BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT

 

For the last few days I have been mulling over a number of problems. Perhaps not problems, more concerns that have been occupying my thoughts. I had started to write a blog about global expectations and the makeup of the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and France. They are in effect the most influential of societies in what it still referred to as the Western World. There are differences of opinion and political parties in all these countries, but they do have elected civil government, chose by the people choosing to exercise their right to vote. The elected representatives then form an executive which decides on the course their nation will take moving forward.

 

In the UK there are 33 members of the cabinet. In the United States there are 17, in Germany 15 and in France 15 as well. The decisions made by these people must of course be approved by the elected legislatures of each country, their Parliament, Chamber of Deputies, Congress and Bundestag.  Each of these persons are putting themselves forward as someone caring enough to serve the public interest, to behave in such manner as will be of benefit to the people they purport to represent. They all have differing views as to how best to run the country in the best interests of the public from their particular point of view. They will cover the full spectrum of political thinking form the far left to the far right. On the whole the electorate seem to prefer centre, left and right of centre. The extremes do not often get a look in, but when they do, it generally leads to disaster and explosions of prejudice, bigotry, violence and repression.

 

The sadness of the western world is that there appears to be a shift towards the extremes and in particular the ultra conservatives.  The rhetoric of the Republican party in the United States is full of hatred and recrimination against those who do not support their view of the world. That includes all democrats, who they refer to with venom, and any member of their own party who dares to offer criticism of their idol. Their demands and behaviour are given full press coverage 24 hours a day by a media that is on the one hand astonished by the behaviour and on the other that encourages and actively assist in perpetuating their venal mendacity. Their voices have a far greater sound than the voices of reason. The tragedy is that reason has no effect whatsoever on what can only be described as the Republican mob.

 

That mob has been described and showcased in a number of cinematic hits with a view to showing its viciousness and stupidity. It is usually quelled by the lone hero. Think of Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird, Charles Winninger as Judge Billy Priest in The Sun Shies Bright, Marlon Brando as Sheriff Calder in The Chase, Sidney Poitier as Virgil Tibbs in In the Heat of the Night and there are many others. The actions of the mob have usually been vilified in art, save when it comes to successful historical revolutions. A totally different dynamic is applied thereto, but the excesses are often later admonished. In any event it is difficult to predict a happy Hollywood ending to the current American political crisis.

 

So far as the UK’s 33, the German and French 15 are concerned, one has to believe that they all mean well. At least they have persuaded a number of their citizens to vote for them, so as a democratic citizen (note small d) one has to give them the benefit of the doubt. By the same token, one has a right to criticise and to wish they do not behave like fools, which it appears they are apt to do, certainly in the case of the leadership of the 33.  I have no doubt certain citizens may feel the same about their respective 15. So I continue to mull over my concerns.

 

The following is the rather long piece I was contemplating, if it is of any interest (there is no conclusion):

 

There are, of necessity, in the age of the internet (or rather because of its worldwide visual and audio impact) global expectations of what government should be. The needs, aspirations and desires of the average citizen on the planet seem to be melding into some sort of universal perception of what life should be.

What we see of urban life, in just about every major city around the world, is essentially similar. City centres are much the same round the world, save for differences in geography, architectures and design, but on the whole, tall buildings, traffic, restaurants, cinemas, night clubs, some casinos etc. The following are 22 cities, some of them capitols, from round the world:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could have gone on, but you get the picture. They all have the same problems. Water supply and sewage systems, refuse collection, gas and electricity or connections to a power source of some kind, supply of foodstuffs and storage, housing, hospitals, health and social care, crime prevention, slum clearance, zoning and building regulations, public transport, environmental health and safety, and a myriad of other concerns for a mostly ever increasing collection of individuals. It is much the same for those living in rural areas, as the exigencies of good farming, animal husbandry and agriculture are universal. 

So just what is it citizens expect from their government and who are the people who run the various departments and are responsible for the spending of large sums of money?

 

 

On looking at the UK Governments Departmental Expenditure list for 2020-2021, it is apparent that health, social care and education take up the bulk of the budget. It is however surprising that expenditure on Transport has 356 million more than Housing, Communities and Local Government. Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has an even bigger spend. Given that there seems to be precious little industry in the UK to be strategic about, it would seem more appropriate to divert some of that money to Housing, Communities and Local Government

As to the United States, herewith the current Government Departments and their Budget.

As one would expect, Health and Human Services has the largest budget, with the Department having some 79,500 employees; however, Defence and Homeland Security have the next highest budgets with some 3 million employees and $791.88 billion, more than half the amount spent on Health and 37 times the number of employees. The Department of Education has one tenth the defence budget and %0.13 the number of employees as compared to Defence.

 

Therein lie the differences of priorities and needs as perceived by the different political parties in their respective countries.

Here are the French and German current Ministers of State:

Whilst the UK Government’s cabinet is made up entirely from the Conservative Party and are also elected Members of Parliament. The German Government is a coalition of the Christian Democratic Union, the Christian Social Union and the Social Democratic Party. The French Government is made up mainly of members of Macron’s La Republique En March (REM) a few independents who had been members of the Socialist Party, one of whom had been a member of the Union for a Popular Movement which was part of the European People’s Party. As to the United States cabinet, the President chooses his team who are not elected members of congress, but have some connection with and, presumably some expertise and knowledge of the Department for which they have been chosen to run They are confirmed in the office after submitting to questions for approval by the Senate. 

 

So where do we go from here?

GOING BEHIND THE CURTAIN

Last night Marianna came to supper. She is from Bulgaria, from somewhere on the coast of the Black Sea, north of Varna towards the Romanian boarder. During our chat she talked about travelling to the west when she was quite young, at the time of the cold war. She said it was very difficult to get permission to travel ‘behind’ the iron curtain. One could travel anywhere else without difficulty, but going behind the curtain to the west was very problematic, but she did manage to travel to Paris. What was odd was the reference to going ‘behind’ the iron curtain. Having grown up in the ‘west’, we were used to using the same phrase when referring to the easter block – going behind the iron curtain. My first reaction was. ‘If we’re both behind, then who’s at the front?’

On reflection, if both sides were behind, then both had to be in front as well. It was a simple matter of a point of view. The performers on one side where the spectators of the other. A very human condition of being simultaneously performer and spectator. It was a performance that ran for nearly 45 years. West Berlin, being encircled by the curtain, was centre stage. Clearly, from any point of view, West Berlin was behind the curtain. Or was it?

What was even more nonsensical was the scenario for exchanging spies. The Glienicker Brücke across the Havel River to Potsdam was the favoured route. This meant that western bloc spies had to walk east across the bridge while Soviet Eastern bloc spies had to walk west. Again a matter of a point of view.

More conversation led on to the difficulties of citizens in the Eastern Bloc. Whilst the regimes were severe, there was a system of attempting to ensure full employment. Everyone had to have a job. As a consequence there were four or five people on night duty at hotels where only one was actually required. Similarly, public transport operated 24hrs a day, so that conductors and drivers were employed even if some stood around the depot doing very little. Jobs were pretty cushy in some respects, which led to a kind a laziness; however, if anyone wanted to retrain or return to education, then they could do so and be paid the same salary they would have received on their job. Self-improvement was encouraged and paid for by the state. Sadly too few took up the opportunity. This is a course a terrible thing in the minds of anti-communists and anti-socialists. That the state should pay and encourage self-improvement is heresy; however, I have recently noted adverts on television recruiting people to work at Amazon. Any amazon employee can apply to do a course in engineering or management in order to improve their status within the company, and the course and training is paid for by the company leading to a better job and higher salary within the company. Jeff Bezos may be one of the richest men in the world but he is clearly a communist or perhaps just a champagne socialist. What his company is doing is clearly anti-American.

The idea that government is there to help people better their lives is somehow difficult for certain politicians to grasp. It’s OK for private enterprise to pay for benefits for its employees, but not all private enterprise will do that, nor can they afford to do it. Only a very few actually perform in that way. Most private enterprise is just that, a company that accumulates wealth for its governors, pays minimum dividends, or whatever they can get away with to shareholders, who are probably already wealthy, and all involved try to avoid taxes and pay minimum wage to employees. So what is the problem about the state trying to better the lives of all its citizens? It does not prevent private enterprise from being enterprising, so what is wrong with the state taking up the slack?

The state’s problem in taking up that slack is mainly financial. There are so many people in need of assistance, spreading around the funds is not an easy proposition, particularly when it has a problem with raising funds through taxation. Methods of raising and spending funds differ greatly, and priorities can become confused. Government should be about who has the best plan. Many feel that the whole question of bettering lives is best left to the market place. Smaller government and lower taxation allow the economy to flourish and improvements in economic status and education will trickle down from the wealthier entrepreneurial citizens. Except that it doesn’t and never has. Adam Smiths benevolent ‘person concerned’ is mostly myth.

What is clear from the state of the world is that small government or non-interference does not work. The pandemic is evidence that government interference and assistance is essential. The imposition of regulations around containment of the spread of the virus was an absolute necessity in the circumstances. Private enterprise was helpless and required the assistance of the state to keep afloat, and still, because of the stretch on that economic assistance some private enterprises could not continue.

One is reminded that during the financial crisis of 2007-2008, a sort of economic pandemic, it was only through world-wide co-operation of governments that led to any kind of recovery. That plan was initiated by Gordon Brown who effectively went door to door in every major capitol to enlist those countries to bail out the world. A feat for which he has been largely ignored. Indeed he was even blamed for the crisis at the time, rather than lauded for having fixed it. The British public elected a coalition in his wake, which led to austerity, Brexit and the current fall out being suffered by the United Kingdom, which has unfortunately been exacerbated by covid. But the fallout is real, and the clownish grand guignol of Boris and crew, are not the answer.

So think very carefully when you next go behind the curtain in a polling booth.

BOOKS, EDUCATION AND BELIEF

I was listening today (16 November 2021) to a program written and presented by Jon Ronson (Welsh journalist and filmmaker) under the title Things Fall Apart – Dirty Books. It is a story originally covered and broadcast in the United States in 2009 by radio journalist Trey Kay on WVPB in west Virginia as The Great Textbook War. Mr Ronson does give credit to Mr Kay. 

It is the story of Alice Moore of Kanawha County, West Virginia, who started out campaigning against sex education and went on to campaign for the removal of over 300 textbooks from the school curriculum. Ms Moore got herself elected as a member of the Kanawha County School Board, the only member who did not have a college degree. It is a classic American story, not dissimilar to the Scopes Trial controversy of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. 

It is a story linked to religious fundamentalism. In the course of interview with Ms Moore, she makes comment that she is comforted by the fact that 24% of Americans still believe in the literal truth of the Bible. She views it as the only way to save America. It is also a terrifying story of emotions and frustrations about attitudes to education erupting into violence. It is the continuing onslaught on the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States under the guise of standing up for American values. It is a complete contradiction of what that document actually upholds. The following is a Gallup Poll chart compiled from May 3-7, 2017:

These figures are quite extraordinary, in my view. Based on the population of the United States in 2017, which was just over 325 million citizens, a little over 78 million people believed that the bible was the actual word of God and some 10 million plus, of them, were college graduates. Donald Trump received 74, 216,154 votes in the 2020 election. Can one postulate from these figures that those voters fall within the category of believers that the bible is the word of God, and consequently are more likely to believe in the word of Trump, whom they appear to worship in a similar fashion.

 

I do not know if such a poll was conducted in the United Kingdom, although a Gallup poll compendium of Religion in Great Britain, 1939-1999, indicated that in May 1993, 10% of the population believed that the Old Testament was of divine authority and its commands should be followed without question, and 13% felt the same about the New Testament. Whether these people were as fundamental as the American population is hard to say, but there may well have been a proportion who had the same adherence to creationism as the Americans. 

The survey seems to indicate that the numbers were fluctuating and diminishing as years progressed. That’s about 6 million people based on the population in 1993; however, that figure is probably misleading given that, currently, only 59% of the population today indicate that they identify as Christian. That would represent some 39 million, and assuming, in the last 18 years, the relevant percentage had dropped to around 5 %, it would still indicate some 2 million were adherents of the bible. Again, just how fundamentalist is a matter of conjecture.  

 

What is of more concern are the number of college graduates who hold this belief in the bible. Pedagogy, “the approach to teaching, the theory and practice of learning and how this process influences, and is influenced by, the social, political and psychological development of learners”, is a rather demanding, considered and perhaps technical discipline. The technique or system of teaching adopted by teachers reflects their practice and theory of learning. To teach pupils how to think and learn for themselves rather than what to think and learn is of importance. Imparting technical and scientific skills is one aspect, but inevitably social, cultural, philosophical and historical studies come into play. Knowledge of politics and political thought covers a wide spectrum of ideas. Similarly the science and study of anthropology is of considerable scope. It touches on every aspect of human behaviour including biology, culture, societies, linguistics and the myriad of religious beliefs. It is an academic discipline, and like any such exercise it involves a broad appreciation of adjacent and tangential areas of study. Any subject or branch of knowledge at a university touches on every other field of study. They are of necessity inter woven and for any student at a college to continue to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, that God created Adam and Eve and expelled them from Eden for daring to seek knowledge by eating fruit from the tree, thereby exposing themselves to sin, is astonishing. As the Germans might say unglaublich!!.

 

But the creationist would have you believe in intelligent design. This is a concept or theory intended to show that science alone cannot explain the natural world, and that a divine creator is a required element for any explanation of nature. They claim that the study of Intelligent Design is itself an academic field of study and a fact of science rather than a religious belief, or just another aspect of a belief in God. There have been attempts to impose this particular belief system to be taught as fact in schools alongside the science of evolution. 

The federal courts first addressed intelligent design in Kitzmiller -v- Dover Area School District in 2005. A local school board in Dover, Pennsylvania voted to require teachers to read a statement about intelligent design prior to discussions of evolution in high school biology classes. The judge found that the practice violated the Establishment clause, concluding that intelligent design is not a science because it fails to seek a natural cause for observed phenomenon, among other reasons. The litigation on this will no doubt continue in other States. It would seem, like Trump, Americans love taking fantasy notions to the courts. 

Here is another view:

 

THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT

For a brief period of time, we had living with us Dr Emily Barritt. The following bio is from her staff page at King’s:

Emily Barritt is Lecturer in Tort Law and the Co-Director of the Transnational Law Institute. Her research focuses on environmental democracy, access to justice, public participation, stewardship and climate change adjudication. She teaches on the undergraduate Tort and Environmental Law modules and runs a special model on Courts and Social Change at HMP Belmarsh. Emily is a member of the Climate Law and Governance Hub at KCL and a Centre Fellow at the Centre of Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance, University of Cambridge. Emily has also been a faculty member of the Law School’s Global League Summer School, co-teaching a course on Climate Change, Justice and Courts with Melanie Murcott of the University of Pretoria and was a Visiting Lecturer at the Centre for Transnational Legal Studies in 2018. Before being appointed, Emily was a Lecturer in Law at Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford, lecturing on the undergraduate environmental law module and giving tutorials on Constitutional Law and EU Law. She undertook her PhD research at KCL and after that a post-doc at the University of Cambridge where she worked on a United Nations Environment Programme project developing legal options for marine biodiversity protection in areas beyond national jurisdiction. 

 

She knows her stuff about Environmental Law. Her latest publication in “The Global Network for Human Right and the Environment” entitled Theme and Variations: The Aarhus Convention and Escazú Agreement was published on 13^th August 2021.

 

She has filled a gap in my rather extensive lack of knowledge about law and environmental matters. Over a number of years there have been various proceedings of substance which I have previously ignored. We have not seen or heard from Emily for a while and I was wondering how she was getting on. I did a quick internet search to see if there was any news on line and was directed to her page on the King’s website. Given the current concentration on environmental issues, I had a look at her latest listed publication and was directed to the article mentioned above, which in turn directed me to a number of other documents.

 

To begin with, the 1992 Rio Declaration contained in Annex I in the Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro between the 3^rd and 14^th June 1992.

Principle 1 States that “Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.”

Further on we have:

Principle 10

Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.

Principle 11

States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.

 

Moving on we have the Aarhus Agreement of 1998 which was a Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters held in Aarhus, Denmark, 25 June 1998, which came into force on 30 October 2001. This agreement was signed not only by the European Union, but by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on that day and ratified on the 23 February 2005 some seven years later. The declaration made by the United Kingdom and subsequently ratified is as follows:

 

“The United Kingdom understands the references in article 1 and the seventh preambular paragraph of this Convention to the 'right' of every person 'to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being' to express an aspiration which motivated the negotiation of this Convention and which is shared fully by the United Kingdom. The legal rights which each Party undertakes to guarantee under article 1 are limited to the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters in accordance with the provisions of this Convention."

 

We then have the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean Adopted at Escazú, Costa Rica, on 4 March 2018 Opening for signature at United Nations Headquarters in New York on 27 September 2018 and which came into force on the 22 April 2021.

 

In her introduction to the article by Emily Barritt, she states:

Introduction

In responding to the call of Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration, two regional environmental agreements have emerged. The first, the Aarhus Convention (‘the Convention’), negotiated under the auspices of the UN Economic Commission for Europe, entered into force on 30 October 2001. The second, The Escazú Agreement (‘the Agreement’) was developed in and for Latin American and the Caribbean and entered into force more recently, on 22 April 2021. Unsurprisingly, given their shared origins in Principle 10, the two agreements exhibit a number of similarities. Each establishes a trio of procedural environmental rights – (1) access to environmental information, (2) public participation and (3) access to justice in environmental matters. Through these rights, each agreement establishes the conditions for citizens to contribute to the protection of the environment. Additionally, both ensure that environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can access procedural rights to further environmental protection goals, and both empower the public to access an independent compliance mechanism. However, the differences in legal culture and socio-political context, as well as the different historical moment in which each were conceived and drafted, means that the two elaborations of Principle 10 are quite different. These differences draw attention to the evolution of legal ideas and the importance of regional expression of global concepts.

A new kind of environmental agreement

When the Aarhus Convention entered into force it was endorsed as a ‘new kind of environmental agreement’ because it was the first environmental law treaty to provide citizens with rights that were directly enforceable as against the relevant Contracting Parties. Thus, the Aarhus Convention was both a human rights instrument and an environmental agreement. However, the Convention continues to hold its human rights status at arm’s length – not fully realising the right to a healthy environment, simply gesturing towards its existence somewhere outside of the text. By contrast, the Escazú Agreement is more explicitly a human rights agreement. It is unabashed in its acknowledgement of the substantive right to a healthy environment; it recognises the importance of social context in making its procedural rights usable and makes provision for special protection for environmental rights defenders. Indeed, before negotiations officially began Latin America was already emerging as a world leader in the promotion and protection of environmental rights. As a result, the Escazú Agreement presents an even more visionary approach to Principle 10 whilst building on the foundations of the Aarhus Convention. In what follows, the distinctive vision of Principle 10 that is elaborated in the Escazú Agreement will be discussed.

If you wish to read the rest of the article you will find it at: https://gnhre.org/community/theme-and-variations-the-aarhus-convention-and-escazu-agreement/

The long and short of it is that since 1992 the human right to a healthy environment and that States must enact effective environmental legislation, has been effectively ignored for nearly 30 years. The United Kingdom’s earnest words on ratifying the Aarhus Agreement in 2005 are as hollow now, as when they were first appended with the signature to the agreement in 1998.

Is it any wonder that the likes of Greta Thunberg express derision and anger at the lack of progress in the last 30 years of promises? She was born in 2003 by which time the Rio Declaration had been in existence for eleven years and the Aarhus Agreement for five.

I do not lay claim to any particular environmental activist credentials, quite the contrary, I am hardly a good example; however, the fact that the United Nations, in effect the world, recognises as a human right, the right to a healthy environment, places a duty of care on each of us to ensure that right.  It is particularly incumbent upon the state to enact effective legislation to enforce that right. Failure to do so is a breach of the duty of care.

If that is the case, then all those tenants in inadequate housing that we have been shown on newscasts, suffering from infestations of vermin, damp, and any number of other problems making their homes uninhabitable or at least an unhealthy environment, should not only bring action against their landlords, but join in the suit their local authorities and the minister of state for housing for breach of duty of care to ensure the human right to a healthy environment. The courts could then make such order forcing the necessary repairs and compensation. I believe that would apply in every state which is a signatory to the various agreements and which professes to adhere to the rule of law.  

Indeed the breach of this duty of care could be applied to a number of situations around the world, where people’s lives are adversely affected by a government’s or local administration’s lack of attention.

Environment is not just a matter of global warming and pollution; it is equally related to health and housing. What is the point of having a planet survive for longer if it means people live in bad housing, miserable conditions and lack of human rights for longer? It’s fine having clean air, clean and clear water, resilient forests and oceans, but if you live in a shit hole and/or are deprived of basic freedoms, so what?  

My thanks to Dr Emily Barritt for bringing these matters to my attention. I will consult with her whether my legal argument has any merit.

FOLLOWING BRAIN DEVELOPMENT

In response to blog ‘Assumptions and Brain Development’ and memories of High School, I received this comment from a classmate in Los Angeles:

 

“Of note, BHHS, when we were there was a minority school, in that a substantial majority of the students (not the teachers) were Jewish. Today, that’s a big deal, as the new Nazis in the US have found Jews as a target. At their demonstrations and at Trump rallies you will hear them chanting “Jews will not replace us”!

This is a fraught time in the US, but we’ve been in “reconstruction” since 1865, and it looks like Trump did a good job in pulling on the threads of racism so as to begin to split our country asunder. It’s the Republican Party which now stands for the racists, anarchists and insurrectionists, most of whom are armed. There are 120.5 firearms for every 100 residents in the US of A. Gun limiting laws from California and other Democratic Party strongholds are heading up the appellate ladder to the US Supreme Court, which, at present, is in no mood to permit gun carry restrictions. So, this will certainly become a more dangerous part of the world for minorities of all stripes.”

 

From what I read on news reports from various networks in the United States, the Trump band wagon maintains its momentum. He and his followers do not let up, despite what one would think where setbacks e.g. the slump in share price of his latest ‘business venture’ and the failure of his attempt to exert ‘executive privilege’ over the papers requested by the January 6 Committee of the House of Representatives.

 

Stephen Collinson, reporter for CNN, in an article titled Extremists seize back control of the Republican Party’s message machine (CNN-10 November 2021) concludes:

The state of the GOP in Washington is in many ways a national tragedy. It deprives conservatives of a voice untainted by violence and demagoguery. But more importantly, governance itself is weakened when one of the country's two great parties is consumed by extremist dogma and rage. And ultimately, it threatens the very existence of American democracy, which is under siege on multiple fronts from a radicalized party that has lost control of itself.

 

Which brings me back to ‘Optimal brain development’. Although Kevin McCarthy obtained a Bachelor of Science and Master of Business Administration degrees they were from an effectively unranked State University. As to Lindsey Graham, he obtained a BA and JD from the University of South Carolina, which is ranked somewhere around 300 odd. Not to denigrate the institutions they attended, but for intelligence, integrity and consistency of thought, these examples of their graduates do not hold up very well.

 

Another vociferous Trump supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene apparently obtained a Bachelor of Business Administration degree from the University of Georgia.  Greene has promoted far-right, white supremacist and antisemitic conspiracy theories including the white genocide conspiracy theory, QAnon and Pizzagate as well as other disproven conspiracy theories such as false flag mass shootings, the Clinton body count and those related to 9/11. Before running for Congress, she advocated for executing prominent Democratic politicians. As a Congresswoman, she equated the Democratic Party with Nazis and compared Covid-19 safety measures to the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust. She subsequently apologized for the latter comparison. One wonders just what Business Administration studies were like at the University of Georgia between 1992 and 1996 if these are the opinions their graduates hold. 

 

The Republican Party rely on less than optimal brain development. During an interview, at a party conference, Ari Fleischer – white house press secretary under George Bush commented on what the Republican Party must do with or without Trump:

 “Keep revving up the rural areas and the lower edu..(hesitation)..lower income, non college educated areas, and just be reasonable in the suburbs, don’t scare people and the suburbs will come home”

 

The interview is included in this clip on YouTube:

 

 

The line-up and rhetoric of prospective candidates for Presidential Office from the Republican Party is a terrifying prospect. There is a real and very present risk that the United States will become an even more divided and bigoted nation, with the most self-seeking arrogant and corrupt leadership on the planet. A con that will put even Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko in the shade. I hesitate putting Boris Johnson in that company as he is more jester and fool than con man, which is being revealed to the general public more and more as time goes by. He appeals to that very same group of citizens in the rural areas of the United Kingdom.

 

So far as the United States, and perhaps the rest of the world, is concerned, the only real hope is that the Biden legislative recovery package has some real and effective success in the coming months. If the program makes a very positive impact amongst the lower educated, lower income, non college educated rural people of the United States, and does not scare them, then they will come home to the Democratic Party. There is a very orchestrated attempt on the part of a number of right wing Republican congressmen and senators to scare that rural public into believing what they are being offered is dreaded communism and socialism. It is a mantra being repeated ad nauseum, a return to the McCarthyism of the 1950’s through a McCarthy of the present.  

 

Will optimum brain development ever be achieved in the face of this onslaught from disgruntled, regressive and venal politicians so manifestly unfit for their office. They are so far from representing the welfare of the public they claim to serve, it beggars belief. Yet there they are, and somehow they keep getting elected. As one born during the Second World War I can only ask,  where have all the flowers gone?

 

JOHN MAJOR TELLS IT LIKE IT IS

 

Finally someone from the Conservative Party has shown some real anger over the behaviour of Boris’ schoolboy cabinet.  Sir John Major also put into perspective the actual support of the government at 29% of the electorate which is by no means rightly reflective of the state of things, given the Governments Parliamentary majority. (see blog entry 8^th September 2021 What Price Acquiescence)

Sir John, former Prime Minister, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, inter alia (6^th November 2021) the row over Mr Owen Paterson’s suspension from the Commons demonstrated an “un-Conservative arrogance” at the heart of government.

Sir John said: “There is a general whiff of ‘we are the masters now’ about their behaviour.”

“I have been a Conservative all my life and if I am concerned at how the Government is behaving. I suspect lots of other people are as well.”

“It seems to me, as a lifelong Conservative, that much of what they are doing is un-Conservative in its behaviour.”

“I think the way the Government handled that was shameful, wrong and unworthy of this or indeed any government. It also had the effect of trashing the reputation of Parliament.”

He also said the actions of Mr Johnson’s administration was “damaging at home and to our reputation overseas”.

Major also suggested the Government was “politically corrupt” over the way it treats Parliament.

He said: “I’m afraid that the Government, with their over-large majority, do tend to treat Parliament with contempt. And if that continues, it will end badly.”

“They bypass Parliament at will and the Speaker has expressed his frustration about that on many occasions, and rightly so.”

“But they also behaved badly in other ways that are perhaps politically corrupt”.

“That included briefing announcements to sections of the press before MPs.”

Sir John’s government was undermined by sleaze rows, including the Cash for Questions Affair in 1994, which saw parliamentary lobbyist Ian Greer accused of bribing two Conservative MPs to ask parliamentary questions.

Sir John added: “The striking difference is this: in the 1990s I set up a committee to tackle this sort of behaviour.”

“Over the last few days we have seen today’s government trying to defend this sort of behaviour.”

The full interview is on the– BBC sounds at the following link

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0011bfk

It is well worth listening to - move the cursor to 1hr 09 min which is the start of the interview.

The outburst was also reported in the Guardian at:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/06/shameful-john-major-hits-out-at-handling-of-owen-paterson-scandal