen its resolve in dealing with the Islamic fundamentalists. These fanatics are the sworn enemy of every form of democratic and liberal ways of life. They must be eliminated.
RomeUSA
Currently, in many parts of the world there are many articles, exhibitions, films and shows about various aspects of the Roman Empire. It is one of the great stories in the history of the human race, this city-state that grew to dominate or control much of the known world for a millennia. Perhaps the striking parallels between America now and the fall of the Roman Empire unconsciously spark this interest.
There is no suggestion here that being an empire is necessarily a good thing. However, like being tall or short for an individual, sometimes there is no choice. For me, the idea of being a taller tree in the forest has always appealed, but it’s easy to understand a different, perhaps less dangerous ambition.
America has been one of two or three super powers for just under one hundred years. Like it or not, at the point the USA joined the First World War in 1917 and demonstrated the ability to project its power anywhere in the world it became an empire. It started, mainly as an empire of the dollar and became an empire of ideas, culture and power as time passed. Latterly this has resulted in America becoming the only super power as the Soviet threat evaporated.
Will America go the same way as Rome, and be overwhelmed by the barbarian hordes?
Rome expressed its power by military conquest over a very long time, as inch by inch it grew to totally dominate the then known world. It enforced its will by ruthlessly destroying or enfolding any local culture it found so that they were dominated, emasculated, or made to disappear. Then the Roman bureaucracy would be installed to extract tax and other revenues and it was ultra efficient compared to anything that previously existed. It was this stage of economic domination when Rome truly demonstrated any empire’s true role. Empire’s are created by their need to suck in raw materials and labor and export finished products for sale.
Rome after many years as top dog, begun to lose the certainty in itself, in its rightness as its power began to wane. For many hundreds of years Rome was confident in its civilization and systems. It was certain that it had things right and that they were destined to rule the earth. All empires possess this self-confidence or they could never expand to fill the world of their time with their ideas.
America first demonstrated its self-confidence with the use of this name. It is, of course, not America, just a part of that continent. However the self-image was that the United States of America was so dominant that all the other countries in that continent were somehow less important and not worthy of the all-encompassing name. You never hear any Canadian or Mexican or any other country in that continent claim the name, America. Only the USA has ever claimed to be America, and throughout the rest of the world it became the name that stuck. It says a lot about the psychology of a nation that its people can call themselves American and it is totally accepted and understood by the world. You have never heard British people call themselves a European and be understood to have meant he was British.
America’s power originally came from its huge industrial capacity. Its rapidly growing cheap labor pool, drawn largely from immigrant population growth, enhanced this. This is a very similar model to that enjoyed by the Roman Empire’s use of slaves. The nearest parallel today is the huge shift in population from rural to urban by the Chinese nation. It is this growth of China’s industrial capacity that threatens to end the American Empire.
The demonstration of America’s hegemony is best achieved by understanding what it does, that we either like or tolerate or admire, but would make us very fearful if enacted by others, such as China. Imagine the outcry if our cinemas, music downloads, a majority of our television programs, and almost all our fast food outlets were Chinese in origin. Add to this the concept of a mighty Chinese navy, including a dominant force of aircraft carriers prowling all the major oceans of the world, and the Chinese invading and then being stationed in countries far from their own borders. I am describing what America does and China still only dreams of.
Is this American domination coming to an end? To accept this contention means you don’t understand the modern world. In this era of globalization it is the American corporations that are the ambassadors of American power. As long as they exist and prosper, wherever they seem to be based is largely irrelevant. They culturally and economically remain anchored in the American dream.
This American originated, market driven capitalism has largely been a huge success, but is inherently neutral as a moral force. There are threats to this domination. Chief amongst them is China, which is the ultimate paradox; having allowed the individuals total immersion into this system whilst the state still centrally controls the country’s economy in a stifling Communist embrace. It is this inherent dichotomy that dictates China will either ultimately implode, or morph into something unrecognizable, before it can truly threaten American dominance.
Russia is rapidly asserting itself as a regional power but is far from being the world giant it was during the Soviet era. Much of that power was purely military or scientific rather than cultural or commercial. The country is still an industrial basket case in many ways. Yes, Russia will increasingly flex its muscles by economic coercion allowed by its huge levels of gas, oil and other raw materials. However, it should be born in mind that Canada is similarly placed with these raw materials and cannot dominate the giant neighbor to its South.
The only other economic super power is the European Union which is a behemoth, if it were to ever act as a whole rather than as a fairly lose association of 27 sovereign countries. There is no practical political centre to its power and whilst this remains the case the EU will not become an empire.
There are no other powers yet capable of taking over this super power, empirical role. America, you will be overcome, one day, but that day is not quite now. America, we salute you!
There is no suggestion here that being an empire is necessarily a good thing. However, like being tall or short for an individual, sometimes there is no choice. For me, the idea of being a taller tree in the forest has always appealed, but it’s easy to understand a different, perhaps less dangerous ambition.
America has been one of two or three super powers for just under one hundred years. Like it or not, at the point the USA joined the First World War in 1917 and demonstrated the ability to project its power anywhere in the world it became an empire. It started, mainly as an empire of the dollar and became an empire of ideas, culture and power as time passed. Latterly this has resulted in America becoming the only super power as the Soviet threat evaporated.
Will America go the same way as Rome, and be overwhelmed by the barbarian hordes?
Rome expressed its power by military conquest over a very long time, as inch by inch it grew to totally dominate the then known world. It enforced its will by ruthlessly destroying or enfolding any local culture it found so that they were dominated, emasculated, or made to disappear. Then the Roman bureaucracy would be installed to extract tax and other revenues and it was ultra efficient compared to anything that previously existed. It was this stage of economic domination when Rome truly demonstrated any empire’s true role. Empire’s are created by their need to suck in raw materials and labor and export finished products for sale.
Rome after many years as top dog, begun to lose the certainty in itself, in its rightness as its power began to wane. For many hundreds of years Rome was confident in its civilization and systems. It was certain that it had things right and that they were destined to rule the earth. All empires possess this self-confidence or they could never expand to fill the world of their time with their ideas.
America first demonstrated its self-confidence with the use of this name. It is, of course, not America, just a part of that continent. However the self-image was that the United States of America was so dominant that all the other countries in that continent were somehow less important and not worthy of the all-encompassing name. You never hear any Canadian or Mexican or any other country in that continent claim the name, America. Only the USA has ever claimed to be America, and throughout the rest of the world it became the name that stuck. It says a lot about the psychology of a nation that its people can call themselves American and it is totally accepted and understood by the world. You have never heard British people call themselves a European and be understood to have meant he was British.
America’s power originally came from its huge industrial capacity. Its rapidly growing cheap labor pool, drawn largely from immigrant population growth, enhanced this. This is a very similar model to that enjoyed by the Roman Empire’s use of slaves. The nearest parallel today is the huge shift in population from rural to urban by the Chinese nation. It is this growth of China’s industrial capacity that threatens to end the American Empire.
The demonstration of America’s hegemony is best achieved by understanding what it does, that we either like or tolerate or admire, but would make us very fearful if enacted by others, such as China. Imagine the outcry if our cinemas, music downloads, a majority of our television programs, and almost all our fast food outlets were Chinese in origin. Add to this the concept of a mighty Chinese navy, including a dominant force of aircraft carriers prowling all the major oceans of the world, and the Chinese invading and then being stationed in countries far from their own borders. I am describing what America does and China still only dreams of.
Is this American domination coming to an end? To accept this contention means you don’t understand the modern world. In this era of globalization it is the American corporations that are the ambassadors of American power. As long as they exist and prosper, wherever they seem to be based is largely irrelevant. They culturally and economically remain anchored in the American dream.
This American originated, market driven capitalism has largely been a huge success, but is inherently neutral as a moral force. There are threats to this domination. Chief amongst them is China, which is the ultimate paradox; having allowed the individuals total immersion into this system whilst the state still centrally controls the country’s economy in a stifling Communist embrace. It is this inherent dichotomy that dictates China will either ultimately implode, or morph into something unrecognizable, before it can truly threaten American dominance.
Russia is rapidly asserting itself as a regional power but is far from being the world giant it was during the Soviet era. Much of that power was purely military or scientific rather than cultural or commercial. The country is still an industrial basket case in many ways. Yes, Russia will increasingly flex its muscles by economic coercion allowed by its huge levels of gas, oil and other raw materials. However, it should be born in mind that Canada is similarly placed with these raw materials and cannot dominate the giant neighbor to its South.
The only other economic super power is the European Union which is a behemoth, if it were to ever act as a whole rather than as a fairly lose association of 27 sovereign countries. There is no practical political centre to its power and whilst this remains the case the EU will not become an empire.
There are no other powers yet capable of taking over this super power, empirical role. America, you will be overcome, one day, but that day is not quite now. America, we salute you!
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Beautytobehold
Guys, let’s be honest, when the sunshine comes out there are certain things that come to the mind. Amongst them, for many of us, are pretty girls in brief clothing cavorting in the sun. Clearly there are many women who collaborate with this because they disport themselves in this manner. I suppose it comes down to who you believe, do we dress for ourselves or for others? It’s obvious to me that we do both. Younger men and women have always shared the instincts of the animal kingdom to be attractive to the opposite sex. The reason for this is that in nature the strongest survive and prosper, and the strongest are generally perceived to be the most alluring and attractive.
In the recent past there has been a widening age range for women to fit within the category deemed to be looking for and finding a mate. This might well not be their first mate, as serial monogamous relationships have become the desired norm for most of us in the modern world. That is probably the reason that more women take better care of themselves for longer than has ever been the case previously. The results are a self-evident improvement in how women look after themselves, and the consequence of this for many women of a certain age is that they are looking great when their mothers were, at the same age, looking tired, frumpy and frankly unattractive.
There is a now famous photograph of the film star, and great actress, Helen Mirren in the British press last week. The picture generated enormous coverage and much debate. The fuss concerns the fact that this Dame of the British Empire, who was on vacation in Italy, is clad in a revealing red bikini that shows the 63 year old in all her mature, sexy and alluring beauty.
What other women seem to find encouraging about this is the fact that Helen is someone that they believe shows a real woman, in all her natural glory, that they might aspire to themselves. She is not impossibly skinny, nor too glossy, or airbrushed or received too much cosmetic help, but someone who exudes confidence, femininity and mature sexuality. Women admire and envy her, men would like to spend time with her, and let’s be frank, become intimate with her.
I can certainly understand all of this, but put it in context with another situation evident when I was reading the same newspapers on the same day Ms. Mirren’s picture was published and realized that the Miss England contest had happened without my realizing it. Years ago this would not have been possible. Such contests would have pushed to the top of the media pile in years gone by and were irresistible for every TV scheduler. Now they are largely invisible.
Beauty pageants now routinely come and go and are not allowed on terrestrial television. No Miss World or Miss Universe shall sully the British television airwaves intone the feminists and politically correct. The same is true in many other countries where these contests have been marginalized to the outer regions of satellite or cable television.
I could understand this a great deal better if the same idiots were equally adamant in their blanket rejection of shows about nudity, prostitution or various sex antics of groups that are almost sub human and certainly very ugly in their design. But those are OK because they are acceptable politically whereas anything beautiful is not. Unless the person is being peered at, such as Helen Mirren, she a paragon of female empowerment and equality is the woman being stared at.
What is it that the feminists object to in beauty pageants with such venom? They said it was that the women in the shows were objectified and this was dehumanizing and therefore was not acceptable. But surely that is ridiculous since all of us are objectified every day by anyone who bothers to look in our direction. We’re too thin, fat, tall, short, ugly, handsome or just right for the person or persons looking in our direction. Is it wrong to look at someone else?
Is every woman or man who dresses or undresses to please someone else who is looking at them guilty of a huge conspiracy? Of course the answer is no. Not everyone should join in the peep show if it isn’t for you then don’t look.
What offends a woman about another woman wearing swimwear? Is it that the women they’re looking at in swimwear looks so much better than they do? This surely cannot be the reason for women being commonly perceived as being anti beauty pageants. There is a degree of truth in this, as women always scoff at the pneumatic and shapely forms of the young women who compete in such beauty contests. Whenever a woman sees such women on their radar they routinely make a series of disparaging comments such as, “do you really believe that she is naturally built that way?” or “a woman that slim couldn’t possibly have boobs that size!” or simply, “listen to how stupid that woman is!”
None of us men, least of all me, can really understand the workings of a woman’s mind which can admire Helen Mirren in her bikini photograph but condemn some younger woman, and possibly, although this seems very unlikely, who is even more attractive, on a television program.
My message to all women, including feminists, is get over it, and please let us men watch the occasional beauty pageant without guilt or recrimination. The girls want to do it, and we want to watch it, and I promise, on behalf of all men, that we will respect you in the morning.
In the recent past there has been a widening age range for women to fit within the category deemed to be looking for and finding a mate. This might well not be their first mate, as serial monogamous relationships have become the desired norm for most of us in the modern world. That is probably the reason that more women take better care of themselves for longer than has ever been the case previously. The results are a self-evident improvement in how women look after themselves, and the consequence of this for many women of a certain age is that they are looking great when their mothers were, at the same age, looking tired, frumpy and frankly unattractive.
There is a now famous photograph of the film star, and great actress, Helen Mirren in the British press last week. The picture generated enormous coverage and much debate. The fuss concerns the fact that this Dame of the British Empire, who was on vacation in Italy, is clad in a revealing red bikini that shows the 63 year old in all her mature, sexy and alluring beauty.
What other women seem to find encouraging about this is the fact that Helen is someone that they believe shows a real woman, in all her natural glory, that they might aspire to themselves. She is not impossibly skinny, nor too glossy, or airbrushed or received too much cosmetic help, but someone who exudes confidence, femininity and mature sexuality. Women admire and envy her, men would like to spend time with her, and let’s be frank, become intimate with her.
I can certainly understand all of this, but put it in context with another situation evident when I was reading the same newspapers on the same day Ms. Mirren’s picture was published and realized that the Miss England contest had happened without my realizing it. Years ago this would not have been possible. Such contests would have pushed to the top of the media pile in years gone by and were irresistible for every TV scheduler. Now they are largely invisible.
Beauty pageants now routinely come and go and are not allowed on terrestrial television. No Miss World or Miss Universe shall sully the British television airwaves intone the feminists and politically correct. The same is true in many other countries where these contests have been marginalized to the outer regions of satellite or cable television.
I could understand this a great deal better if the same idiots were equally adamant in their blanket rejection of shows about nudity, prostitution or various sex antics of groups that are almost sub human and certainly very ugly in their design. But those are OK because they are acceptable politically whereas anything beautiful is not. Unless the person is being peered at, such as Helen Mirren, she a paragon of female empowerment and equality is the woman being stared at.
What is it that the feminists object to in beauty pageants with such venom? They said it was that the women in the shows were objectified and this was dehumanizing and therefore was not acceptable. But surely that is ridiculous since all of us are objectified every day by anyone who bothers to look in our direction. We’re too thin, fat, tall, short, ugly, handsome or just right for the person or persons looking in our direction. Is it wrong to look at someone else?
Is every woman or man who dresses or undresses to please someone else who is looking at them guilty of a huge conspiracy? Of course the answer is no. Not everyone should join in the peep show if it isn’t for you then don’t look.
What offends a woman about another woman wearing swimwear? Is it that the women they’re looking at in swimwear looks so much better than they do? This surely cannot be the reason for women being commonly perceived as being anti beauty pageants. There is a degree of truth in this, as women always scoff at the pneumatic and shapely forms of the young women who compete in such beauty contests. Whenever a woman sees such women on their radar they routinely make a series of disparaging comments such as, “do you really believe that she is naturally built that way?” or “a woman that slim couldn’t possibly have boobs that size!” or simply, “listen to how stupid that woman is!”
None of us men, least of all me, can really understand the workings of a woman’s mind which can admire Helen Mirren in her bikini photograph but condemn some younger woman, and possibly, although this seems very unlikely, who is even more attractive, on a television program.
My message to all women, including feminists, is get over it, and please let us men watch the occasional beauty pageant without guilt or recrimination. The girls want to do it, and we want to watch it, and I promise, on behalf of all men, that we will respect you in the morning.
Monday, July 21, 2008
BeingRich
I believe there is a saying that no kindness goes unpunished, and to some extent I believe that to be the case. Does this mean we should stop being kind, or trying to be kind? I don’t think so and I hope not.
Years ago a young man, who shall be nameless, asked me for a big favor. Could I help him realize a dream? It was a major undertaking, one that I was not sure I had the time for, although my inclination, for reasons best left unspoken, was to help. I did, I tried my best. We completed the project, which I paid for and did a number of years work on. The young man failed to live up to his word and, on many occasions has not, in my opinion, told the truth, and accused others of this, and others, of his own faults.
I am not trying to suggest I am this sweet and vulnerable to everyone, but when people get close to you, you do become progressively more open and easy to wound. I wish it were not so, and I envy those who can be tougher and more circumspect, but we are what we are. I prefer to be soft and loving, and live with the consequences, than hard and ungenerous. Who wants to be the richest man in the graveyard?
Another example I fairly recently experienced was in regards to an exceptionally good student at one of the higher education establishments at which I lectured. I helped to train and educate this young man, although, like the other chap I’ve mentioned, he does possess a great deal of ability without any help from me. I nurtured this young man, gave him some of his first jobs for about a decade. I granted him shares in quite a valuable company, and then, one day, years later, and out of the blue, he became a Judas, and for the sake of a little money to give him imagined security, turned against me. Because I trusted the man, who I had considered an additional son, I was especially hurt.
A very good friend, or so I thought, turned out to have assumed my identity, especially in the USA, where people were led to believe that everything I had done in my career, had, in fact, been done by him. According to this craziness I had somehow arranged for all of his credits to be attributed to me over a period of many years. Some people actually believed this nonsense, and I had to prove the truth. Such examples might sound far-fetched and I seriously wonder whether I do anything to create such situations. Maybe they exist because my openness and the creative industries I inhabit encourages these kinds of patterns from some very insecure people. I don’t feel it excuses a person, but I would like to understand them better.
Then there’s the guy who sells the Big Issue outside the local Co-op supermarket. He smiles at me automatically every time I go near because I am clearly a regular, I almost always buy a copy, to help him on his way. His need is greater than mine.
I have tried my best to help these people and the hundreds of students and new kids in the industry who have sought my help, and got it when I could assist.
Was I wrong, as some of these awful results would seem to indicate?
I don’t think so, and I will continue to try to help wherever and whenever I can, because in the final analysis by trying to help them I am making myself a bit better. By trying to nurture others I am growing my own heart. What they do with my help is their business, and to the lying and cheating amongst them, and you know who you are, when you look in a mirror, it doesn’t make me stupid to try and be a good guy, your terrible behavior diminishes you in your heart, where it really counts, even if your wallet may be fuller. Your curse may be to be the richest person in the graveyard one day, but you will always be alone in your hearts. My revenge will be to live a good life and sleep well every night.
Years ago a young man, who shall be nameless, asked me for a big favor. Could I help him realize a dream? It was a major undertaking, one that I was not sure I had the time for, although my inclination, for reasons best left unspoken, was to help. I did, I tried my best. We completed the project, which I paid for and did a number of years work on. The young man failed to live up to his word and, on many occasions has not, in my opinion, told the truth, and accused others of this, and others, of his own faults.
I am not trying to suggest I am this sweet and vulnerable to everyone, but when people get close to you, you do become progressively more open and easy to wound. I wish it were not so, and I envy those who can be tougher and more circumspect, but we are what we are. I prefer to be soft and loving, and live with the consequences, than hard and ungenerous. Who wants to be the richest man in the graveyard?
Another example I fairly recently experienced was in regards to an exceptionally good student at one of the higher education establishments at which I lectured. I helped to train and educate this young man, although, like the other chap I’ve mentioned, he does possess a great deal of ability without any help from me. I nurtured this young man, gave him some of his first jobs for about a decade. I granted him shares in quite a valuable company, and then, one day, years later, and out of the blue, he became a Judas, and for the sake of a little money to give him imagined security, turned against me. Because I trusted the man, who I had considered an additional son, I was especially hurt.
A very good friend, or so I thought, turned out to have assumed my identity, especially in the USA, where people were led to believe that everything I had done in my career, had, in fact, been done by him. According to this craziness I had somehow arranged for all of his credits to be attributed to me over a period of many years. Some people actually believed this nonsense, and I had to prove the truth. Such examples might sound far-fetched and I seriously wonder whether I do anything to create such situations. Maybe they exist because my openness and the creative industries I inhabit encourages these kinds of patterns from some very insecure people. I don’t feel it excuses a person, but I would like to understand them better.
Then there’s the guy who sells the Big Issue outside the local Co-op supermarket. He smiles at me automatically every time I go near because I am clearly a regular, I almost always buy a copy, to help him on his way. His need is greater than mine.
I have tried my best to help these people and the hundreds of students and new kids in the industry who have sought my help, and got it when I could assist.
Was I wrong, as some of these awful results would seem to indicate?
I don’t think so, and I will continue to try to help wherever and whenever I can, because in the final analysis by trying to help them I am making myself a bit better. By trying to nurture others I am growing my own heart. What they do with my help is their business, and to the lying and cheating amongst them, and you know who you are, when you look in a mirror, it doesn’t make me stupid to try and be a good guy, your terrible behavior diminishes you in your heart, where it really counts, even if your wallet may be fuller. Your curse may be to be the richest person in the graveyard one day, but you will always be alone in your hearts. My revenge will be to live a good life and sleep well every night.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Islamaconfusion
The root of prejudice and fear is ignorance. There is much prejudice, in all directions, surrounding the extremes of modern Islam. This is particularly prevalent in the UK which is the spiritual home of political correctness.
First, some facts, there are between 1.6 and 2 million Muslims in the UK out of a population of more than 60 million. That represents approximately 3% of the total. One of the perceptions of the non-Muslim majority that is commonly shared is that the rise in growth of this section of the population is astronomical, continuing and out of control. There is some truth in some of these fears. The growth rate was from a virtually zero base after WW2. I well remember meeting only one Indian boy during my early life, and he was one of my best friends, and his family was proud Sikhs.
There clearly has been some loss of control of our borders in this regard and even the most cursory survey of our bureaucrats will inform you that there have been, with successive waves of immigration, some widespread abuses of the rules. The statistics demonstrate that approximately 50% of the Muslim community is born in the UK and almost all of them are under 25 years of age.
With the increasing number of the Muslim community, both by immigration and mushrooming birth rates, the Muslim people feel more confident and assertive in modern Britain. Because this group is largely also racially from East Asia, and in the UK this means predominately from Bangladesh and Pakistan they are a visibly easy to see minority. The Muslim community exacerbates this profile by living in ghettos in certain parts of the country. The Runnymede Trust, in their ‘Islamophobia – a challenge for us all’, 1997 numbered the Muslim population being broken down thus, Pakistani origin 610,000; Bangladeshi 200,000; Indian 160,000; Arab and African 350,000; others 180,000. This was based on their original, base number of 1.5 Muslims in Britain about a decade ago which would indicate an increase in the Muslim population of between .1 to .5 million in the intervening period.
This is a subject that many fear to discuss. One of the reasons for this reluctance is that it is perceived to be so toxic that writers are intimidated by the potential consequences. This perception began with the death Fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie by some lunatic Muslim clerics for his book, The Satanic Verses, which was his fourth novel. The Satanic Verses (1988), led to sometimes-violent protests from Muslims in several countries. Faced with death threats and the fatwa (religious edict) issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then Supreme Leader of Iran, which called for him to be killed, Salman spent nearly a decade largely underground, appearing in public only sporadically, and declared his Muslim faith.
The strange and convenient Islamization of Salman did nothing to eliminate the threats against him that still stands. He now does appear on the streets and is, apparently still vulnerable to attack. Having tried to read Salman’s books myself I can understand someone wanting to kill themselves out of terminal boredom. But what kind of mentality possesses the international Islamic leadership and their British followers that they believe it is tenable to publicly call for the murder of a British citizen because you believe he is calling Allah into question or ridicule?
This example is not isolated; there have been many other international examples of Muslim sensibility being breached. This has led to attacks, murders, bombings and various dire threats by elements of the Muslim world.
Combine this type of behavior with the toxically stupid twittering of Hazel Blears, The Communities Secretary for the British government. Ms. Blears has opened up discussion of the idea of teaching all of our state educated school pupils Islamic traditions and values in compulsory citizenship classes. Notice, there are no such demands for similar lessons on Anglican or Catholic traditions and values, both of which have more adherents in this country, and the teaching of which is not mandatory and is relegated to the much more marginalized religious classes. I am Jewish but I live in the UK, which is a Christian country, and I am happy to accept that this country is Christian and that it has, in return, all through my life, accepted that I have the right to practice my religion.
Let’s get this right, it is not the Muslims who are demanding this special status, it is the politically correct, but fundamentally stupid Hazel Blears and her government who come up with these ideas. Clearly they were trying to design measures to reduce the levels of extremism within the more radical members of the Muslim community. So why would you insist that everyone else has to learn Muslim values and traditions to reduce Muslim extremism. Is it because our government believes you have to placate and buy off extremists who might demand we bend at the collective knee?
Doctor Azzam Tamimi of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London stated that this scheme is doomed to fail. “This is a naïve initiative. This is not how Muslim education or awareness works.
When a Muslim individual seeks advice or knowledge he or she would usually go to a person they consider to be credible, or an authority, and usually Muslims are suspicious of government-sponsored or organized commissions.” He was speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today program that in his view the government ministers were trying to dictate to Muslims over religious awareness and education.
In Dubai, simultaneously, there is the upcoming trial of the English woman, Michelle Palmer, an advertising executive and her conjoined partner of the moment, businessman Vince Accors. They are being tried for what amounts to a breach of common decency, otherwise known as having sex, openly, on a public beach. The idea that the pair couldn’t get a room for their sexual congress is plain silly, and the probable reason for their not doing so was probably due to drink lessening their remaining inhibitions; plus the fact that they’re plainly both stupid. The police officer who first warned them about their behavior was told where to go by Michelle who seemingly thought that she was well within her rights to fornicate on a public beach in someone else’s Muslim country. That’s the point, and its one I can understand, Dubai is their country, and anyone wishing to live there must do so by their rules or suffer the consequences.
That is the same rule we must apply to the Muslim community, and all others, who live in our country. I would go a bit further in my seeking equality. Whatever their rules for visitors I would apply in reverse. I understand that many Muslim countries do not allow those of other faiths freedom of religion. I don’t suggest we reciprocate, but I believe we should insist they change this iniquitous ruling immediately and allow anyone freedom to pray as they want. I know many Jewish people who visit Arab countries and have to put Agnostic or Church of England next to the space for religion on their entry cards.
In Britain today we are faced with weak, misguided leadership, both in the Muslim and larger British community, which is abjectly and demonstrably unable to confront the extremist tendencies of a growing minority of, radicalized Muslims. As history has repeatedly taught us, there is no negotiating, placating or paying off of bullies, terrorists or gangs, they must be stood up to, confronted and destroyed.
We are in a spiral of mutual misunderstanding and ignorance that is going to lead to major problems in this country, much greater than anything we have so far experienced, unless we address these issues. Remember the way things work is that for every action in the universe, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The official Government figures for the Muslim population breakdown is as follows;
Source: The Office for National Statistics
http://www.statistics.gov.uk
General Register Office, Scotland
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk
* The Muslim population of England & Wales is 1.54 million. The Muslim
* population of Scotland is about 40,000.
* Total Muslim population 1.6 million.
* The Local Authority Districts with the highest Muslim populations are:
* Tower Hamlets - 71,000 (36% of population))
* Newham - 59,000 (24%)
* Blackburn - 27,000 (19%)
* Bradford - 75,000 (16%)
* Waltham Forest - 33,000 (15%)
* Luton - 27,000 (15%)
* Birmingham - 140,000 (14%)
* Hackney - 28,000 (14%)
* Pendle - 12,000 (13%)
* Slough - 16,000 (13%)
* Brent - 32,000 (12%)
* Redbridge - 29,000 (12%)
* Westminster - 21,000 (12%)
* Camden - 23,000 (12%)
* Haringey - 24,000 (11%)
First, some facts, there are between 1.6 and 2 million Muslims in the UK out of a population of more than 60 million. That represents approximately 3% of the total. One of the perceptions of the non-Muslim majority that is commonly shared is that the rise in growth of this section of the population is astronomical, continuing and out of control. There is some truth in some of these fears. The growth rate was from a virtually zero base after WW2. I well remember meeting only one Indian boy during my early life, and he was one of my best friends, and his family was proud Sikhs.
There clearly has been some loss of control of our borders in this regard and even the most cursory survey of our bureaucrats will inform you that there have been, with successive waves of immigration, some widespread abuses of the rules. The statistics demonstrate that approximately 50% of the Muslim community is born in the UK and almost all of them are under 25 years of age.
With the increasing number of the Muslim community, both by immigration and mushrooming birth rates, the Muslim people feel more confident and assertive in modern Britain. Because this group is largely also racially from East Asia, and in the UK this means predominately from Bangladesh and Pakistan they are a visibly easy to see minority. The Muslim community exacerbates this profile by living in ghettos in certain parts of the country. The Runnymede Trust, in their ‘Islamophobia – a challenge for us all’, 1997 numbered the Muslim population being broken down thus, Pakistani origin 610,000; Bangladeshi 200,000; Indian 160,000; Arab and African 350,000; others 180,000. This was based on their original, base number of 1.5 Muslims in Britain about a decade ago which would indicate an increase in the Muslim population of between .1 to .5 million in the intervening period.
This is a subject that many fear to discuss. One of the reasons for this reluctance is that it is perceived to be so toxic that writers are intimidated by the potential consequences. This perception began with the death Fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie by some lunatic Muslim clerics for his book, The Satanic Verses, which was his fourth novel. The Satanic Verses (1988), led to sometimes-violent protests from Muslims in several countries. Faced with death threats and the fatwa (religious edict) issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then Supreme Leader of Iran, which called for him to be killed, Salman spent nearly a decade largely underground, appearing in public only sporadically, and declared his Muslim faith.
The strange and convenient Islamization of Salman did nothing to eliminate the threats against him that still stands. He now does appear on the streets and is, apparently still vulnerable to attack. Having tried to read Salman’s books myself I can understand someone wanting to kill themselves out of terminal boredom. But what kind of mentality possesses the international Islamic leadership and their British followers that they believe it is tenable to publicly call for the murder of a British citizen because you believe he is calling Allah into question or ridicule?
This example is not isolated; there have been many other international examples of Muslim sensibility being breached. This has led to attacks, murders, bombings and various dire threats by elements of the Muslim world.
Combine this type of behavior with the toxically stupid twittering of Hazel Blears, The Communities Secretary for the British government. Ms. Blears has opened up discussion of the idea of teaching all of our state educated school pupils Islamic traditions and values in compulsory citizenship classes. Notice, there are no such demands for similar lessons on Anglican or Catholic traditions and values, both of which have more adherents in this country, and the teaching of which is not mandatory and is relegated to the much more marginalized religious classes. I am Jewish but I live in the UK, which is a Christian country, and I am happy to accept that this country is Christian and that it has, in return, all through my life, accepted that I have the right to practice my religion.
Let’s get this right, it is not the Muslims who are demanding this special status, it is the politically correct, but fundamentally stupid Hazel Blears and her government who come up with these ideas. Clearly they were trying to design measures to reduce the levels of extremism within the more radical members of the Muslim community. So why would you insist that everyone else has to learn Muslim values and traditions to reduce Muslim extremism. Is it because our government believes you have to placate and buy off extremists who might demand we bend at the collective knee?
Doctor Azzam Tamimi of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London stated that this scheme is doomed to fail. “This is a naïve initiative. This is not how Muslim education or awareness works.
When a Muslim individual seeks advice or knowledge he or she would usually go to a person they consider to be credible, or an authority, and usually Muslims are suspicious of government-sponsored or organized commissions.” He was speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today program that in his view the government ministers were trying to dictate to Muslims over religious awareness and education.
In Dubai, simultaneously, there is the upcoming trial of the English woman, Michelle Palmer, an advertising executive and her conjoined partner of the moment, businessman Vince Accors. They are being tried for what amounts to a breach of common decency, otherwise known as having sex, openly, on a public beach. The idea that the pair couldn’t get a room for their sexual congress is plain silly, and the probable reason for their not doing so was probably due to drink lessening their remaining inhibitions; plus the fact that they’re plainly both stupid. The police officer who first warned them about their behavior was told where to go by Michelle who seemingly thought that she was well within her rights to fornicate on a public beach in someone else’s Muslim country. That’s the point, and its one I can understand, Dubai is their country, and anyone wishing to live there must do so by their rules or suffer the consequences.
That is the same rule we must apply to the Muslim community, and all others, who live in our country. I would go a bit further in my seeking equality. Whatever their rules for visitors I would apply in reverse. I understand that many Muslim countries do not allow those of other faiths freedom of religion. I don’t suggest we reciprocate, but I believe we should insist they change this iniquitous ruling immediately and allow anyone freedom to pray as they want. I know many Jewish people who visit Arab countries and have to put Agnostic or Church of England next to the space for religion on their entry cards.
In Britain today we are faced with weak, misguided leadership, both in the Muslim and larger British community, which is abjectly and demonstrably unable to confront the extremist tendencies of a growing minority of, radicalized Muslims. As history has repeatedly taught us, there is no negotiating, placating or paying off of bullies, terrorists or gangs, they must be stood up to, confronted and destroyed.
We are in a spiral of mutual misunderstanding and ignorance that is going to lead to major problems in this country, much greater than anything we have so far experienced, unless we address these issues. Remember the way things work is that for every action in the universe, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The official Government figures for the Muslim population breakdown is as follows;
Source: The Office for National Statistics
http://www.statistics.gov.uk
General Register Office, Scotland
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk
* The Muslim population of England & Wales is 1.54 million. The Muslim
* population of Scotland is about 40,000.
* Total Muslim population 1.6 million.
* The Local Authority Districts with the highest Muslim populations are:
* Tower Hamlets - 71,000 (36% of population))
* Newham - 59,000 (24%)
* Blackburn - 27,000 (19%)
* Bradford - 75,000 (16%)
* Waltham Forest - 33,000 (15%)
* Luton - 27,000 (15%)
* Birmingham - 140,000 (14%)
* Hackney - 28,000 (14%)
* Pendle - 12,000 (13%)
* Slough - 16,000 (13%)
* Brent - 32,000 (12%)
* Redbridge - 29,000 (12%)
* Westminster - 21,000 (12%)
* Camden - 23,000 (12%)
* Haringey - 24,000 (11%)
Friday, July 18, 2008
LePresidency
Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France and current, by six monthly rotation, President of the European Union, is extremely irked by Ireland. The President is going to Ireland so that he can listen to the reasons for their voting against the treaty. It’s a shame that democracy only means something to the Europhiles when they win, because when they lose, their attitude demonstrate their belief that the other side simply got it wrong, or didn’t understand what they were doing.
Memory takes me back to the days long ago when I was embroiled in the political battles in my own British film union, the then named ACTT. We discovered that the activists on the other side were members of the Workers Revolutionary Party and someone who was reporting back to the group I was aligned to had infiltrated them. We were the moderates and the fight was bitter and prolonged. There was a team of our foes who met upstairs in a pub, before each of our official meetings to plot their methodology, their aim being that their small group could dominate the democratic agenda of the group at large.
We knew, from reading their secret notes, that every time we won a vote they would filibuster until very late and we got tired and fed up. When we were not present in sufficient numbers they would immediately demand a new vote to try and overturn the democratic majority we had previously won. It was a bad joke, which we fought long and hard to conquer, and eventually we did so by coercing the some of the conspirators to expose their fellow plotters.
After a prolonged battle we were able to democratically unseat all of these control freaks from their seats on the board of the division of the union. I readily admit to enjoying the clandestine nature of some of this Pink Panther type sleuthing more than the political grind. Someone suggested I stand for political office at the time, but the experience and sheer boredom of most of these procedures put me off that idea for life.
The Treaty of Lisbon (also known as the Reform Treaty) was the treaty created to streamline the workings of the European Union. The stated aim of the treaty is "to complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam and by the Treaty of Nice with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action.”
The principal changes introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon include more qualified majority voting in the EU Council, enhanced involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process through extended co-decision sharing with the EU Council, a reduction of the number of Commissioners from 27 to 18, and the creation of a possibly directly elected or appointed President of the European Council and a High Representative for Foreign Affairs to present a united position on EU policies (see more below).
If this were to be ratified, the Treaty of Lisbon would also make the Charter of Fundamental Rights (human rights provisions) legally binding.
The negotiations on modifying the EU institutions began in 2001, first resulting in the European Constitution, which failed due to rejection in two referendums. The Treaty of Lisbon was signed on 13 December 2007 in Lisbon (as Portugal held the EU Council's Presidency at the time), and was originally scheduled to have been ratified in all member states by the end of 2008, so it could come into force before the 2009 European elections. However, the rejection of the Treaty on 12 June 2008 by the Irish electorate has created uncertainty in this regard. It should, by rights, have consigned it to the dustbin of history.
President Sarkozy is making a huge, long-term mistake if he tries to usurp the democratic process in the EU. The Irish won’t accept this and neither will the rest of Europe. There was a deal which stated that if one or more of the countries in the EU rejected this treaty then it would be dropped. Every country bar one, who have been allowed to vote on this have actually voted against it, and he is trying to break the promises given. So upset is Le President Sarkozy by the Irish vote against the Lisbon treaty that he is reportedly going to tell them to vote again so this time they can get it right. I wonder if he proposes to have a series of elections for the Presidency of his own country so that his people can decide to get rid of him until they get it right?
Memory takes me back to the days long ago when I was embroiled in the political battles in my own British film union, the then named ACTT. We discovered that the activists on the other side were members of the Workers Revolutionary Party and someone who was reporting back to the group I was aligned to had infiltrated them. We were the moderates and the fight was bitter and prolonged. There was a team of our foes who met upstairs in a pub, before each of our official meetings to plot their methodology, their aim being that their small group could dominate the democratic agenda of the group at large.
We knew, from reading their secret notes, that every time we won a vote they would filibuster until very late and we got tired and fed up. When we were not present in sufficient numbers they would immediately demand a new vote to try and overturn the democratic majority we had previously won. It was a bad joke, which we fought long and hard to conquer, and eventually we did so by coercing the some of the conspirators to expose their fellow plotters.
After a prolonged battle we were able to democratically unseat all of these control freaks from their seats on the board of the division of the union. I readily admit to enjoying the clandestine nature of some of this Pink Panther type sleuthing more than the political grind. Someone suggested I stand for political office at the time, but the experience and sheer boredom of most of these procedures put me off that idea for life.
The Treaty of Lisbon (also known as the Reform Treaty) was the treaty created to streamline the workings of the European Union. The stated aim of the treaty is "to complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam and by the Treaty of Nice with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action.”
The principal changes introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon include more qualified majority voting in the EU Council, enhanced involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process through extended co-decision sharing with the EU Council, a reduction of the number of Commissioners from 27 to 18, and the creation of a possibly directly elected or appointed President of the European Council and a High Representative for Foreign Affairs to present a united position on EU policies (see more below).
If this were to be ratified, the Treaty of Lisbon would also make the Charter of Fundamental Rights (human rights provisions) legally binding.
The negotiations on modifying the EU institutions began in 2001, first resulting in the European Constitution, which failed due to rejection in two referendums. The Treaty of Lisbon was signed on 13 December 2007 in Lisbon (as Portugal held the EU Council's Presidency at the time), and was originally scheduled to have been ratified in all member states by the end of 2008, so it could come into force before the 2009 European elections. However, the rejection of the Treaty on 12 June 2008 by the Irish electorate has created uncertainty in this regard. It should, by rights, have consigned it to the dustbin of history.
President Sarkozy is making a huge, long-term mistake if he tries to usurp the democratic process in the EU. The Irish won’t accept this and neither will the rest of Europe. There was a deal which stated that if one or more of the countries in the EU rejected this treaty then it would be dropped. Every country bar one, who have been allowed to vote on this have actually voted against it, and he is trying to break the promises given. So upset is Le President Sarkozy by the Irish vote against the Lisbon treaty that he is reportedly going to tell them to vote again so this time they can get it right. I wonder if he proposes to have a series of elections for the Presidency of his own country so that his people can decide to get rid of him until they get it right?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Exchanges
The terrorist, comparing their ethos, with that of the West, was, “your weakness is that you worship life, whereas our strength is that we worship death!” The truth is the opposite. We will always win in the end when we face such enemies.
Yesterday, the Israeli government sanctioned an exchange between it and the terrorist organization, Hezbollah. In one direction went the bodies of the two captured Israeli soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eidad Regev who’s kidnap sparked the brief war two years ago when Israel unsuccessfully tried to recover their men.
The Lebanese government and people joined Hezbollah in celebrating the return of their heroes. They particularly praised Samir Qantar, who has been in an Israeli jail for 30 years. His crime was to murder a policeman, and then he murdered a young man called Danny Haran in his Nahariya apartment on the Israeli coast. But this killer’s blood lust was not satiated, whilst the victims wife hid with her 2 year old daughter in a crawl space, witnessing these events, Samir Qantar, hero of the freedom struggle, grabbed hold of the Israeli family’s 4 year old daughter and beat her to death by crushing her skull with his rifle butt. Whilst he was doing this Danny Haran’s wife, overcome with grief and terror accidentally smothered her other daughter to death.
Samir Qantar has never shown any remorse for destroying the lives of his victims and yesterday he was greeted as a hero. Bands played in celebration as he was greeted by the President and Prime Minister of Lebanon and kissed on each cheek. A banner was held aloft which stated, “Israel is shedding tears of pain, Lebanon is shedding tears of joy.”
In the other direction the Israelis had released 5 prisoners and the remains of 199 other Hezbollah terrorists. I use the word terrorists because that is how they are regarded, as an organization, by many international bodies. Their declared purpose is the destruction of Israel by any means and they are funded and trained and supplied by friends in Syria and Iran.
Despite this inequality in exchange the majority of Israeli’s support it on the basis that their country never abandons its people, alive or dead, they will bring them home to their families.
The British newspapers make a point today of stating the fact that there are 8,400 Palestinians in Israel’s jails. These people are in the jail for various offences, including murder, and not because they are Palestinians.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has welcomed Wednesday's long-awaited prisoner exchange between Israel and the Lebanese based group Hezbollah, following many months of UN-backed mediation efforts.
Ban is "deeply satisfied that the humanitarian aspects of Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006) have finally been met today," said his spokesperson’s statement, when referring to the resolution which ended the Israel and Hezbollah 2006 conflict.
"The secretary-general is looking forward to witnessing further positive moves as envisaged during the negotiations," the statement continued, which added that Ban has received messages to that effect from both Israel’s government and the leadership of Hezbollah.
The diplomat added, that he hoped there will soon see action toward the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit and of Palestinian prisoners, as these steps will contribute to improving the overall humanitarian situation in the region.
The BBC reported that now the Hezbollah has their prisoners returned to them they had unfinished business with Israel in revenge for that country’s “assassination” of Imad Mughniyah, a top Hezbollah leader, who was killed in a car bomb earlier in the year in Damascus. Hezbollah blamed Israel for the assassination. If this was an Israeli operation, and that appears most likely, that was a huge success for Israel who long considered Mughniyah The epitome of the 'Axis of Evil' and who, with America has blamed numerous terrorists acts on him, including his being involved in the 1983 and 1984 bombing of US and French barracks in Beirut, the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and the kidnappings of Westerners (all of which occurred before the creation of Hezbollah in 1985).
Mughniyah was a symbol of the early period of Hezbollah, possibly one of the co-founders of the movement and that Mughniyah was held in high esteem not only in Hezbollah, but also among other Lebanese Shia movements. What is equally certain is that having turned Mughniyah into an arch-villain the Israelis did score a huge PR success when they killed him.
All civilized people will join me in the hope that Shalit has not been murdered whilst he has been a prisoner in the safe keeping of his captors.
Yesterday, the Israeli government sanctioned an exchange between it and the terrorist organization, Hezbollah. In one direction went the bodies of the two captured Israeli soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eidad Regev who’s kidnap sparked the brief war two years ago when Israel unsuccessfully tried to recover their men.
The Lebanese government and people joined Hezbollah in celebrating the return of their heroes. They particularly praised Samir Qantar, who has been in an Israeli jail for 30 years. His crime was to murder a policeman, and then he murdered a young man called Danny Haran in his Nahariya apartment on the Israeli coast. But this killer’s blood lust was not satiated, whilst the victims wife hid with her 2 year old daughter in a crawl space, witnessing these events, Samir Qantar, hero of the freedom struggle, grabbed hold of the Israeli family’s 4 year old daughter and beat her to death by crushing her skull with his rifle butt. Whilst he was doing this Danny Haran’s wife, overcome with grief and terror accidentally smothered her other daughter to death.
Samir Qantar has never shown any remorse for destroying the lives of his victims and yesterday he was greeted as a hero. Bands played in celebration as he was greeted by the President and Prime Minister of Lebanon and kissed on each cheek. A banner was held aloft which stated, “Israel is shedding tears of pain, Lebanon is shedding tears of joy.”
In the other direction the Israelis had released 5 prisoners and the remains of 199 other Hezbollah terrorists. I use the word terrorists because that is how they are regarded, as an organization, by many international bodies. Their declared purpose is the destruction of Israel by any means and they are funded and trained and supplied by friends in Syria and Iran.
Despite this inequality in exchange the majority of Israeli’s support it on the basis that their country never abandons its people, alive or dead, they will bring them home to their families.
The British newspapers make a point today of stating the fact that there are 8,400 Palestinians in Israel’s jails. These people are in the jail for various offences, including murder, and not because they are Palestinians.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has welcomed Wednesday's long-awaited prisoner exchange between Israel and the Lebanese based group Hezbollah, following many months of UN-backed mediation efforts.
Ban is "deeply satisfied that the humanitarian aspects of Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006) have finally been met today," said his spokesperson’s statement, when referring to the resolution which ended the Israel and Hezbollah 2006 conflict.
"The secretary-general is looking forward to witnessing further positive moves as envisaged during the negotiations," the statement continued, which added that Ban has received messages to that effect from both Israel’s government and the leadership of Hezbollah.
The diplomat added, that he hoped there will soon see action toward the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit and of Palestinian prisoners, as these steps will contribute to improving the overall humanitarian situation in the region.
The BBC reported that now the Hezbollah has their prisoners returned to them they had unfinished business with Israel in revenge for that country’s “assassination” of Imad Mughniyah, a top Hezbollah leader, who was killed in a car bomb earlier in the year in Damascus. Hezbollah blamed Israel for the assassination. If this was an Israeli operation, and that appears most likely, that was a huge success for Israel who long considered Mughniyah The epitome of the 'Axis of Evil' and who, with America has blamed numerous terrorists acts on him, including his being involved in the 1983 and 1984 bombing of US and French barracks in Beirut, the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and the kidnappings of Westerners (all of which occurred before the creation of Hezbollah in 1985).
Mughniyah was a symbol of the early period of Hezbollah, possibly one of the co-founders of the movement and that Mughniyah was held in high esteem not only in Hezbollah, but also among other Lebanese Shia movements. What is equally certain is that having turned Mughniyah into an arch-villain the Israelis did score a huge PR success when they killed him.
All civilized people will join me in the hope that Shalit has not been murdered whilst he has been a prisoner in the safe keeping of his captors.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Fanatics
There is a high security trial currently taking place in Britain in which 5 young Muslim men, all natives of the UK, are appearing in court. Read those words and weep, these are British young men, brought up, educated and nurtured in this country who sought to kill and maim their compatriots and who admit to attempting some of these crimes.
A jury will decide if the five men, along with three others, are guilty of conspiring to murder thousands of people by smuggling homemade liquid bombs onto a series of passenger jets crossing from Britain to America.
Three of the men who were charged with plotting to bomb the transatlantic passenger flights pleaded guilty at the London court on Monday to conspiracy to cause explosions. Amongst these explosions was their plot to explode a “home made bomb” at the Houses of Parliament to protest the UK’s role in Iraq and Afghanistan. Before we proceed to some more detail regarding the accused let’s just examine the statement made in defence.
Are we supposed to excuse bomb making if it is done at home? Is there a bomb making place that lessens the explosions ripping through and tearing up the bodies of the innocent victims? Does it hurt you or me less when the bomb rips open your guts because it was made at home?
Are we supposed to feel any sympathy because one of their targets was the Houses of Parliament? When did it become acceptable in their warped minds to protest using bombs as the tool? When did their defence lawyers so misunderstand and misjudge Britain that they thought we would find such a plot any more acceptable because they were framing it in this context? Perhaps they thought there was no other chance for their clients?
They were Assad Sarwar, 28, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 27 and Tanvir Hussain, 27, who all entered guilty pleas at Woolwich Crown Court in southeast London. They also pleaded guilty to creating public nuisance by releasing videos threatening suicide bomb attacks in the UK.
Umar Islam, 30, and Ibrahim Savant, 27, two of their co-defendants, also entered guilty pleas to the nuisance charges. These guilty pleas came after the three-month trial was winding to an end just before the prosecution barristers were due to present their closing arguments. This translates into the eight men facing the two revised charges of conspiracy to murder with one specifying that the attacks were to involve detonating “
I’m sorry for being obtuse, stupid even, but when did trying to bomb to death vast numbers of people and then showing a video you have made gloating about this become a “nuisance?” I thought a nuisance was someone allowing their dog to foul the footpath or a stupid politician making profoundly, insanely silly suggestions. Amongst these yesterday was the one apparently emanating from the Home Office itself, calling for, as an additional punishment, that the perpetrators of knife assaults should be taken to hospital to meet their victims. Imagine if you had been knifed and they brought the bastard to meet you? I think it might well cause a relapse or perhaps a revenge attack, it certainly wouldn’t make you feel better. What twit thought this one up? Oh, wait a second it must be the same idiot who thought that calling a plan to bomb and boast about it on video a “nuisance”.
Peter Wright QC, the Prosecutor said the conspirators were fanatics who believed they would achieve immortality through mass murder. “What they intended,” he continued, “was to shock the world, not merely by the nature of the acts but also by the fact that such actions could be committed by apparently ordinary law-abiding citizens.” The prosecution put it succinctly when they said that the accused were in a gang wanting to kill thousands of passengers by detonating liquid bombs in a wave of mid-air explosions
The prosecution allege that the five men planned a series of coordinated suicide attacks on planes bound from London Heathrow for the United States and Canada in 2006.
The authorities claim the suspects planned to concoct a very lethal sports drink with a gel-like substance to create an explosive that could then be triggered with an iPod or cell phone. All of those items could have been carried on board without raising any suspicions. Tests have demonstrated that these ingredients are lethal when correctly mixed.
The videos made by the plotters which have been shown on television clearly show the accused claiming that they were going to commit attacks in the name of their religion in revenge for our British and American troops being in Muslim countries and that this has to stop. Their message is clear and brutal, we, the West, have to be taught a lesson, again and again and again.
A police inquiry into the alleged plot, and tighter restrictions on the items that airline passengers are allowed to carry onto planes, caused widespread disruption to flights to and from Britain.
The court was informed that the plotters were manufacturing bombs at a flat in Walthamstow, North East London, where their “martyrdom” videos featuring six of the gang members were also shot.
Earlier in the trial Ali and Sarwar tried to claim the pathetic excuse that they were simply making a documentary about the plight of Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, and that the explosives and videos were linked purely to a related publicity stunt gone wrong.
They claimed the explosives were planned for a stunt at the Houses of Parliament, although, Sarwar told the court, other targets including fuel terminals, airports and other refineries were also evaluated.
Hussein told the court that even though he had agreed to feature in a suicide-bomber style video, the idea of a bomb plot for publicity purposes had shocked him.
CNN's international security correspondent, Paula Newton, said the guilty pleas of the accused were purely a formality because the men had already admitted their guilt via their defence. "They will not be walking free from this trial," she said, “the key issue,” she said, was whether the jury found the accused guilty of conspiracy to murder, which the men have denied.
Just for the record the eight men on trial are: Abdulla Ahmed Ali, aka Ahmed Ali Khan, 27, of Walthamstow, Assad Sarwar, 28, of High Wycombe, Tanvir Hussain, 27, of Leyton, east London, Mohammed Gulzar, 26, of Barking, Essex, Ibrahim Savant, 27, of Stoke Newington, north London, Arafat Waheed Khan, 27, of Walthamstow, Waheed Zaman, 24, of Walthamstow and Umar Islam, aka Brian Young, 30, of Hackney, east London. Let’s hope that justice is done, seen to be done and accepted by all, which would mean that these bloodthirsty fanatics spend every day until they die in jail.
A jury will decide if the five men, along with three others, are guilty of conspiring to murder thousands of people by smuggling homemade liquid bombs onto a series of passenger jets crossing from Britain to America.
Three of the men who were charged with plotting to bomb the transatlantic passenger flights pleaded guilty at the London court on Monday to conspiracy to cause explosions. Amongst these explosions was their plot to explode a “home made bomb” at the Houses of Parliament to protest the UK’s role in Iraq and Afghanistan. Before we proceed to some more detail regarding the accused let’s just examine the statement made in defence.
Are we supposed to excuse bomb making if it is done at home? Is there a bomb making place that lessens the explosions ripping through and tearing up the bodies of the innocent victims? Does it hurt you or me less when the bomb rips open your guts because it was made at home?
Are we supposed to feel any sympathy because one of their targets was the Houses of Parliament? When did it become acceptable in their warped minds to protest using bombs as the tool? When did their defence lawyers so misunderstand and misjudge Britain that they thought we would find such a plot any more acceptable because they were framing it in this context? Perhaps they thought there was no other chance for their clients?
They were Assad Sarwar, 28, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 27 and Tanvir Hussain, 27, who all entered guilty pleas at Woolwich Crown Court in southeast London. They also pleaded guilty to creating public nuisance by releasing videos threatening suicide bomb attacks in the UK.
Umar Islam, 30, and Ibrahim Savant, 27, two of their co-defendants, also entered guilty pleas to the nuisance charges. These guilty pleas came after the three-month trial was winding to an end just before the prosecution barristers were due to present their closing arguments. This translates into the eight men facing the two revised charges of conspiracy to murder with one specifying that the attacks were to involve detonating “
I’m sorry for being obtuse, stupid even, but when did trying to bomb to death vast numbers of people and then showing a video you have made gloating about this become a “nuisance?” I thought a nuisance was someone allowing their dog to foul the footpath or a stupid politician making profoundly, insanely silly suggestions. Amongst these yesterday was the one apparently emanating from the Home Office itself, calling for, as an additional punishment, that the perpetrators of knife assaults should be taken to hospital to meet their victims. Imagine if you had been knifed and they brought the bastard to meet you? I think it might well cause a relapse or perhaps a revenge attack, it certainly wouldn’t make you feel better. What twit thought this one up? Oh, wait a second it must be the same idiot who thought that calling a plan to bomb and boast about it on video a “nuisance”.
Peter Wright QC, the Prosecutor said the conspirators were fanatics who believed they would achieve immortality through mass murder. “What they intended,” he continued, “was to shock the world, not merely by the nature of the acts but also by the fact that such actions could be committed by apparently ordinary law-abiding citizens.” The prosecution put it succinctly when they said that the accused were in a gang wanting to kill thousands of passengers by detonating liquid bombs in a wave of mid-air explosions
The prosecution allege that the five men planned a series of coordinated suicide attacks on planes bound from London Heathrow for the United States and Canada in 2006.
The authorities claim the suspects planned to concoct a very lethal sports drink with a gel-like substance to create an explosive that could then be triggered with an iPod or cell phone. All of those items could have been carried on board without raising any suspicions. Tests have demonstrated that these ingredients are lethal when correctly mixed.
The videos made by the plotters which have been shown on television clearly show the accused claiming that they were going to commit attacks in the name of their religion in revenge for our British and American troops being in Muslim countries and that this has to stop. Their message is clear and brutal, we, the West, have to be taught a lesson, again and again and again.
A police inquiry into the alleged plot, and tighter restrictions on the items that airline passengers are allowed to carry onto planes, caused widespread disruption to flights to and from Britain.
The court was informed that the plotters were manufacturing bombs at a flat in Walthamstow, North East London, where their “martyrdom” videos featuring six of the gang members were also shot.
Earlier in the trial Ali and Sarwar tried to claim the pathetic excuse that they were simply making a documentary about the plight of Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, and that the explosives and videos were linked purely to a related publicity stunt gone wrong.
They claimed the explosives were planned for a stunt at the Houses of Parliament, although, Sarwar told the court, other targets including fuel terminals, airports and other refineries were also evaluated.
Hussein told the court that even though he had agreed to feature in a suicide-bomber style video, the idea of a bomb plot for publicity purposes had shocked him.
CNN's international security correspondent, Paula Newton, said the guilty pleas of the accused were purely a formality because the men had already admitted their guilt via their defence. "They will not be walking free from this trial," she said, “the key issue,” she said, was whether the jury found the accused guilty of conspiracy to murder, which the men have denied.
Just for the record the eight men on trial are: Abdulla Ahmed Ali, aka Ahmed Ali Khan, 27, of Walthamstow, Assad Sarwar, 28, of High Wycombe, Tanvir Hussain, 27, of Leyton, east London, Mohammed Gulzar, 26, of Barking, Essex, Ibrahim Savant, 27, of Stoke Newington, north London, Arafat Waheed Khan, 27, of Walthamstow, Waheed Zaman, 24, of Walthamstow and Umar Islam, aka Brian Young, 30, of Hackney, east London. Let’s hope that justice is done, seen to be done and accepted by all, which would mean that these bloodthirsty fanatics spend every day until they die in jail.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Election08
It appears as though the theoretical coronation of Barak Obama as the President of the United States might not be such a forgone conclusion after all. The most recent Newsweek poll revealed that the Democrat presidential candidate, Barak Obama leads Republican rival John McCain by just 3 percentage points, which equates to a statistical dead heat -- and a precipitous drop from the 15-point lead Obama held just one month ago.
There are different opinions about why there has been this very rapid shift. Obama has run up against challenges and accusations of flip flopping on certain of his policies since clinching his party's nomination in June, but McCain's big move forward to approximate parity is difficult to explain.
There is a school of thought that seeks to explain Obama’s decreasing popularity with the normal bedrock of Democratic supporters because they feel he has moved to the center ground of politics away from the more defined, left of center stance he took during the primaries. To be fair his move to the middle is the standard move of all the serious Presidential candidates at this stage of the election process and is certainly not unique to Obama.
More relevant is the Hillary factor. Although Hillary Clinton has made all the right noises about getting her supporters in behind her former rival there are big danger signs for the Democrat Party that there are many of her supporters who are remaining consistent in their antipathy to the candidate. This is despite the fact that there is hardly anything to choose between the declared policies of Obama and Clinton. So this negativity is either racially motivated, which I don’t believe to be the case, or is because Barak is not a woman, for which there is no ready cure. It’s hard to see what more Hillary can do to alleviate this problem for her recent foe. The only obvious thing that Obama can do to inherit her votes is to put her on his ticket as his running mate for the post of Vice President, but he’s unlikely to want to do that because getting Hillary means also getting Bill, and it’s clear that Obama wouldn’t want that. I’m not entirely convinced that Hillary would want the job anyhow, as I think she might prefer to be offered the job of Secretary of State.
Another fairly obvious way to grab Hillary’s vote is to put another woman on the ticket with Obama, someone more malleable and with less of a history. There is an obvious drawback to all this posturing and that is this, rather than attract Democrat voters to an alliance between a minority candidate plus a woman you might be alienating the vast hinterland of American voters who are so far unattached, who actually win you the elections, and are probably going to be happiest if Obama adds a white, middle aged American, who looks and sounds a bit like a Democrat John McCain.
It seems as though there might be an unspoken reticence to elect someone from a minority although we can all hope that this is not the case. It’s very possible that Hillary would have suffered in the same way had she triumphed in the Primaries. There are a great many reactionary people in every democracy. However, the man’s color, like Hillary Clinton’s gender should not influence the voters, but it might just do so when the other choice is a very pleasant seeming white bread kind of man.
Until Obama can sort the Clinton problem out he is going to have an ongoing and growing problem with John McCain. This Republican is beginning to remind me more of Ronald Reagan or a latter day Harry S. Truman, without the dollops of charm or great communication skills, rather than the Bush dynasty, either father or son.
There is great surprise in the great metropolitan areas of the US that McCain is doing so well. They sit around their smart dining tables in Manhattan or Beverly Hills certain that the election is bound to result in an Obama victory. But they were equally certain that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a total joke when he stood for Governor of California, and similarly considered that Ronald Reagan had no chance. These know alls knew nothing, and were totally wrong, and this could be the same thing happening all over again.
McCain is not too smart or too fluent, but there are a great many American voters who will see this as more of a gift than a hindrance. He does seem straight, brave and one of them, and in the final analysis that might just win this election against all the odds.
There are different opinions about why there has been this very rapid shift. Obama has run up against challenges and accusations of flip flopping on certain of his policies since clinching his party's nomination in June, but McCain's big move forward to approximate parity is difficult to explain.
There is a school of thought that seeks to explain Obama’s decreasing popularity with the normal bedrock of Democratic supporters because they feel he has moved to the center ground of politics away from the more defined, left of center stance he took during the primaries. To be fair his move to the middle is the standard move of all the serious Presidential candidates at this stage of the election process and is certainly not unique to Obama.
More relevant is the Hillary factor. Although Hillary Clinton has made all the right noises about getting her supporters in behind her former rival there are big danger signs for the Democrat Party that there are many of her supporters who are remaining consistent in their antipathy to the candidate. This is despite the fact that there is hardly anything to choose between the declared policies of Obama and Clinton. So this negativity is either racially motivated, which I don’t believe to be the case, or is because Barak is not a woman, for which there is no ready cure. It’s hard to see what more Hillary can do to alleviate this problem for her recent foe. The only obvious thing that Obama can do to inherit her votes is to put her on his ticket as his running mate for the post of Vice President, but he’s unlikely to want to do that because getting Hillary means also getting Bill, and it’s clear that Obama wouldn’t want that. I’m not entirely convinced that Hillary would want the job anyhow, as I think she might prefer to be offered the job of Secretary of State.
Another fairly obvious way to grab Hillary’s vote is to put another woman on the ticket with Obama, someone more malleable and with less of a history. There is an obvious drawback to all this posturing and that is this, rather than attract Democrat voters to an alliance between a minority candidate plus a woman you might be alienating the vast hinterland of American voters who are so far unattached, who actually win you the elections, and are probably going to be happiest if Obama adds a white, middle aged American, who looks and sounds a bit like a Democrat John McCain.
It seems as though there might be an unspoken reticence to elect someone from a minority although we can all hope that this is not the case. It’s very possible that Hillary would have suffered in the same way had she triumphed in the Primaries. There are a great many reactionary people in every democracy. However, the man’s color, like Hillary Clinton’s gender should not influence the voters, but it might just do so when the other choice is a very pleasant seeming white bread kind of man.
Until Obama can sort the Clinton problem out he is going to have an ongoing and growing problem with John McCain. This Republican is beginning to remind me more of Ronald Reagan or a latter day Harry S. Truman, without the dollops of charm or great communication skills, rather than the Bush dynasty, either father or son.
There is great surprise in the great metropolitan areas of the US that McCain is doing so well. They sit around their smart dining tables in Manhattan or Beverly Hills certain that the election is bound to result in an Obama victory. But they were equally certain that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a total joke when he stood for Governor of California, and similarly considered that Ronald Reagan had no chance. These know alls knew nothing, and were totally wrong, and this could be the same thing happening all over again.
McCain is not too smart or too fluent, but there are a great many American voters who will see this as more of a gift than a hindrance. He does seem straight, brave and one of them, and in the final analysis that might just win this election against all the odds.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Mayors
This is the story of big city, elected Mayors. In London we have Boris Johnson, and his predecessor was Ken Livingstone. In New York we have Mayor Bloomberg. These two cities are roughly equivalent in size and budget, but most similarities in how they work and how they are run ends about there.
Boris Johnson ran a carefully modulated campaign recently, in which his party machine pretty successfully stopped him saying anything of substance, and much to the surprise of many, including myself, beat the incumbent, Ken Livingstone.
I admit to preferring Boris to Ken on a political and personal level. Boris has an avuncular style in which he seems to be mates with everyone whereas Ken was a pretty miserable man. However it is becoming apparent that Boris is not on top of his brief whereas his predecessor was a notorious micro manager. There are details to be mastered when you run a multi billion pound budget, that Boris seems to prefer to delegate. That can work; witness the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, and the serious amount of delegation that he devolved. But the difference seems to be that Ronald surrounded himself with real experts while he had a nap, whereas, so far, Boris has seemingly hired some very suspect duffers while he is away earning his additional £250,000 ($500,000) per year as a journalist.
Mayor Bloomberg has a big advantage when it comes to running the police service in his native New York, which Boris doesn’t enjoy in London. Whereas the police budget rests with Bloomberg his colleague across the ocean only directly manages one third of the police budget in London. With money comes power, without power comes confusion and mixed messages.
The upshot for New York is that the Mayor, his predecessor, and his police service have brought down the crime rates enormously and made the city one of the safest in the States from its previous status as one of the most dangerous. The opposite has happened in London. In England’s capital city the perception is that the city has become totally crime infested with knife welding teenagers who are totally on the rampage.
I repeat that this is the common perception, but I am afraid it is largely a misconception. I have done some research to discover actual crime statistics and the truth is that the major crime figures in London are, in general, on the decline. There are areas in which crime has gone up, and some type of crime inevitably rise whilst others decrease, but murders in London are a fraction of the numbers found in New York.
Ken Livingstone, the last Mayor of London was quoted as saying, ‘This is the fifth year running that we have seen crime in London fall. Crime has fallen by 19 per cent with the fall in crime accelerating sharply. Last years 6.1 per cent fall in crime was the highest (drop) yet. The average annual fall in crime in London in the last three years has been 5.5 per cent”.
“The longer-term trends released today show how not only all crimes but the most serious crimes in London are falling”.
He went on to say, “Murders are down by 28 per cent since 2003 - from 222 to 160. Rape is down 25 per cent in five years. Gun crime and knife-enabled crime are both 22 per cent down in the same period. Robbery is down 23 per cent”.
These are the police figures that are reinforced by the government and all other official bodies, not those from the Mayor himself. They are accurate and verified.
Whereas the city of New York, once widely feared for its mean streets scarred by random violence, is on course for its lowest murder rate in four decades with this year's total expected to be below 500. This drop in the New York rate from its previously terrifying rate still leaves “America’s safest big city” nearly three times as dangerous as London even if the common misconception is entirely the opposite.
Since the beginning of the year the New York police department has recorded 428 murders compared with 579 for the whole of 2006. Only 35 of these deaths were at the hands of complete strangers while the rest arose from personal disputes such as romantic tiffs, gang warfare or confrontations with acquaintances.
Aided by increased material wealth and a decade of "zero-tolerance" policing, a maintained and steady decline in the Big Apple's violent crime rate has left the city basking in a newfound feel good glow of safety. Criminologists there imply that killings by strangers have become so rare that the police cannot reasonably be expected to reduce the problem further.
In that city of 8.2 million people, the chance of being murdered has fallen to one in 17,000. The figures are a far cry from the dark days of 1990 when the terrible high water mark record 2,245 people were murdered as an epidemic of crack cocaine abuse gripped New York.
The mayor, Michael Bloomberg, regularly heralds his city's re-emergence as "the safest big city in America" and has defended his ban on carrying hidden weapons, which enrages America's gun lobby.
The drop in crime took root under the leadership of mayor Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, the man widely credited with the zero tolerance policing and law enforcement who instituted a sweeping crackdown on drug abuse and all forms of antisocial behavior. Just ride the subway in New York to notice the enormous improvement. It has gone from being one of the scariest rides anywhere to become a pleasant, hassle free experience.
The major difference is the perception of inhabitants and visitors to these two great cities. In London people are scared for very little reason, whereas in New York they are not nervous, and neither does that feeling have much basis in fact. London is still safer than New York, both are not as safe as they should be, and neither is perfect. You are far more likely to be murdered in New York than London, but neither is as bad or as dangerous as they used to be. So, be properly cautious, don’t be silly, but go out and enjoy our wonderful cities. The Mayors are trying their best, but Bloomberg and Boris have something else in common, they are blamed for everything that goes wrong and won’t get too much credit for anything that turns out right. We need less government at every level telling us what we’re doing wrong and punishing everyone and more encouragement and inducement to do right.
Boris Johnson ran a carefully modulated campaign recently, in which his party machine pretty successfully stopped him saying anything of substance, and much to the surprise of many, including myself, beat the incumbent, Ken Livingstone.
I admit to preferring Boris to Ken on a political and personal level. Boris has an avuncular style in which he seems to be mates with everyone whereas Ken was a pretty miserable man. However it is becoming apparent that Boris is not on top of his brief whereas his predecessor was a notorious micro manager. There are details to be mastered when you run a multi billion pound budget, that Boris seems to prefer to delegate. That can work; witness the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, and the serious amount of delegation that he devolved. But the difference seems to be that Ronald surrounded himself with real experts while he had a nap, whereas, so far, Boris has seemingly hired some very suspect duffers while he is away earning his additional £250,000 ($500,000) per year as a journalist.
Mayor Bloomberg has a big advantage when it comes to running the police service in his native New York, which Boris doesn’t enjoy in London. Whereas the police budget rests with Bloomberg his colleague across the ocean only directly manages one third of the police budget in London. With money comes power, without power comes confusion and mixed messages.
The upshot for New York is that the Mayor, his predecessor, and his police service have brought down the crime rates enormously and made the city one of the safest in the States from its previous status as one of the most dangerous. The opposite has happened in London. In England’s capital city the perception is that the city has become totally crime infested with knife welding teenagers who are totally on the rampage.
I repeat that this is the common perception, but I am afraid it is largely a misconception. I have done some research to discover actual crime statistics and the truth is that the major crime figures in London are, in general, on the decline. There are areas in which crime has gone up, and some type of crime inevitably rise whilst others decrease, but murders in London are a fraction of the numbers found in New York.
Ken Livingstone, the last Mayor of London was quoted as saying, ‘This is the fifth year running that we have seen crime in London fall. Crime has fallen by 19 per cent with the fall in crime accelerating sharply. Last years 6.1 per cent fall in crime was the highest (drop) yet. The average annual fall in crime in London in the last three years has been 5.5 per cent”.
“The longer-term trends released today show how not only all crimes but the most serious crimes in London are falling”.
He went on to say, “Murders are down by 28 per cent since 2003 - from 222 to 160. Rape is down 25 per cent in five years. Gun crime and knife-enabled crime are both 22 per cent down in the same period. Robbery is down 23 per cent”.
These are the police figures that are reinforced by the government and all other official bodies, not those from the Mayor himself. They are accurate and verified.
Whereas the city of New York, once widely feared for its mean streets scarred by random violence, is on course for its lowest murder rate in four decades with this year's total expected to be below 500. This drop in the New York rate from its previously terrifying rate still leaves “America’s safest big city” nearly three times as dangerous as London even if the common misconception is entirely the opposite.
Since the beginning of the year the New York police department has recorded 428 murders compared with 579 for the whole of 2006. Only 35 of these deaths were at the hands of complete strangers while the rest arose from personal disputes such as romantic tiffs, gang warfare or confrontations with acquaintances.
Aided by increased material wealth and a decade of "zero-tolerance" policing, a maintained and steady decline in the Big Apple's violent crime rate has left the city basking in a newfound feel good glow of safety. Criminologists there imply that killings by strangers have become so rare that the police cannot reasonably be expected to reduce the problem further.
In that city of 8.2 million people, the chance of being murdered has fallen to one in 17,000. The figures are a far cry from the dark days of 1990 when the terrible high water mark record 2,245 people were murdered as an epidemic of crack cocaine abuse gripped New York.
The mayor, Michael Bloomberg, regularly heralds his city's re-emergence as "the safest big city in America" and has defended his ban on carrying hidden weapons, which enrages America's gun lobby.
The drop in crime took root under the leadership of mayor Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, the man widely credited with the zero tolerance policing and law enforcement who instituted a sweeping crackdown on drug abuse and all forms of antisocial behavior. Just ride the subway in New York to notice the enormous improvement. It has gone from being one of the scariest rides anywhere to become a pleasant, hassle free experience.
The major difference is the perception of inhabitants and visitors to these two great cities. In London people are scared for very little reason, whereas in New York they are not nervous, and neither does that feeling have much basis in fact. London is still safer than New York, both are not as safe as they should be, and neither is perfect. You are far more likely to be murdered in New York than London, but neither is as bad or as dangerous as they used to be. So, be properly cautious, don’t be silly, but go out and enjoy our wonderful cities. The Mayors are trying their best, but Bloomberg and Boris have something else in common, they are blamed for everything that goes wrong and won’t get too much credit for anything that turns out right. We need less government at every level telling us what we’re doing wrong and punishing everyone and more encouragement and inducement to do right.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
RIPA
Today we can explore an inexplicable contradiction. On the one hand there is the media uproar about Google Earth and their unfolding photo mapping of every one of our streets.
On the other hand there are the local councils using the RIPA laws to enforce laws it was never intended for. I don’t understand why people are upset about a mapping picture of their home but are not upset about someone spying on their lives.
RIPA is the name of the British law designed to help counter terrorism. According to the Home Office arm of the British Government The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to give it the full name legislates for using methods of surveillance and information gathering to help the prevention of crime, including terrorism.
RIPA makes provision for:
* the interception of communications
* the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications
* the carrying out of surveillance
* the use of covert human intelligence sources
* access to electronic data protected by encryption or passwords
* the appointment of Commissioners and the establishment of a tribunal with jurisdiction to oversee these issues.
One British council, Walsall, in the British midlands, has apparently used the RIPA powers 916 times since these were recently introduced. What a den of terrorism and threats to our state there must be in this otherwise insignificant corner of Britain! Let’s examine some of these examples of terrible danger being controlled by this new catchall legislation.
They all basically fall within the area of surveillance operations and include spying on a council employee who has been off work with a back problem for a lengthy period, to see if he is really sick, or is claiming benefits but is not deserving. I can see why the man might be naughty, even wicked, but a threat to our national security? It turns out that this was, in any event, a case of a mistaken identity, and the man really did have a bad back and as a consequence is still employed by the council who was spying on him.
The council is happy and content to publicly admit that the vast majority of the more than 900 cases of it using this power to snoop were its attempts to spy on suspected benefit fraudsters, trading standard infringements and anti-social behavior.
In another shocking example of the abuse of the powers taking place, there is Poole council, on the sunny Southern Coast of England. A family was spied upon for three weeks to confirm by the council to check whether the family lived within the catchments area of a school that they were seeking to send their daughter to.
Other councils have been inserting hidden cameras in their refuse bins to check whether their residents are over stuffing their bins, or not sorting their rubbish appropriately. This amounts to hundreds of thousands of bins.
This is a flagrant abuse of the RIPA laws which were not designed so that a nameless and faceless bureaucrat in a council office, with no appropriate training as a security officer, and no real vetting, could spy on people who have done nothing more than be suspected of over filling their waste bin, or fiddled their claim or made a noise. Those examples should be dealt with by the police and not by unqualified and incompetent twits abusing the power of the law against the common man and woman.
At the same time as these affronts and breaches of our liberty we have many people becoming genuinely upset because there will be pictures of their streets and houses on maps! How can they be so upset about this and so supine and unconcerned when civil freedoms are being eroded on a daily basis with barely a protest or even a whimper? Perhaps it’s because of who is introducing these laws and how it’s being done. There were no big announcements that this perfidious and unfair law was going to be used in this manner. If Maggie Thatcher had tried to bring in laws like these the left leaning, so called liberals would have rioted on our streets. But since New Labour’s seemingly soft and fluffy government introduced these misguided laws no one realized what was happening. This is not an example of the much disliked nanny state people commonly dislike, this is Stalinism writ large.
Let us remind ourselves that the RIPA laws were introduced to enhance the investigatory powers in the interests of national security.
The town halls of the UK argue that their full use of this law, including enhanced surveillance via CCTV is of benefit to the law abiding amongst us. Their argument being that if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from being spied upon. What about our privacy? What about our right to be considered innocent until we’re proven guilty of some offence? What about being told what we’re accused of? What about big brother being told to sod off, who needs this erosion of our liberty that we once, very recently, took for granted? Why don’t Her Government’s opposition, the Conservative Party, pledge right now to rid us of this terrible abuse of power when they win the next election?
On the other hand there are the local councils using the RIPA laws to enforce laws it was never intended for. I don’t understand why people are upset about a mapping picture of their home but are not upset about someone spying on their lives.
RIPA is the name of the British law designed to help counter terrorism. According to the Home Office arm of the British Government The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to give it the full name legislates for using methods of surveillance and information gathering to help the prevention of crime, including terrorism.
RIPA makes provision for:
* the interception of communications
* the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications
* the carrying out of surveillance
* the use of covert human intelligence sources
* access to electronic data protected by encryption or passwords
* the appointment of Commissioners and the establishment of a tribunal with jurisdiction to oversee these issues.
One British council, Walsall, in the British midlands, has apparently used the RIPA powers 916 times since these were recently introduced. What a den of terrorism and threats to our state there must be in this otherwise insignificant corner of Britain! Let’s examine some of these examples of terrible danger being controlled by this new catchall legislation.
They all basically fall within the area of surveillance operations and include spying on a council employee who has been off work with a back problem for a lengthy period, to see if he is really sick, or is claiming benefits but is not deserving. I can see why the man might be naughty, even wicked, but a threat to our national security? It turns out that this was, in any event, a case of a mistaken identity, and the man really did have a bad back and as a consequence is still employed by the council who was spying on him.
The council is happy and content to publicly admit that the vast majority of the more than 900 cases of it using this power to snoop were its attempts to spy on suspected benefit fraudsters, trading standard infringements and anti-social behavior.
In another shocking example of the abuse of the powers taking place, there is Poole council, on the sunny Southern Coast of England. A family was spied upon for three weeks to confirm by the council to check whether the family lived within the catchments area of a school that they were seeking to send their daughter to.
Other councils have been inserting hidden cameras in their refuse bins to check whether their residents are over stuffing their bins, or not sorting their rubbish appropriately. This amounts to hundreds of thousands of bins.
This is a flagrant abuse of the RIPA laws which were not designed so that a nameless and faceless bureaucrat in a council office, with no appropriate training as a security officer, and no real vetting, could spy on people who have done nothing more than be suspected of over filling their waste bin, or fiddled their claim or made a noise. Those examples should be dealt with by the police and not by unqualified and incompetent twits abusing the power of the law against the common man and woman.
At the same time as these affronts and breaches of our liberty we have many people becoming genuinely upset because there will be pictures of their streets and houses on maps! How can they be so upset about this and so supine and unconcerned when civil freedoms are being eroded on a daily basis with barely a protest or even a whimper? Perhaps it’s because of who is introducing these laws and how it’s being done. There were no big announcements that this perfidious and unfair law was going to be used in this manner. If Maggie Thatcher had tried to bring in laws like these the left leaning, so called liberals would have rioted on our streets. But since New Labour’s seemingly soft and fluffy government introduced these misguided laws no one realized what was happening. This is not an example of the much disliked nanny state people commonly dislike, this is Stalinism writ large.
Let us remind ourselves that the RIPA laws were introduced to enhance the investigatory powers in the interests of national security.
The town halls of the UK argue that their full use of this law, including enhanced surveillance via CCTV is of benefit to the law abiding amongst us. Their argument being that if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from being spied upon. What about our privacy? What about our right to be considered innocent until we’re proven guilty of some offence? What about being told what we’re accused of? What about big brother being told to sod off, who needs this erosion of our liberty that we once, very recently, took for granted? Why don’t Her Government’s opposition, the Conservative Party, pledge right now to rid us of this terrible abuse of power when they win the next election?
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Senegal
We are going to leave a very depressing inheritance to our children. My baby boomer childhood, which was shared by the generation born 1945 to 1955, has been blessed. Let us count the many benefits we’ve had. Unprecedented financial success enormously increased private ownership of homes, more cars and freedom to use them, allowing us access to an enormously enhanced road system. Our education system is immeasurably bigger and better resourced than ever before for a far bigger number of students. We have color television with hundreds of stations, computers, the internet, as much food as we can eat, several holidays a year, cheap air travel, and yet, this is all a great big emotional doughnut, hollow at the centre and almost totally unfulfilling.
Whilst this is the case on the surface I have friends who have followed a different, less obvious, less materialistic path and they seem happier. A lady I know has just spent a year in Senegal teaching the young local kids. She earned terrible money, lived far less comfortably in material terms and seems happier than most people I know.
About a decade ago a series of circumstances found me working as an Associate Lecturer in the Bournemouth Film School. Naturally this paid about 95% less than the going rate for making films, but my family and I were happier for those few years than I have ever been. Of course we had to live within those means, and that meant our life was simplified and less complex.
Is this a reflection on me and my friend, or a larger comment about the society we inhabit? I know that my energy, enthusiasm, ambition and drive compel me forward. But is this the drive to be a lemming or are some of us just hard wired to reach out as far as our arms can stretch?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting for one second that the school system in Senegal or the academic jobs I’ve had were in any way some kind of heaven sent sinecure of sheer wonder and joy. There were, and there always are, a million things wrong in every place. But there’s something good about being forced to live the simpler life, as long as you can avoid poverty you aren’t able to deal with.
I’ve often pondered what it must be like to work in the VSO and to give of yourself so completely. I don’t think it’s for me, as much as I wish I were built that way. Maybe I’m not good enough, or perhaps its simply because I’m too focused on me and not enough on others. I well remember working as a volunteer in a Moshav in Israel when I was a teenager. Moshav is the Hebrew word meaning a co-operative, semi-collective settlement whose members work together to develop the land, increase the economy of the state and defend the nation. The concept of the Moshav, along with that of the Kibbutz, was born out of a time when Israel was facing a severe crisis in its endeavor to solidify its position in the Middle East and provide a haven for world Jewry.
My job was to pick plums for the collective and next to me was a middle aged Israeli man who turned out to be a nuclear physicist. I questioned him as to why a man with his enormous mental gifts should labor next to me, the group’s diarist (what else?) when clearly we should both be doing the things that fate had ordained we were good at. His answer was founded around the spirit of socialist endeavor being for the common good. I had already decided that I was not a true socialist and was therefore unconvinced.
Perhaps the answer lies in the old saying, horses for courses. What is idealistic and wonderful for some, is, anathema to others. However I am suggesting that all our lives would benefit from a little simplification and occasional re-evaluation. We might all enjoy a little more peace with a little less stuff to clutter up our horizons.
Whilst this is the case on the surface I have friends who have followed a different, less obvious, less materialistic path and they seem happier. A lady I know has just spent a year in Senegal teaching the young local kids. She earned terrible money, lived far less comfortably in material terms and seems happier than most people I know.
About a decade ago a series of circumstances found me working as an Associate Lecturer in the Bournemouth Film School. Naturally this paid about 95% less than the going rate for making films, but my family and I were happier for those few years than I have ever been. Of course we had to live within those means, and that meant our life was simplified and less complex.
Is this a reflection on me and my friend, or a larger comment about the society we inhabit? I know that my energy, enthusiasm, ambition and drive compel me forward. But is this the drive to be a lemming or are some of us just hard wired to reach out as far as our arms can stretch?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting for one second that the school system in Senegal or the academic jobs I’ve had were in any way some kind of heaven sent sinecure of sheer wonder and joy. There were, and there always are, a million things wrong in every place. But there’s something good about being forced to live the simpler life, as long as you can avoid poverty you aren’t able to deal with.
I’ve often pondered what it must be like to work in the VSO and to give of yourself so completely. I don’t think it’s for me, as much as I wish I were built that way. Maybe I’m not good enough, or perhaps its simply because I’m too focused on me and not enough on others. I well remember working as a volunteer in a Moshav in Israel when I was a teenager. Moshav is the Hebrew word meaning a co-operative, semi-collective settlement whose members work together to develop the land, increase the economy of the state and defend the nation. The concept of the Moshav, along with that of the Kibbutz, was born out of a time when Israel was facing a severe crisis in its endeavor to solidify its position in the Middle East and provide a haven for world Jewry.
My job was to pick plums for the collective and next to me was a middle aged Israeli man who turned out to be a nuclear physicist. I questioned him as to why a man with his enormous mental gifts should labor next to me, the group’s diarist (what else?) when clearly we should both be doing the things that fate had ordained we were good at. His answer was founded around the spirit of socialist endeavor being for the common good. I had already decided that I was not a true socialist and was therefore unconvinced.
Perhaps the answer lies in the old saying, horses for courses. What is idealistic and wonderful for some, is, anathema to others. However I am suggesting that all our lives would benefit from a little simplification and occasional re-evaluation. We might all enjoy a little more peace with a little less stuff to clutter up our horizons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
