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.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
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.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Comparisons
There are two unfolding stories being paralleled, one has Iran firing more of its missiles whilst the world’s media simultaneously report and compare Israel unveiling its new spy plane today.
Just how you can compare the firing of long-range missiles which are clearly being prepared to fire at Israel with that country preparing a spy plane to track these events I have no idea.
Iranian state television reported Thursday that its government rejected international criticism and it had again fired long-range missiles overnight in another round of sabre rattling designed to demonstrate that the country could defend itself against any attack by the U.S. or Israel.
The broadcast stated that the weapons have "special capabilities" and included missiles launched from Iran’s naval ships in the Persian Gulf, together with torpedoes and surface-to-surface missiles. It did not elaborate on what these special capabilities might be.
The state television showed a brief video clip in which two missiles are fired simultaneously in the darkness. This launch came within hours of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warning Iran that Washington will not back down in the face of Iran’s repeated threats against Israel.
"We are sending a message to Iran that we will defend American interests and the interests of our allies," Rice said during her visit to Georgia on Thursday, at the end of her three-day Eastern European trip.
Meanwhile Israel displayed its latest spy plane on Thursday in what that country’s defence officials said was a show of strength in response to Iranian war games and missile tests.
The aircraft's super sophisticated intelligence-gathering technology and electronic warfare systems were developed by state-run Israel Aerospace Industries and installed aboard a US-made Gulfstream G550 business jet.
The plane went on display at the Israel Aerospace Industries headquarters at Israel's Ben-Gurion International Airport. The aircraft will also be shown at the Farnborough Air Show in England next week.
"It has the most sophisticated early warning and intelligence devices to date and is capable of reaching all destinations required by the air force," said Assaf Dargan, a spokesman for Israel Aerospace Industries.
He refused to elaborate, citing security considerations.
Among the missiles Iran said it tested Wednesday was a new version of the Shahab-3, which officials have said has a range of 1,250 miles and is armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead.
That would put Israel, Turkey, the Arabian Peninsula, Afghanistan and Pakistan all within striking distance.
Oil prices jumped on news of Wednesday's tests, rising $1.44 to $137.48 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
The tests of the long- and medium-range missiles does not mark a big step forward in Iran's missile capability — since very similar missiles have been previously tested. It’s the timing and location, which are significant and are aimed to send a message to Israel and America.
Iran has sharply stepped up the rhetoric of retaliation if attacked. This week, a top official of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Ali Shirazi, warned Tel Aviv would be "set on fire" in any Iranian retaliation.
The missile firing that Iran has been conducting in the Hormuz strait, in which Tehran has repeated its threats to block all oil traffic in response to any U.S. or Israeli military action.
Iran has long warned it would strike back for any attack against it. But it has considerably sharpened its rhetoric since Israel's military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean in June for a large military exercise that many observers have characterized as a dress rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Gen. Hossein Salami, the Revolutionary Guards air force commander, said Iran's war games this week — code-named "Noble Prophet" — "demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language," state TV reported.
"Hundreds and maybe thousands of missiles are ready to be fired at specified targets," he said Wednesday. "A small part of our defence options was put on display for the world today. Our real reaction against enemy threats will be quicker and stronger."
The West needs to "assess Iran's might accurately," added the commander of the air force of the Revolutionary Guards. We agree, particularly since Iran has also repeatedly sworn to wipe Israel from the face of the earth.
Just how you can compare the firing of long-range missiles which are clearly being prepared to fire at Israel with that country preparing a spy plane to track these events I have no idea.
Iranian state television reported Thursday that its government rejected international criticism and it had again fired long-range missiles overnight in another round of sabre rattling designed to demonstrate that the country could defend itself against any attack by the U.S. or Israel.
The broadcast stated that the weapons have "special capabilities" and included missiles launched from Iran’s naval ships in the Persian Gulf, together with torpedoes and surface-to-surface missiles. It did not elaborate on what these special capabilities might be.
The state television showed a brief video clip in which two missiles are fired simultaneously in the darkness. This launch came within hours of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warning Iran that Washington will not back down in the face of Iran’s repeated threats against Israel.
"We are sending a message to Iran that we will defend American interests and the interests of our allies," Rice said during her visit to Georgia on Thursday, at the end of her three-day Eastern European trip.
Meanwhile Israel displayed its latest spy plane on Thursday in what that country’s defence officials said was a show of strength in response to Iranian war games and missile tests.
The aircraft's super sophisticated intelligence-gathering technology and electronic warfare systems were developed by state-run Israel Aerospace Industries and installed aboard a US-made Gulfstream G550 business jet.
The plane went on display at the Israel Aerospace Industries headquarters at Israel's Ben-Gurion International Airport. The aircraft will also be shown at the Farnborough Air Show in England next week.
"It has the most sophisticated early warning and intelligence devices to date and is capable of reaching all destinations required by the air force," said Assaf Dargan, a spokesman for Israel Aerospace Industries.
He refused to elaborate, citing security considerations.
Among the missiles Iran said it tested Wednesday was a new version of the Shahab-3, which officials have said has a range of 1,250 miles and is armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead.
That would put Israel, Turkey, the Arabian Peninsula, Afghanistan and Pakistan all within striking distance.
Oil prices jumped on news of Wednesday's tests, rising $1.44 to $137.48 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
The tests of the long- and medium-range missiles does not mark a big step forward in Iran's missile capability — since very similar missiles have been previously tested. It’s the timing and location, which are significant and are aimed to send a message to Israel and America.
Iran has sharply stepped up the rhetoric of retaliation if attacked. This week, a top official of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Ali Shirazi, warned Tel Aviv would be "set on fire" in any Iranian retaliation.
The missile firing that Iran has been conducting in the Hormuz strait, in which Tehran has repeated its threats to block all oil traffic in response to any U.S. or Israeli military action.
Iran has long warned it would strike back for any attack against it. But it has considerably sharpened its rhetoric since Israel's military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean in June for a large military exercise that many observers have characterized as a dress rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Gen. Hossein Salami, the Revolutionary Guards air force commander, said Iran's war games this week — code-named "Noble Prophet" — "demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language," state TV reported.
"Hundreds and maybe thousands of missiles are ready to be fired at specified targets," he said Wednesday. "A small part of our defence options was put on display for the world today. Our real reaction against enemy threats will be quicker and stronger."
The West needs to "assess Iran's might accurately," added the commander of the air force of the Revolutionary Guards. We agree, particularly since Iran has also repeatedly sworn to wipe Israel from the face of the earth.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Missiles
Iran is now issuing direct threats at Israel and the Western powers. This is a story I have been following through my blogs over the last months. It is current and frightening. Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles Wednesday that officials said aimed to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. and Israeli attack.
The missile tests come immediately after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the possibility that the U.S. and Israel are possibly planning an attack on his country a "funny joke." Wednesday's missile launches took place in the Strait of Hormuz, a key strategic waterway which half of the world's oil goes through. Iran also threatened to eliminate all sea traffic in the strait if they were attacked.
Israel's military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean for a large military exercise in June that U.S. officials described as a possible rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, which the West fears are aimed at producing atomic weapons.
Iran says its nuclear program is geared only toward generating electricity, not weapons.
Al Alam TV showed three of nine long- range missiles being fired. Officials said the exercise was a result of what it considered threats from the U.S. and Israel. The barrage included a new version of the Shahab-3 missile, which are said to have a 1,250 miles range and is armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead. That would put Israel within striking distance, and Iran says they are targeting Tel Aviv.
The air force commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Hossein Salami, said the exercise "demonstrate(s) our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language".
"Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch," the Iranian, IRNA news agency quoted Salami as saying on Wednesday.
This story comes less than a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed fears that Israel and the United States could be preparing to attack his country, calling that possibility a "funny joke."
"I assure you that there won't be any war in the future," Ahmadinejad told journalists on Tuesday.
But even as Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have dismissed the possibility of attack, Tehran has stepped up its warnings of retaliation if the Americans — or Israelis — do launch any military action, including threats to hit Israel and U.S. Gulf bases with missiles and stop oil traffic through the vital Gulf region.
The U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that Wednesday's tests by Iran, provide "evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one. Those who say that there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a missile defense system perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims," she said while in Sofia, Bulgaria.
"The Iranian regime only furthers the isolation of the Iranian people from the international community when it engages in this sort of activity," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council.
"They should also refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world," he added, speaking from Japan where President Bush is attending the Group of Eight summit.
In late June, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, who was then the commander of the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, said any attempt by Iran to seal off the Strait of Hormuz would be viewed as an act of war. The U.S. 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, across the Gulf from Iran.
The Israeli exercise with more than 100 of its jet fighters and support aircraft, some 900 miles West out over the Mediterranean a couple of weeks back was widely interpreted as a show of force as well as a practice on skills needed to execute a long-range strike mission against a potential enemy, assumed to be Iran about that distance in the opposite direction.
Shaul Mofaz, an Israeli Cabinet minister, set off an international uproar last month by saying in a published interview that Israel would have "no choice" but to attack Iran if it doesn't halt its nuclear program. Mofaz has served Israel as a military chief and defense minister, and has been his country’s representative in strategic dialogue on Iran with U.S. officials.
On Wednesday, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev reiterated that Israel "does not desire hostility and conflict with Iran."
"But it is clear that the Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian ballistic missile program is a matter of grave concern," Regev said.
The missile tests come immediately after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the possibility that the U.S. and Israel are possibly planning an attack on his country a "funny joke." Wednesday's missile launches took place in the Strait of Hormuz, a key strategic waterway which half of the world's oil goes through. Iran also threatened to eliminate all sea traffic in the strait if they were attacked.
Israel's military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean for a large military exercise in June that U.S. officials described as a possible rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, which the West fears are aimed at producing atomic weapons.
Iran says its nuclear program is geared only toward generating electricity, not weapons.
Al Alam TV showed three of nine long- range missiles being fired. Officials said the exercise was a result of what it considered threats from the U.S. and Israel. The barrage included a new version of the Shahab-3 missile, which are said to have a 1,250 miles range and is armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead. That would put Israel within striking distance, and Iran says they are targeting Tel Aviv.
The air force commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Hossein Salami, said the exercise "demonstrate(s) our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language".
"Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch," the Iranian, IRNA news agency quoted Salami as saying on Wednesday.
This story comes less than a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed fears that Israel and the United States could be preparing to attack his country, calling that possibility a "funny joke."
"I assure you that there won't be any war in the future," Ahmadinejad told journalists on Tuesday.
But even as Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have dismissed the possibility of attack, Tehran has stepped up its warnings of retaliation if the Americans — or Israelis — do launch any military action, including threats to hit Israel and U.S. Gulf bases with missiles and stop oil traffic through the vital Gulf region.
The U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that Wednesday's tests by Iran, provide "evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one. Those who say that there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a missile defense system perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims," she said while in Sofia, Bulgaria.
"The Iranian regime only furthers the isolation of the Iranian people from the international community when it engages in this sort of activity," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council.
"They should also refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world," he added, speaking from Japan where President Bush is attending the Group of Eight summit.
In late June, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, who was then the commander of the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, said any attempt by Iran to seal off the Strait of Hormuz would be viewed as an act of war. The U.S. 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, across the Gulf from Iran.
The Israeli exercise with more than 100 of its jet fighters and support aircraft, some 900 miles West out over the Mediterranean a couple of weeks back was widely interpreted as a show of force as well as a practice on skills needed to execute a long-range strike mission against a potential enemy, assumed to be Iran about that distance in the opposite direction.
Shaul Mofaz, an Israeli Cabinet minister, set off an international uproar last month by saying in a published interview that Israel would have "no choice" but to attack Iran if it doesn't halt its nuclear program. Mofaz has served Israel as a military chief and defense minister, and has been his country’s representative in strategic dialogue on Iran with U.S. officials.
On Wednesday, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev reiterated that Israel "does not desire hostility and conflict with Iran."
"But it is clear that the Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian ballistic missile program is a matter of grave concern," Regev said.
Judgment
In my other blog, at http://tonyklinger.blogspot.co.uk I write entertainment related stories. Over the last couple of days that has caused me to research Walden Media and their film The Chronicles of Narnia – Prince Caspian and the original series of books it was based on, written by the British author, CS Lewis.
It transpires that both the Walden organization and the author are linked in a wish to deliver a religious or spiritual message to their viewers and readers. Walden want to teach their audience, in the guise of their being an educator. I have no particular problem with them being educators, as long as this intent is transparent and acceptable to the consumers.
This covert method at “education” strikes a similar chord as it is seems to be increasingly evident, however surreptitiously, within the framework of entertainment celebrities and their beliefs, and their choices of creative material.
An obvious example, cited many times, is Tom Cruise and his Scientology beliefs. Tom, it is now claimed, is the number two man in the entire church, which he appears to deny. He is accompanied in this church by John Travolta. He starred in the flop of the decade, and that’s tough competition, in Battlefield Earth. The Scientologist religion’s late founder, L Ron Hubbard, didn’t live to see the film based on his book of the same name. It is self evident that Ron was very strange and so are the beliefs of this Church.
I have spent some time looking at the Church of Scientology and to me it seems more bizarre than most religions. There are not too many other religious groups, which are formed by novelists such as L Ron Hubbard. I do recommend some of his science fiction books by the way, and the key word in this sentence is fiction. The beliefs in a science fiction type basis for religion, such as that which appears to be the case in Scientology, isn’t much more strange than the beliefs of the Mormons. However there is a difference that makes the Scientologists more threatening than any other recently created and fast growing religion. The key difference is that Scientology seeks to proselytize, sometimes by stealth. I know this to be true from personal experience. I have seen their underhand methods when an unnamed organization offered free educational opportunities to someone in my family in the USA. It was only later that the offer was linked to the Church of Scientology.
Another great running story of a similar nature is the Kabbalah lite followed by the pop singer and mega media icon, Madonna. It does not seem as if Madonna has done anything to influence others to follow her own spiritual path, but because of who she is there are bound to be many who will follow her path purely because she does.
Kabbalah, in its more conventional sense means, literally, “receiving” and in its true sense concerns the mystical aspects of Judaism. It is a set of extremely esoteric teachings to explain the significance of Jewish religious observances. It is so complex a belief system that learned scholars spend decades to explore it. Madonna and her friends seem able to grasp it with a minimal amount of study and some well-placed donations.
What a shame our celebrity examples don’t demonstrate better judgment in their spiritual journey.
It transpires that both the Walden organization and the author are linked in a wish to deliver a religious or spiritual message to their viewers and readers. Walden want to teach their audience, in the guise of their being an educator. I have no particular problem with them being educators, as long as this intent is transparent and acceptable to the consumers.
This covert method at “education” strikes a similar chord as it is seems to be increasingly evident, however surreptitiously, within the framework of entertainment celebrities and their beliefs, and their choices of creative material.
An obvious example, cited many times, is Tom Cruise and his Scientology beliefs. Tom, it is now claimed, is the number two man in the entire church, which he appears to deny. He is accompanied in this church by John Travolta. He starred in the flop of the decade, and that’s tough competition, in Battlefield Earth. The Scientologist religion’s late founder, L Ron Hubbard, didn’t live to see the film based on his book of the same name. It is self evident that Ron was very strange and so are the beliefs of this Church.
I have spent some time looking at the Church of Scientology and to me it seems more bizarre than most religions. There are not too many other religious groups, which are formed by novelists such as L Ron Hubbard. I do recommend some of his science fiction books by the way, and the key word in this sentence is fiction. The beliefs in a science fiction type basis for religion, such as that which appears to be the case in Scientology, isn’t much more strange than the beliefs of the Mormons. However there is a difference that makes the Scientologists more threatening than any other recently created and fast growing religion. The key difference is that Scientology seeks to proselytize, sometimes by stealth. I know this to be true from personal experience. I have seen their underhand methods when an unnamed organization offered free educational opportunities to someone in my family in the USA. It was only later that the offer was linked to the Church of Scientology.
Another great running story of a similar nature is the Kabbalah lite followed by the pop singer and mega media icon, Madonna. It does not seem as if Madonna has done anything to influence others to follow her own spiritual path, but because of who she is there are bound to be many who will follow her path purely because she does.
Kabbalah, in its more conventional sense means, literally, “receiving” and in its true sense concerns the mystical aspects of Judaism. It is a set of extremely esoteric teachings to explain the significance of Jewish religious observances. It is so complex a belief system that learned scholars spend decades to explore it. Madonna and her friends seem able to grasp it with a minimal amount of study and some well-placed donations.
What a shame our celebrity examples don’t demonstrate better judgment in their spiritual journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
