TRUTH AND JUSTICE - BEING ALLOWED TO BELIEVE

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

OPINION AND INTEGRITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martin Kettle

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

John Pilger

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

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

 

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

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

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

As for Marjorie Taylor Green, what can one say.

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

A SCIENTIFIC LIFE

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

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

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

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

 Try this website:

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

Here is the professor talking about gravity:

And a bit of quatum mechanics

AN AFTER THOUGHT

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Taylor Greene

Ilse Koch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

STOP ANALYSING AND GET ON WITH IT

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

DOING THINGS WITH WORDS

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Apologies to Shakespeare. 

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

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

 

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

 

That’s another fact.

VACCINES ARE A RISKY BUSINESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just thought you might enjoy a short story

                

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Just Boris

Martin Jarvis

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

Do we all remember Duty Free shopping?  

PROUDLY IGNORANT OR JUST STUPID

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A POINT OF VIEW - I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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