WHAT'S YOUR FAVOURITE PLATFORM?

I have just watched a film on Netflix entitled The Social Dilemma dealing with the current problems arising out of the growing use of social networking platforms and the ease with which people can communicate with each other on smartphones, which have become ubiquitous. It is not so much the usage of the device that matters, but the tracking, storing and sorting of the information keyed into the devices. Every individual, no matter their age, has become a broadcaster carrying their own studio in their pocket. The device enables a person to do just that. The joy of communicating with the whole world through text, voice, pictures and video. Sight and sound in the palm of your hand.

There is however, the downside, in that all that material sent over the aether is collected and attached to the producer of that material; thus enabling her/him to be catalogued and profiled, and hence a target/product for anyone seeking to make use of the collected, collated and profiled individual. The collectors, those who control the platforms, can, and do, sell the information to whosoever is willing to buy it. They do this either by selling the profile directly to the buyer, or by accepting the buyers’ advertising and agreeing to target those most likely to respond to the adverts. Either way the platform provider makes a lot of money. With that income, platform providers seek to control as many platforms as they can acquire, in order to obtain more income.

 

The providers do not care to whom they sell their “product”, nor do they care who uses their platforms. To them it’s all one and the same. Thus the aether has become a miasma. It is only recently that any steps have been taken to clean up the air. The realisation that some material sent out can actually be dangerous and cause great harm has begun to filter through the clouds of cash sweeping over the providers.

They have only just begun to realise they are enablers and perhaps might be held responsible for some of the danger and harm caused by the users of their product. The process of distancing themselves from any responsibility is now in gear and they are beginning an attempt to filter out some of the more high-profile users. Hence certain bans being imposed by Facebook, Twitter and others. But has the damage already been done? Is it too late to correct or rather heal the damage?

Human beings tend to take in learning and information in different ways and at different rates. Some find it harder than others to take in information let alone understand and evaluate what they are taking in. In just growing up, individuals acquire likes and dislikes, which creates their character and influences their behaviour. These are the very things the profilers gather up and sell to the highest bidder enabling them to target individuals like prey. It is only if the individual has developed a strong, clear independence of mind leaning towards common sense and careful thought, can they avoid being taken in. Nevertheless, anyone can be taken in at any time. It is just that human vulnerability can cause problems. Decency can too often be seen as innocence and taken advantage of.

And so, the disseminators of hate, prejudice and discrimination continue to thrive under the guise of providing education, information and assistance to vulnerable individuals. It is sometimes overtly done or with simple subtleties that can be effective if not instantly exposed.

As an example, Representative Matt Goetz of Florida’s First District, suggested at a committee hearing, that as a way of showing unity, all the members of the committee should recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag together, before getting down to business.. The Chairman said no and moved on (the pledge of allegiance having already been done earlier in the day). Now we have a situation where Mr Goetz can say “It would only take a couple of minutes. What’s the problem? How unpatriotic is that?”

Reciting the pledge of allegiance in unison in no way shows the unity he proposes, and Mr Goetz is fully aware of that; however, knowing the request would be turned down for the sham it was, he can later claim that he is more willing to do things for the sake of unity than any Democrat on the committee, and hence he is the more patriotic American. He is not after unity of any kind, save one that will echo his own voice. The trouble is there are many people who will believe him, particularly in his constituency and no doubt elsewhere by his ‘conservative’ colleagues.  He is one of the more deceitful and opportunistic members of congress I have seen and heard. If he is not grooming himself for a presidential run than I am clearly misreading the signs. He so easily slips into the bullying tactics of his mentor Donald Trump. He is so willing to support the building of the wall and exclaiming dubious statistics about the numbers of illegal immigrants who are supposedly responsible for most violent crime in America. So let us by all means recite the pledge about liberty and justice for all.

 

There you have it, the Twitter followers of Trump and Associates, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, all feeding off the platforms of the social network. It is, I imagine, the worry about the behaviour and actions of those very followers, that will prevent Mr Trump from being convicted by the Senate. I have no doubt that the majority of the Senators will be for convicting Donald Trump of the charge. There is overwhelming evidence provided by the man himself over the course of the last four years and in particular over the last three months of his tenure as President. This has been amply demonstrated by the impeachment managers, and barely refuted by Mr Trump’s defence team; however, the two thirds majority is missing. It will be the everlasting shame of the Senate to let him off. Even though they must realise that the whole world really is watching and listening, those Senators behave as if that is not the case, as if that did not matter. To them it is simply a local domestic matter, of little consequence to the outside world. It is their business and no one else’s. They seem to believe that whatever they decide will be done and dusted and out of the public mind in barely a week; but the Senate, the upper house of the United States Congress, is not your local parish council. Their decision, or lack of decision, will be derided by the entire world for a lot longer than next week. Unless of course the 67 is in fact reached and Mr Trump is consigned to oblivion. A tad harsh may be, but would we not be glad to see the back of him?

MEMORIES: WILSHIRE BOULEVARD AND THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

Popping down memory lane, I draw your attention to Ted’s Rancho. As a young man in the early 60’s in Los Angeles, a place one went to on the odd occasion was Ted’s Rancho at 18002 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu. It was just before you got to Malibu proper. At the end of Sunset Boulevard, where it meets the Pacific Coast Highway, one turned left and a few hundred yards along you came to Ted’s by the beach. There was a lounge area in the restaurant where you could sit in booths looking out over the Pacific and at night the waves came in below and the plankton created a phosphorescent glow lighting up the water as it crashed against the rocks and pulled back to the sea. Its own cascading light show. Those tables were usually full, but you did not go there just to watch the plankton. The lobster tails served on a plank, with mash potatoes round the rim with lots of butter and garlic was very welcome indeed. I cannot now recall it being as little as $3.75, but it wasn’t that far off back in the day. It might have been more like $5.00. The Rancho Special steak was pretty good too. Unfortunately, I now understand that where the Restaurant once stood, there is now an empty lot. It may have burnt down. This is very sad indeed, but things change. Further up the coast there is now a fine dining restaurant Mastro’s Ocean Club with Appetizers ranging from $20-$39, the cheapest steak is $50 and twin lobster tails will set you back $69. According to inflation calculators $1 in 1964 is about $8.43 in 2021 terms, so the price then would have been the equivalent of about $42. Nonetheless, it would be nice to know if anyone remembers the place, and whether my recollection is reasonably correct.

As to other changes, I seem to recall Truman’s Drive-In restaurant was on the corner of Wilshire and Westwood Boulevards, and I believe is now the Oppenheimer Tower. Across the street one block east on the corner of Wilshire and Glendon was Ships Coffee Shop, now the Centre West building. You could have a cheese burger, with onion rings and fries for less than $2.00 and a cup of coffee was 20c with free refills.

And of course, the very first drive-in restaurant I ever went to when I arrived back in Beverly Hills in 1956, was Delores. This is a picture from 1957.

This was followed by:

And this was before that happened:

WHERE WERE YOU WHEN....

I have recently come across a public radio station, Lumpen Radio, broadcasting out of Chicago, Illinois. (https://lumpenradio.com/schedule-shows/) On Fridays at 11:00 am (Central time USA) which is 5pm in London GMT, there is a program entitled “Hitting Left with the Klonsky Brothers”. In the early and mid-sixties, I worked for their dad at his book shop called the Book Fair, in Westwood village. The book shop is now a Starbucks, and painted beige, but some 57 years ago it was painted white.

There are certain questions people from all over the world can be asked which begin “Where were you when (name the world-shaking event)?” It does, of course, presuppose that one was alive and aware at the time the world-shaking event occurred.

Olivier Todd

I mention all this because on the 22^nd November 1963, I was at work in the Book Fair, behind the counter and chatting with a young man named Robert (a shop regular) and a visiting French journalist Olivier Todd. We were speaking of Paris and such things when a woman came into the shop rather distraught and told us to turn on a radio “The President’s been shot”. What, who how etc. and the conspiracy theories began.

It was at about 10 minutes to 11 am in Los Angeles. The news was sketchy just then, but from about 11 am all the networks were involved and coverage was nonstop for several days, which I suppose reenforced the memory at the time.

Robert Klonsky 1937 (age 18)

Indeed, I have a great many memories from days at the Book Fair. I met and chatted with a number of rather interesting people, all of whom came, on the whole, to meet with the owner Robert Klonsky, a man I came to know and admire. He was an activist and a veteran of the Spanish Civil War, on the Republican side, with the International Lincoln Brigade. As a result, he faced a great deal of what can only be called persecution in his own country. He was a man of great integrity. There is an entry in Wikipedia.

Apart from learning a bit about books and the book trade, I had wonderful encounters with a number of people from the academic world, film industry, artist and writers. Amongts the regulars, I met with a wonderful character actor John Dierkes, who was so great in The Red Badge of Courage and one of the baddies in Shane; F. Murray Abraham and his wife Kate, a lovely and friendly couple, who I later ran into in London in 1965 (he later won an Oscar);  Hans Gudegast, a young German actor, who changed his name to Eric Braeden, and has now done over 3000 episodes of The Young and the Restless TV series; the writers Albert Maltz, Henry Miller and  Lawrence Lipton, chronicler of the Beat Generation. There were many others.

Miller                       Abraham                          Dierkes

Braeden                           Lipton  

Sadly, the book shop folded, the result of the harassment Klonsky received, but he was instrumental with finding me another job at the Lytton Centre of the Visual Arts, which was the creation of Bart Lytton, a rather flamboyant character, great patron of the arts, with a very left wing chequered career. He was great contributor to the Kennedy election in 1960.  He too has an entry in Wikipedia. 

Herb Kline

Josine Ianco

It was at the Lytton Centre that I came to know Herb Kline, the director of the Centre, writer editor and film maker, who (amongst his other work) had made a short documentary in 1937 of the Spanish Civil War, which is probably how he came to know Robert Klonsky, and why I got the job. Herb’s then wife was Josine Ianco, who was the curator of the Centre. Josy was the daughter of Marcel Ianco, one of the founding members of Dadaism. She was a very great lady. She died two years ago at 92 in Oregon. Again, there were encounters with a myriad of interesting people who worked at and came to the centre, contributed work, or just to visit. It was a pretty great time to be growing up in West Los Angeles. I owe much of it to Robert Klonsky, the Book Fair and the Lytton Centre of the Visual Arts. I left the US in 1965.

TO ALL REPUBLICAN SENATORS

I have tried to send the following as an email to every Republican Senator in Washington. It is not possible to send enails to their offices at the Capitol from outside of the United States. I do not have the appropriate zip code. Would someone be good enough to try to forward it to some Republican Senators. Thank you.

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Before you make any decision, I would ask you to read an article I posted on the 9^th December 2020. You will think it biased but it is correct on the law, and if you believe in the rule of law, then, on the evidence before your very eyes, since the 3^r  of November 2020 and in particular the words of warning by Gabriel Sterling “Mr President…this has got to stop....someone is going to get shot” it is clear that you have a duty of care to the Constitution. Mr Trump could not fail to have heard the warning, so he knew exactly what the consequences of his rhetoric could be. This is a serious test of your commitment to the Constitution of the United States. If you fail in this test, you will fail the American people.

 

Posted by F Buff at Friday, January 29, 2021

Wednesday, 9 December 2020

THE SUICIDE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

As I watch the continuing saga of America’s attempt at installing a new president, I am bewildered by the seemingly continuous barrage from reporters on CNN, NBC, CBS, USA Today, NPR, KPFK, LA Times and You Tube, referring to the baseless claims of President Donald Trump. I am shown videos of the people in support of him, as well as those who don’t. I have seen interviews with a variety of folk on the street and attempts at interviews with certain politicians from BBC reporters. I have seen the impassioned press briefing from Republican Election Official Gabriel Sterling.

I have seen and heard the baseless claims and the demonstrations by Trump supporting zealots in the street and in front of the homes of election officials, and, in particular from politicians addressing the faithful from podiums. I have noted the deafening silence from the republican senators and congressional representatives, thereby consenting to the continued rhetoric of the baseless claims. 

I have noted legal actions taken by the Trump team of lawyers being dismissed by the Courts with accompanying statements by the Judiciary. 

All this baseless oratory and posturing is apparently tolerated because of the belief in free speech and a person’s right to challenge grievances before the courts. 

How about enforcing some law? A novel idea, I am just wondering. There are in the United Kingdom a couple of statutes that I am sure may well have their equivalent in the United States. If not, there clearly ought to be. 

Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986

Fear or provocation of violence.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked. 

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling. 

(3)F1. . (repealed). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the  

Factors indicating higher culpability

1. Planning

2. Offender deliberately isolates victim

3. Group action

4. Threat directed at victim because of job

5. History of antagonism towards victim

Factors indicating greater degree of harm

1. Offence committed at school, hospital or other place where vulnerable persons may be present

2. Offence committed on enclosed premises such as public transport

3. Vulnerable victim(s)

4. Victim needs medical help/counselling  

Now let us look at the video evidence of protests outside the home of Jocelyn Benson, Secretary of State of Michigan. People. She said they were “…screaming falsehoods and obscenities into a bullhorn while my family was finishing hanging Christmas decorations and my four-year-old was setting in to watch ‘How the Grinch Stole Christmas’”.

Now, I may be wrong, but the shouts and attitude exhibited by the mob in front of the house, some with guns, coupled with the screams and shouts, to intimidate Ms Benson into changing the results of an election, seems fairly threatening to me, as well as being aggravated by threats directed at the victim because of her job. She has stood up. 

That mob went way beyond the right of assembly or the rights of free speech. Where are the authorities making the arrests? Where are the District Attorneys calling for indictments? Where is the Michigan State or Federal Law to deal with this malicious and pernicious uprising? 

All this mob action, which is what it is - one can no longer call it peaceful protest - is being fuelled by The President himself and his various cohort.  “He should be taken out and shot” from one supporting politician in reference to someone actually upholding the law and the Constitution.   

That alone, on anyone’s view, is nothing less than Incitement, given the propensities of so-called Trump supporters. Again, in the United Kingdom, there is an Act of Parliament to deal with such criminal activity. I am sure there must be an equivalent statute somewhere in the United States. It comes in the form of the Serious Crime Act of 2007.

 Serious Crime Act 2007

44 Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and

(b he intends to encourage or assist its commission.

(2) But he is not to be taken to have intended to encourage or assist the commission of     an offence merely because such encouragement or assistance was a foreseeable consequence of his act.

It is not a Statute intended to limit freedom of speech, nor is it intended to limit the right to assemble and protest, but it is intended to deal with behaviour that goes far beyond those criteria, and is therefore a serious crime. It is very carefully worded, and indeed the questions of ‘intent’ and ‘foreseeable consequences’ are very much a matter of interpretation.  But foreseeability and intent can be seen from an objective point of view. It is based on the behaviour, demeanour, actions and speech of the offender. That and the consequences for the victims of the offence. Paragraph 2 of the section leaves a lot of room for interpretation of ‘intent’. 

Sections 45 and 46 further distinguish various forms of intent and belief.

45 Encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed

46 Encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed

What I am getting at, is that when one sees and hears the various people addressing crowds of vehement hyped-up supporters, it is not difficult to interpret ‘intent; and ‘foreseeability'. Gabriel Sterling sees it, and in his anger said “This has got to stop!...someone is going to get shot!”

People have rights to free speech and assembly; they do not have the right to threaten and become a mob.  In allowing the President and his supporters to clearly go beyond the pale under the guise of rights provided by the Constitution of the United States, is to deny the very existence of that Constitution which was established to protect the citizen and not to facilitate the abuse of the citizen.

Under the rule of law, we all have a duty of care towards one another, which is why I am posturing that by allowing this nightmare to continue, allowing mob rule, and failing to enforce the rule of law, we are seeing the suicide of American Democracy.

Posted by F Buff at Wednesday, December 09, 2020

TRUTH AND JUSTICE - BEING ALLOWED TO BELIEVE

I confess I am in a quandary. The question I seek to resolve, the quarry of my quandary is as elusive as finding gold at the bottom of a quarry. What is it about a human brain that prevents reason? By reason I mean sense, rationality or soundness of mind. The ability to deduce, from learning and observations, what is factual and real as opposed to fiction and fantasy. In addition, as a consequence of that education, to be able to make judgements which support reality and fact i.e. what is true.

 

In her speech to congress, in defence of her position as a congressional representative, Marjorie Taylor Greene stated that initially she was not political, but had many concerns. She said that she found someone she could support in Donald Trump, someone who reflected her concerns, and she presumably voted for him in 2016. She then went on to say, that as she looked deeper into certain matters, she came across QAnon and other theories and opinions. Then in 2018 she came to distrust the Government. She said a lot of American’s distrust our Government and that’s very sad. It should be noted that this was now two years into the Trump Presidency. What government did she distrust? She then went on to say that:

 

“I was allowed to believe things that weren’t true, and I would ask questions about them and talk about them, and that is absolutely what I regret, because if it weren’t for the Facebook posts and comments that I liked in 2018, I wouldn’t be standing here today and you couldn’t point a finger and accuse me of anything wrong because I’ve learnt a very good life that I’m proud of and my family’s proud of, my husband’s proud of, my children are proud of, that’s what my district elected me for”

 

She claimed that she was the first in her family to graduate from college. Did she learn how to think independently, or was she just allowed to believe things, whether they were true or false?

 

In her own disorganised way, she was trying to speak from her heart. She clearly felt she was making some sort of emotional appeal for understanding her personal desire to be a dedicated member of congress. Unfortunately, certain remarks attributed to her after the congressional vote to remove her from committees, such as ‘They don’t know how dumb they are’ to give me free time to raise funds for my own agendas, or words to that effect, making it clear that she continues to be allowed to believe things that are not true.

 

I come back however, to the matter of being allowed to believe. Who or what gives permission for anyone to believe anything? The authenticity of Facebook was brought into question. The presumption must be that what appears on a Facebook post is true. Therefore, the Facebook invitation to “like” or dislike has nothing to do with truth, but only approval or disapproval and not agree or disagree. Indeed, the internet is full of emoji’s and symbols inviting people to “like” something. Is this prevalence a method of seeking validation for an opinion or product, or a consumer research method of discovering what opinions or products the individual in question is likely to respond to and part with cash? Is there really a presumption that what appears on a screen, billboard, poster or over the airwaves the truth, and because of that presumption we are allowed to believe whatever is on offer? Has the reality culture so engrained us in the belief that “If it’s on TV, it must be true”? If it’s a government sponsored public announcement must it be true?

 

One would like to think that what our government purports to be true, is in fact true. There are certain institutions, scientific, educational and legal, that we are prone to accept as ‘telling the truth’. Government enquiries into matters deemed of public importance are expected to report on events with the truth. We are prone to accept their findings as truth; however, I would submit that education and observation teach us that none of the above is the case.

 

Senator Kamala Harris, before she became Vice President Elect, questioned future Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett over her views on Climate Change and other matters. The Justice effectively refused to answer stating that Climate Change is a “Very contentious matter of public debate” and she would not offer an opinion. It is only a matter of debate by the likes of Mr Trump who has never been interested in the science, indeed refuses to accept the facts. There is therefore, no real debate about the matter, only those few, who refuse to accept what is happening round the world, before their very eyes. There is a global consensus to try to deal with the problem. International committees have been formed.  Global conferences to deal with the problem have been initiated. By refusing to take it on, Justice Barrett is showing herself to be blind and ignorant of the science, and clearly not fit for her office. Is it just ambition that prevents her from accepting a simple truth? Is that what obscures reason from her brain, or is there a more sinister motive?

There is a rather lengthy video of Ms Harris speaking with Ms Barrett concerning the Affordable Care Act and a woman’s right to choose, which subjects were evaded by Ms Barrett.

It can be accessed here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Vphk-apnE

 

The evasions and obfuscations of Ms Barrett to appear to be impartial and therefore judicial and open minded, smack more of her ambition than her openness to the needs of the American people. That is my biased opinion. There is nothing wrong with a Judge having views, even controversial opinions, so long as they adhere to the law, and the interpretation of law can sometimes be contrary to one’s personal views. It is a matter of being truly impartial. Justices swear an oath to that effect. It’s easy enough to say, but much harder to do, and I suspect anyone not prepared to admit that possibility by denying they have a view.

 

It seems to me clear that Ms Taylor Greene and Ms Barrett are the victims of an implacable ambition which veers away from truth and is beyond reason.  What effect their presence in the scheme of things will have, remains to be seen and heard. The various outlets of information for the myriads of theories that abound across the world have no strict adherence to truth.

 

So, my quandary remains. I still seek to know who or what allows us to believe things that are not true? What is it that staves off our brain from the ability to reason? I believe that there should be nothing in our brains that prevents us from reason. There should be nothing in our brain that allows us to presume or accept what an authority states to be true, without question, without reasoning the matter for ourselves. The idea of an open mind is paramount to open government and democracy.

 

The matter of getting at the simple truth is never an easy question. As Oscar Wilde’s Algernon says “The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Modern life would be very tedious if it were either, and modern literature a complete impossibility”

OPINION AND INTEGRITY

Opinion expresses belief, a point of view. It is a form of judgment, an evaluation or appraisal of an idea or concept. It is often proffered as a starting point of persuasion, a preliminary point open for discussion, but stressing a particular viewpoint. It is usually based on the evaluation of a number of factors, including the education and personal experience of the person stating the opinion. Opinion is thus formed over a period of time. A considered conjecture can then be applied to a number of situations arising during the course of one’s life. Although based on experience it can be, in effect, basic theorising from certain presumptions and guesswork on the part of the speaker or writer who proposes it.   

To have any effect it must be trustworthy. The proposer of the opinion must have integrity. How often does one hear the phrase “Can we have your honest opinion”?  Opinions are expected to have coherence, soundness and truthfulness.  The writer or speaker is expected to have reputability. Honour and decency are required. 

Thus, in making a proposition, one should be able to describe and explain the reasoning behind the particular belief. One should be able to show the work, the structure and the consistency in a line of thought.

That is not to say that one cannot change an opinion. Again, one can maintain integrity by showing a consistent form of reasoning as to why one has changed a point of view. If one can clearly explain why one has changed an opinion, then the matter of truthfulness remains consistent.

That explanation however, must be very clear. When a person has expressed a strong view over a period of time and in an instant adopts the completely opposing view, which is then repeated again and again, the reader or listener is entitled to suspect the integrity of that speaker or writer. Particularly when the change is without any proper explanation except by repetition of the new view, which is no explanation at all. 

There is an opinion piece by the Journalist Martin Kettle in today’s edition of the Guardian Newspaper relating to Boris Johnson.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/03/boris-johnson-vaccine-labour-rollout-prime-minister-politics

Martin Kettle

I have respect for Mr. Kettle’s view in this instance. Mr Kettle would be placed on the left of the political spectrum, perhaps very much toward the centre than the very left. He was or is a fan of New Labour and ex-Prime Minister Blair, except as regards Mr. Blair’s war in Iraq and association with Mr Bush. In that matter he was consistent with his point of view. His views on the current Prime Minister are also consistent. He has never had much time for Boris Johnson.

John Pilger

I note however that Mr Kettle has been described by another journalist for whom I have respect, Mr. John Pilger, as Mr Blair’s “most devoted promoter”. Mr Pilger, who would appear more to the left on the political spectrum, and once described Mr. Blair as a war criminal. Whether Mr Kettle would agree with that view is another matter, but there was agreement about the Iraq War. Both these journalists appear to be very consistent in their points of view, Mr Pilger, I suspect, is more hard line than Mr. Kettle, but both are clear in their reasoning for adopting a particular opinion. Indeed Mr Pilger, despite his more hard-line view has received many accolades for his work over that 50 years. Even those who would disagree with his point of view, admire the integrity of his work.

Mr. Kettle may not have received the same kind of recognition as Mr Pilger, but he has been consistent. He will show approval for some Conservative politicians as well as Labour, and will criticise Labour politicians as well as Conservative.  He has a point of view about people based on how they behave, on what they say and do, and how they say and do it. The particular politics of an individual seems to be, for Mr Kettle, secondary to their character. I may be wrong, but from reading his articles, it is the impression I have formed, and there is nothing wrong about putting character before politics. It is not an injudicious thing to do.

 

As against all that, we have the matters before the United States Congress and certain people who at one time were part of the Trump entourage. Senator Lindsey Graham has vacillated over a number of issues. His colossal hypocrisy over the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice, as well his about face over responsibility for the riotous behaviour in the Capitol on 6^th January, has shown him up to be a man of no character and zero integrity; yet he remains a Senator of the United States. Why all his constituency in South Carolina do not demand his resignation is beyond belief. Some have already started and signed a petition to that effect as long as four years ago, but nothing has transpired.

Mr Trump's Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany having previously claimed that Mr Trump was not a serious candidate for the Republican Party, and telling the White House Press Corps “I will never lie to you”, has repeatedly told lies and done a complete about face on her views of Mr Trump and the Republican party. She has exhibited a complete lack of character and zero integrity.

Senator Ted Cruz, who spent a year vilifying Donald Trump as a liar, is now his ardent supporter.  This is a man who once said “Donald, you're a snivelling coward” during the primaries in 2016. We have no explanation for the about turn. Again, a man with no character and no integrity.

As for Marjorie Taylor Green, what can one say.

One could go on and on with current members of the United States Congress and various associates of the previous Executive Government administration. This is unfortunately par for the course in American Politics. It has been highlighted in numerous films beloved as classics of the Hollywood film industry since Birth of a Nation, Mr Smith Goes To Washington, All the Kings Men, Manchurian Candidate, The Best Man, Advise and Consent, All the Presidents Men, Seven Days in May and the list goes on. So, is it any wonder that conspiracy theories abound in the United States? These stories, by the way, are all about character and integrity. Are they fact or fiction? I cannot give an opinion; the effect would be the same.

A SCIENTIFIC LIFE

One of the joys of Radio is a program on BBC4 hosted by Professor Jim Al-Khalili under the title The Life Scientific. The variety of scientists is as varied as the science they live. The keenness and fascination they have for their work is manifest, and it is brought out with great skill by Professor Al-Khalili, who delights in his subject’s enthusiasm for their field of study. Indeed, he is the supreme fan who has the chance to meet and chat with some very lovely people. At least they all come across as just that, lovely people. How do people fall into a particular field of study? How did they become obsessed about how something is, how it came into being, how it functions and why it works or just exists? What part does it play in the grand scheme of things, in their lives and in all our lives? The interviews are invariably good natured, full of humour as well as lots of interesting and, in my view, essential information about the world we live in.

I have no idea how his subjects are chosen, but that doesn’t seem to really mater. I like to think that as he moves around the halls of academe, or attends some conference, or presentation of some paper, he encounters people he likes and asks them round for a chat about what it is they do and how they got there, over a nice cup of tea, coffee or a nice bottle of wine.

There are on line, on BBC Sounds, some 230 podcasts to listen to. That’s correct, 230 distinct areas of study about what makes up our universe, from the very earth bound to the galaxies far far away. Plants, black holes, bones, riot prevention, gas giants, chimpanzees, spaceflight, air pollution, bird species, power networks, public health, making us fat, Covid vaccines, geology, sport and health technology. marine conservation, autism, string theory, smell detection, seeing colour, climate change, optical communication, mental health care, stegosaurs, pollen, chromosomes in mice and men, artificial intelligence, brain scanning, bio-diversity, lying, moon rocks, why we have friends, cosmic chemistry, the beauty of flies, basic pollution, pain in the brain etc. The list goes on.

I don’t know if all the people he meets really are lovely people, but they definitely sound like they are. Professor Al-Khalili is a very lucky man to have so many scientific friends, and we are very lucky that he introduces them to us.

 Try this website:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/search?q=The%20Life%20Scientific&suggid=urn%3Abbc%3Aprogrammes%3Ab015sqc7

Here is the professor talking about gravity:

And a bit of quatum mechanics

AN AFTER THOUGHT

The problems of government have been dramatically exposed by the progress of the Covid19 virus across the globe.  The variations and mutations have markedly increased its spread and, although there is now a vaccine, the control and management of the disease has become embroiled in political issues, rather than a concerted global human effort. The handling of the effort to contain the pandemic by the wealthier democratic nations of the planet has exposed fissures in the political landscape. Opinions from the left and right in the various countries seem to have become more entrenched despite a façade of cooperation and support by opposition parties to the parties in government. It is as if, under the cloud of the epidemic, the parties are preparing for major confrontation once the crisis is over. Some administrations will be even more deep seated than they already are.

 

I do not think that anyone is against any effort being made to rid the planet of the effects of the disease, by whatever cooperative means necessary. It is recognised as a global problem and despite hiccups over the provision of vaccines, it is accepted generally that human concurrence and empathy is essential. It is the repair of the resulting collateral damage that is the impending issue.

 

There has been, even before the pandemic, a growing movement towards the right of the political spectrum in a number of countries. The rise of Nationalism and populist politics is clearly evident in Western Europe and that movement seems to be favouring a more dictatorial approach to government.  There is still a majority against them, but the nationalists have made strong inroads into parliamentary and legislative bodies as well has heads of government. This is particularly evident in middle Europe, notably Hungary, Austria and Switzerland. In the far east the Military in Myanmar has once again reasserted control. In Russia, the evident dictatorship of Putin is attempting to obliterate any opposition. There appears to be little question that the Chinese Government has stamped its total control on any ‘democratic’ movement in Hong Kong. Which is why it is imperative that western and other continental democracies strengthen their opposition to, and visible condemnation of, regimes that are contrary to civilised inclusive humanitarian democracy.

 

In the United Kingdom, even although there is a conservative and nationalist government of sorts, there is still the realisation that to survive as a Nation there must be consensus and public support for the activities of the population. That includes health, education, welfare and the economy. Never before has a British Conservative Government borrowed so much money and used the whole of its treasury of taxes in an attempt to support working people, businesses of all sizes, the social services and the national health service. It has not, because of the very size of the task, been entirely successful, and there are many opinions as to how and where to spend that money. But it is being procured by a Conservative Government in ways that would make the ordinary conservative politician throw their hands up in horror. I am sure that many of them are, and cannot imagine how they are going to crawl back from the national debt. The whole premiss of a conservative Government is a small frugal administration that allows the private sector to soar with as little interference as possible. We are a long way from making that happen any time soon, if ever.

 

What is more worrying, from a global and economic point of view, is the demise of the United States of America. Currently, it is still the largest economy in the world with 22% of the world’s GDP. It is however, whether it realises it or not, embroiled in a political divide from which it may not be able to recover. As the world’s number one economy it may soon disintegrate. Having let in Trump and his followers (the evangelical populists and nationalist extremists) the attempt to dislodge them from government control, even after winning the last general election, may prove far more difficult then imagined. Oddly enough, the failure by Mr Trump to deal with the pandemic and the exposure of his incompetence and supreme narcissism may have helped in getting him out of office. Unfortunately, it appears to have done little to relieve him of influence and support.

 

One can go on ad infinitum about the visual and auditory evidence of his criminal incitements to violence against the very democratic institutions he swore to preserve protect and defend, but that seems to have little effect. Those who could do something to repair the damage have already abrogated their responsibility. For whatever reason the Senators of the Republican Party are refusing to take action. The very party that wants small government and little interference in the general economy, is prepared to favour a dictatorship of Mr Trump and his mob. They would prefer a Putin or a Stalin to an Abe Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt.  

 

These men who pretend to be public servants, Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy and others, who claim to support what is in the best interests of the people of America, but are unwilling to prosecute the instigators of mob violence. They take no action against the likes of Rep. Taylor Greene who defiles the very halls of congress with her mere presence and bullying rhetoric. It’s all on tape. What can they be thinking? Are they dumb and blind, just stupid or what? They would rather let the United States sink into anarchy then stand up for the rule of law. 

 

Taylor Greene

Ilse Koch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good luck America, you’re going to need it. As to some of us in England, we’re thinking about moving to Scotland. You may have heard of it, a soon to be emerging new European State.