Home Building

Standing for my 8:50am train to work on Hindley station today, I saw a female Blackbird gathering nesting material.

Does she not know it is still February?

I know the picture is of a Robin, but I couldn't find a decent one of a Blackbird. If I do, I'll change it.

I'm Living With A Teenager

The 18th February 1994 at 8:04 in the morning, a nurse placed something into my arms that was to change my life for ever. Mr eldest daughter, Bethen, had been born to the strains of Meat Loaf's Bat Out Of Hell (Christine's choice!). She was starting as she meant to go on by giving her mother a rough time in labour and eventually being delivered by Cesarean section after untold hours of not wanting to face the world.

From that auspicious start, Bethen has continued to mark her own way in the world. An independent thinker, and, like me, not afraid to state her opinion, she can, at times, be a bit difficult to live with. Two highly self-opinionated people under the same roof can make for uncomfortable living, but to be honest, I wouldn't have it any other way.

However, today, she became a "teenager"! (In truth, I think she has been a teenager for sometime!). Thirteen!

Where have the years gone? The early days when she neatly fitted into the crook of my arm falling asleep, later when she would snuggle in on my lap before going off to bed, rushing up when I came home from work to tell me what she had done at school and the look of relief and love when I finally gave up smoking! It all seems like yesterday, and I treasure every memory.

But she is now a teenager! No longer the 'lets go for a bike ride' but now, 'I'm going to town with friends, and can I have some money!'. Everything now becomes a 'big' deal and 'you don't understand!'.

I'm beginning to think, will either of us going to survive the next seven years! I've decided, I think the best thing is that I leave home!

Britain Condemned On Extraordinary Rendition

Britain was condemned by Euro MP's yesterday for colluding in secret CIA operations to fly terror suspects to countries where they faced torture.

A report, approved in Strasbourg after a year long inquiry, said more than 1,000 covert flights operated by the US intelligence agency had flown into European airspace or stopped over at European airports after 9/11.

Britain was singled out for co-operating with the CIA by sending 3 British citizens on rendition flights.

The report expressed 'outrage' at a legal opinion provided by Michael Wood, former legal adviser to the Foreign Office, who said that "...receiving or possessing..." information extracted under torture was not, in itself, against international conventions banning torture, "...in so far as there is no direct participation in the torture". Mr Wood refused to give evidence to the European Parliament committee which conducted the inquiry.

The study follows last year's findings from the human rights watchdog, the Council of Europe, that the CIA ran a 'global spider's web' of rendition flights, with Europe as a major staging post.

The report found that at least 1,245 flights stopped at European airports or flew into the continent's air space between 2002 and 2005, and expressed 'serious concern' about 170 stopovers by CIA flights at British airports.

Well we can certainly hold our heads up high after this one.

Will They Ever Learn?

The inability to learn from past mistakes and a lack of understanding of the consequences of action are to of the main characteristics of the psychopathic personality.

It now seems that the White House has embarked on a path of "educating" the American people on the need to invade Iran. The evil of Iran has been a mantra for the US for some time now, but the time has now come to ratchet up the fear.

With similarities that are both laughable and chill the blood to the build up to the Iraq war, the US military has decided to present "evidence" of Iran's involvement with the militias in Iraq. A number of "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs were displayed to which three nameless (of course) "experts" confirmed were manufactured in Iraq.

The display appeared to be part of the White House drive that has empowered U.S. forces in Iraq to use all means to curb Iranian influence in the country, including killing Iranian agents. All means includes invasion!

It is clear to me that Bush wants to invade Iran and exercise the same principle of "regime change" that has been such a success in Iraq, - oh, and of course, knock out a nuclear complex or two.

It will be interesting to see if the American people will allow themselves to be suckered again and swallow the nonsense pedaled by this regime. Certainly I expect my government to resist this latest bit of adventurism to the hilt and not cravenly fall in line as they did last time.

I am sure that Iran is stirring the pot, but the place for that to be aired is in open at the UN, not behind closed doors in the White House. Can the American troops, their families and people afford to open up a third front, baring in mind the lack of success in Afganistan and Iraq. Moreover, can they afford it in cash!

As one of the "experts" said; "We know more than we can show," said one of the senior officials, when pressed for tangible evidence that the EFPs were made in Iran. Of course they do, and I'm living in Groundhog Day.

Unfriendly Fire - Part 2

The Sun newspaper has acquired and released a copy of the cockpit video of the 'friendly fire' incident I wrote about yesterday. From what I saw and listened to just adds to the concern.

It appears that the American pilots had no real idea where they were, and even though their controllers told them there were 'friendlies' in the vicinity, they still mistook the orange recognition flashes on the vehicles as rocket launchers. They also seemed to think that Scimitar armoured vehicles looked like flat-bed trucks.

What I also heard was the shock and grief from the pilots when they realised what they had done. Sobbing could clearly be heard.

I know that in the heat of battle, things can get very confused and accidents will always happen - it is, after all, part of being human, but that being said, it was daylight and visibility was reasonable, - and at the end of the day, taking time to check once more could have meant the Corporal Matty Hull might still be alive today.

Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted, and in this case, can save lives

Friendly Fire - Bloody Murder!

Lance Corporal Matty Hull of the Household Cavalry was on duty in Iraq in his Scimitar armoured truck in 2003 when a circling pair of American A-10 tankbusters suddenly opened fire. This so-called 'blue on blue' killing, also know as death by 'friendly fire', happened four years ago. The coroner's inquest is presently under way to finalise and determine cause of death.

Obviously, a tragic accident - or was it?

It now emerges that there is a cockpit recording of the incident which our America allies refuse to allow the coroner to play in court. This despite the tape's crucial importance, as it is said to contain 'incriminating' information, including the line: 'Someone's going to jail for this.'

Alas, our Ministry of Defence is complicit in a cover-up. Not merely because it will not let the Oxfordshire coroner flick the 'play' switch until America gives permission, but because, scandalously, for four years it has denied 'categorically' that any such recording exists, knowing this to be a lie.

If Defense Secretary, Des Browne can't ensure this tape is admissible when the inquest reconvenes later this month, he should be fired, himself, in a manner most unfriendly.

And what of America? It claims the right to try foreign nationals in foreign countries for 'crimes' defined by American law. Yet it requires Britain to extradite suspects to America, while failing to ratify a treaty that would let us try Americans here, such as those who kill our citizens. So often, British ministers plead with this administration to show some slight consideration that would make our support for the Iraq war easier, but, as usual, they are rebuffed.

The sadness is that with a Democrat Congress and - we hope - a less ideological President, American activism and interventionism could become a more consensual force for good in the world once again. But that might be too late for Britain. It certainly is for Lance Corporal Hull.

Drip, Drip, Drip

"From the perspective of the White House, it was smart to blur the lines about what was acceptable and what was not in the war on terrorism. It meant that whenever someone was overzealous in some dark interrogation cell, President (George W.) Bush and his entourage could blame someone else. The rendition teams are drawn from paramilitary officers who are brave and colorful. They are the men who went into Baghdad before the bombs and into Afghanistan before the army. If they didn't do paramilitary actions for a living, they would probably be robbing banks. Perhaps the Bush Administration deliberately created a gray area on renditions." This quote was made by Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's European division during an interview with the German current affairs magazine Der Spiegel in responce to a question about extraordinary rendition.

On how the White House viewed Europe after 9/11 he had this to say: "Elements of the Bush administration developed the view that European personal privacy laws were somehow to blame, that the Europeans are too slow. We can be very frustrating to work with. I always said, 'Stop preaching to them.' The Europeans have been dealing with terrorism for years, we can learn from their successes and failures. Its not a good spy story, but it's actually how you do this."

When asked how much the CIA was to blame for the amount of wrong information about Saddam Hussein and Iraq, he responded: "The agency is not blameless and no president on my watch has had a spotless record when it comes to the CIA. But never before have I seen the manipulation of intelligence that has played out since Bush took office. As chief of Europe I had a front-row seat from which to observe the unprecedented drive for intelligence justifying the Iraq war."

He was then asked about the critics in Washington who claim that the Germans, because of Curveball, an Iraqi dissident who gave information about supposed Iraqi biological and chemical weapons development, bear a large part of the repsonsibility for the intelligence mess. His reply: "There was no effort by the Germans to influence anybody from the beginning. Very senior officials in the BND expressed their doubts, that there may be problems with this guy. They were very professional. I know that there are people at the CIA who think the Germans could have set stronger caveats. But nobody says: "Here's a great intel report, but we don't believe it." .... The administration wanted to make the case for war with Iraq. They needed a tangible thing, they needed the German stuff. They couldn't go to war based just on the fact that they wanted to change the Middle East. They needed to have something threatening to which they were reacting."

At the time of Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations, Drumheller said: "I had assured my German friends that it wouldn't be in the speech. I really thought that I had put it to bed. I had warned the CIA deputy John McLaughlin that this case could be fabricated. The night before the speech, then CIA director George Tenet called me at home. I said: "Hey Boss, be careful with that German report. It's supposed to be taken out. There are a lot of problems with that." He said: 'Yeah, yeah. Right. Dont worry about that.'"

He then adds: "I turned on the TV in my office, and there it was. So the first thing I thought, having worked in the government all my life, was that we probably gave Powell the wrong speech. We checked our files and found out that they had just ignored it." ..."The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy. Right before the war, I said to a very senior CIA officer: "You guys must have something else," because you always think it's the CIA. "There is some secret thing I don`t know." He said: "No. But when we get to Baghdad, we are going to find warehouses full of stuff. Nobody is going to remember all of this.""

The full interview transcript can be found here, but it is yet just another piece of evidence of the White House's comfort with using lies. When is impeachment going to be started?

Penis Envy

Two pupils who drew a giant penis on a school lawn using weed killer two years ago can still admire their work from satellite photos now posted on the internet.

Despite the school re-seeding the area, the penis has turned up on satellite image search engines because a photo was taken before the new grass could conceal the appendage.

The unnamed pair of year 11 pupils from Bellemoor school for boys in Southampton, burned the 6 metre phallus into the grass as an end of term joke.

Staff, parents and pupils who log on can now see the image in all its glory.

A spokeswoman for the school said: "It was just one of those high school jinks. This was an act of vandalism that took place during the summer of 2005. Southampton city council re-seeded the area and the grass was re-grown by the beginning of the new school term."

Perhaps a monument needs to be erected to their ingenuity.

Silver Balls And Mirrors

George Bush has gone green! He now recognises that there are issues to be tackled and action to be taken to counter-act the effects of climate change.

The demand appears in a recent US memo to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It describes "modifying solar radiance" as "important insurance" against the threat of climate change. A more accurate description might be important insurance against the need to cut emissions.

The idea is to either put large solar reflectors out into space or clouds of reflective small particles into the upper atmosphere. The technology for the first idea is, at least, 50 years into the future, and the second idea would have the side effect of killing off the ozone layer for good.

Other ideas include spraying sea-water into the air (ensuring that any country downwind is likely to suffer crop failure and drought). Another idea would be to inject sulphate particles into the atmosphere with the likelihood of disrupted rainfall patterns. All these fixes appear more expensive than cutting the amount of energy we consume. None reduces the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threatens to acidify the oceans, with grave consequences for the food chain.

The demand that money and research be diverted into these quixotic solutions is another indication that Bush's avowed conversion to the cause of cutting emissions is illusory. He is simply drumming up new business for his chums. In his State Of The Union, he called for raising the government's mandatory target for alternative transport fuels fivefold. This is wonderful news for the grain barons of the red states, who will grow the maize and rapeseed that will be turned into biofuel. It's a catastrophe for everyone else. With only 5% of Europe and the US's requirement for fuel comeing from biofuels, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation reports that using land and crops to feed cars has, already, raised world food prices, with serious consequences for the poor. Biofuels fall into the same category as atmospheric smoke and mirrors - a means of avoiding difficult decisions.

However, credit (no matter how small) where it is due. At least president Bush has publicly acknowledged the problem unlike Wag TV in the UK who are completeing a 90 minute 'documentary' for Channel Four entitles "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Its basic thesis is summed up in a statement from the company that man-made climate change is "...a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times. The truth is that global warming is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media ... The fact is that CO2 has no proven link to global temperatures ... solar activity is far more likely to be the culprit."

The director, Martin Durkin, had previously made a 'documentary' series for Channel Four in 1999, in which he peddled very similar arguments and therories. When the series was concluded, Channel Four was forced to make one of its more humiliating public apologies for the way scientists had been mis-represented in the series.

But with Bush's defection, the band of quacks making these claims is diminishing fast. Now the oil and coal companies that support such people have changed their target. Instead of trying to persuade us that man-made global warming is a myth, they are seeking to divert us into doing everything except the one thing that has to happen: reducing our consumption of fuel. It is another species of denial.

George Bush's purpose - to insulate these companies from the need to cut production - is unchanged. He has simply found a new way of framing the argument.

Happy New Year

Repaired Pipe, originally uploaded by markhsal.

A good start to the year - a blocked drain!

The blockage is now clear - finally, but the potential for more is still high as the drains have developed faulty joints (a bit like me), so we are waiting for our insurance company to agree to further repairs to add a lining to the pipe.

In the meantime, we have this hole on our front drive.

For the past week, we have been living with the sort of stuff that generally comes out of Blair and Bush's mouth! Not nice.

Well, That Went Down Well!

When asked about President Bush's plan to send even more American troops to be killed in the Iraqi civil war, Tony Blair said it "made sense"!

What an ever-present comfort our glorious Prime Minister has been to Bush! What a wazzock!

In a poll yesterday for the Washington Post and ABC, 61% opposed the plan, while just 36% backed it. In another poll by Associated Press and Ipsos, 70% of Americans said they were against sending more troops.

Interestingly and more significantly for the Middle East, there is now some real confusion and concern over Bush's intentions with the apparent threat to escalate the conflict to include Syria and Iran. Mr Bush, in his speech, warned that the US would "seek out and destroy networks" of insurgents moving into Iraq or based in these neighbouring countries. While US commanders insisted yesterday that this did not signal an intention to go into Iran or Syria, Ms Rice confirmed that all options were open.

Meanwhile, increased bi-partisanship in congress is increasingly making Bush appear more and more isolated. What a pity those Republicans had had the courage to denounce the White House idiot before now.

Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois and a long-term opponent of the war said: "We are not going to babysit a civil war."Even Hillary Clinton, the other Democrat frontrunner, who has been careful so far not to be too critical of the war, said Mr Bush "will continue to take us down the wrong road - only faster". Now there's someone who has been steadfast on her principles!

In my experience, military engagements only have a chance of succeeding if there is, at least, the perception of unanimity in the action and goal, but a fringe plan such as this stands very little chance with the present level of opposition.

Mr Bush, think (if that is at all possible) again, and this time listen to people who don't have a vested interest in perpetual war, but who offer seasoned and experienced advice such as those who made up the Iraq Study group and in particular, listen to those who have had direct experience of war.

Mr Blair - just shut up and leave. You are now becoming a major embarrassment to the UK.

Unhappy Birthday

Today, the Guantánamo detention centre will be five years old.

If You Are In A Hole....

STOP DIGGING!

President Bush has announced that 20,000 plus troops are to be sent to Iraq in an attempt to put down the insurgency and militias that have caused so many problems since the American led and British supported invasion.

The speech was a cleverly contrived show of humility for 'mistakes' in the past in an attempt to bring Americans on side again and committed to an engagement that will be longer, deeper and more costly in both dollars and people. This "new way forward" is designed to re-take the neighbourhoods from the gangs and militias, and then remain in those neighbourhoods to ensure the insurgents don't return. This will be done by joint operations alongside the fledgling Iraqi army and police.

Sounds good. Sounds reasonable. Who could argue with that scenario?

But this strategy is heavily dependent on the willingness and ability of the Iraqi government and armed forces to confront and disarm insurgents and militias. They will have to take on the militia of Moqtada Sadr - the largest, most powerful and the most murderous of the Shia groups, and one which controls much of eastern Baghdad, and with sectarian interests a prominent preoccupation in Iraq, how willingly will the predominantly Shia recruited security forces take on the predominantly Shia militias. I predict that it is going to get bloody!

Moreover, these troops are going to be fighting one of the worst forms of military action, - urban, house to house fighting. Dirty street fighting in some of Baghdad's poorest neighbourhoods, places where America's enormous technological advantage over its adversaries is severely lessened.

The neighbourhood bases for the soldiers are going to be very vulnerable to attack, and logistics re-supply hazardous.

Finally, there will be the problems of distraction. If it gets too hot for the insurgents in Baghdad, then they will up sticks and go somewhere else in Iraq. It will also be an opportunity for Iran to up the anti, knowing that America is now just about fully committed militarily. Nowhere was there any reference to the recommendations from the Iraq Study Group.

I am not impressed by the way he worded that bit of the speech where he said that the responsibility for past mistakes lie with him. The impression left is that it was not the policy that was wrong, but the implementation.

The mess is now so bad that what really needs to happen is for Bush to vacate the White House ASAP and someone with a bit of intelligence take over and can see a true way forward. What Bush fails to recognise is that more of the same that has caused this mess is not going to solve it. On the contary, things are going to get worse. People are going to die or be seriously injured because America is, unfortunately, in the hands of a President that can't take reasonable advice, and works off the basis of his own conviction - or should I say, - wishful thinking.

FOAD - American Government

The American government's path to totalitarianism and World domination continues apace. Not only does America feel it has the right to inspect my credit card transactions and any email I send, it has now decided that Britain is such a hotbed of global terrorism, that if I was stupid enough to want to visit this soviet clone I would have to agree to have all my fingerprints taken rather than the 2 presently demanded.

Why those of us who still live in the free world would want to visit America I don't know, but I'm sure there will be a lot less now. Shami Chakrabarti, head of rights group Liberty, said: "This must be the 'Keystone Cops' school of border control. Accumulating the fingerprints of millions of innocent passengers will not deter suicide bombers."

The right-wing mantra that "If you do nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear," is a nonsense in this case, because the implication of a false match can be so serious. Goodbye Las Vegas, hello Guantanemo Bay! Knowing how far the American government has gone to destroy civil liberties in America, this development has to be seen as part of that sinister trend.

There are also fears that innocent holidaymakers could be wrongly arrested. Simon Davies, of Privacy International, which campaigns against intrusive surveillance, said: "This maniacal proposal will turn thousands of law-abiding travelers into terror suspects.
"The technology will be far less reliable - anyone could be the victim of a false match. Be warned. A San Francisco Bay family holiday may easily become a nightmare."

A recent report by the civil liberties group Statewatch highlighted a Japanese study that tested 15 biometric systems and found 11 of them failed to detect 'false' fingerprints were being used in the form of a latex strip covering a person's fingers.

Although it is now probably too late, and certainly the idiot Blair isn't going to do anything about it, I resent that such a country as America that view civil liberties, freedom and justice with such low regard has any information about me in their database.

I'm sorry America, but the government you 'elected' is now so far beyond the pail, that I wish it would FOAD!

Ashes to Ashes

"In affectionate remembrance of English cricket which died at The Oval, 29th August, 1882. Deeply lamented by a large circle of sorrowing friends and acquaintances, RIP. NB The body will be cremated and the Ashes taken to Australia."

Australia's first victory on English soil over the full strength of England, on August 29, 1882, inspired a young London journalist, Reginald Shirley Brooks, to write this mock 'obituary'.

It appeared in the Sporting Times.

It was long believed that the real Ashes, a small urn thought to contain the ashes of a bail used in the third match, were presented to Bligh by a group of Melbourne women. In 1998, Lord Darnley's 82-year-old daughter-in-law said they were the remains of her mother-in-law's veil, not a bail. Other evidence suggests a ball. The certain origin of the Ashes, therefore, is the subject of some dispute.

After Lord Darnley's death in 1927, the urn was given to MCC by Lord Darnley's Australianborn widow, Florence. It can be seen in the cricket museum at Lord's, together with a red and gold velvet bag, made specially for it, and the scorecard of the 1882 match.

The text on the urn is as follows:-

When Ivo goes back with the urn, the urn;
Studds, Steel, Read and Tylecote return, return;
The welkin will ring loud,
The great crowd will feel proud,
Seeing Barlow and Bates with the urn, the urn;
And the rest coming home with the urn.

Of course, I'm talking about cricket, and inparticular the bi-annual round of Test matches between England and Australia. These series of matches have come to be called the Ashes series, and are generally a hard fought battle between the twofor theries forthe honour of winning or retaining the Ashes.

Eighteen months ago, England gloriously regained the Ashes by narrowly beating Australia in the series, - the first time England had won the ashes since 1987 when the team, led by Mike Gatting and including players like Chris Broad and Ian Botham at the top of their form, returned the Ashes from Australian soil. England won the series 2:1.

Since then, and up to the summer of 2005, it has been perpetual England gloom where apart from 1997, when England actually won a couple of tests (though Australia still won the series) Australia have comprehensively beaten us. Then came 2005, and a tough and gritty encounter leading to a 2:1 series winning result and the Ashes were safely back in safe hands.

Safe, that is, until the present series which has resulted in the first whitewash since 1921!

England had lost the First Test in Brisbane looking totally unprepared and hardly putting up a fight, but the series was lost in 1 hour of torture in the Second Test in Adelaide. Up until the last day, it had been a great match, nip & tuck all the way with England slightly the better. Then, in the space of 1 hour, with a respectable draw very much on the cards, England contrived to lose 7 wickets for just 27 runs! The Geneva Conventions should have been evoked! This was cruel and unusual punishment beyond human imagination.

The test was lost, and with it, the series.

Confidence was shattered for England, and of course, confidence was unassailed for Australia - they had pulled the brands out of the fire. They were unconquerable, and everyone knew it.

What now for 2009? I don't know and I'm too depressed about it to think that far ahead, but think about it we must, and moreover plan for it leaving no detail overlooked. Never again will England be so humiliated!

Choices

Spotting a man dressed and acting about 20 years below his apparent age got me thinking about the choices we make, and inparticular the choice to leave behind the past and move forward to the future.

Since the swinging sixties, successive generations have convinced themselves that they can postpone growing up and moving on. That, if they defiantly strike enough infantile poses, fall for the latest preposterous fad, or express opinions the rest of us have dumped long ago, they will avoid ever having another birthday. US psychiatrists call these people "adultescents"; at their best, they are Peter Stringfellow. The irony is that the very things most of us loved about youth - lack of responsibility, the illusion of freedom - are the very things that the adultescent ultimately deprives himself of.

Those who do allow themselves to make that change discover that they are more likely to become masters of their own destiny. Once you stop hanging onto your past like a drowning man to a piece of driftwood, you suddenly discover you have a future. You also discover that, rather than having fewer choices, you actually have a multitude of possibilities. Perhaps the single most interesting choice you face is what parts of your past to leave behind and what to take with you.

There are rules. It's perfectly respectable for a 40-year-old lawyer to pogo around in his room to Never Mind The Bollocks. It's a lot harder for the same man to swagger around slapping high-fives with every young person he passes. The first looks like fun. The second looks like a way of life that's no sort of life at all.

Like the Katharine Hamnett T-shirts that used to say, "Choose Life," make the choices that give you even more choices - that make life more fun, more challenging, and, above all, one a hell of a lot easier to live.

Bill Kristol - Prophet Extraordinaire!

On March 17, 2003, on the eve of our invasion of Iraq, Bill Kristol wrote the following:

"We are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N., and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam's regime. It will produce whatever effects it will produce on neighboring countries and on the broader war on terror. We would note now that even the threat of war against Saddam seems to be encouraging stirrings toward political reform in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a measure of co-operation in the war against al Qaeda from other governments in the region. It turns out it really is better to be respected and feared than to be thought to share, with exquisite sensitivity, other people's pain. History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts."

A few more samples of the sort of intellectual analysis from Bill Kristol are as follows:

April 4, 2003:

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

April 28, 2003:

"The United States committed itself to defeating terror around the world. We committed ourselves to reshaping the Middle East, so the region would no longer be a hotbed of terrorism, extremism, anti-Americanism, and weapons of mass destruction. The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably. But these are only two battles. We are only at the end of the beginning in the war on terror and terrorist states."

March 22, 2004:

"[T]here are hopeful signs that Iraqis of differing religious, ethnic, and political persuasions can work together. This is a far cry from the predictions made before the war by many, both here and in Europe, that a liberated Iraq would fracture into feuding clans and unleash a bloodbath. The perpetually sour American media focus on the tensions between Shiites and Kurds that delayed the signing by three whole days. But the difficult negotiations leading up to the signing, and the continuing debates over the terms of a final constitution, have in fact demonstrated something remarkable in Iraq: a willingness on the part of the diverse ethnic and religious groups to disagree--peacefully--and then to compromise. This willingness is the product of what appears to be a broad Iraqi consensus favoring the idea of pluralism."

March 7, 2005:

"Just four weeks after the Iraqi election of January 30, 2005, it seems increasingly likely that that date will turn out to have been a genuine turning point. The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, ended an era. September 11, 2001, ended an interregnum. In the new era in which we now live, 1/30/05 could be a key moment--perhaps the key moment so far--in vindicating the Bush Doctrine as the right response to 9/11. And now there is the prospect of further and accelerating progress."

November 30, 2005 (column titled "Pelosi's Disastrous Miscalculation"):

"All this made me think the 2006 elections could result in a Speaker Pelosi. I now think that unlikely. Pelosi's endorsement today of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq makes the House Democrats the party of defeat, the party of surrender. Bush's strong speech today means the GOP is likely to be--if Republican Congressmen just keep their nerve--the party of victory. Now it is possible that the situation in Iraq will worsen over the next year. If that happens, Bush and the GOP are in deep trouble. They would have been if Pelosi had said nothing. But it is much more likely that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less the same, or improve. In either case, Republicans will benefit from being the party of victory."

December 26, 2005 (column titled "Happy Days!"):

"If American and Iraqi troops continue to provide basic security, and if Iraq's different sects and political groups now begin to engage in serious, peaceful bargaining, then we may just have witnessed the beginning of Iraq's future."

It now turns out that this formidable and accurate analyst is to become a "star" columnist for Time magazine. Clearly, in right-wing America, the more you are wrong, the higher you climb.

Quotes are captured from Unclaimed Territory and Crooks & Liars.

Mark's Christmas Message

Kirkless Hall, Christmas 2005

It seems that it has been some time since my last post, and I notice that I have been given a swift kick up the bum by friend Junojen! In fact my last blog was almost a month ago, which in blogland, is quite a while.

However, I've not been idle over the past month, far from it. With the run up to Christmas, life has just got more and more hectic. A couple of weeks ago, I spent an enjoyable Saturday in Manchester with my eldest doing Christmas shopping (and spending a King's ransom). We had a lot of fun, and managed to escape back to Hindley before the crowds got too oppressive.

Last week, Christine and I joined some of my colleagues from work for our Christmas party. It was a great night out, and I drank so much even I ended up on the dance floor - I do believe there was a blue moon that night! We stayed overnight in a hotel overlooking Manchester United football ground - well I suppose you can't have everything!

With the girls in different schools, it has meant double the Carol services, so it was division of labour. Christine went with Jayne to her schools service and Christingle, while I went with Bethen to hers.

A couple of weeks ago I came down with the flu, which, as everyone knows, attacks men far harder than women. It was so bad, I needed to take some time off work, but I tried very hard not to show how much I was truely suffering.

Christmas is now almost upon us, and this weekend we will be putting up and dressing the tree. Christmas will have finally arrived at a certain house in Hindley. Christine is working this Christmas so I will be doing the cooking. Leg of Pork from a pig that grew up on a local free-range farm supplied by our favourite butcher on the market. The vegetables will also be local - we will be using as little supermarket produce as possible. Later in the week, when we will have been joined by our parents, it will be a fine joint of topside.

This is probably my last blog before Christmas, and so I wish all who find and read this post the best gift I can offer, the love of someone who loves you, and to know that no matter how alone we may feel we are, from time to time, we do not walk this world alone.

Have a peaceful and loving Christmas from Mark, Christine and the girls.

The End Of An Era

For the past few years, since the first time I discovered it, the Kirkless Hall Inn has been a regular finishing point for many a cycle ride. The first time I arrived, caked in mud, sweaty and decidedly thirsty I was made very welcome by Jill Jolly, the landlady and queen of the bar. That first day she served me a superb and refreshing pint of Summer Lightening and I was hooked.

Not only was the beer first class, but I later found out that their pub food was pretty good as well. For someone like me who is a relative stranger to the insides of pubs, this was a revelation.

The Kirkless Hall Inn has become the family's regular stopping off point, a place for us to relax in a beautiful spot. The half-timbered pub providing am eye-catching backdrop to the locks. A place where me and the girls have spent many a happy hour watching the bright and colourful canal boats as they made their way up from or down to Wigan. On hot summer days, the pub and the lockside would be buzzing with people also enjoying the environment. A truly wonderful place.

Jill & Bob Jolly, the landlord and lady were the people who worked tirelessly to ensure that welcome was always there. They got to know us very well, and were often interested in our exploits out on the bikes. Whatever condition we were in, and sometimes that was pretty mucky, we were always made to feel welcome. Mum had her 81st birthday lunch at the pub and it was a really jolly time helped by the kind attention of Jill & Bob.

Today was Jill and Bob's last Sunday running the pub. They retire this week and head off to pastures new. Jill wants to spend more time with her family and grandchildren. They will be sadly missed by us, and talking to others at the pub, they feel the same. They have left a very high standard for those who will follow to attain, and we all look forward to that with interest.

But to Bob & Jill, many thanks for your many kindnesses. For maintaining a good cellar and excellent food. Good luck for the future, you will be missed.

A Corner Turned

People of America have, I believe, taken their first steps to recover their country from the 6 year rule of the 'democratic tyranny' of the Bush administration. Brave America is still alive and is a cause for celebration.

When one considers all the damage that has been perpetrated by that small band of the priviledged few, the road back is going to be long and hard. But the first important step has been made.

The work towards the 2008 presidential election must start now, and Democrates have got to find an internationally acceptable and respected statesman to lead America back to the light. I don't care if he or she is a heathen and has a history of affairs on the side, - all that counts is that he or she is intelligent, wise and can command respect.

America, enjoy your moment of movement back to the free world, but don't rest too long on your laurels, there is an emmense amount of work yet to do.

Two Jays

Surely one Jay is enough! Looks a bit low in the water at the back end!

Thank Goodness For Guantanamo Bay

Thank you, America. George Bush, you are a saint. I take it all back.

John Negroponte, George Bush's Director of National Intelligence, has said that the 'High-Value Terrorist Detainee Program' has saved Britain from at least 2 major terrorist attacks since 2002.

What really amazes me was the forward planning of these terrorist groups. One thwarted plot was an attack in 2003 on Heathrow Airport and the other, in 2004, a series of co-ordinated urban attacks. The detail of all this was known to the terrorists from before their kidnapping(sorry, - capture) in 2002.

Of course, groups like Amnesty International reacted angrily to the claims, saying it ignored allegations that detainees had been placed in stress positions, subjected to sleep deprivation and submitted to 'water-boarding' - partial drowning. Who cares about a little bit of discomfort for a clearly 'bad' person, as long as I'm OK, the oil keeps flowing and lots of people are making a healthy profit out the 'war on terror'.

Of course, also, I believe everything that the White House says, and there is a tooth fairy!

Guns Don't Kill People

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" This is the oft quoted mantra of the gun lobby, and those who see guns as a good thing to have in society, that allows then to wring their hands in anguish over the deaths by shooting of children in a school, but still advocate that guns are a good thing.

I have spent some time, this week, thinking about this, and my conclusion is that I just can't agree.

To my mind, there is a major difference between killing sombady with a gun and any other method, and that difference is the degree and level of subjectivity in the killing.

Guns allow for a degree of distance between shooter and victim. The shooter only has to point a gun and pull a trigger. There is a degree of seperation between the method and the victim. The death, for the shooter, is less personal, easier and convenient. All that is required is to squeeze a trigger. Other forms of violent death, generally require the killer to get up close and personal with the victim. Requires a certain degree of physical activity, and the ever present danger that the victim could turn the tables on the killer. Stabbing, strangling and beating all provide dangers for the killer which means that the gun makes a much more tempting tool to use.

This is why, I believe, that countries that have strong levels of gun control and have less guns, legitimate or illegitimate, in circulation appear to have less gun crime and death per capita than America.

I am left with the thought that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people and those people are choosing guns because it is easier!"

Another Peaceful Day In School

Five girls are now dead with another 7 girls in hospital fighting for their lives. Yet again, another American community is struggling to come to terms with the consequences of America's love affair with the gun.

Some straight-forward facts courtesy of infoplease.com.

Since 1996 around the world, 84 children have been killed in school shootings - 53 of them in America.

At the same time, 38 others - including teachers, janitors and police have been killed - 12 of those in America.

Of the 120 wounded children, 106 were in America and 5 of the 7 other wounded - again mainly teachers, were in America.

The gun lobby is clearly correct - America is a much safer place to be with guns. Children can feel secure as they wander off to school today.

Who cares if they don't come back in the evening?

Please Read This

In follow up from my previous post, I implore all to read this post. Many of the comments are worthy of reading as well.

America's Blackest Day Yet

September 18th 2006. This is the day that America chose to leave the civilised world and become one with all the totalitarian and terrorist states.

The country that has at its 'front door' the Statue of Liberty have turned their backs on that ideal. It has decided that the rule of law is meaningless and that the whim of the president is all that matters.

The senate has cravenly voted with the support of some 'Democrats' to allow Bush and his cronies to kidnap, hide, torture and generally deny any human rights to anyone they deam to be a 'threat' to the country, - including US citizens! It will allow Bush to demonise anyone who argues the opposite as being soft on terrorism. He has already said that Americans have a choice between 2 parties with differing attitudes to the 'war on terror'; "Republicans," he said, "understand the nature of the enemy," he said. "We know the enemy wants to attack us again," whereas Democrats "offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing."

One of the reasons Americans were so against torture was because of the way the British treated American prisoners during the war of Independence. Now they clearly want the freedom to do just that to others.

I am not American, and although I live presently in Blair's Britain (hopefully, for not much longer - we've managed to get rid of the poodle!), I thank God that I don't live in America - once, one of the most enlightened and moral of the free world countries. I feel sick, disgusted and afraid that intelligent men and women could come to the conclusion that being like terrorists will defeat terrorism. If allowed to remain, what else will these craven and cowardly people give to the world's latest dictator.

Terrorism Is Good!

When one looks at what Bush, with the support of weak leaders elsewhere in the world, has done, particularly in terms of foreign policy, one's immediate though is one of incompetence.

However, I am starting to revise that view. Having read Nat Parry's article in Consortiumnews.com my fear that all this actually being deliberately crafted and intentional has been shared.

But the downward spiral of the Iraq War and the worsening worldwide terrorism threat are negatives only if one assumes that creating a more peaceful and secure world was the original goal.

If the goal included changing the character of the United States as a free and open society and consolidating one-party Republican control over the federal budget, then the administration's policies would seem to be working like a charm.

[...]

If the U.S. does launch an attack, it seems clear that the terrorism threat faced by Americans at home and abroad will dramatically increase. For such reasons, many observers argue that an attack on Iran is unlikely.

But [retired Air Force Colonel Sam] Gardiner points out that not making sense won't limit what the Bush administration does. "The 'making sense' filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran," Gardiner writes.

It also could be that 'making sense' means something different for the Bush administration than it does for average Americans.

[...]

Those trends seem likely to continue, and even accelerate, as the "war on terror" remains a powerful excuse for transforming the United States from a historically free and open society to a frightened nation where citizens eagerly trade their constitutional rights for government promises of more security.

The worry is that those trends are gathering pace, with an elite GOP group benefiting from an increasingly compliant populace and opposition. It is fine that no more terrorist attacks take place in the USA, much better, surely, they are in places like London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Melbourne, Johannasburg, etc.

With the dramatic increase in the number of terrorists as a direct result of American policy in Iraq, they are going to have to ply their murderous trade somewhere.

I don't see the activity that would have happened back in the fifties and sixties that brought about a lot of the freedoms and liberty that America is supposed to stand for. No mass rallies at the cenotaph. Where is the Democratic party? What are they doing about this? Maybe Americans enjoy the economic and political restrictions that are piling up on them, but as per usual, what America wants, the rest of us have to suffer!

Thanks America.

Who Wins This?

• £561bn - What the world spends on arms.
• £32bn - What the world gives in aid.
• £275bn - Total debt of developing countries.

Something striking about those figures here in the 6th year of the 21st century.

The figures are published today by Oxfam, Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms who are calling on world leaders to tighten controlson the weapons trade.

The charities are launching their campaign as the UN gathers in New York. It will be considering a draft resolution on the treaty next month.

America and the Middle East are responsible for much of the rise in spending on arms, but some of Africa's poorest countries - the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, Botswana and Uganda - have all doubled their military spending in the past 20 years. Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan spent more on weapons than on health care between 2002 and 2003.

Clearly there is some money to be made in killing and destruction. I would have thought that by now we would have learnt better. My father used to say that "If you give a man some food, he has to put his gun down to eat it, and if the food is sufficient, then he won't want to pick it up". I know that can sound a bit 'kitchen sink' in its philosophy, but I think he nailed it with the idea that if all peoples were content in life, there wouldn't be the wars we have now.

Clearly, the only winners are those who pocket the profits and their friends.

Does He Have Any Idea What He's Saying?

In his address to the United Nations on the 19th September 2006, George Bush, President of the United States of America, framed his speech in the context of the 1949 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and declared that, "The words of the Universal Declaration are as true to day as they were when they were written".

After I had finished choking on my toast, I thought I'd better look up the Declaration just in case I had mis-understood it.

Among the 30 rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are these:

• “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

• “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

• “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”

• “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”

• “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”

• “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”

• “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

• “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

• “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

Though Bush is arguably in violation of many if not all the above-cited human rights tenets, he unblushingly cites the Universal Declaration as the foundation for his international policies, from the invasion of Iraq to his handling of the “war on terror.”

Even as Bush criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for stopping his planned kangaroo courts for terror suspects and as he battles members of Congress over his desire for harsh interrogation of detainees, he invokes principles that bar exactly what he seeks to do.

How does subjecting detainees to simulated drowning by “waterboarding” not violate the prohibition on torture? How does stripping suspects naked and soaking them with cold water in frigid rooms not go against the ban on “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment?”

How does imprisoning people without trial or even charges – and arranging “extraordinary renditions” of others to countries that torture – fit with the U.N. principle barring “arbitrary arrest, detention or exile?”

What about the U.N. mandate that a suspect must get a public trial before an independent tribunal and receive “all the guarantees necessary for his defence?” Instead, Bush wants U.S.-run military tribunals to convict and even execute defendants based on secret evidence that can be withheld from both the public and the defendants.

Bush also insists that his “plenary” – or unlimited – powers as Commander in Chief allow him to tap telephones and spy on Americans and non-Americans without obtaining any form of court warrant. Yet, the Universal Declaration objects to “arbitrary interference with [a person’s] privacy, family, home or correspondence.”

Bush’s hostility toward dissent – even declaring some thinking “unacceptable,” as he did at a press conference on Sept. 15 – and the eagerness of his supporters to smear anyone who opposes the President also don’t match with the principle that human rights include the “freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information.”

So, why would Bush invoke the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when he is flouting many of its core principles?

There would seem to be two possible explanations for Bush’s chutzpah: either he’s just reading a script without regard to the words or he’s confident that he can speak the opposite of the truth knowing that few people of consequence will call him on it.

Either way, Bush’s cavalier attitude in hailing human rights while simultaneously trashing human rights represents another classic case of Bush’s hubris, which is becoming the defining characteristic of his presidency.

The Religion Of Hate

If you insult my religion by claiming it is not always a shining example of peace and love, I shall wage holy war on you. That, in a nutshell, was the reaction of the touchier end of Islam to Pope Benedict XVI's use of a quote by Emperor Manuel II when having been under siege at Constantinople by the loving and all forgiving Islamic and merciful Islamic leader, Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I for 5 years between 1394 and 1402.

But that's the trouble with history, It's either a closed book or unacceptable to somebody or other.

Manuel II's view that everything Mohammed did and said was evil and inhuman, "such as the command to spread by the sword, the faith he preached". In fact, Manuel's son, Constantine XI died on the walls of Constantinople when 7,000 defenders were overwhelmed by over 100,000 Ottomans in 1453. During 24 hours after the fall of the city, a large part of the 50,000 population was raped, bespoiled, killed or enslaved by these followers of a loving and merciful religion.

Of course, the main point of Pope Benedict's argument has been lost in the Pavlovian response by yet another lunatic fringe of another religion. His thesis was simply that violence can never be justified by any religion. One has only to see the rabid fringes of Christianity in action to see that this sort of thing does not just reside in the Islamic extremists.

However, there is some justification for anger in his selectivity of examples. This month sees the 508th anniversary of the death of Tomas de Torquemada. As Inquisitor General of the Spanish Inquisition, this holy, loving and merciful man has become a byword for cruelty in the service of the Catholic religion. The "hammer" of heretics rode around the Iberian peninsular with an entourage of 50 mounted armed guards and 250 armed men. They didn't exactly have "Peace is our Business" emblazoned on their tunics.

Torquemada's enthusiasm for the torture chamber, rack and the smell of burning flesh is legendary, but there was no mention of this enlightened person by the pontiff last week.

The truth is, that when the Vatican and the Imams go head to head over events in their shared history, it's the most glaring example of pots calling kettles black. A little more calmness and a little more acceptance of each others view of history should be the real order of the day.

No Longer Soldiers!

Apparently, over the past few years the official US Army's "Soldier's Creed" has been changed, and those changes have meant, I believe, a change in the approach American soldiers and the military have applied to their "mission". The original creed was drawn up in the late sixties, early seventies to prevent anymore Viet Nam atrocities. That creed is as follows:

"I am am American soldier. I am a member of the United States Army - a protector of the greatest nation on earth. Because I am proud of the uniform I wear, I will always act in ways creditable to the military service and the nation that it is sworn to guard.... No matter what the situation I am in, I will never do anything for pleasure, profit or personal safety which will disgrace my uniform, my unit or my country. I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions, disgraceful to themselves and the uniform. I am proud of my country and its flag. I will try to make the people of this nation proud of the service I represent for I am an American soldier."

Now there is a new version called the "Warrior Ethos".

"I am an American soldier. I am a warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live with the Army values. I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade. I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I will always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself. I am an expert and I am a professional. I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat. I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life. I am an American soldier."

I can now start to understand why some of the atrocities of recent times. From Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to Bagram to the "black" prisons of the CIA, humiliation and beatings, rape, anal rape and murder are becoming so common-place, that they no longer make front page news. The Warrior Creed allows for no end to any conflict accept total destruction of the "enemy". It allows no defeat and does not allow one ever to stop fighting, lending itself to the idea of the "long war". It says nothing about following orders, it says nothing about obeying laws or showing restraint. It says nothing about dishonourable actions.

When insurgents placed babies in the road in Fallujah in an attempt to stop the American advance, "...placing the mission first" allowed the Americans to just drive over them on their way to "destroy" rather than defeat the enemy. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the activities in American military prisons and the hundreds of reported incidents against civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are part of what the US military is presently intended to be.

While I know that many other armies behave in a worse fashion than the US Army, none of those armies claim to be the "good guys", - shining examples of the best that America stands for.

George Bush sees winning the "war on terror" as harbouring into the world some 21st "shining age of human liberty". I'm not so sure. This shining age of human liberty is being bought in the dungeons of "black" prisons, under the fists of US Marines, on the exhaust pipes of Humvees. We are warriors, we are Samurai. We draw the sword, we will destroy.

And if you think about it, that is exactly what Osama bin Ladin said.

I Remember When...

Five years ago, I was on a training course in the middle of Manchester and had just broken for lunch. Sitting around, chewing over the morning's lectures and generally enjoying a relaxing moment, someone received a text message to say that a plane had flown into the World Trade Centre.

This was just unbelievable. It had to be a mistake, but if it wasn't, then a tragic accident. But then the news came through an hour later that a second plane had hit. My mind was in turmoil. I still couldn't believe it, but at the same time, the two reports seemed to confirm the truth. Confusion reigned in my mind, and seemed to be reflected by others I talked to. An American on the course said something which I am sure he has regretted ever since - "About time - bloody ugly buildings!" I'm sure that he, like all of us assumed it was some mistake.

I got home that evening and switched on the news - no mistake!

By that time, the 2 buildings were still standing, but very shortly, the first one fell. I was fascinated and horrified both at the same time. The apparent slow-motion of its fall was almost balletic and encapsulated a lot of beauty. My mind was refusing to accept that what I was watching was the horrific deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of people. That realisation only came to prominence when the second tower fell - and I knew then, the world will never be the same again.

Today, I refuse to make any comment of what has happened since. Today I remember all those caught up in this tragedy. Today, as I write this, a tear is in my eye and I refuse to wipe it away. Today, I, along with any other civilised person, stand to remember this event and my heart truely belongs to all those affected.

Why Bother About International Law

Recently, an increasingly desperate Bush & Co have been coming clean on some of the stuff they have been lying about for years. The latest being CIA run prisons around the world so that prisoners can be flown out of USA juristriction (with the active support of countries like Britain) to places where they can be tortured at length.

While thinking about that, a thought struck me. How would the right wing and the government react if this was happening in reverse?

Who would be the first to voice outrage and condemn some other country if they prosecute one of America's soldiers, the way Bush wants to prosecute his suspected terrorists? Will it be acceptable for Iraq or Afghanistan to violate the Geneva Conventions and hold trials without telling their soldiers what they are charged with or letting them see the evidence against them? Will it be considered fair for them to fly American soldiers to secret prisons and torture confessions out of them?

I am aware that these criminals (I do wish Bush and Blair would stop glorifying them by calling them terrorists) have captured soldiers and done terrible things, but it is imperative at this point in history, that we stand firm on the moral high ground. Dictators and tyrants around the world will be watching the 'greatest' democracy in the world and seeing how it behaves, and would feel justified in its repression by pointing to America as an example.

A major reason why we live by the rule of law is not so much that we protect the guilty, but to protect the innocent. If you want the 'other' side to treat prisoners well, then you had better make darn sure you treat your prisoners with respect and care. Guantanamo Bay has probably been the greatest recruiting sergeant for 'terrorists' ever.

The Rage Continues

Further to my post of yesterday, I came across Keith Olbermann's blog, - Bloggerman. His latest post was a far more eloquent critique of what the Bush cabal are doing than I could ever achieve. The post in question can be found here and I feel is well worth reading.

The article finished with the question:- "Have you no decency, sir?".... Well we all know the answer to that, Keith... George, Karl, Dick, Don, and the rest of the gang have proven time and again that they have no discernible sense of decency, no morals, no honesty, and no real concern for either the United States, its people or anyone else!

If You're Against The War, You're For Slavery

I know I'm an outsider, but being fully aware of the impact that America has on my life, I tend to follow what goes on over the pond, closely.

Secretary of State Rice compared the Iraq war with the American Civil War, telling a magazine that slavery might have lasted longer in this country if the North had decided to end the fight early.

"I'm sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold," Rice said in the new issue of Essence magazine.

"I know there were people who said, 'Why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves?'" Rice said.

The rest of the report can be found here.

Is it me, or is the Republican Party starting to panic? We've now had most of the major players in Bush's cabal come out with increasingly extreme and inflammitory language. Do they have any idea how this is playing in the rest of the world. As each sector and interest group is singled out and publically pilloried and attacked, the impression of a government moving ever more desperately becomes apparant.

I truely pray that Americans get it right this time around.

Stop Telling Me What To Think

I am getting heartily sick of newspapers trying to determine what I should read, and more significantly, what I should feel about an issue or story. It seems that more and more, reporters often refuse to offer their judgment about matters of fact, but they do offer their judgment about the potential political effects of events and actions. An essay by Jamison Foser includes the following:

"This is completely backwards.

Consumers of news lack the time, expertise, and, in many cases, ability to determine which of two contradictory statements by competing political figures is true. They often lack the resources to determine if, for example, President Bush's claim to have "delivered" on the promises he made in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is true. That's where news organisations should -- but, with depressing frequency, have not -- come in. They have -- or should have -- the expertise and the time to assess those claims, and to report the facts. That's what readers, viewers, and listeners need. That's what journalism should be all about.

On the other hand, as consumers of news, we don't need journalists telling us what the "political impact" of something is going to be; how it will "play at the polls." It's our job to decide that. It's our job to decide who we'll vote for and why; how we'll assess the parties' competing agendas and approaches to the problems we face.

Instead of telling us how they think we'll react, we need journalists to give us the information upon which we can make an informed decision. To tell us the facts, and the truth, and the relevant context. Then we'll tell them the political impact."

The whole article is well worth a read.

For me, I want to be able to have all I need to make my own mind up. Report the facts, and let me decide. I think I'm adult enough to recognise fact from fiction.

14 Points Of Fascism

Recently, American President George Bush alluded to the worsening situation throughout the Middle-East to the rise of 'muslim' extremism and likened it to the rise of Fascism in Europe during the first half of the 20th century. (He did fail, yet again, to mention the the situation was due in no small part to his lies and woeful and illegal actions in the region).

I thought it might be interesting to look at 14 indicators of a government on the verge, if not all ready, of becoming fascist. In his article, "Fascism Anyone?", Lawerence Britt compared the regimes of Hitler, Franco, Suhato and Pinochet and identified 14 characteristics commont to those fascist regimes.

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamourised.

5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10.) Labour Power is Suppressed: Because the organising power of labour is the only real threat to a fascist government, labour unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14.) Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Does any of the above remind you of anyone?

The Language Of Criticism

It had to happen eventually! As the Bush administration's ratings plummet, the language used to defend their lies and actions get more extreme.

In a recent speech to the American Legion, he said: '"The war we fight today is more than a military conflict," the president said. "It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation ... and on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism," the president said.

"As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before," he said. "They're successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to communists, and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be: This war will be difficult; this war will be long; and this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists and totalitarians, and a victory for the cause of freedom and liberty."'

Who said that he who uses Nazis and fascism in an argument, loses the argument! This has been a regular cry of the right wingnuts in an attempt to thwart criticism.

Moreover, to level criticism against Israel is to attract a charge of anti-semitism, yet I do not see much difference between what Israel does to its neighbours, and what Nazi Germany did in the 1930's. My argument is not with Judaism but with a sovereign country and its government, Israel. I think it is time for Israel to stop hiding behind the holocaust every time they are put under moral pressure and stand up and answer responsibly for their own actions.

We now have Donald Rumsfeld complaining that those who dare and are so unpatriotic to criticise the administration for their actions in the middle-east are similar to Nazi appeasers back in the 1930's. Do they have any idea how stupid and pathetic it all looks to those outside America.

With the support of a weak British Prime Minister - Tony Blair, America has made one of the biggest messes of the middle-east ever. They are NOT the ones, I believe, who can put it right. They are far too partisan for any of the major players to trust.