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!
Thursday, July 24, 2008
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
