THE BEE'S KNEES

It’s the apoidea’s hinge joint, the moggy’s night ware, the feline’s face fungus or the canine’s scrotum. There are different idioms to describe how good someone or something can be. As I pondered whether these idioms could be translated, I wondered whether google translate would use straight word for word translations or be sophisticated enough to translate the meaning of the idiom. For Italian and Latin it would appear word for word. For the French, it would seem the bee’s knees had been given an anglo-french version “le top du top”. As for the German, there was a variety of translations, although the bee’s knees did cause differences depending on where it came in the list.

My fanciful foray into idioms has been interrupted by an act of piracy in the Mediterranean. The Israeli Military forcibly took control of a British Flagged Yacht, the Madleen, in international waters, making its way to Gaza to deliver much needed aid. This action was in complete violation of international law. The Israeli Government has long ago ceased to understand the rule of law. Under its current leadership there is no respect for laws of any kind. The country is beyond any semblance of a civilised society. It has lost all sense of its own traditions and any claim that it adheres to the Jewish faith and beliefs has been eradicated in the bloody violence it now seems to embrace. There is no faith of any kind left in Israel. It has built new idols in the shape of tanks and other military hardware. That is their new golden calf. What was once a nation dedicated to education, civilised society and a firm grasp of the rule if law, has abandoned all its principles and become a savage rigid and intractable brute. A nation that prided itself on turning desert into gardens of green shoots and fruitful cultivation has turned the land  into such devastation that even the word desert is insufficient to describe it. What has become of that promised land? 

The other disturbance is the complete nazification of the United States in allowing the President of the United to deploy a National Guard unit on the streets of Los Angeles, in a sovereign state, usurping the power of the legal authority in California, with the addition of the threat of federal marine military units being deployed as well. A federal defence force being used to quell legitimate demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights. If that is not the Geheime Staatspolizei in action, what is? Respect for the rule of law seems to have dwindled across the globe. Piracy and violent dictatorship abound. What was the United Nations created for? 

Not only is Trump being allowed to flout the constitution with impunity, he has effectively walked away from any attempt at bringing an end to the fighting in the Ukraine as well as in Gaza. How can any right minded, clear thinking individual have anything to do with this man? He his considered a dolt and a swindler by almost every leader across the globe, or more probably the greatest blowhard ever elected President of the United States, subject to easy flattery to be pulled by the nose by those he professes to admire. When will the American people wake up and get rid of him and his cohorts? Surely there is a constitutional mechanism which can accomplish the necessary steps to be taken. I can only call on the constitutional lawyers of America to unite and find a solution. Please get it together now. If you do, you would become, without question, “Le top du top”.

EYES OF THE LADY ON TOP OF THE CAPITOL DOME

What has become of America? The situation is more dangerous than ever. The harassment of Miles Taylor  (former Trump advisor or appointee to the Department of Homeland Security during Mr Trump’s first term) by Trump’s Department of Justice on his specific executive order is more than an outrage. It is indicative of his leadership which is contrary  to  every principle of humanity and democracy proposed and upheld by the United States government since the First United States Congress convened on the 4th March 1789. 

How the current  majority of members of Congress and heads of the various Departments of Government can adhere to this psychotic narcissist’s agenda is beyond all understanding. The arrogance they display towards any criticism of their actions and the outright misrepresentations and twisting of the law to allow for wholesale criminality, emphasised by the pardoning of convicted fraudster and violent criminals, is appalling. The grifting and corruption in play are now the norm. 

I can recall a time when there used to be respect for education in America. Integrity and upholding the rule of law where revered principles constantly being expressed is a variety of ways, particularly in the arts. Mr Smith Goes to Washington is an instance in point. A film released in 1939, directed by Frank Capra. Capra was born in a village near Palermo, Sicily, Italy. He was the youngest of seven children of a catholic family. In 1903, when he was five, Capra's family immigrated to the United States. He won three Academy Awards for best direction. As to his politics, there is an entry in Wikipedia which states:

“Capra's political views coalesced in some of his movies, which promoted and celebrated the spirit of American individualism. A conservative Republican.  Capra railed against  Franklin D. Roosevelt during his tenure as governor of New York and opposed his presidency during the years of the Depression. Capra stood against government intervention during the national economic crisis. Nevertheless, the Los Angeles FBI chapter in May 1947 regarded Capra's film It’s a Wonderful Life as glorifying “values or institutions judged to be particularly anti-American or pro-Communist.”
 

The screenplay of Mr Smith Goes to Washington  was written by Sidney Buchman, born in 1902 in Duluth, Minnesota, USA in a jewish family. His wikipedia entry includes:

“Buchman was one of the most successful Hollywood screenwriters of the 1930s and 1940s. His scripts from this period include The King Steps Out (1936), Theodora Goes Wild (1936) and Holiday (1938). He would go on to receive Academy Award nominations for his writing on Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939), The Talk of the Town (1942), and Jolson Sings Again (1949), winning an Oscar for Here Comes Mr Jordan (1941). He also did uncredited work on various films during this period, notably The Awful Truth. He was the 1965 recipient of the Laurel Award of the Writers Guild of America, West. Buchman's refusal to provide the names of  American Communist Party members to the House Un-American Activities Committee led to a charge of contempt of Congress. Buchman was fined, given a year's suspended sentence, and was then blacklisted by the Hollywood movie studio  bosses.”

Here is a scene from the film:

 

There is another entry in wikipedia on Capra:

“Within four days of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941, Capra quit his successful directing career in Hollywood and received a commission as a major in the United States Army. He also gave up his presidency of the Screen Directors Guild. Being 44 years of age, he was not asked to enlist, but, notes Friedman, "Capra had an intense desire to prove his patriotism to his adopted land. Capra recalls some personal reasons for enlisting:
‘I had a guilty conscience. In my films I championed the cause of the gentle, the poor, the downtrodden. Yet I had begun to live like the Aga Khan. The curse of Hollywood is big money. It comes so fast it breeds and imposes its own mores, not of wealth, but of ostentation and phony status.’ “

Clearly there is a strong connection between the two men who created work that reflected what was good about American Democracy and the values deeply felt by such a mixed population. That the son of a jewish Russian émigré clothing merchant and an Italian immigrant whose family travelled steerage to the United States on the steamship Germania should come together to make this film is just what the American experience was all about. Both came out of poverty, from close families. Buchman graduating from Columbia University in New York in 1923, and Capra from the California Institute of Technology studying chemical engineering graduating in 1918. One leaning to the left of politics and other to the conservative side within the same country.

Both benefited greatly from education. Apparently “Capra later wrote that his college education had "changed his whole viewpoint on life from the viewpoint of an alley rat to the viewpoint of a cultured person”.  As to Buchman, a year after graduating he travelled to England and worked as an assistant stage manager at the Old Vic. He was also a member of the Communist Party between 1938 and 1945.

Yet both worked on producing films that reflected what were the better values of American society and were, a the time, lauded for it. An entry on the Internet Movie Database states: 
“Along with Frank Capra, he helped raise the studio's prestige and shake off the stigma of having once been a 'poverty row' outfit.”

The dialogue from Mr Smith may seem a bit cheesy but worth a read:

“ Just get up off the ground, that's all I ask. Get up there with that lady that's up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won't just see scenery; you'll see the whole parade of what Man's carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so's he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That's what you'd see. There's no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties. And, uh, if that's what the grownups have done with this world that was given to them, then we'd better get those boys' camps started fast and see what the kids can do. And it's not too late, because this country is bigger than the Taylors, or you, or me, or anything else. Great principles don't get lost once they come to light. They're right here; you just have to see them again!”

There are indeed voices in the United States that can still speak coherently and with passion on both sides of the political spectrum, without recourse to insult and disparagement. They  also  listen with concentration and a willingness to compromise for the mutual good of the nation; however, the Maga stalwarts are either vicious and inflexible, or feeble and pusillanimous  toadies. They loudly flatter and fawn on a leader  who proudly proclaims “I love the poorly educated”. Their ignorance  allows him to gaslight the public and openly scam the public with his corruption and double dealing. Such are the current Republican congressmen and women who never take the time to look at America with the lady atop the Capitol dome. 

ON REVIEWING PAST ENTRIES

I have been reviewing some of the previous most read blog entries. There is one from four years ago on Monday, 1st March 2021, entitled Angry, Upset and Bitter. It is essentially about the scamming and dishonesty that was proliferating, during the pandemic in particular, and that has not abated since. It has become even more insidious given the scale of cyber blackmail that seems to be affecting major companies and institutions. But the tragedy of the acceptance of dishonesty within the general public and the rise of overt shoplifting is the saddest development. The election of Trump is the most tragic example of the acquiescence to criminality by a general population.

Another blog that attracted numerous readers was posted on Saturday 15th May 2021 entitled, A Question Of Judgment. It referred to the United States Supreme Court and some of its past deplorable decisions and the outrageous hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy  of Senators Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell over the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Bench. Her role in the debacle of Roe-v-Wade will not be forgotten, particularly with her evasions on questions put to her during her confirmation hearing about that very case. These Senators are still with us and still just as reactionary, hypocritical and mendacious as ever. I include McConnell particularly because despite his sometime clashes with Trump he has done nothing to actively prevent him from running for office as he should and could have during Trump’s second impeachment.

Other popular postings include one on Monday the 28th June 2021, entitled A Rambling Reminiscence and another on Friday 25th June 2021 entitled Teachings of a Man Made Church?. The Rambling Reminiscence was just that and covered an extensive recall of events in our lives and also included a covid chart published in the Express, showing the current state of the UK deaths and hospital admissions rate at the time as well as an MSNBC account of the Orwellian dangers continuing as a result of the 6th January 2021 insurrection. 

As to Teachings of a Man Made Church?, you will note the question mark. It was inspired by a report that President Biden had been refused communion during a Church service because of his stance on abortion. It was a mater in which he had no choice as he had sworn to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, the first amendment of which states: 

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

I commented at the time:
As president Mr Biden therefore has no authority to interfere with or indeed express an opinion on religious matters, or in particular, the will of God. What Mr Biden supports is the individual citizen’s right to choose what religion, or not, they wish to follow and how they choose to lead their religious and moral lives. Religion therefore has no place in politics, nor in the secular education of the nation.  The citizen is free to choose. That is what is of paramount importance, and that is what Mr Biden is protecting and defending. How he personally feels about abortion has nothing to do with it. He is duty bound to support the 1st Amendment, no matter how difficult it may be for him personally.
The sad thing is that the clergy confuse the issue of abortion as being against the teachings of the church, and not a decision to be made by the individual concerned. Choices are individual judgements and resolutions made after considerable thought. The matter of terminating a pregnancy has never, in my view, ever been a matter for the bishops to pronounce upon as if it were the word of God. Whatever the teachings of the Church might be, it is man-made education and not the word of, or the definitive will, of God. Indeed, for a religious catholic to decide on a termination of a pregnancy, that decision having been made in consultation with God, would clearly be the will of God. Consultation with God is not consultation with a Clergyman of whatever denomination. The clergy are not God, despite their desire to give the impression that they are the voice of God. They are not. Consultation with God is with one’s conscience. It is usually an internal conversation and can have many outcomes. It is not for any individual or government to “prohibit the free exercise thereof.”
If God is love and forgiveness, then for any priest to deny communion to any catholic because of a difference of opinion, is in complete contravention of the teaching of Christ and they should be defrocked and drummed out of the church. Again, the teachings of the Church are not the word of God. They are the word of man, and that is always open to question. If the United States of America, is to call itself ‘one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all’, then it is the will of God that individuals have the right to choose. No man can, nor should, interfere in that.

I have not changed my opinion since then. It is a mater of belief and what we chose to believe. Unfortunately some people chose some rather disturbing things to believe. It is a question of fact and fiction. As to memories and going through past entries, I am reminded of the true nature of writing as expressed by Oscar Wilde:

CECILY. - I keep a diary in order to enter the wonderful secrets of my life. If I didn’t write them down, I should probably forget all about them.
MISS PRISM. - 
Memory, my dear Cecily, is the diary that we all carry about with us.
CECILY.
 - Yes, but it usually chronicles the things that have never happened, and couldn’t possibly have happened. I believe that Memory is responsible for nearly all the three-volume novels that Mudie sends us.
MISS PRISM.
- Do not speak slightingly of the three-volume novel, Cecily. I wrote one myself in earlier days.
CECILY.
 - Did you really, Miss Prism? How wonderfully clever you are! I hope it did not end happily? I don’t like novels that end happily. They depress me so much.
MISS PRISM.
 - The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means.
 

You will note the reference to Mudie, which is now mostly lost on us. It refers to Charles Edward Mudie (18 October 1818 – 28 October 1890), English publisher and founder of Mudie's Lending Library and Mudie's Subscription Library, was the son of a second-hand bookseller and newsagent. Mudie's efficient distribution system and vast supply of texts revolutionised the circulating library movement, while his "select" library influenced Victorian middle-class values and the structure of the three-volume novel. He was also the first publisher of James Russell Lowell’s's Poems in England, and of Emerson’s Man Thinking.

The three-volume novel (sometimes three-decker or triple decker) was a standard form of publishing for British fiction during the nineteenth century. It was a significant stage in the development of the modern novel as a form of popular literature in Western Culture..

UNLOCKING THE DOOR?

Preoccupation of the mind. A curious concept. On the one hand it indicates one is absorbed in thought, or engrossed in a particular idea, or dealing with some current situation requiring resolution or action of some kind. The consequence of this mental activity, one’s mind is so occupied that it is unable to entertain any additional thought or matter that may arise. Rather like a cubicle with a sign indicating ‘occupied’. The brain  is certainly capable of dealing with a multiplicity of ideas and enabling multitasking, assuming the physical requirements for such endeavours are available; but, there are moments when the absorption or mental concentration is so deep, that one appears to be distracted and not open to any interaction, not even of any kind. It becomes in effect unavailable for use.

This state of being is naturally transient. We usually work through situations that occupy our minds to such an extent as to effectively close it down. This enables us to interact with others. At any rate, it is the normal and usual course of action between human beings. A give and take exchange of ideas. On the other hand there are minds that are full of specific ideas, so firmly held, that they are permanently occupied. This is a state of being that is beyond preoccupation. Areas of the mind, at its corp, are so completely absorbed with locked in thoughts, that nothing newly apparent or diverting can enter. The mind is not so much distracted but, rather, petrified. Hence interaction seems to take place on  the periphery of the brain. These fixed ideas are retrieved on occasions, not so much to elucidate new thinking, but to reenforce the already fixed idea. It is like a cubicle with a permanent sign indicating “occupied” whichever way one turns the latch. There is no way in. It is never available.

As I sit here preoccupied, pondering, I wonder whether there is an area in my own brain which harbours such petrified thoughts.  Am I a creature of what is called the radical left, or am I capable of accepting certain conservative concepts.  William Pitt the Younger was a Conservative politician,  yet he said in the House of Common "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”.  A sentiment which any lefty would agree with. Indeed many people in their youth have aligned themselves with the political left and mellowed in their later years to join with a more conservative approach to governance.  I do not think I have gone that far, but there are certain aspects of civilisation, in particular, what might be called the social contract, which may seem conservative on my part. I am a firm believer in the rule of law and the duty of care. There are a number of conservative politicians who would express a similar view. The difference is the extent to which laws are made to control behaviour and thought, and to what extent one enforces the duty of care.

Russell Kirk (1918-1994) an American philosopher and historian, wrote a book published in 1953 called The Conservative Mind.  In it he suggested five canons of conservatism:
1-A belief in a transcendent order, described as based in tradition, or natural law;
2-An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
3-A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasise natural distinctions;
4-A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
5-A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and a recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.  

To begin with I find the second premise of an affection for the variety and mystery of human existence, completely at odds with a so called transcendent order or the idea that society requires orders and classes that emphasise alleged natural distinctions. What the conservative mind sees as tradition, natural law and distinctions is thinking of themselves as, by natural right, above the general population and consequently more worthy. They are not. As to property and freedom, they are to some extent linked. There is nothing wrong, in my view, with the freedom to own property, but the conservative view of acquiring property to the extent of preventing others from owning property, is something else again.

As to faith in custom, convention and prescription, it is not so much faith as it is respect. The traditional idiom of minding your p’s and q’s is a reasonable bench mark in social interaction. As regards innovation, by its very nature it cannot be tied to anything although in the light of the current expansion of the internet and AI, and its effect on societies in general, the value of prudence might apply. I confess I lean more towards the age of enlightenment in the persons of Locke, Kant, Smith (with reservations) and in the current era, Chomsky, Derrida, Barthes who probably have more to do with language and thought than politics. There are many more to chose from.

In any event, I am clearly not a conservative but I can appreciate some of its concepts; however, there are those who call themselves conservatives who do not embrace the five canons, and, whilst claiming to embrace small government, seek to impose total government control of their own making. They would impose their idea of what constitutes order, tradition and custom and prohibit any and all opposition to that order, even to the slightest degree. And so we have the likes of Orban, Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, Bolsonaro and others of their ilk.

The current outstanding horrors are unfortunately being dominated by men whose minds are preoccupied in the sense of unable to absorb any new thought. I cannot believe that there are no people in positions close to these individuals who might break through the cubicle door and change some views. Perhaps not. I ponder. 

ADDENDUM TO YESTERDAY'S RANT

The insanity of the conflict in Gaza is stupefying the world. Indeed the whole of the Middle Eastern imbroglio seems to be an insolvable problem. There are two articles on the conflict that make an attempt at understanding the consequences of what is going on. Matthew Syed in an article in the Sunday Times from Saturday 17th May and Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian on Friday 23rd May both express clear and considered opinion, accompanied by a tinge of despair.

Mr Syed’s piece is introduced by: “Like every true friend of Israel, I am obliged to say - enough. With each bomb, each bullet, each meal denied to Gaza’s children, Hamas is getting more of what it wants”. What he means is that as long as the Israeli Government and defence force behave with such disregard for humanity, they are loosing sympathy and support which is now turning markedly towards  the Palestinians. The violence is such that far from turning away from Hamas the population is more likely to increase its membership and support. That goes for any observers as well. Mr Syed is of the view that the atrocity committed by Hamas last year was deliberately intended to draw Israel into this kind of retaliation, sufficient to turn the tide of world opinion, and they have succeeded beyond their wildest hopes. Israel fell fully into the trap.

Mr Freedland’s statement is prefaced by: “A biblical hatred is engulfing both side in the Gaza conflict - and finding them to reason. Israel starving Palestinians, two killings at a Jewish museum: both are atrocities. But vanishingly few can see it.” There is no doubt that the Israeli Government has lost all sense of foresight and that rational behaviour has been exhausted. So much so that any sense of support or sympathy has been eroded and all that is left is blind rage and violence. With mind and eyes filled with blood, all sense of humanity disappears. Endless retaliation is all that is left. It blinds one even to distrust and oppose those who would be on our side and in effect only succeeds in turning them against us. It is blind and therefore ignorant in every direction.

Both articles are considered and worth seeking out to read. They provide no solace, but perhaps something to reflect upon and find some understanding. Finding understanding however is not finding a solution. Finding a way of moving people back to rationality and considered compromise towards coexistence through a Niagara of blood is still far away.

ANOTHER DAY ANOTHER RANT

Seven days of events have passed since my last entry. The conflict in the middle east carries on towards even greater infamy. Netanyahu’s offensive has progressed to open insults directed at other world leaders, the united nations and any institution that dares to criticise the Israeli government. Any criticism from any quarter is now to be regarded as anti-semitism. This is an outrageous claim and fits in with his scurrying to Donald Trump to bolster his arrogance, not unlike the ego maniacs of the 1930’s messieurs Mussolini and Hitler. You may think this is a rash comparison, but how else is one to think of it.

Trump’s administration is uprooting the constitution every moment he is in office. His attacks on well established institutions of higher learning under the guise of eradicating anti-semitism is an outrage. He seeks total control of enrolments, hirings of staff and areas of study. He seeks to stifle any free speech and thought that does not conform to his methods of operation. His will is what matters. He applies this to any institution or profession that might cause him difficulty; hence, his bullying of legal firms and the judiciary. Any criticism or adverse ruling of his so called executive orders is seen as criminal treason. The fact of his own open corruption highlights his hypocrisy. The adulation with which the Republican Party greets this venality and open racketeering is sickening.

His claim, together with his acolytes, that there is no place for hatred in the United States is astounding, given his endless insults, hate tweets and speech over the last eight years of vilifying his detractors and immigrants, enlisting the aid of the likes of Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Kristi  Noem. These three alone have spewed hatred with malicious epithets directed at immigrants and any person voicing contrary  opinion.

The comparisons to the establishment of dictatorships in Italy and Germany of the 1930’s grows more and more appropriate. The repetition of adulation of the leader by subordinates and the relish with which they exercise their power is akin to the Stanley Milgram’s experiment at Yale in the 1960’s. The blind arrogance with which they follow their leader belies there supposed education and reminds us of the worst excesses of the French Revolution.

The bizarre nature of the current tit for tat headline grabbing, between the Gaza horror show and the atrocities in the Ukraine, dumbfounds the mind. What are we to do?  There is an ongoing civil war in Sudan and various insurgencies and internal conflicts in Africa. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, and Haiti are also facing significant challenges. Violence seems to pervade the world.

The two major conflicts have the United States President at the forefront. He put himself there with his claims, on the one hand that they would never have  happened if he had been President, as he should have been at the time, and on the other hand that he would resolve the conflict within 24 hrs and a phone call. Well, he is in the mix and the situations have got worse. He does a mineral deal with Ukraine which is hardly likely to take effect so long as Mr Putin remains intransigent. Indeed, Mr Putin will continue to pull Mr Trump around by the nose until, by some miracle the light dawns and Trump finally says enough is enough and goes into his bully act. An unlikely scenario as Trump is devoted to Putin and is more likely to just walk away from the problem. He has already threatened to do so. As to Gaza, he is apparently committed to organise food aid distribution as per Mr Netanyahu’s request. Whether that will actually happen is another matter, although Mr Trump’s real estate ambitions of Costa Gaza are always on his mind.

There is of course the problem of violence at home for Mr Trump which he might seek to resolve. Over 1.6 million assault victims  taken to ER hospitals last year in the United States, and nearly 25 Thousand homicides. During Trump’s first Presidency “between 2016 and 2020, the number of homicides in the United States saw a general trend of slight increases, with a notable spike in 2020.. While the data for 2016, 2017, and 2018 showed a relatively stable number of homicides, 2020 saw a significant surge, with the average U.S. city experiencing a nearly 30% increase in its homicide rate, the fastest ever recorded.” It started to reduce under President Biden. In any event, racial hatred and other prejudices abound in the United States. Note another alleged fact:

“In 2018, it was estimated that U.S. civilians owned 393 million firearms, with the U.S. having the highest number of guns per capita in the world. This translates to 120.5 firearms for every 100 residents. As of 2023, 32% of Americans owned at least one firearm, and a larger percentage (44%) reported living in a gun household, according to a 2020 Gallup survey”

There are about 2.2 million military personnel in the Ukrainian army. The average Ukrainian soldier could have 128 weapons each if the US citizens gave up their guns. What kind of world do we live in? Should not Mr Trump clean up his own mess rather than screw up the rest of the planet?

393 million firearms in private hands. A shocking number. I do not understand why any government should have anything to do with a country that is vested in violence to that degree. How the right to bear arms has not been repealed or expunged from the constitution of the United Staes is  beyond comprehension. How can the world even expect progress towards peace from the leadership of the most lethal society in existence? I think that is a fair question. Mr Trump clearly cares not one jot for his own citizens, for whom he claims America First, let alone any other “foreign” citizen, whom he constantly refers to as insane rapists and murderers. We should have nothing more to do with this man. The European countries must take a stand, indeed take the lead. We will get nowhere with this broken collection of so called United States who seem to lack the ability to remove this pariah and his minions from office and truly make America great again.

MIROR SI NEXUM HABEMUS

There appears to be a growing vocal and active opposition to Mr Trumps administration although just how effective it is being, is open to question. The fact that court orders are being ignored, and the judiciary is under attack, in defiance of the constitution and the rule of law, there seems to be little action in bringing the appropriate miscreants to justice. Surely there must be some legitimate authority that can issue, and caused to be served, writs of mandamus and summonses for breach of Judicial order and contempt of court. Why is this not happening?

The contempt and contemptible action being taken by Trump’s stooges is beyond acceptable. I note that Judge Hannah Dugan has been indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly helping a Mexican man evade immigration officials through a back door during an arrest attempt. I am trying to imagine the scene in court. I believe she was adjudicating on a matter concerning the gentleman in question. On what basis and how  did the immigration officials attempt to make the arrest? Did they actually notify the Judge that it was their intention to arrest this man? Was she passed a note? Did the Court staff tell her what was happening outside the court room and did she personally escort the gentleman to a back door? I doubt if any of these things happened and the sworn testimony of the officials before the grand jury will, I firmly believe, be rejected by any jury hearing the case in due course. It might  never actually come to trial as being so totally unbelievable.  I know I have no actual knowledge of the case, but given the gestapo like tendencies of current immigration officials in the era of Trump (note the number of detentions of tourists, green-card holders, academics and foreign students whose phones are scrutinised and hacked) I would not be surprised if I am correct. If ever the phrase trumped up charges had significance, it is now.

This situation is not just a problem for the United States, it is a world wide problem. To have the richest western democracy go the way of the Russian Federation, Myanmar and other similar repressive dictatorships will be catastrophic for the global economy as well as world interaction and stability. This president and his followers is a monumental disaster and must not be placated to and gently pacified. This exceptionally venal bully and his corrupted stooges must be called out and to account. Every government with any integrity must stand up. It is beyond diplomacy.   The charade of what has just been happening in Turkey with Ukraine and Russian peace talks is contemptible.

There is a mood around the world that hovers like some miasmic mist that prevents us from bringing and end to the violence and chaos everywhere. What is wrong with us? Governments are terrified of interfering for fear of exacerbating the situation and escalating into a world war. Perhaps so, but surely a preventive and aggressive intervention is now necessary, particularly in the Middle East and Middle Europe. Some action was taken over the Yugoslavian debacle, surely something can be done now. Our friends and family, at times, gather together for an intervention to deal with our bad behaviour or addictions. Cannot allied countries do the same for their neighbours? Are there no serious statesman in place to lead the effort?  What representatives anywhere have been elected to fit the bill?

I complain too much and sit about, not doing much of anything on my own account. I rail against Trump and his ilk. I have not joined any political party. I have not put myself forward for any political, commercial or professional society office. Donc, as the French would say, who am I to complain. In any event I am too involved, at present, with an age specific relationship with the NHS, as are many of my friends. There are a couple of old New Yorker cartoons which currently sum up the situation: 

So forgive me and, if you can, continue to put up with my ranting  There are a number of people who have suggested that I might have some  access to the celestial ear. I cannot think why, but who knows?

THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS

There is a problem with deal making in the current climate. Various pundits on newscasts in the United States have ridiculed the supposed commercial deal between the United States and the United Kingdom. Apparently the deal changes nothing between the two countries as the 10% tariff, previously put in place, remains the same and any actual agreement has yet to be completed. So why the grand announcement that a great deal has been made? Perhaps the concept of the great deal is enough.

I may be out of touch with actual events so far as deal making is concerned, but I see little evidence that the United Kingdom economy is likely to grow to any great extent. Are luxury cars really so important? Will the sale of 5000 expensive vehicles being sold to wealthy Americans save the British economy? That seems to be the great deal to crow about. Was it really all about the car industry?  There are, so my google search tells me, about 22 million millionaires in the United States. So I guess if  0.02% of them are likely to buy a car from the UK the industry is saved. What am I missing?

The above was a passing thought in the light of some of the stuff I see on YouTube. There is a lot of stuff posted on YouTube, in particular congressional oversight committees which question the various Trump appointed secretaries of various departments of state and other institutions. The likes of Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Kash Patel, Director of the FBI, are classic examples of mendacity.

The Senators and Congressional Representatives are each given 5 minutes to ask questions. In view of the limitations on time, they try to ask questions requiring yes or no answers. It is really quite a simple approach to ascertain whether or not the person in charge of a particular office knows what they are doing and understands the basic exigencies  of their office.

Trump appointees do not answer questions but have prepared lengthy statements of obfuscation and subtile prevarications in order to effectively filibuster and take up as much time as they can to run out the time the questioner has. Most committees are now being chaired by republican sycophants because they are in the majority. As a result the times are strictly enforced when it comes to Democrats or any representative who seeks the truth. The disrespect shown by these Trump appointed persons towards elected congressional representatives in both houses of Congress is an outrage.

What makes this so obvious is that when questioned by a Maga representative, like Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana, they are more than willing to provide short yes or no answers and allow the Senator to spill his poisonous views and bigotry at will. There is no other was of interpreting the spectacle. Kash Patel is the most outrageous in his disrespectful behaviour and obvious outright deceit. His display of incompetence and lies over the submission of the proposed budget for his department is in itself almost criminal  and cringe making.

What is sad is that they appear to be getting away with this type of arrogant disdain for the rule of law and present oversight of Congress. There is in effect no  oversight whatsoever.  How the American public will be able to recover from this chicanery during the next 4 years and beyond comprehension. To watch the death and destruction of what was once a proud democracy, albeit with a few flaws, is sad in the extreme. It is now “my country piss on thee, sour land sans liberty, of thee I dread”.  If ever there was a time to take action to rid the United States of these people, it is now. How you go about it is something else. When in the course of human events... think about it and good luck.

ELECTIONS FOR WHAT?

I did not anticipate that the British electorate, who voted in the local elections across middle England, would actually support the new Reform Party. I can only assume it reflects some sort of protest vote. Similarly the Runcorn and Helsby by-election was decided by 6 votes allowing the Reform Party Candidate to take the seat. The insanity of the election is that the winning candidate only had 38.72% of the actual vote. The other parties took 61.28% which means that two thirds of the people who bothered to vote in Runcorn did not support Reform. To top it all, it was only a 46.2% turnout. Which means that only 17.88% of the total electorate, in middle England, has voted in a Reform MP.

How on earth does that represent democracy. Clearly the vast majority of people in middle England, or indeed in Great Britain, do not want anything to do with Reform; but then, the Labour Party managed only 38% of actual voters to gain a large majority. So under no circumstances can any political party claim to speak for the British people There is no majority consent of any kind, so it is no wonder that there is little confidence amongst the general public for any government. The majority of citizens, by the very fact of the scattered multiplicity of votes and candidates, clearly want something other than what we have. Where there is so much discontent, how can any party claim a mandate for its proposed agenda simply because they have more MP’s than any other party.  

The object of the exercise would, or should, be an attempt to bring views and aspirations together. In essence a consensus should be found that can be accepted by the majority. Probably an impossible task, but, I repeat, for any political party, elected on such slim percentages, to claim a mandate from the British people to implement their party’s manifesto is dishonest. When one perpetuates an obvious fraud, is it any surprise there is discontent; however, that discontent is self inflicted. The low turnout is what causes this imbalance. If those who oppose sit at home and do nothing, then the active participants will mange to rule. It has been said time and again, in a democracy citizen’s have the right to vote, but voting changes nothing if you do not vote.

So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, since the Anglo Saxon period (410-1066), when continental refugees and nomads from Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, came to colonise these Islands, a chequered nation was established.

Individual little kingdoms eventually coming together - at times reluctantly or forcibly - under a single sovereign. It is now Great Britain, a hierarchical nation, no doubt, which still maintains a monarchy. It had at one time ruled across the world, exceeding every previous empire, but which, despite its chequered history of colonialism, chicanery, dubious trade and duplicity, nonetheless established the bedrock of the rule of law and human rights in world affairs.  That is something to hold on to. Not the colonialism, chicanery, dubious trade and duplicity, but the rule of law and human rights.

I am afraid that what the Reform party seeks to hold on to, is the vestiges of colonialism, chicanery, dubious trade and duplicity. Their vision of an isolationist populist commercial Britain is seriously flawed. It is based on blame and suspicion of the foreigner. It wants to separate and not incorporate. Instead of connecting with the rest of the world it seeks to do ‘deals’.  Like Mr Trump, who claims to be the master of the art of the deal, the vision is narrow, entirely stupid and short sighted. There is no art in what they do.

Most citizens recognise that shortsightedness but somehow fail to see their own. Because they find it difficult to support any political party, their discontent with politics prevents them from making a decision. As a result they fail to exercise their historically fought for enfranchisement. The right of every citizen to have some say, no matter how insignificant, in the governance of their country has taken a millennium to establish. To find a way to ensure that the freedom and rights that have evolved over the this period is surely an imperative. Making a political decision in order to elect a political party that is most likely to ensure that security is, I would have thought, very necessary. Of course there are difficulties and one single ideology may not fit every point of view. In fact, there are so many political agendas it is very difficult to make that decision. Nonetheless, by bringing together, in a democratic manner, a consensus of representatives to form a government which will maintain the basic uncontested human rights and freedoms under the rule of law, is surely something to achieve. There are indeed some truths that are self evident. The present system of first past the post has got to go and some proportional system must be sought in the interest of the public to maintain the peace. It is a compromise, but there are too many victims to maintaining the status quo.

Allowing the populists and nationalist agenda to pressure every progressive agenda from coming to fruition, is not the answer. Most people are willing to deal with transition. Tempering necessary action, under pressure, in order to gain votes to maintain power is not compromise. Achieving a consensus is what is required. This is done through reasoned argument and acceptance of possibilities.

The tragedy of the present situation is that too much emphasis is given to  the election results for the Reform party. The actual vote is small. They have a number of individuals elected from a minority that went to the polls. This is being played up by the media as some great success and given a large amount of coverage in the press, on television and on line. That does not change the actual maths. It is a minority movement and should not put the fear of God in other political parties. The others should concentrate on governing, on getting the vote out and on making the voting system more relevant to the current situation and the state of democracy. Reform may well have a roll in parliament under a system of proportional representation, but it would never be in a position to lead a government. Continuing with the current system under first past the post and the easy publicity given by a populist press will only promote continued voter apathy and sad electoral outcome.  

It is too disconcerting to contemplate a United Kingdom sinking to the appalling level of the United States. A country led without a shred of decency or integrity by a convicted thug and his unelected stooges. None of the executives in government, bar the president and his vice president (bearing in mind the vice president is coupled with the president on the ballot - it’s a sort of buy two get one free) is elected to office. The cabinet is chosen by the president and although approved by the Senate it ends up, in effect, the president’s choice. There is no such thing as cabinet responsibility. The so called checks and balances envisioned by the founding fathers and the constitution has been virtually eroded. Trump rules by decree. He believes his executive orders are the law. L'État, c'est moi. He says as much. He even disappears to Mar-a-Lag, his puny version of Versailles, at the week ends to play golf. His own family clearly have no wish to live with him in Washington, and are probably grateful he spends his time there on a golf cart. How is this man not ostracised by rest of the world? He is so below contempt it is difficult to understand why people tolerate his criminality.

So, can His Majesty’s Government please step up to the intellectual integrity and gravitas it once held around the globe and stop weaselling to gangsters in the shape of Trump and Putin et al. They are not statesmen, they are imposters. Can we show a little grit please?

ON BECOMING A CITIZEN 2

In yesterday’s blog I failed to deal with the matter of why my outrage against the Trump regime was  greater than my despair engendered by the Labour Party in the UK. Clearly I have lived most of my life in London; however, some of my formative years and most of my teenage years and early adulthood were lived in California, from 1956 to 1965.

Those particular years, from age 14 to 23 were of some importance in that they encompassed so many firsts in my life. Also, the transition from beatnik to hippy was a kind of evolution that many of my particular generation of American youth went through with gusto. We were, I was, very much influenced by the beat generation of Kerouac, Ginsberg, Cassady, Kessey and others, as well as even elder statesmen such as Burroughs, Miller and Ferlinghetti. During these later years in Los Angeles, mainly in Westwood, Santa Monica and Venice I encountered a number of influencers including Lawrence Lipton (who wrote The Holy Barbarians, a book published in 1959 detailing the lives of the Beats living on Venice Beach in Los Angeles) and Henry Miller (author of Tropic of Cancer and Quiet Days in Clichy et ors). Miller and Lipton were both regular customers at a bookshop where I worked, called The Book Fair, which was owned by a veteran of the Lincoln Brigade, Robert Klonsky.  He had joined up at age 18. He had fought at the Battle of Jarama from 6-27 February 1937, which resulted in 10,000 to 20,000 dead wounded or captured. Robert had many friends and acquaintance in the film industry who frequented the bookstore, including Albert Maltz and Herb Kline who had made a documentary film on the Spanish Civil War in 1937 called  The Heart of Spain. After the book store closed I had a job at a visual arts centre run by Herb.

Those years in Los Angeles were not without significance in terms of my experience and education. Indeed, one particular date which I, and many of my contemporaries, will remember in great detail, is the 22 November 1963. I was at work at the Book Fair having a chat with a French Journalist Olivier Todd when a woman came in and told us to turn on the radio as President Kennedy had been shot. It was 10:50 am and Kennedy had been shot about 20 minutes ago in Dallas, Texas.

So much of this was a very strong and deep relationship with America, It is not easy to let it go. On top of which my High School years were even more peculiar. I am still reasonably in touch with two friends from Beverly Hills High School. Both of whom are very decent, thoughtful and intelligent people. Not the typical Beverly High Student either. They have continued to live in Southern California, although, tragically, both were recently burned out of house and home in their 80’s which is not an easy age to begin again. They are fortunately  strong and resilient, but things are not easy.

When I say peculiar, I should supply some context. My family had been living in France and I was attending a Lycée in a suburb town near Paris . It was a pilot school in that it was the first co-educational lycée in France. The Lycée Henry IV, annex de Montgeron. The discipline was strict although not outrageously so, but one was expected to behave and pay attention. Failure to produce assignments and homework was heavily criticised. When the family moved back to California I enrolled at Beverly Hills High in the fall of 1956. I was just going on 14. I believe I had a very slight French accent when speaking English as a result of which I was given the nickname Frenchy, by some of the more down to earth characters, more akin to the kids out of Rebel Without A Cause.  

I was surprised by the ease with which boys and girls related to each other, as well as the social aspects one was expected to join. The first dance to which tickets were sold was the Pigskin Prom, to celebrate the opening of the football season, and there were many other social activities to take part in. There was also the social convention of dating to deal with. No such activities existed at the Lycée. Relationships with teachers were nothing like as formal. There was also a carpark for the Seniors and Juniors who were old enough to drive, which in California was 16. If you took the Drivers Education Course, something completely alien to the Lycée, you could obtain a Learner’s Permit at 15 and a half. I had never known such freedom and opportunities existed. To me, coming from a Europe still recovering from a war, this was truly a Disneyland. My academic performance suffered, but this was America. In the mornings and at various other events one pledged allegiance to the flag. A mild sort of indoctrination but subliminal through repetition. It was a very American High School experience. All in all, my Americanisation between 1956 and 1965 was complete.

The teaching was actually quite good and apart from the usual myths about pilgrims, thanksgiving, Father Serra, and Washington’s cherry tree, a reasonable appreciation of the constitution and system of local, State and Federal governance was acquired. The notion of the safeguards of democracy and freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill Of Rights were engrained. One developed a Mr Smith Goes to Washington naïveté about the whole thing,

Although much of that naivety has been eroded over the years, in particular through Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, the democratic process and the very safeguards of the Constitution helped expose the chicanery.

What is happening now is a complete destruction of that system. That a population can wilfully elect a convicted felon, a sexual predator and proven liar to the Presidency of the United States is unbelievable. That a psychotic narcissist and would be dictator struts about the world with seeming impunity given him by the American electorate, is an outrage. That his unelected unconscionable cabinet and advisers have been approved by the Senate is equally beyond comprehension.  Is it any wonder that watching my fond memories of America becoming excrement is upsetting.

So please forgive me if I am not as apoplectic about the difficulties encountered with the British Government. The British Constitution while unwritten is, in my view, still strong and, given the current failings of the American constitution to dispose of the felon, probably even stronger. Perhaps one that is enshrined on paper as opposed to one that is enshrined in belief and respect is not as enduring. The British have had 1500 years to develop it as opposed to 250 years on paper. 

ON BECOMING A CITIZEN

I do not really know to what extent the electorate of a country actually believes their vote influences  how their government performs. Indeed, to what extent do the citizens of a country actually feel they have a direct connection with how their country is run?

For the last 50 years I have been a citizen of the United Kingdom. I was effectively given sanctuary by the UK during the first 10 years of being in the UK, before officially becoming a British Subject. Having voluntarily become British, I was officially informed by the United States government, that my US citizenship had been withdrawn and that I was no longer entitled to the rights and privileges accorded to citizens of the United States. The pro forma letter sent to me read like a rebuke and a warning that my actions were depriving me of the very substantial safeguards and protections my being an American citizen provided.

At that time my country was seeking to prosecute me for failure to respond to the call to join up to the armed forces, under the selective service system. I was a draft dodger. It was not the most patriotic of decisions. There were obligations required by law to fulfil certain duties towards one’s country. I was, under the laws of the United States, breaking that law.  The only excuse I can offer is,  at the time I had made that decision there were several hundred thousand other young men who had made the same decision. Draft cards were being burned in public view at political demonstrations across the country. The United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War was being condemned across the world. From 1966 on, public opposition was growing and by 1968 anti-war demonstrations and general political unrest was rife everywhere. This went on through to April 1975 when that conflict officially came to an end.

I had left the United States in 1965. I had already been for a physical for induction into the armed services in 1962,  but at the time I was classified as being unfit for military service. Some time later, whilst I was in the UK (I think 1967) I had received notification to attend an induction centre for another physical for reclassification. I ignored the request. In 1972 I applied for British Citizenship which was eventually granted in 1975, at the end of the Vietnam War. The paperwork involved took time. Why? I’m not sure, but in 1975 I signed an affidavit of loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs and successors according to law. I did not swear by God, but truly declared and affirmed. It was after this that my US citizenship was withdrawn and I was still under threat of being prosecuted by the United States for my refusal to attend another physical for reclassification. So much for safeguards and protections. On January 21, 1977,  newly elected President Jimmy Carter signed a pardon for draft evaders of the Vietnam War. He apparently referred to it as the ‘single hardest decision’ of his campaign. So, I am pardoned. I cannot say that my decision not to return to the United States for reclassification was the single easiest decision of my life, as it was a decision made by default. I just ignored the letters. Too much else was going on.

I had voted in the 1964 general election in the United States. Lyndon Johnson, who had been elevated to President as a result of Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, was facing Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. On the back of the sentiment surrounding the assassination Johnson won 44 out of the 50 states, including the District of Columbia. He’d won 61.1% of the vote. The country was solidly Democratic. A huge endorsement from the public. At the time, very few of us knew just what was going on in Vietnam, but over the next four years, the escalation and the incessant news and television images, revealed an undercurrent of dissension and outrage. It was not just the anti-war sentiment but an entire cultural change that was festering all over the western world as well as behind the iron curtain.

There was a hardening of conservatism in much of America as well as an accompanying discontent among my generation of Americans. As a result of the war and persistent social unrest President Johnson withdrew from politics and Richard Nixon was the next elected President carrying 32 states out of 50. The country was seeking respite and the return of some kind of order. For some bizarre reason it was felt that Richard Nixon was the answer. Indeed, in 1972 Nixon garnered 49 states and over 60% of the popular vote, all the while trying to conceal his peculiar methods to retain power which amounted to an extraordinary abuse of power. He got his comeuppance and resigned. There followed vice president Gerald Ford’s ascendency to the presidency, and an extremely close presidential  election in 1976 bringing Jimmy Carter to office. The country was clearly exhausted. The war was at an end with a reluctant acceptance of defeat, a turning away from perceived corruption towards a possible return to decency and a breath of fresh air, in the guise of someone apparently guileless and willing to listen and compromise. “My name is Jimmy Carter and I’m running for President” was his constant refrain. Still, conservative America had a patriotic voice, hence his first most difficult single decision to pardon draft evaders on his first day in office. It was without fanfare, but a simple pardon with a view to reconciliation and healing of social wounds.

Now I had played no part whatsoever in the elections of 1968, 1972 or 1976. As a United States Citizen up to 1975, I could probably have voted in ’68 and ’72; however my vote would have been for nought given the swing towards Richard Nixon. As a voting citizen, during those ten plus years I felt no connection whatsoever with the government of the United States. I did not feel in any way that I was a fugitive who had broken the law. It was merely circumstance along a road less traveled by. The pardon in effect allowed me to pay a visit to Los Angeles in 1978 as a British Subject with an old fashioned blue British Passport wherein it was requested that I be “allowed to travel without let or hindrance” in foreign countries. I flew on a Laker Airways cheap flight which was not very crowded . I even had three seats to myself on the return flight, so I was able to stretch out. What ever happened to Freddie Laker? He was rather like a Jimmy Carter to air travel.

In the fifty years since I became a British Subject I have made four short trips to the US. Two to Los Angeles, one to New York and one to Sharon, Connecticut. I cannot say that these visits  instilled in me any desire to return to live in the United States. They were fun but and the people I frequented are lovely decent intelligent individuals, which is more than can be said for their federal government.

So why is it that I am more outraged by the  current assault on democracy in the United States than by some of the decisions taken by the Labour Party, which I support? I am upset by, or rather, dismissive of the Conservative Party and Nigel Farage and Co are deeply disturbing; however, none of that reaches the despair and anxiety I feel when it comes to the current administration in the United States. It is not as if there are no like minded people in the United States. One only has to comb through YouTube podcasts to find support.

I cannot say that anything I add to political and cultural discussion in the UK has any more effect than comment on the situation in the US. My vote here seems to be just as ineffectual as my no vote in America. Is a citizen’s life so completely separate from the government that administers their environment and their every day existence? Is it all down to us and them? How did we get here?

So far as the UK is concerned, the Romans came in 43AD and brought a bit of civilisation and governance of a sort. They left and various Anglo Saxon Kingdoms sprang up and governed from about 410 AD. Since then, over 1500 years, a variety of societies have governed in Great Britain culminating in the parliamentary democracy we now have under a constitutional monarchy. During that time the nation’s ups and downs have evolved into a multicultural country with an extraordinary variety of people such as native born locals, immigrants and refugees from all over. I suppose, in the light of my circumstances, I too became a refugee, allowed a fresh start and an education. I have personally never endured discrimination. Even during some dark times, I cannot claim to have suffered much. Do not get me wrong, the UK is not paradise. There is plenty of discrimination, bigotry and small mindedness to go around. The political right is every bit as insidious in creating as much disruption as possible. There are even those who willingly support the likes of Donald Trump. It is however the nation that produced the enlightenment and the very essential principles of the rule of law and human rights. There would have been no American or French Revolution without the likes of Hume, Smith, Locke, Paine et al.

Nonetheless the government is some other beast, seemingly separate from the population. Institutions have their own identity and independent existence which effectively makes them something apart.  Although made up of average citizens, who operate the civil service, are elected to local government offices, or employed in law enforcement, or the health service, the institutions seem separate from the public they serve. They behave, at times, as if in conflict with the people they are meant to serve.  It’s just people helping other people, yet once part of the institution the staff loose their personality and become part of the mechanism. How are we meant to connect if we are absorbed in the apparatus. When there are failings, committees are appointed to investigate and provide conclusions for lesson’s learned, which somehow are very rarely learned. The repetition of phrases like “institutional racism” I have heard over the last 50 years is ongoing.

I come back to my question, do the citizens of a country actually feel they have a direct connection with how their country is run? Is it through the ballot box? Or is it through demonstrations in Trafalgar and Parliament Squares or Whitehall outside Downing Street? Or is it now through campaigning on the Internet? Whatever it is, it causes me no end of anxiety. How foolish is that?

VOICES FROM THE PAST

This was recorded 59 yers ago in 1966. I had been in the UK for just under a year. The world cup was being played in England but there was a lot of other stuff going on all over the world, particularly in Vietnam and hence the United States. It all blew up in our faces in 1968.  

 

There is something happening here
What it is ain’t exactly clear
There’s a man with a gun over there
Telling me I’ve got to beware

 

TO DO THE RIGHT THING

Once again the world faces a very serious moral crisis. The concept of the rule of law, duty of care citizens have towards one another, compliance with obligations towards employers, and loyalty to the state, is being tested in seemingly solid democratic nations.  The Nuremberg trials revealed, in horrific graphic display,  that the justification “I was only following orders” was, in the face of the evidence of one’s own actions, not a tenable position. Criminal and immoral orders from above was no longer acceptable as an excuse of unacceptable behaviour.

It can, however, be extremely problematic and difficult for the individual to take action against those giving the orders. Indeed the whole concept of whistleblowing can, in many circumstances, be very self destructive or personally counter productive unless upheld by one’s fellow citizens or co-workers who may be adversely affected by the action taken.

The kinds of orders currently being given and acted upon in the United States of America have become far more serious and dangerous to the well being of a democratic state. Compliance with orders to deport and arrest innocent individuals and run roughshod over the rights of people whose liberty and well being is at stake is anathema; yet, clearly, there are huge numbers of people willing to comply with carrying out such orders without question, under the guise of “only doing one’s duty”.  Not only have most courts ruled many executive orders are outside the rule of law, but are most certainly in breach of the fifth and fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, amongst others.

Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Fourteenth Amendment:
SECTION . 1. All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Sections 2,3,4 and 5 deal with elections of representatives, disqualification for insurrection, public debt and enforcement. Section 3 would, in my view as well as others, most certainly apply to Mr Trump)

One has to imagine the difficulty faced by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officer  when carrying out his/her orders in the light of the current atmosphere created by Mr Trump and his acolytes. The arrogance and definitive position taken by his/her superiors and the barrage of misrepresentation of the truth and law, spumed out by various individuals in the Trump administration, make it virtually impossible for any  average right minded employee to shout out “Stop this, enough, this is wrong. I object. I will not follow this illegal order”.

It is all very well for Senators, House Representatives, politicians and pundits to take a stand for democracy, but for the individual actually expected to do the hands on part of the job, it is not so easy. To behave like a decent moral citizen, upholding a primary duty of care, in the face of a higher power or authority, is a tough ask. It shouldn’t be so, given what we are usually taught about decency and respect for others, but it is. Of course there have been examples of people who have resigned from positions where they have been told to take a certain course of action, such as lawyers refusing to cease ongoing actions, but there is always someone else to replace them. Therein lies the problem. There is always someone else. It is often said that one person can make a difference, but it usually takes a very long time and a lot of heartache for that difference to take effect. There appears to be some movement or backlash in the United States against Trump and his ridiculous administration. One hopes it is so.

The problem with blind nationalism throughout the world is that there are always people willing to do the dirty work and just follow orders. The things people do to each other is hard to come to terms with. We make laws about thievery and violence and take high moral positions, but when it comes to the actions of Nation States and the dangers of populism leading to dictatorship, somehow it all goes out the window. Political promises of a golden era to come, if only we do what we’re told, is the simple mantra. If only that were true. It comes back to the Eve Merriam poem I posted on 20th March, the last two stanzas of which:

Only we two, and yet our howling can
Encircle the world’s end.
Frightened,  you are my only friend.

And frightened, we are everyone.
Someone must make a stand.
Coward take my coward’s hand.

STAND UP FOR TRUTH TELLING

More about free speech. The Trump administration is forever claiming its adherence to free speech. The Vice President has even criticised other countries for their lack of free speech. The country now most actively seeking to curtail and control free speech is the United States of America.

What is going on, right now, with federal funding of universities is an outrage. Not only is the current administration seeking to get rid of the Department of Education entirely but it has blackmailed and bullied universities to change some of its programs the government thinks are critical. An article in the Guardian (from Reuters) reads, inter alia:

Columbia University has yielded to a series of changes demanded by the Trump  Administration as a pre-condition for restoring $400m in federal funding the government pulled this month amid allegations that the school tolerated antisemitism on campus.
The university released  a memo outlining its agreement with Donald Trump’s administration hours before an extended deadline set by the government was to expire.
Columbia acquiesced to most of the administration’s demands in a memo that laid out measures including banning face masks on campus, empowering security officers to remove  or arrest individuals, and taking control of the department that offers courses on the Middle East from its faculty.
The Ivy League university’s response is being watched by other universities that the Trump Administration has sanctioned as it advances its policy objectives in areas ranging from campus protests to transgender sports and diversity initiatives.
The Trump administration has warned at least 60 other universities of possible action over alleged failure to comply with federal civil rights laws related to antisemitism. It has also targeted at least three law firms that the president says helped his political opponents or  helped prosecute him unfairly.
Among the most contentious of the nine demands, Columbia agreed to place its Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies department under a new official, the memo said  taking control away from its faculty.

In response to this Andrew Graham, political economist, former master of Balliol College, Oxford and former director of the Scott Trust has written a piece for the Guardian entitled, Academic freedom in the US is under threat – universities of the world, unite! which can be found at:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/09/universities-lies-truth-columbia-harvard-princeton

In his concluding paragraph he states:
The truth is almost always partial, debatable and context dependent. Yet, as Bernard Williams argued so convincingly inTruth and `Truthfulness, academics must be truth-tellers. We cannot be neutral with respect to fake news, misinformation or outright lies. No matter where these come from, they must be called out. If a university does not believe this and does not act accordingly, it does not deserve to be a university.
With Columbia having capitulated, and with Harvard and Princeton under pressure to follow suit, every university, not just across the US, but around the globe, must unite in standing up for truth-telling.

WHAT ABOUT FREE SPEECH

I have been recently puzzled by how the House of Representatives has succeeded in blocking legislation being put forward in the House. There is something to do with numbers of days. Somehow the House of Representative has turned one day into the length of a term. So if anyone seeks to introduce legislation they have to wait for the day to end. Since there is a never ending day, nothing can get done, unless some special rule is put in place. I confess I have no idea how that is meant to work What sort of fantasy land is this?

How fact and fiction seem to operate in the current United States Congress is beyond comprehension. It would appear that Orwell’s 1984 Ministry of Truth has actually taken over the whole of Government in the United States. From the extraordinary deceptions and misrepresentations made by the President’s Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, openly claiming lies to be facts, with outright denials of visibly published texts. Nothing is real. Nothing of what one sees, reads or hears is real anymore. We are supposed to believe in bluster and bluff. Simply because a pronouncement is made by the President, or Secretary of State, Defence or Intelligence, we are meant to accept it as truth. The Press secretary is always stating that ‘The Secretary of Defence’ or ‘The Director of National Intelligence’ has  verified this or that assertion, so it must be true. She equates the Office with unimpeachable integrity. Never mind the truth or the outright denials by the individuals holding the office, in the face of actual text. Real words, visually displayed, apparently have no meaning.

As an example, Ms Leavitt has an extraordinary ability to reduce matters of actual import to absurdity. She recently asked (I paraphrase) “Why has the Atlantic downgraded their term War Plans to Attack Plans which are clearly not classified” Does she really not hear what she is saying? Does she really believe there is a difference in what we can see and hear, between the words and the context of ‘war’ and ‘attack’?

This is all in the name of free speech. The concept of free speech has descended into something almost entirely without meaning. Whereas once it meant the free flow of ideas and opinion, traditionally based on some knowledge, experience, evidence and veracity, it has now moved into the realms of free for all fantasy.

Free speech has long been held to be a human right and has accordingly been incorporated into bills of rights and constitutions in countries across the world. There are particular safeguards in the United States Constitution. The very first amendment incorporates all elements of free thought - religion, speech, press, assembly and the right to petition the government:

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

There are however certain responsibilities when it comes to exercising the right to speak, as we all have a duty of care towards each other under the rule of law. It is not considered correct to shout out ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. It is not considered correct to bully someone into believing a falsehood or to incite someone to commit an offence of any kind. It is not considered correct to insult, demean and disrespect any individual with hateful, harmful, racist, bigoted and sexist rhetoric. There are matters and views which are abhorrent to human interaction and accordingly various aspects of speech, oral or written, have been proscribed by law.

Fortunately those maters are few and limited. It is OK to have different opinions about politics, religion and personal preferences,  but not to the extent of doing harm, mental or physical, towards another. That is part of our duty of care. What is of concern at present is the lack of care exhibited by so many in responsible positions.

In my observations of the political makeup in the United States, under the guise of freedom of speech, never has this speech been so corrosive and divisive. The President is entirely self obsessed. He expects to be lauded and admired at all times. Any person disagreeing or offering objection is instantly vilified as a nasty person, of low intelligence and an enemy of the state. His behaviour is classic psychotic self aggrandisement. His acolytes perpetuate this view and support him in every way by constantly referring to him as an unerring brilliant leader who can do no wrong. This is done calculatingly and strategically in his presence. Whenever one of his team speaks within his hearing there will inevitably be some compliment and deference made towards him, with accompanying pointed gesture of some kind.

This adulation,  however goes further. Any criticism is viewed as an attack. Any opposing view is an attack, Nothing in apposition should be allowed. Freedom of speech is only for those who agree. Anyone who has the temerity to disagree has no right to free speech. Consequently all members of the Democratic Party are demons and anyone not it line must be vilified and ostracised.  This is a constant refrain.  Ms Leavitt has continuously referred to low level fake journalists. Equally she has referred to Judges, who have issued rulings against Trump and his administration, as low level democratic anti Trump activists. She has even included the wives of Judges in her vilifications, as democratic activists.   All dissidents are low level in her view.

The constant referencing of first amendment rights by Trump and his cohorts is as if it only applies to them and no one else. Indeed, it is as if the whole of the constitution is intended to apply solely to  his view. What is most appalling however, is that the Supreme Court, in its current rulings, seems to allow that view to prevail. Immunity and sidestepping due process are a diminution of the rule of law which does not bode well for the future.

As to first amendment rights, I wonder just how far any petition to the Government to redress grievances will get  in the current climate. There have been some demonstrations around the country and numerous hand painted signs calling for resistance against dictatorship an a return to democracy, as well as a number of broadcasters all over the media and internet. Whether any of this will bring about sanity and a return to the rule of law is a matter of some doubt. The separation and balance of powers seems to be fading away in the face of gigantic self interests.

CORRECTIONS FROM YESTERDAY

I made some mistakes about what I thought Mr Goldberg said was included ion the text exchange of the Houthis PC small group. Names of pilots and specific locations were not included as I had thought. In any event the actual texts do support the view that Ms Gabbard, as well  all of the rest, are telling lies. The information about the intended launch of F18 aircraft and 1st strike packages is perhaps not serious in her eyes. What could possibly be classified about that. One wonders is they actually hear themselves speak.

The people now in charge of National security and indeed the government of the United States are treating their jobs as if they were playing some vast reality video game. They are behaving like 50’s haughty teenagers from a high school rom com or karate kid movie. Everyone is against them and they have there elder ‘coach’ in the shape of an infantile egomaniac. Mr Hegseth, just showing off to his mates about how important he is with being able to launch first strike packages. All very macho. Great job Pete (with emojis). The sad part is that rather than tone it down, apologies and explain that there was a screw up on the group call, they hunker down, take umbrage, hurl insults, lie directly in the face of the facts, turn their backs and refuse to answer further questions.

This all stems from the top down. Mr Trumps psychosis is his siege mentality and massive ego. What he and his Maga fail to grasp is that no one wants to see the President of the United that soStates fail. In particular every American citizen separately wants their elected representatives to succeed. That is why they elect them. They also have suggestions to make, and though they make criticism and think meone else might be a better choice, that does not mean they wish the elected individual ill. They just want them to be better. Can you blame citizen’s for wanting the best out of their government. The electorate are not the enemy. Members of opposition parties are not the enemy within but what is justifiably called, the loyal opposition. A different view is not a desire to harm.

Mr Trump has repeatedly stated anyone with a different view to his own is an enemy within. He has whipped up a divisive agenda on a massive scale and has chosen individuals who emphatically buy into this view and so he has chosen impressionable children to flaunt his position. None of them truly grasp the significance of governance or the principles of the constitution.

The fact that some people support the idea of social security, medical care for the elderly and lower income workers, general educational support for schools and various other social programs, does not make them anti government or anti market economists. Being against bigotry and prejudice or anti-fascist is not anathema. The United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution both decree equality for all, freedom of thought, religion and speech. So why so much hatred and antagonism towards others with different views.

Mr Trump and supporters go on about government waste and reducing government intervention in people’s lives. What they fail to grasp is that government is there to help people have better lives. It is there to assist the citizen in becoming an independent productive contributor towards maintaining the continued existence of the nation. If additional assistance is necessary why is it wrong for the state to help. It is only the citizen helping other citizens after all. People pay taxes to contribute to the welfare of the state, and taxpayers money is spent in the interests of all taxpayers and their dependents. A difference of opinion on how tax income should be spent is not a cause for division or hate speech. It is cause for discussion on what is necessary expenditure to benefit the entire nation.  A secure, healthy and educated population would seem to be paramount. What is there to be so entrenched about. Disagreement does not have to be fatal. We all want better lives. Listen go each other and stop telling lies. Why is that so hard?

INTO THE ETHER

Writing a blog is a bit like throwing ideas out into the ether, which is defined in the dictionary as that region of space beyond the earth’s atmosphere. One has no idea where or how they will be received, or indeed whether they will be received at all, let alone understood. In addition, certain ideas and observations are not at all unique and when repeated can become redundant, surplus to requirements, but the does not make them any the less valid. So my continuing comments on the fiasco of the ‘Houthi PC small group’ chat will not be any more insightful, but they help me putting them in perspective.

Two the group, the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Ratcliffe, appeared before the United States Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on global threats. Amongst other matters they were asked questions about the group chat which inadvertently came to light having included a journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg the editor in chief of The Atlantic magazine. Mr Goldberg published his story about how it all came to light, and included some of the text chat between the participants. What he very carefully did not do was publish the whole of the exchange, in particular information that revealed specific plans of the attack on the Houthi camps or headquarters in Yemen. This information, he stated, included names of specific aircraft to be used, the names of pilots, the types of weapon systems and the names of targets. Mr Goldberg was very clear that, as a responsible journalist, he did not want to divulge what might be considered national security matters and took himself out of the group as soon as he felt uncomfortable with the information he was getting.

After the release of the story, Mr Hegseth, the Secretary of Defence, was asked about the group chat and its implications. Mr Hegseth reacted angrily accusing the journalists of being discredited and a purveyor of many hoaxes. Indeed his boss, Mr Trump claimed The Atlantic wasn’t much of a journal and was going out of business anyway.

During the course of the Senate Hearing, Ms Gabbard refused to even acknowledge that she was a member of the group whilst adding that no classified material was discussed during the group discussion. She refused to acknowledge  anything that was written in the texts. When pressed “If nothing was classified, show us the text’s now”. Stony silence. Mr Ratcliff admitted he was in the group and kept going on about how it was perfectly legitimate to use the encrypted end to end App for such discussions. He said he did not know how Mr Goldberg came to be included in the group. When asked about certain portions of the texts read back to him, he claimed he did not remember those statements being made.

It was also put to them, that if, by some chance, the Houthi had got hold of the contents of the text could they not have been prepared to defend against the attack and shoot down American pilots and aircraft. Ms Gabbard insisted that no classified material was revealed.

What is so incredibly obvious, from the demeanour and evasions of these people in front of the committee, is that they were lying. Indeed, when Ms Gabbard was asked if there was no classified material discussed, then Mr Goldberg who be perfectly safe from prosecution if he now revealed the rest of the texts he held back. Stony evasion by Ms Gabbard. The same question was put to the new FBI Director Mr Patel, who was sitting next to Ms Gabbard, and he too evaded the answer.

The lies and obfuscations were so blatant, shameful and embarrassing. It was an insult to the intelligence of the public and the Senators on the committee, even those who actually supported Ms Gabbard and Mr Ratcliffe. That anyone can support them in lying to a congressional hearing is astounding in itself. In any decent government these people should be resigning their positions. Instead they will continue to vilify the journalist who caused them embarrassment, who has been put in the position of having to defend his own reputation by effectively accusing them of lying. Mr Goldberg should be lauded by the Senate Committee for having exposed this travesty of security and the incompetence of these people, who should all be asked to resign.

At some point the Senate Committee will actually have the full unedited text and will be able to measure just how much the statements made to them were accurate. Whether or not any of that actually happens and any further action is taken is, in my view, unlikely. It will be considered a blip as it has already been described. Nothing about this appalling administration will change. I know that I am not the only person to think that and that many more people have similar views. I am just putting it out there into the ether.

Note: Correction: Since writing this Mr Goldberg has publised the rest of the texts - I stand corrcted in that it did anot contain the names of pilots or the locations of the actual specific targets. The text did say everything else. If anyone had informed the Houthi group of this information, two hours before the strike, they would have had, I'm sure, plenty of time to respond and be prepared. But of course that was not classified information, so what difference did it make.