STOP ANALYSING AND GET ON WITH IT

Since the inauguration of Mr Biden and Ms Harris I keep seeing and hearing analyses of the current political drama “We need to talk about Donald”. He has effectively massacred the foundations of democracy in America. His America First and MAGA rhetoric has given voice to extremists and allowed them to come out of the landscape with impunity. That the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert have actually been elected to sit in the Congress of the United States is a sign that the cracks are beginning to appear. If not repaired, it may lead to massive subsidence.

I realise that there are issues around freedom of expression, but we also have the vital importance of the rule of law and the duty of care in support of democracy. They are the real foundation and pillars of democracy. Without them, there would be no freedom of speech nor, indeed, any freedom at all.  In any government or regulatory body, differences of opinion are expected and even healthy, as they can lead to consensus and compromise necessary to a progressive civilised society. When opinion moves beyond judgement to implacable certainty, things begin to go awry. If the desire to have one’s view accepted by all, to pursue the gratification of one’s own ego to such a degree, is to be the norm, then we have a serious problem.

There is a massive and extreme opinion that American’s are entitled to do whatever they want so long as you believe in brute force, mental or physical, and openly carry a firearm. So long as you fervently believe you are entitled to do whatever you like, wherever you like, and do not care about anyone else, your OK.  “Dont tread on me” is back with a vengeance. It was doubtful patriotism back in 1776 and can be just as poisonous as it ever was. It was fine for raising a revolution to redress colonial grievances, to promote the forming of a militia, but it is seriously out of date. It was a time when unity was of great importance.  Benjamin Franklin’s own flag ‘Join, or Die’ was yet more propaganda to bring the colonies together.

That was then, this is now. The don’t tread on me crowd are themselves treading all over the constitution and the rule of law. They do not want a country, they want just guns and no government, or none that will prevent them from treading all over everyone else with a differing opinion. They couldn’t spell “Don’t” then, and probably can’t spell anything now. 

 

What I am getting at, it is imperative that the Law Makers of America act now, with effective re-imposition of the rule of law. They must see through the impeachment process and, if not that, there is, in my view, ample evidence to support a criminal prosecution for reckless endangerment of the entire nation. It is not enough to sit and analyse why Mr Trump and his supporters do what they do. Unfortunately, it is time to impose civilisation on the renegades and try to make them understand the true intentions of the Constitution. The only way to do that is to crack down with the law. They might just get the point. Real freedom is not about Don’t Tread on Trump and his loyal fans, real freedom is freedom from the likes of Trump. Prevent him from holding public office ever again. It is your duty of care to the nation, to the whole world. 

One only has to look at Mr Navalny’s plight. Putin and Trump are one and the same. The Russian people have allowed Putin to be the egocentric leader that he is. The American people should not allow that to happen in their country. The Senate must do what is right. Write, phone email do whatever it takes to let your Senators know what you know is the right thing to do.

 

DOING THINGS WITH WORDS

Perhaps I should clarify the last paragraph of the previous blog Vaccines are a risky business. It should read:

 

In the meantime, let us hope there are no serious side effects to the current Trump16/20 vaccine (by that I mean the Harris-Biden vaccine). Like I said, introducing another organism into the body (politic), no matter how tested, is always a risky business; however, the COVID 19 stuff (by that I mean the current Pfizer/BioNtech and AstraZeneca vaccines) is great news (and should be taken as soon as possible)

 

Celia did suggest that I was not being very clear in the last paragraph, and that it might cause confusion. “Be more specific and you might change the title as well”.

Trying to be clever and funny is not as successful as one sometimes thinks, which is why 'stand up' is so difficult. One should not make the assumption that what one says is perfectly understandable to everyone else. What one thinks is subtle can very often be just plain dumb, in other words, as if not spoken at all. This is something I should know by now. I have been a student of Performance Writing and have a BA and MA in the subject. It takes into account semiotics and the works of J.L. Austin, Roman Jakobson, Charles Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure. I should know how to do things with words, but it’s so easy to forget.

Wittgenstein’s seventh proposition in his Tractatus Logoco-Philosohicus (which should be engraved on my memory thanks to the artist Duncan MacAskill) is very much to the point:

“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

In September of 2005 I was Duncan’s ‘roadie’ when he put together an exhibition in the Petrikapelle next to Brandenburg Cathedral. The Tractatus was the cornerstone of the exhibition. Here is a short piece from the event.

Some four years later Duncan and I returned to retrieve the exhibition to re-present it at Dartington College of Art.

The flowers pressed under the glass table top on the left were picked from the Grounds of the Buchenwald Concetration Camp which we visited on the way back from Brandenburg.

Sometime later I prepared a 10 minute video presentation with a view to further studies of words as sign, signifiers and identity.

 

So you might think that doing things with words is something that should flow.  To paraphrase:

“Write the words, I pray you, as I pronounced them to you, trippingly on the brain, but if you muddle them, as many writers do, I had as lief the local rag wrote my lines”

Apologies to Shakespeare. 

There is, however, something about which I can speak. One should never forget that words do things. Words are everywhere. They are displayed in all manner of ways. You will find them spoken in the air, floating on a texting mobile phone, tablet or computer screen, the smoke from skywriting planes, the pages of a book, billboards off the road and not just outside Ebbing Missouri, in cinemas and theatres, magazines and newspapers, the sides of trucks, trains and automobiles, on pavements, walls and boxes of all sorts. There is nowhere where you cannot find words. Just by being spoken, written or thought, once let loose, words perform all by themselves. Contrary to what some people would like you to think, people do understand the power of words, and because they do, words cannot be used carelessly.  In most instances, and in many particular circumstances, it is not too difficult to foresee the consequences of words, especially words which promote action. The words themselves are actions.  A minister by just saying “I pronounce you husband and wife” has performed an act of marriage. The mere words create a legal bond. By attending a wedding, even before the words are uttered, one can foresee the consequences of the event to follow.

And so, when the consequences of certain words are specifically pointed out, and when someone reacts to those consequences and proclaims to the world “This has got to stop! Someone is going to get shot!” then whoever continues to utter those words is more than fully aware of the consequences of repeating those words. There are opinions and facts, the power of words is a fact, not an opinion.

 

The comic opera playing out on the American scene has been witnessed by the whole world. We, the spectators abroad, have seen the effects of the power of words. Whatever flim flam is employed by the upper house of congress to avoid the facts and absolve the miscreant will diminish them in the eyes and minds of the entire world.

 

That’s another fact.

VACCINES ARE A RISKY BUSINESS

The current situation in the United Kingdom revolves around the effects of the Corona Virus and the unfortunate necessity of having to lock down. Viruses have an ability to mutate and do so in order to become more active and efficient at what they do in order to survive as a virus. They are parasitic organisms that cannot exist without a host, which in this case is the human body. They invade and take over cells off which they feed to reproduce. Their only reason for existence is to reproduce. The vaccine prevents them from spreading and the body’s immune system produces antibodies that can bind to the virus making them non-infectious and the body then sends T cells to destroy the virus, which is then flushed away. It is all pretty straight forward, providing one can find the appropriate formula to produce the appropriate organism to disable the virus thereby allowing the body’s immune system to operate successfully.

Introducing an organism into the body whose sole purpose is to disable another specific organism has its problems. There can be unintended side effects which may even exacerbate the effects of the virus itself, or create some other disturbance equally troublesome to the body.

Hence the need to be certain that whatever formula is injected into the body will perform in exactly the way it is meant to perform and does not deviate into other areas, giving cause for concern. There are also some viruses which are considered friendly viruses in that they can protect the body from dangerous bacteria. They are not antibiotics but, in some cases, it would appear, they can suppress bacterial infections.

The number of different organisms floating around the body is extraordinary. “In any human body there are around 30 trillion human cells, but our microbiome is an estimated 39 trillion microbial cells including bacteria, viruses and fungi that live on and in us.” So, like any ecosystem anywhere, the bodies are dependent on an immense number of organisms to maintain a healthy balance, just to stay alive. By introducing something new or alien into the system, no matter what the reason, can be dangerous. It is a risky business.

The reason I go on about this is because the behaviour of this current viral infection is a rather useful metaphor for the political situation of the last few years. The advent of Trump 16/20 has been very like Covid 19, this organism whose sole purpose is to reproduce itself. It cannot survive without a host and has been feeding on the body politic happily mutating and multiplying over the last four years. It has been sucking the breath out of our world and finding a ventilator, effective enough, to circulate the necessary quantities of oxygen enabling us to survive has not been easy.  Indeed, since the injection of the Biden-Harris Vaccine, it has thrashed and flayed around the body, attempting to resist the antibodies created by the vaccine, by introducing various mutations in the form of the Giuliani-Powell Variant and the Flynn Aberration, mercifully to no avail. But there are remnants of this infectious virus hovering in certain remaining organisms lying dormant in the darkest corners of the planet. There are of course other vaccines on the horizon, the Palosi-Shumer Inoculation, which it is thought might lead to an eradication of the virus and preventing any resurgence down the line. The Palosi-Schumer must be at least 66.66 % effective and it is still in the trial stages.

The coincidences of the arrival of Covid 19 and Trump 16/20 has been one of the worst set of infections since the 1919 Spanish Flu.  Let us hope a booster dose for both the Biden-Harris Vaccine and the Palosi-Shumer Inoculation in 2022 will be enough to finally contain any strains of Trump16/20.

In the meantime, let us hope there are no serious side effects to the current Trump16/20 vaccine. Like I said, introducing another organism into the body, no matter how tested, is always a risky business; however, the COVID 19 stuff is great news. 

WHAT DOES THE OLD MAN WANT ? WHAT DO AMERICANS WANT?

Just thought you might enjoy a short story

                

What is it about Fox News and other ‘conservative’ broadcasters that makes them so divisive? What is it that Rupert Murdoch’s company in particular seeks to achieve by bad mouthing President Biden and by promoting the idea that the general public needs to be afraid of any legislation that seeks to promote the public good? Why are Government welfare programs so terrifying?  What is it about a liveable minimum wage, health and safety in the workplace, affordable health care and insurance, appropriate unemployment benefits, disability benefits and guaranteed education that should make the American public turn their head away in horror? Why would one want to vilify anyone for proposing that those matters are rights and benefits for every citizen to acquire?

 

The gaggle of pundits on these broadcasts throw out insults and claim that the president is subject to radical ideas of socialism and is therefore anti American, without even telling their listeners what legislation they are actually talking about. What has President Biden proposed that is so left wing, divisive and anti-American?

Making people afraid is all they seem to care about. They have spurned any suggestion of trying to unite the public in any manner whatsoever. It is a continual barrage of vilification and insult. This administration is only five days old and the attacks against it are on the rise. How anti-American is that?

 

They are suggesting that he has thrown out America First in favour of foreign states. His first priority has been to take hold of the pandemic, roll out the vaccination program and save American lives. If that is not putting America first, what is?

 

Denying there is a pandemic? Ignoring its effects? Sticking his head in the sand and saying it will all magically go away? Not being straight and lying to the public? Is that what putting America First is all about?

 

It may be that 80 million plus people voted for President Biden and Vice President Harris, but the voices of the 70 million who did not are still being heard louder than the 80. You people have to step up, it’s not over.  They are like the terminator; they will not stop. You have to be more vigilant and raise your voices in every town hall around the country and vote out, at every single level of administration, those who would continue to spread fear, nonsense and lies.

 

QAnon and their ilk talk of taking back the country. Is it not about time the 80 did the same?

HEY JOE, WHERE YOU GOIN' WITH THAT PEN IN YOUR HAND

This preoccupation with Biden’s task as president has, in my view, an unfortunate feel about it. On the one hand it is clearly stated that he has a massive and daunting task of ‘reuniting’ the country, and on the other hand there seems to be some unrealistic expectation that he will pull out some magic wand and all will be well again. The expectations around him are so voluminous that he’s hardly being given time to breath. He is also, seemingly, in such a hurry that he sits down to sign a pile of executive orders on the very day of his inauguration, as if attempting to pull out that illusive wand by the stroke of his many pens. He should not pander to the immediacy his advisors seem to require. Take a breath Joe. Nothing will in fact change overnight. The only immediacy required is to deal with the pandemic at home, as well as having an eye and ear abroad. Saving lives is what matters around the world. The collateral upside is that in dealing with the pandemic, he will also be dealing with the economy. The pecuniary health of the nation follows on from its physical health. You have to be fit to get back to work.

So take a breath Joe, where you goin’ with that pen in your hand?

 

As to the departed golfer ensconced in Mar a Lago, he will at some point, in person or by representative, appear before the Senate for the Impeachment trial, unless it is withdrawn. Some senators are seeking to give him time to prepare a defence.  Frankly, I do not see that he would need more than a day and a handful of lawyers to prepare a statement in response to the video footage of the various speeches and statements made to the crowds assembled before him, at his invitation. The many words he spoke and the subsequent actions of the crowd are, in my view, pretty conclusive.

 

His defence will probably state that his words were entirely appropriate to the situation, not inflammatory and there was no intent whatsoever to incite. They will say that no one could possibly infer intent from the words spoken, and everything that happened thereafter, from the trespass and ensuing violence, was entirely the fault of certain people in the crowd, and more than likely engendered by provocateurs within the crowd from left wing organisations like Antifa and BLM. The first amendment will be bandied about ad infinitum and conspiracies will be scattered like confetti.

 

Just Boris

Martin Jarvis

So for the moment, let things run their course. Keep yourselves safe, get your vaccinations, and come out stronger in the spring. Give Joe time to do his job. Do not expect any miracles, except in the UK. The EU has not yet closed the ports and blocked off the tunnel. I am sure it’s tempting, but by some miracle, they are still prepared to listen and talk to “Just Boris and the Outlaws.”

Do we all remember Duty Free shopping?  

PROUDLY IGNORANT OR JUST STUPID

I am still pondering the American condition. I am perhaps being naïve and simplistic in my thinking, but I see videos of Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Marjorie Taylor Greene and many others continuing to propose that Donald Trump really won the election. I also noticed that during a session in congress, where it has been established that mask wearing in required, Greene refused to put one on. There is another young newly elected congresswoman, Lauren Boebert, going on about wearing a gun and showing off her prowess with a gun in various videos.

They all speak with authoritative voices of defiance and pride. They speak with a tone as if defying anyone to disagree with them. They are certain of the correctness of what they assert. They claim to be representing ‘the people’, but in fact have no regard for other people at all. The wearing of the mask is to prevent the spreading of the virus, to protect other people. To not pass it on. Is it that they are proud of their ignorance? Do they really think they are standing up for liberty? Or is it that they are just simply stupid?

Their call to political office, so they claim, is to stop the evil democrats from imposing socialism. Those terrible lefties who are traitors to the American way. They are there to stop things they don’t understand from happening. They are not there to actually do anything. They are against things; they do not appear to be for anything. It seems it is more important for them to be able to own a gun than to deal with the pandemic, or affordable health care, or any legislation that will protect the citizens from real poverty and failing education; or to improve international relations with other nations. They are condemning of society at large and suspicious of what they consider foreign. Rather than trying to create an equalitarian, safe and educated society, they see danger everywhere and hence the necessity to carry a gun. They clearly do not believe a peaceful society is possible, and they clearly prefer things to be that way, so they go to congress to help stop any progress towards a civilised society not just in the United States but in the world at large.

Had the founding fathers realised just what they would unleash by putting the 2^nd amendment into the constitution, I am positive they would have left it out, or at least been more specific as to the parameters allowing citizens a blanket right to have lethal weapons:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It was a time of revolution and unrest. There was no professional or regular armed force. There was no well regulated Militia readily available, so the emerging country called upon the citizen soldier to form its ranks. There was no defence department, or military stockpile of weapons, but most citizens had a firearm of some sort to hunt and gather food. Therefore, when called upon to form a militia, the citizen soldiers could bring their own weapons. A regulated militia however, does now exist, as do markets, shops, supermarkets and department stores. Goods of all kinds are readily available and there is no necessity to have a weapon for hunting and gathering food. There is also an organised and, for the most part, regulated police force to help and protect the citizen. It is therefore no longer necessary for every citizen to have a weapon. But the likes of Congresswoman Boebert do not believe that is enough to protect herself from harm. The necessity of openly carrying gun for her is to protect Herself from Others who might attack her. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone else. She is very clear why she wears a gun. It’s all about “me, me, me”, which is in keeping with the narcissism of Donald Trump. His behaviour is what is admired. The fact of his psychopathic behaviour and colossal egotism is a boon to the faithful who seek to emulate in in every way.

The likes of Ms Boebert do not see the downside. All her safe gun training does nothing to prevent anyone else with the same safe gun training from firing their weapon at people in response to whatever injury they perceived as perpetrated against themselves. More of the same “me, me, me’ mentality. And who is to say that Lauren Boebert won’t use her gun in the Capitol if she should feel insulted or slighted by some other congress person. 

She was elected to the United States House of Representatives from Colorado’s 3^rd District. She was elected by 51.27% of the vote. The population of the 3^rd District is 756,569, 71% of whom are classified as White. The district takes up nearly half the state of Colorado. There are seven congressional districts in Colorado, four of which have Democratic Party representatives and are, in the main, urban districts with populations of around 850,000 souls. They are, in the majority, white. The other three districts are much larger in area and have a greater rural population and a number of small towns that make up the urban population, again mostly white.

The 3^rd District has the lowest Median household income, between $19000 and $30000 less per annum than the other 6 districts. Ms Boebert is from the town of Rifle (appropriately) with a population of about 9700 people. She runs a local burger restaurant, the Shooters Grill. The following is a review from Trip Advisor. Most were favourable, but I thought this one, from a possible supporter, was interesting.

So the calibre of congressional representative from Georgia’s 14^th District and Colorado’s 3^rd are believers in the Donald Trump fantasy, with the least experience of public service, a very limited agenda and the arrogance of stubborn ignorance. What on earth are the electors thinking of in placing those two in Congress. I am sure there may be more representatives of this kind from areas of relatively low Median Household income, and even lower expectations. No doubt this is a prejudiced view, but please, something must be done about qualifications for public office.  Single issue under educated people should be discouraged from running for office. It is not good for their fragile mental health and certainly not good for the health of the country. It is a difficult area, when in a democracy anyone should be allowed to put themselves forward for public service.

It is not something one can do alone, and any friends and advisors should make people think twice about doing so, assuming the friends and advisors are totally honest and in a position to give truthful and accurate assessments of the candidate. Giving blind unqualified support is not always the best thing to do in certain situations. That of course never applies to one’s partner.

A POINT OF VIEW - I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE

On looking over the various comments I have made about Mr Trump, perhaps I have a very biased view of the current political situation in the United States. To begin with, I have a very simple approach to the general situation. Wherever one goes or looks around the world, there are urban and rural settlements formed by a diverse group of people. These settlements vary in numbers of inhabitants and in scope; but whatever the size of their population or acreage, they all have some form of marketplace together with a variety of housing and eateries, as well as places of entertainment and relaxation.  There will be places of worship to accommodate those who have some form of religion in their lives. There will also be places to deal with the sick, the infirm and the elderly, and to cap it off there will be edifices for organising and keeping the peace. The organising will either be under the auspices of a single individual or a group. How those organisers come into being will vary according to the history and evolution of the settlement. As the settlements expand or come together to form larger groups, either by linking some settlements together or amalgamating into a single large settlement, so the organisation of the populace will change and expand. 

How certain individuals come to be organisers of the group will depend on the general makeup of the whole group. Organisers will have either imposed themselves as leaders or have been chosen by others within the settlement.  It appears inevitable that some form of hierarchy may develop, again depending on the size of the group and the power some organisers, who have become leaders, exert over the settlement. Some leaders may force themselves on the settlement and choose a variety of individuals to help in organising the community. Other leaders and organisers may have been chosen by the population in general or by a select group of members of the settlement.

In short, however the organising takes place, it will require political decisions.  Those decisions will declare by what political system the settlements will be organised.  Thus the nations of the world have evolved over the centuries, having lived with and tolerated a variety of organisers and systems, into the current conglomeration of countries. We have dictators, both despotic and benevolent, simple monarchies, constitutional monarchies, republics, federal republics and in general, various forms of democracy with varying degrees of sophistication.

Whatever the size and political system concerned, the general population have come to expect certain propositions as central to their lives: access to decent housing, the ability to work, a sustainable living wage, access to markets, access to health care, freedom of movement, freedom of thought, equal treatment and justice. Nations have decided in their own way as to how to provide those general requirements to their citizens. Some do it better than others, some only provide a part of it and some fail to provide it altogether.

In every nation, given the variety of citizens within their borders, there will be differences of opinion as to how to provide those basic requirements. Those holding differing opinions gather into groups expressing views as to how to go about organising the provision of those necessities. Those groups develop preferences for the type and style of organiser they would prefer to have doing the organising. Some people put themselves forward as organisers, and as the saying goes, some people are born great, some people achieve greatness and some people have greatness thrust upon them. In any event, coming to agreement as to how things will be organised can be problematic, and when the problems between groups become overwhelming, there can be a split in the general population as to how to proceed. That split can be anything from a hairline fracture to a crevasse. One can be sorted with a bit of filler and paint, the other can require major excavating, underpinning and rebuilding. 

In dealing with a subsidence of that sort, one tries to ascertain the cause of the fissure in order to be sure that the underpinning and rebuilding will hold. The causes of subsidence can have as many opinions as there are surveyors, but on the whole, usually, a consensus is reached. The choice of investigating surveyors can, of course, make a difference. One usually tries to find as impartial a professional as one can to do the work.

So in looking at the current situation in the United States, there appear to be a multiplicity of cracks in the political edifice.  There can be little doubt the cause is Donal Trump. That is a fact, not an opinion. ( My bias). The Republican Party representatives in Congress are currently divided as those who still support the outgoing president, those who are dismayed by the actions of the outgoing president and are hesitant in their support, and those who actively wish to see the back of him. The Republican Party at large is roughly divided in the same way, save that there are die hard supporters of the outgoing president, some of whom subscribe to the Republican Party, but many, of no political party, who are merely supporters and acolytes of Mr. Trump. They are the believers, and amongst the believers are many fundamentalists no less committed than Islamic fundamentalists and perhaps just as dangerous. Those citizens are strongly conservative and, on the whole, tend to favour the Republican Party as their organisers of choice. Given that the Republican Party is in such a state of confusion, is it any wonder that they are in a state of paralysis, not knowing which way to turn in order to maintain the structure of the party. At present they do not appear to even have a leader. There are various seniors in the party, but they are finding it difficult to take a stand against the fundamentalist Trump supporters, for fear the whole structure will crumble. So they do not know how to deal with the pressing matter of the impeachment.

The Democratic Party is to some extent fairly united. They have just won elections and are riding high on the prospect of running the Government. There are hairline cracks to be sure, but nothing like the other major party. Their big problem of dealing with the pandemic and consequential economic fallout is more than somewhat the major issue. The impeachment of Mr Trump, although essential, is really a side show, but an important one. The Party will have to bring the country at large towards some form of co-existence, having been vilified during the last four years by Trump and Co.

The real job of unifying the country and bringing it back from the abyss is down to the Republican Party, bringing its splinter groups back to normal, whatever normal is. They must repair their own cracks. It is their job to rebuild and re-educate those lost souls, as Mit Romney said, by telling them the truth and making them believe it. Those people will never listen to President Biden or Vice President Harris, but they might to a real Republican leadership; a leadership that will work hand in hand with the new Administration to show that wayward group they have nothing to fear.

Biden and Harris will of course have to make the effort to get the Republican leadership on side and that is not impossible, at least I choose to believe that. Despite the fears engendered by Frank Shaeffer and others, I still choose to believe.

It would be nice though to paper over Donal Trump, apply a little filler and paint and make him disapper into the wall.

COVID, EVANGELISM AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

I can highly recommend reading an article by Roger Steer, published by Brave New Europe on the 12^th January 2021, entitled Management of Covid within Europe. The group states:

BRAVE NEW EUROPE is an educational website publishing expertise with a radical face and attitude concerning European politics, economics, and environmental policy. We promote critical thinking and the creation of an alternative to neo-liberalism. Our goals are to create the first pan-European educational platform to support a democratic exchange of ideas and to serve as an interface between experts and civil society groups supporting the creation of an egalitarian, just, sustainable, and social Europe.

This is the link: 

https://braveneweurope.com/roger-steer-management-of-covid-within-europe

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the article:

…“How the UK faced the crisis:

The UK has a depleted and under-resourced capacity in its healthcare and social care systems compared to other large European countries but it has large and capable pharmaceutical, biotechnology and university sectors enabling it to mobilise resources to take advantage of historical investment in vaccine research and production. In addition the UK lacked indigenous PPE and a national Test and Trace system (TAT) capable of mobilising quickly enough (even now it cannot cope).

It also has physically smaller houses making it more onerous to impose long-term lockdown conditions. Labour laws that give workers fewer rights and less protections than in Europe generally also mean that workers have not been able to self-isolate as readily if they suspect infection, for fear of losing income, and it has been easier to push the burden of Covid onto the low paid, self-employed and those on basic benefits

Secrecy and a highly centralised management of public messaging has also undermined confidence and generated mistrust as to whether everyone was being treated fairly and equally.”…

“This is not an international competition to show who is a better manager of Covid but a battle to prevent and control a pandemic about which the daily death count tells its own story and in which the well-prepared Far East (who had already suffered the SARS epidemic) has performed much better.”

It expresses a point of view with some clear research behind it and is definitely worth a read.

Whether or not the American cousins can gather any useful information from it is, of course, a matter for them, but I would urge them to read the Conclusions of the Article. Mr Steer has made 8 bullet point with which some may agree or disagree. I have some doubts about conclusion number 5, particularly as it relates to the current state of the Union in the United States. There too, I have had pointed out to me a piece to camera by Frank Schaeffer:

I did allude to this in my stereotyping of your average Trump supporter, but Mr, Schaeffer is clearly very conversant with the evangelical side of the American political scene. His rant if well worth a view. It will do little to change the views of the faithful, but it may strengthen the resolve of those who would prevent them from taking over the affairs of state.

As to that, the impeachment of Donald Trump seems to be gathering pace and support from members of the Republican Party. Let us hope there are at least 17 Senators together with the now 50 Democratic Party Senators, to make up the two thirds require to find Mr. Trump guilty of the various charges, should the evidence permit, of course. Unlike Mr Trump, it is right and proper that allegations made must be backed up with evidence. The question of incitement to commit an offence is not too difficult to ascertain. The main evidence comes from the, fortunately, recorded words of the President himself. On one matter, the phone call with Mr Raffensperger and on the other his closing words to his supporters just before they invaded the Capitol. His defenders will argue that the President can rely on the First Amendment to claim his innocence:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

From his point of view, it is very clear, freedom of speech, right to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As against that, the assembly must be peaceable. The video evidence shows quite clearly that the assembled crowd had come prepared for some form of confrontation as they had in their possession, crash helmets, pepper spray and they then picked up any implement they could find to break down doors and windows and strike police officers, resulting in a death. The event resulted in several deaths. It would be impossible for any impartial clear thinking individual to classify the assembly as peaceful.  As to Petitioning the Government to redress a grievance, a Petition is generally regarded as a document signed by a number of individuals who have a specific grievance. It is written down and presented to the powers that be, or oral argument can be made to the Government authority by those who have been grieved. The argument is usually backed up by evidence supporting the grievance, the written details of which are usually contained in the text of the petition. One would be hard pressed to define shouts of “Stop the Steal” and “Hang Pence” accompanied by vandalism, criminal damage and physical violence as presenting a petition, but I suppose one could say it is presenting a petition of grievances in an emphatic manner, but then again perhaps not. Does a mob qualify as a peaceful assembly presenting a petition, or is it a criminal enterprise intent on hanging someone from the nearest high beam? I’m only asking.

Of course, one can look at the establishment of the Religion of Trump. One could not possibly interfere with the exercise thereof. So that would naturally allow for the repetitive mantra of “Stop the Steal” “We woz robbed” and such exclamations in support. That must be clearly protected by the first amendment, so no fault there.

We then have freedom of speech. Mr Trump is perfectly at liberty to express and opinion. Had he limited himself to opinion, that would be one matter, indeed the opinion does not even have to bear any relationship to facts or the truth, it is after all, just a point of view; but there is a difference between opinion and action. I believe it has been long established that one does not shout fire in a crowded theatre. That would cause panic and lead to injury. By stating ‘we’ve got to be strong and not weak’, together with ‘we’re going to march to the Capitol’ etc. that was the equivalent to shouting fire in the theatre. That moves into the realm of inciting, particularly if the words are acted upon, and they were acted upon more than he could hope.

Mr Trump later remarked, “We love you, now go home” What else can one infer from that except that he knew full well what to expect. “We love you, NOW go home”, meaning, you’ve done what I wanted, it’s all over, you can go now, well done. How else can one view that remark? The President did nothing to try to stop the violence. He went home and watched it happen on TV.

Nothing that the President did on the 6^th January was appropriate, as he claims, nor was it protected by the first amendment of the constitution. The man is a sham and he should be dealt with accordingly no matter how close the end of his term in office. He should never be allowed to hold public office ever again, and if impeachment is the way, go for it.

A PAUSE FOR THOUGHT

Where do we go from here? The United States is in full speculation about how to deal with the outgoing President and how to launch the new administration. In addition, the roll out of the vaccine across the United States is progressing with variable efficiency across the country, as it is across the world for that matter. As to the United Kingdom, the spread of the covid-19 virus is seemingly out of control and the progress of vaccinations is being stepped up as much as supplies will allow, with varying degrees of efficiency across the country. The problems of Brexit are also being exposed in a variety of small ways. Lorry drivers crossing border have had their sandwiches confiscated as they contain fresh meat or other produce that it is now not permitted to be brought into the EU without the requisite permits. One Lorry driver going into the Netherlands questioned the confiscation of his sandwiches. The customs official explained the problem and said “Welcome to the Brexit, sir, I’m sorry”. This is just the beginning.

 

 

So again, where do we go from here? At some point, one assumes, there will be an end to the current pandemic, and there will be an end to the current lockdown. The social distancing rules will ease and human beings will be able to touch. Groups of friends and families will be able to interact, people will return to whatever work they were engaged in and businesses, shops, restaurants and cafes will open their doors. There will be changes. Some businesses may find that a lot of their workforce can continue to work away from a central office, thereby making considerable savings on rents. The so called High Street, already going through substantial changes due to on line shopping, will continue to evolve. Whether the large department store is still a viable commercial proposition is a bit up in the air at present. Indeed, is the big shopping mall here to stay or will it be replaced entirely by the superstore food giants, such as Carrefour, Tesco, Sainsbury etc. selling bits of clothing and household goods on the side. The boutique style of shop is less likely to survive unless it becomes primarily mail order. Delivery firms have grown considerably. Fleets of vans now roam the streets. Adjustments will have to be made. 

 

 

 

Owing to the pandemic, individual countries have been pretty much occupied with trying to come to terms with medical emergencies and facilities just in order to cope. There has not been time enough nor energy to cope with inter nation concerns, although some international relationships have been dealt with alongside the medical emergencies. Elections and trading agreements have cropped up in various part of the planet, and although some conclusions have been reached, the effects and ramifications of those elections and agreements are still far from certain. They have taken place amidst the struggles to contain the epidemic, and so are almost secondary to the primary concern about the spreading of the virus. Most, if not all, newscasts around the world begin with coverage of the epidemic. This is closely followed by the trials and tribulations of the United States Congress and its deliberations. That too will, at some point, be at an end, and the relationships formed thereafter in the western hemisphere might begin to show us a way forward. Those problems that have been festering below the surface, such as the effects of global warming and the activities of Extinction Rebellion, will not have gone away and will return with full vigour once the current medical crisis is done.

If nothing else, this health crisis has created a gap or a pause in the flow of what one referred to as normal life. There will be no going back to what was once viewed as the same old same old.  There have been strong instances of coming together as well as powerful instances of coming apart with, unfortunately, the prospect of further fractioning in the near future.

I choose to believe that the coming together may be better for us in the long run, and perhaps this present state of affairs is just something the world has to go through to regain some form of equilibrium.

THERE ARE ISSUES, WE NEED TO TALK

There are serious democratic issues being played out in the United States in the aftermath of the events of the 6^th January. The flagrant breach of the rule of law has sparked a flurry of activity by a number of different organisations. The desire to deal with the actual offenders who took part in the assault and the desire to hold someone responsible for instigating the assault are top of the agenda. To impose some form of judicial sanction is in progress. Some of the offenders have been arrested and no doubt will be charged accordingly and tried before the courts. As to the instigator of the riot itself, there are particular problems. Mr Trump still holds the office of President of the United States. Does he resign, thereby accepting responsibility? Should he be removed from Office by way of a declaration of Unfitness for Office under the 25^th Amendment of the Constitution? Should he be impeached and tried by the Senate? How is he to be held accountable?

Another matter arising, is how to deal with his continuing behaviour. His ‘twitter’ account, through which he communicates to his followers, has been closed down by the company. This is a privately owned company which has taken a view and has curtailed his freedom of speech. The reasons for doing so, as expressed by the company, ought to apply to a number of users of twitter, who use the service to propound equally worrying propaganda and information. I do not object to the curtailing of hate speech, or speech intended to incite, or reckless speech which can incite criminal activity; however, if curtailed at all it should be done democratically. Democracy is defined as believing in or practicing social equality, and there are a number of other equally dangerous social users of Twitter.

The issues, so far, are matters of justice and the first amendment of the US Constitution; but, in continuing with justice, what about the enablers who, by the silent acquiescence of some and the active support of others, allowed the President to persist in his dangerous conduct for two months. It is not as if it was not foreseeable.

On the 1^st December Gabriel Sterling, election official in the State of Georgia, made it abundantly clear in a press conference “This has got to stop!!” He called upon the President and other high ranking Republicans to step up and say something. I shared the video on the 2^nd  December in a Blog entitled Step Up To Values,  but here it is again:

On the 7^th December Jocelyn Benson, Secretary of the State of Michigan, was seriously threatened by a mob of Trump Supporters outside her home, some sporting rifles, which amounted to a criminal assault. I posted a blog about this on the 9^th December entitled The Suicide of American Democracy.

The inciting of, and acquiescence to, criminal activity was entirely foreseeable. So how far will the Democratically elected representatives and judiciary go in holding people to account. Are they prepared to clean out the stable? Although there has been a call to name and shame those Congress women and men and Senators who promoted objecting to the acceptance of the electoral college vote, on the day of the riot, it is unlikely that they will be censured. Indeed, some of them have recanted, but  I assume the principle of remoteness of damage will apply to aiding and abetting in this case.

In effect, dealing with Mr Trump will not have an easy solution, particularly if the intention is to put him out of action to avoid a recurrence in forthcoming elections.

In dealing with that, we then have the issue of the Trump Base, those people who gathered to his banner and have followed his playbook ever since his first campaign for President under the guise of the Reform Party in 2000. He withdrew from that race but did not withdraw from his ambition. On the 15^th June 2015 he formally announced his candidacy as the Republican Party’s candidate for President of the United States. That base, therefore, has been growing and festering for the last 20 years. He fed, for 15 years, on that festering dissatisfaction of a section of the American public that felt itself ignored, overlooked and bypassed on the way to their American Dream. So, in 2016 they flocked to his support, just enough and in the right places to put him in the White House. From then on, they gloried in his presence, and became the idolaters of The Donald.

Those citizens firmly believe they are the true Americans, protecting the United States, liberty and the Constitution. Their default mantra is “USA! USA! USA! USA!...” America First is their corps belief. A lot of them equate that view with God’s wishes. There is a very strong religious undertow in their ranks. It is on the whole a Christian religion, supporting Christ as well as Trump. They are also (not necessarily all, but most) Pro-Life supporters. They do not like people they consider foreign and are suspicious of people they see as strangers. They strongly believe in the right for themselves to bear arms, the right to their free speech, the right for them to be able to assemble. They believe in the right to their own justice. Their belief is simple and clear.

I know that I am stereotyping the basic Trump supporter, after all Gabriel Sterling and Brad Raffensberger both voted for Mr Trump in 2016 and 2020; but they came to question that decision. That does not stop them from remaining Republican Party members; however, the basic supporter does not question and expresses an aversion to ‘politicians’, which is why they support him in the first place. “He’s not a politician” they say.

In his five minute speech in the Senate, Senator Mitt Romney stated that the best way to show respect for the citizens is to tell them the truth. This is undoubtedly the right thing to do; but does the truth penetrate the mind of the listening citizen or is the truth something that reveals itself to the mind of the citizen. To the minds of many, the behaviour of the President since the pandemic, the lead up to the election and, particularly, since the election, has revealed a truth; that he is incapable and unfit to be President of the United States. His lack of proper response to the needs of the people, his obsession with his own ego and loss at the poles, and the shameful manner in which he treats anyone who fails to pander to his cravings has been a revelation to anyone not blinded by some extraordinary faith or adulation of Donal Trump.

Therein lies the problem. It is a shocking but inescapable conclusion that those basic supporters are serious and utterly sincere in their expressions of support for Donald Trump, no matter what he does. He can insult women, demean and berate those who question him, point out the “enemies of the people’, and his base soak it all in. He is heard to attempt openly to coerce and threaten public officials and still he is believed. He can claim fictitious landslides and false conspiracies and ‘his truth’ penetrates deep into the minds of his base. How does one replace his truth in their minds with any sort of rational thinking and actual reality?

This is one of the issues of the American democratic process.  Does one send them all to ‘re-education gulags’? Is it time for a Chinese style department of re-education, or reprograming along the lines of Orwell’s 1984? These are things the American population will have to ponder and resolve. Will the prosecution and conviction of Donald Trump, in whatever form it takes, be the answer? Or will that prosecution infuriate and entrench the base? 

This all requires a matter of fine judgement. The numbers of American voters who disowned Mr Trump are larger than those who supported him. Those Americans who voted him out are in turn supported by a very large number of people outside of the United States who have watched and listened to what has been going on; but will a global voice be enough to bring the base around?

There are serious democratic issues being played out in the United States. The leadership will have to find a solution and the most likely deadline is the midterm election on the 1^st November 2022, the first Tuesday of November, All Saints Day, the morning after Halloween.

What tricks or treats will Joe and Kamala have for us all.

BEYOND PTSD - LOOKING FORWARD

I have been reliably informed by Roberta Willis, former member of the Connecticut House of Representatives, Democrat from the 64^th District, where she served for 16 years, that they are in despair as a result of the behaviour exhibited by Trump supporters on the 6^th inst. There is a depression setting in as more details about the event are revealed and she believes the country is suffering from PTSD. I hope she doesn't mind my mentioning it.

 

I am sure she is at least buoyed up by the confirmation of Mr Biden and Ms Harris as the next leaders of the United States Executive Government, as most people are; however, on seeing and listening to the televised interviews of supporters of the outgoing president, some of whom actually took part in the assault on the Capitol, I can well understand her despair. Their claim to patriotism as guardians of American freedom and the Constitution is bordering on the unnatural. They appear to have an attachment to Trump which is beyond rational comprehension. Statements like “He is the greatest President this country has ever had”, “He’s fighting for America”, “He’s made great sacrifices, he’s sacrificed his golden years for us”, “The people in there look down on us, they think they’re the elite, they don’t care about us”, “You don’t belong here, get out”, and so on. Not one has actually stated just what Mr Trump has done for these overlooked citizen’s that is so great. Not one has described who or what Mr Trump is fighting or to what effect. Their language and speech are full of slogans and repetition, admiration and adulation for the Ex-President, and negation of any question raising the matter of what has actually occurred. The denial of fact is breath taking. It is not just denial of the fact, but denial of the person even daring to ask the question, hence “You don’t belong here, get out”. The stubborn certainty of their improbable beliefs is seemingly impenetrable.

 

Mr Trump revels in their blind acquiescence of his behaviour. They are the greatest audience he has ever had. He plays to them, and with them, like the best of grifters with an unlimited number of marks. He perhaps now realises that his latest stirring up of his audience may have gone a bit too far. His first attempt at conciliation was (I paraphrase) “We love you, but now go home”, he then tweets a rebuke, and finally making a video statement decrying the whole episode, claiming immediate action on dealing with the riot, and calling for calm, unity and acceptance of the new administration; yet, his body language, the manner in which he did it, the obvious reluctance in his reading the text from his teleprompter, spoke volumes. On a side note, even his daughter Ivanka got caught out having referred to the supporters as patriots in a tweet and then correcting herself by removing the word patriots. She knew full well what a mistake she had made.

 

There has been nothing about his behaviour since the 3^rd November 2020 that has demonstrated concern for any of his supporters or for anyone else other than his ego. The full blown egocentric and delusional individual was on display, yet none of his supporters seemed to notice. They lapped it up like mother’s milk.  They were so sure that their numbers would override any opposition, that the fact that the opposition was over 7 million votes more was inconceivable. Mr Trump keeps on about having the largest vote of any President ever. A Landslide. He could not countenance that anyone could have received more, and nor could his devoted adherents. It was inconceivable and therefore a fraud. “I got the biggest crowds; how can you believe anything else?” It was like an aneurism, a stroke inducing event and all of his maintainers and enablers have been sucked into the bubble he has created with such vehemence as a result.

 

The shock was so great that he may never recover. The shock to his base group has been just as lethal. They may never recover. Their tenacity to maintain the fantasy, which has become their equilibrium, could become even more entrenched. Unless some method can be developed to bring them back to some form of normal behaviour, one can probably expect more disruption and disorder in varying degrees.

 

So, is it any wonder at the frustration and despair one feels on seeing and hearing the continual denial and refusal to accept reality on the part of the Trump base? It is indeed a post traumatic disorder which one may never be able to cure. I can understand the anxiety induced by the spectacle of the 6^th of January and the aftermath on the American people. That coupled with the continuing pandemic is certainly enough to give even the heartiest citizen pause.

 

But! Do not despair Roberta et al, whether you realise it or not, a lot of the world is watching and willing with you. You are not alone. You are part of over 81 million strong and, if you include the rest of us, perhaps only half the population of Europe, that’s another 320 million. I think Joe and Kamala will be happy with that and will be able to bring some composure back to the United States. and that might be the cure.