AGING PROBLEMS

 “Le problème avec l’âge” is the google French translation of the phrase ‘the problem with advancing years’ as well as ‘the problem with advancing age’, ‘the problem with age’ and ‘the problem with the age’. There are many nuances that can be applied to the word ‘age’ in both languages. The meaning of the word depends, of course on,  context. The English seems a bit more specific because of the adjective, transitive verb or definite article applied to it. The French language is more  reliant on nuance and context, although the French like to think it is more precise than English. Many French persons believe, incorrectly, that their language has more words than English, which is why it is more reliant on nuance and context. 

A frenchman can say “C’est l’âge” with a meaningful look or gesture and be given a response “Et oui. Voilà” accompanied by similar look or gesture. An English person can make a like remark, but it might not have the same Gallic gesture or knowing look to go with it. The English will or course have an implied irony, where necessary, and it can often be accompanied by an imitative gallic shrug. Indeed, the English know quite a lot about nuance. Perhaps even more so than the French, even although the word itself is French. 

But I digress from ‘le problème avec l’âge’. There are things happening today, in the second score of the twenty first century, that defy reason. It is as if a more thorough knowledge and accessibility  to  history, and the tribulations of the past, had no relevance at all. We are flooded with endless film, video, documentaries and explorations about the past as never before, yet what lessons have been learned, and what ameliorating decisions have been put in place. The problems of nationhood seem entirely unsolvable, and the finer aspects of civilisation seem unobtainable. Bigotry, prejudice, racism, inequality and isolationism seem to be the bedrock of human behaviour rather than being ground into dust as they should have been long ago. 

Considering humans have been on the planet for at least 100,000 years and the neolithic revolution (a.k.a. the First Agricultural Revolution, which was the transition form hunting and gathering to one of agriculture and settlement) was over 10,000 years ago in the Middle East of all places, one would have thought conflict in that region by now would be extinct. Herewith map of area concerned relating to 7500 BC.  So conflict not resolved for 9,500 years? What is wrong with these people? And for that matter the so called allies and peacemakers of the current age? If anything, we seem to have grown further apart. 

Current documentaries relating to research on the “American People”, in particular those of a very conservative and nationalistic disposition, make it clear that there is a great divide. It is all the sadder because so many young Americans have adopted a very narrow mindset and embraced biblical teaching. Their parents claim they are teaching their children to think for themselves, when in reality they are effectively brainwashing them, all the while claiming that the political left, and democrats in particular, are trying to brainwash them. Many are being home-schooled  and as a result are poorly educated. They are the very corps of the Maga movement. Their minds are seriously locked in to some form of overweening christianity, placing more emphasis on the bible all the while claiming the authority of the United States Constitution, which they have probably never actually read.  The divisions are so deep that I do not think the United States will actually survive and may well perish from the earth, and like Yugoslavia will dissipate into separate regions, creating a variety of sovereignties. Watching the various ridiculous separatist arguments in the US Congress on YouTube is an instance in point. The slavish adherence to protecting Mr Trump and his insanity in the face of his obvious criminality is  beyond any rational explanation. No amount of reality or actual facts have any meaning anymore. All one can say is “C’est l’âge, voilà”

Speaking of age, the deterioration of one’s physical being is difficult to take in. On the one hand, some of us deteriorate mentally whilst remaining more physically able, whilst for others it is the reverse. My physical capacity is dwindling, although I fail to fully take it in. I feel mentally able to carry on doing the same things but the body somehow does not always respond as I feel it should. My own fault I am sure, for failing to do the required exercise to keep the physicality up to scratch. So I ponder on the nature of nuance and the various meanings of words. Voilà, c’est tout. (Try to imagine the gallic shrug)

NEW COMMENT FROM BOB IN CALIFORNIA

Ed,

For what it’s worth, we’ve been watching Trump from here, and we have a few observations:

He’s not driven by policy

He is driven by hate

He’s not a good person at heart

He an evil person, who cares not about others

He seeks power

He will do wherever his whim takes him

He never makes a mistake

He deflects questions about mistakes and reflects blame on others

He is disdainful toward his followers

He has no problem hurting the voters who put him in office

He doesn’t know the laws applicable to his actions

He does whatever he wants

He is lazy

He surrounds himself with “yes” men and women, whom he calls “loyal”

He knows little of the world around him

He surrounds himself with incompetents, who are charged with doing his job as he plays golf and watches TV most of the time

He choses to surround himself with ethically and morally challenged people who reflect his own personal flaws

He is untrustworthy, but he demands that others trust him

He is incapable of comprehending many of the results of his actions

He is declining in mental capacity

He makes statements that are primarily false

He explains, when challenged, with “word salad”, many times saying the opposite things in a single answer 

We have 3 1/2 years left of this disaster, and no one knows the final result. Congress, with Republican majorities in both houses are too scared or overwhelmed by Trump to contest almost anything he does. His cabinet, consisting of many of Fox “News” personalities, is unlikely to have enough people who would vote to remove him pursuant to the 25th Amendment. And, his VP, who would replace him, is a person of little integrity and mental ability, who is in the pocket of a ".com” right wing billionaire.

 

Right now, the only bulwark against this is the courts. 

Yep, it’s as bad as it looks.

Bob

WHEN WAS AMERICA LAST GREAT?

There are a lot of people who have expressed views about the terrible damage the Trump administration  - more often now referred to as the Trump Regime -  is causing to the United States and consequently the entire world. I include the Senator of the French Parliament, Claude Malhuret from his speech to the Parliament on Tuesday the 4th March 2025 and several other European politicians; articles by columnists Johnathan Freedland,  Nesrine Malik and others in the Guardian; a variety of United States YouTubers, Meidastouch, Young Turks, Brian Tyler Cohen and others; as well as United States Senators Adam Schiff and Bernie Sanders; congressional Representatives Ocasio-Cortez and Jamie Raskin; and from MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and Jan Psaki. The list is very extensive. Polls have indicated that the approval rating for the President is at an all time low, and yet the Republican Party in America has somehow maintained a hold on power with an Al Capone clone as leader.  The parallels with Bertolt Brecht’s 1941 play The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui are irresistible. 

The hypocrisy of Trump and his followers is, without doubt, beyond brazen. His attack on a journalist asking questions about the decimation of weather services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency in relation to the Texas flooding, calling the journalist an evil person, when he, himself, had made false claims and criticisms about federal assistance  during hurricanes  in Florida and the Carolinas as well as fires in Los Angeles, was  outrageous and venal. He clearly did not see the irony, which is typical of his colossal narcissistic behaviour.

When most of the western powers ponder the question of regime change in Iran, they should be discussing more seriously the matter of regime change in the United States. Instead of kowtowing  to Trumpism they should be seeking to expunge it. Enough is enough. 

It was pointed out to me today by Oliver Cotton, that no-one has yet asked Mr Trump when was America Great. He claims to want to make America great again, but has never actually stated when it was last great from his point of view. This same would apply to his followers. When do they think America stopped being great? What will actually bring it  back to that greatness? Trump would have turned 16 in the middle of 1962, his mid teens; probably a junior in high school and in the penultimate year of John F Kennedy’s presidency.  Was that his great year, or was it 1968 with the comeback of Richard Nixon, when he would have been 22 and eligible to vote for the first time in a presidential election?

There is a lot of speculation about what era Trump sees as great America. The period just after World War Two, during which time the United States was the sole nuclear power, could be on his mind.  This did not last very long, but, nonetheless the Eisenhower years were economically successful. The dollar was the king of currencies at the time. The reality is that one has no idea what era Trump has in mind as he keeps saying whatever he does is the greatest achievement of all time, by a lot. Indeed, one has to agree that a convicted felon and adjudicated sex offender being elected president is the greatest con that has ever been achieved by any grifter. 
 
That however is the state of the United States, a country in complete disarray about where it wants to be in the world.  The leadership controlled by amateur incompetence in chaos. Also, there is no prospective leader on the horizon for either of the two main parties. The republican party may find itself in difficulties after the midterm elections of 2026, but the democrats must become a more cohesive group, and begin now to make clear headway against the Trump movement and break through the mendacity of Maga.  

BULLIES GALORE - WHEN WILL THEY BE BROUGHT TO BOOK?

Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize?  Brown nosing has reached a new peak. The entire world surely must be able to see through the scale of flattery accorded to Mr Trump by those who interact with him seeking a positive result in their favour. Nato leaders and now Mr Netanyahu’s cringing letters to the Nobel Committee, copies of which he ceremoniously presented to Mr Trump, all the while putting a ring in the presidential nose and shoving his own prime ministerial nose further up the presidential posterior. A remarkable feat of physical dexterity. Mr Trump preens with delight. His orange glow matches perfectly with Benjamin’s brown snout. Their meeting is reminiscent of the scene between Johnny Rocco played by Edward G Robinson and Ziggy played by Mark Lawrence in Key Largo (1948). One is selling counterfeit currency to the other. “Ya know something, I bet inside a two years they’re gonna bring back prohibition”. So here we have no change, one selling counterfeit currency to the other. Costa Gaza is still on their minds. A sleazy felon and an internationally indicted criminal/corrupt politician, laughing like movie gangsters over the spoils of war. Where is our Humphrey Bogart to take them out for a ride?

What Trump and Netanyahu are proposing is completely illegal and contrary to international law. They appear not to care one way or the other. Both countries seem to have withdrawn from the rule of law in any form, just as Mr Putin has in respect of the Russian State. How the Nobel Committee could have anything to do with such miscreants is beyond me as they are beyond the pale. The bullying of the Palestinian people has surely gone on long enough.  To expect an entire population to just move to neighbouring states or to be confined to an area practically equivalent to a concentration camp is an outrage. What has happened to the United Nations and to the leaders of the other western democracies that they are silent? When will they take a stand in this affair? 

A RAMBLING RANT ABOUT NEWS AND INFORMATION

In the light of what I posted last Saturday, I confess to be exasperated by the apparent  lack of understanding by journalist of how representational government works. I say ‘apparent’ because they seem to impose extraordinary expectations and powers on people they interview who hold political office, and who, somehow, should have magic wands to impose their policies on everyone else. Nor do I comprehend why government ministers allow themselves to be questioned as if they were actually able to perform these feats, whilst also being at odds, or even at war, with their party. The party’s executive branch is chosen to effectively put into action the policies of the party as a whole. That is presumably what they were all elected to office, but no one has a magic wand. 

Wanting a particular policy to be put into action is an aspiration, and getting it approved can be extremely difficult. Even if it doesn’t happen as expected, that is not necessarily a failure. A set back, maybe, but a forward movement nonetheless. If the policies then prove ineffective and fail to improve the lot of the electorate, then the electorate will find alternative representation. It’s not so much about being combative as being able to improve the situation. At least that’s what it should be. Having impossible and inappropriate expectations does not help and the world of Harry Potter is a fiction. 

Given the nature and manner in which this country seems to cling to a first past the post method of elections, and the diverse, multicultural and differently able composition of the electorate, is it any wonder that there are such different political views regardless of political affiliations and parties. We have seen and heard the alleged disputes between prominent members of all political parties. Journalists and pundits just love to comment and stir the pot when such differences occur, as if they’ve discovered some strange and devastating anomaly of “rifts within the party!!”. But that is the nature of party politics in a democracy. Rigidity, conformity and enforced discipline is what leads to dictatorship. 

The very word ‘uniformity’ screams out its problematic meanings, particularly when applied to party politics. It not only exposes rigidity but even goes so far as to impose a dress code. A recognisable uniform that emboldens and implies a kind of menacing solidarity. Brown shirts, black shirts, red bandanas, any number of chosen identifiers of rigidity, conformity and singularity of thought. That its not what democracy is about. Yes, some situations require uniformity, but strictly for purposes of identification and avoiding confusion. The military, law enforcement, team games, nurses, medical staff and any number of other organisations that, of necessity, must be easily identifiable. 

Political democracy is not like that. There are no nations without diversity, whether physical, mental or indeed aspirational. There is a general feeling that conflict is unnecessary or at the very least avoidable.  Causing harm is frowned upon and allowing harm is equally reprehensible. The differences are how we deal with it. We have to deal with disability, poverty, homelessness, illness and any number of misfortunes. As citizens we expect our elected representatives to find the right balance of compassion, empathy, order and economic acuity. In a reasonably informed society the pressure on representatives is heavy, and rightly so. Finding solutions to the problems of humanity is ever present and expectations run high. We all have opinions.

The problem of American influence, however, is causing some consternation. What has changed beyond all recognition is the almost free availability of transmitting information. Facts and opinions flow out at breakneck speed. Sadly, populist opinion seems to have overrun the new information highway. The vulnerable, who are generally poorly educated and resentful, (particularly in America) have latched on to people who have promised them a cure for all their ills. Nothing of the sort will be accomplished as it would seem most representatives (again, particularly in America) are gangsters and opportunists. In fact, what has happened is an explosion of violence, supported by fanatics and fraudsters. Division is the modus vivendi of most countries. Some have barely maintained any sort of civility. This is evidenced by the introduction of more repressive legislation on law enforcement issues, which may come back to haunt the parties that instituted the legislation in the first place. 

The economic disparity between high income, middle income and low income have widened as has the geography of wealth the United States. On the whole, it would appear that the States with the lowest incomes favour the Republican Party and by extension Donald Trump. The North East and West coasts with seemingly greater income and education seem to favour the Democratic Party. However, those with greatest wealth are favoured by the Trump Administration. 

The world is indeed turned upside down. Whereas from the late 18th through to the early 20th century, revolution began with the deprived  and oppressed. Now, these same groups seem to favour dictatorships. I am struggling for some kind of understanding of where we are. I am confused. 

I confess the voices I hear almost daily, in terms of news, are from the BBC. Their analysis and opinions have a certain style. They claim objectivity and impartiality. There is a view that their approach to interviews is a sort of cross examination for the benefit and interest of the listener. I do not entirely agree. It is a combative style of interview and more often than not there are far too many interruptions. I do not object to interruptions per se, but it is far too often an attempt to push the interviewee towards a specific answer (trying to put words in the mouth of the person concerned as if seeking to score points?) because of time constraints imposed by producers and programers. Most European politicians are quite used  to this style of interview; however, the Americans find it impossible to deal with and usually take umbrage.  Trump supporters and acolytes take grave exception and become offensive in the same manner as their hero who instantly attacks journalists for disrespect and fakery, no matter what the question. 

Trump advisors have been particularly sharp and rude to Victoria Derbyshire and Sarah Montague. I do find these two a bit worrying myself, as I feel they are both a bit towing the line. Far too supporting of an establishment point of view, despite their so called impartiality. I suppose it’s just the nature of the job. There is an element of arrogance that goes with it. Chris Mason, like Laura Kuenssberg before him, exhibits the same attitude as Political Editor. Does it go with the territory? They mean to be objective, but clearly are not. In my view, they often confuse analysis with opinion, although I’m sure would be offended by the suggestion. 

Relations between government and the press can be difficult, particularly in democratic governments. Government Press secretaries have quite a history. They can be outright propagandist or genuinely concerned with providing information  about the intentions of the government and the leaders movements and appointments. There is  the Joseph Goebbels school of propagandist at the extreme end. Further down the scale, so far as the UK is concerned, not that many press secretaries are that well known. We have had a few with very firm views with the likes of Alastair Campbell for Tony Blair, Bernard Ingham for Margaret Thatcher, Gus O’Donnell for John Major and Allegra Stratton for Boris Johnson. They are a long way from Goebbels. However, Donald Trump’s choices, Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, Kayleigh McEnany and Karoline Leavitt are pretty close to the German orator. Their willingness to spout outrageous falsehoods is breathtaking.  The reverence they appear to hold for Mr Trump is extraordinary. Nothing is beyond them. 

We all know that, in any event, a free press is essential. A relationship between the press and  government is equally important.  It is from this relationship that we get our information about the workings of a democratic government. It provides us with what we need to know. Just how good journalist are at doing it can vary. How far we trust the information we receive varies with how much we trust the source of that information.  Journalists and presenters have a lot to answer for. I continue to trust that my trust in the BBC is not misplaced. Or is it?