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.

WHAT WAS I THINKING ?

The following was written on 23rd March in preparation for blog. In light of recent events following revelations about the “Houthi PC small group”, I have added comments below:

Listening to John Gray’s Point of View broadcast 23rd March 2025, he takes a very considered view of the present global situation.  Inter alia, he notes that the current Trump regime is something Trump has always been up-front about, even during his first term as President, and so should not come as a surprise. In my blog of the 10th March I referenced, in relation to the current situation, Bette Davis’s line in All About Eve, “Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy night”. Mr Gray concludes his piece about the present political landscape with “It’s going to be a rough ride and we’d better buckle up”.

In brief, he speaks of history, not as a continuous trend towards a maturing liberal enlightened democracy, but as a simple sequence of events of ebb and flow. Democracies and republics come and go as do dictatorships, empires and kingdoms. The fact of events repeating themselves and of having to learn to deal with similar problems through the ages, is not new. Learning is a continuous process and inevitably repetitious. The concept of learning from one’s mistakes is perhaps unattainable. Indeed, given the number of enquires (on covid, Grenfell, phone hacking and other disasters) which always present as seeking solutions to learn from our mistakes so that whatever has happened never happens again, we do not seem to have found said solutions. Somewhere between ‘never again’ and ‘fasten your seat belts’ lies the  pleasant and tranquil prospect we seek.

In the meantime the rough ride is where we are at. Who would have thought that the United States Government’s so called universal appeal for peace in Ukraine and the Middle East, together with its withdrawal of NATO support and rapprochement with Russia and China, would spur a fresh arms race whereby even Poland and other middle European nations are seeking to obtain nuclear weapons, and those European Nations that already have them are intent on beefing up their arsenals. In short, Mr Trump, whilst professing peace, seems doubly intent on weaponising, not only his executive departments of Justice and Government Efficiency, but the rest of the world as well.

The ups and downs of the problem makes for a tricky state of affairs. It revolves around how to deal with Mr Trump’s colossal narcissism. Should European leaders stand up to the bully or placate him gently, steering him with flatteries towards reason? Should it not be his own citizen’s standing up to him collectively with strength, rather than catering to his ego? The mix between resistance and cajoling discourse will take some doing. The most successful diplomate so far, in dealing with and obtaining favour from Trump is, of course, Vladimir Putin.
 
My own view is that the European leadership, Prime Ministers, Presidents and Foreign Secretaries - not just its elected representatives in their various parliaments - who must take a much stronger and united stand against Trump and his acolytes. Stop attempting to flatter him into ‘concessions’ but demand the loyalty and assistance required of an ally who professes to adhere to similar  democratic constitutions and the rule of law. A country is not its leader. It has a history and an evolution that gives it a life of its own and its citizen’s reflect that life. They elect and choose representatives to secure the continued existence of that life. Sometimes they make very bad choice and need to be reminded of who they really are. European leaders need to remind the United States who they really are and show up this cult leader, this sham of a crass man, for what he truly is. In effect it is time for European and like minded world leaders to create an intervention to bring the United States back to its senses.  I am told that such interventions by family members can bring about such epiphanies from cult adherents. If Britain truly has a special relationship with the United States, then it is standing in loco parentis and should take the lead.

However, I do not seek to be depressing. I do believe there are possibilities. I see and hear a good number of Americans who would more than welcome the opportunity to participate in such and endeavour. Make no mistake, the cult is powerful and stubborn but not insurmountable, particularly given the hardships they continue to suffer rather than seeing them disappear ‘on day one’. Of the promises ‘on day one,’ not one has been fulfilled. A lot of film flam has gone on, but it has proved to be just that. The waving of pens and displaying of signatures on bits of paper is a joke, with unfortunate ramifications no doubt, but the falsity is beginning to filter through. Musk’s Tesla stock is going down,  Putin is largely vilified, the stock market is falling, and republicans at town halls are displaying dissatisfaction and unease.  There are demonstration across the nation. I think that is cause for optimism.

Again, I do not seek to be depressing. There is room for joy. There are still plenty of things to enjoy.

Tuesday 25th March 2025:

The above was as far as I got. Thinking about the many things to enjoy. In the light of the revelations made by The Atlantic’s editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg, I am in two minds as to whether to consider this as something to enjoy. On the one hand this colossal security blunder on the part of these ridiculous people in such powerful positions, exposing themselves for what they are, gives one a gleeful smile as to their incompetence. On the other hand it is truly shocking to see such narrow minded infantile prejudice and lack of real intellect by men of state. I heard Mr Goldberg’s view that he felt there was a level of sophistication in their communications as he felt they clearly had discussions amongst themselves about whether or not they should take certain actions and whether they agreed with the Presidents views.  Some aspects of repercussions were contemplated; however, once the president’s view was stated, discussion over.

In my view there was nothing sophisticated about the discussion. The arrogance about American might being used to protect European interests and that what was happening in the middle east was not really their concern and that the European governments should be made to pay and reimburse the United States for the cost of the military action being launched, was outrageous. This, followed by congratulatory virtual high fives and emojis, was an exhibition of their schoolyard mentality, fully in keeping with their bully boy leader. 

In short, their concerns were based on arrogance and expectations of gratitude and compensation. One could say the lack of any real intellectual discussion or serious forward thinking was PATHETIC. 

Whether any ingtervention would help wiht these people is questionable.

THE FIRST THREE MONTHS

It has been quite an opening three months for the year 2025. The world order is in complete disarray. As I listen to, and view, the variety of information coming over the airwaves on my multiple devices, I am obliged to filter and organise the various topics in the order in which they are presented by these outlets. There seems to be a general format adopted by most agencies. International, national and local is the usual sequence adopted, unless of course there is a particular national or local story that has attracted the immediate public interest. The matter of just what is in the public interest and what the public is interested in is of never ending interest.

One intriguing aspect of the news is the continuing existence of printed newspapers. Although printed editions are still produced, they are moving more and more towards online publication and are now, consequently, more reliant on subscriptions. I am guessing that whilst on line advertising does provide some income, the papers are offering subscription only access, with an increased fee to have ‘advertising free’ access. They also have a box to tick if you do not wish to receive promotional material from them over the internet. So, much of their income is far more reliant on attracting readers than attracting advertisers.  I do contribute to the Guardian, which, at the moment, asks its readers to make a contribution equivalent to a subscription, and still allows anyone to read its pages.

As to content and what the online papers choose to headline on their home sites, it is as you would expect from what one used to find - and may still- in their printed editions. The tabloids push out the same nonsense and are still committed to the same readership, perhaps with a bit more interaction as they may include some video element. They certainly maintain a degree of advertising.  Indeed, so far as all the online publications are concerned there is little difference between the printed edition and what one finds online. But that is to be expected when catering to the same readership. The style and layout, although expanded, is also in keeping with the readership’s expectations so as not to alienate but to comfort with the familiar. Of course, being a ‘newspaper’ the emphasis is on articles and texts to be read, with the odd accompanying photograph. Nevertheless the readership of printed additions has declined dramatically and the way people get their ‘news’ has expanded in numerous directions.  

That expansion and proliferation of devices through which information is transmitted has reached the point where just about every individual on the planet has become a network and studio on their own. It would seem we put out as much information as we receive, and in some cases, a whole lot more. The concept of ‘influencer’ has brought us to a stage where legislation is being contemplated to control how and what is being disseminated.  The entire concept of free speech is open to question. So much of what passes for information is in fact opinion, and belief based on opinion is extremely problematic.  This is how much of what is happening in the world is being organised and conducted.

The fact of Trump is that he does not see his pronouncements as lies. He is merely stating his opinion which he believes to be fact. Hence his deplorable views on immigrants have become fact for himself as well as his followers, without any evidence whatsoever. “They're eating the cats and dogs” was a classic example.  The ridiculous nonsense was swallowed whole by his Maga base and his acolytes. Marjorie Taylor Green, Kari Lake, JD Vance, Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham etc. I could go on and on. They repeat ad nauseam Trumps opinions which they accept as fact.

His newest protege, press secretary Karoline Leavitt, is another classic example of opinion is fact. She claims, because Mr Trump has claimed, the Judiciary that dare to rule against him in a court of law are democratic activists, biased and wrong in law, as are their families. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. That she cannot see that Mr Trump is the person who is biased and wrong in law does not even enter her head. That  Judges who have been adjudicating cases for years  might know something about the law is an alien concept because her only information comes from Trump’s opinion.

Indeed in Mr Trump’s opinion Mr Putin is a man to be trusted. In Mr Putin’s opinion the state of Ukraine is not a state and should not exist. Mr Putin also claims that the Ukrainian government is run by fascists and must be attacked and destroyed to save the nation.  This opinion has been actually promulgated as fact by Marjorie Taylor Greene before the House of Representatives.

So where does all that leave us on free speech, the ‘news’ and the world being in disarray? I know I always seem to come back to the horror show that is the United States at present, but it is, unfortunately, the most horrific show in town. Will that man ever learn that he is a sham and has no idea what he is doing. His ego is so large that he can’t see he is being played for a fool by most of those around him and in particular Putin. Everything was supposed to be sorted on day one, with a phone call. Well we’ve had the phone call and it wasn’t on day one. We are still no further along, despite the crap being said about it being a start. A start!! The only thing that has started is renewed bombing. If ever the phrase all mouth and no trousers described a situation….

At the end of the day one has to examine oneself and just where did one get one’s opinions or facts. How is it that my political views appear to be from the left of the political spectrum? Why do I not have a more conservative view? What was the affect of my formal education? Were my parents more influential than I realise? Was I or am I too easily influenced? These are some of the matters I must get to grips with. Why have I not done so before now? The difficulty with self examination so late in life is, does it really matter?

What really does mater is stopping the world violence, healing the wounds and rebuilding the homes. Everywhere getting people off the streets and a safe house to live in. Looking after the unable to do it for themselves.  Educating people to live up to the better nature of themselves. There is an appropriate poem by Eve Merriam (1916-1992)

The Coward

You, weeping wide at war, weep with me now.
Cheating a little at peace, come near
And let us cheat together here.

Look at my guilt, mirror of my shame.
Deserter, I will not turn you in;
I am your trembling twin!

Afraid, our double knees lock in knocking fear;
Running from the guns we stumble upon each other.
Hide in my lap of terror: I am your mother. 

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.

I do not know why this video was removed or by whom ???
 

CITIZENS - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

There is a disturbing report about personnel of the so called Department of Government Efficiency forcing their way into a small government agency, the US African Development Foundation, ejecting  the staff and changing the locks. The same people are doing the same thing at other agencies, including the US Institute for Peace. Although legal proceeding has been commenced, the real fear is that it may lead to nothing, as the Executive Branch of the United States Government pays no attention to court orders. The judiciary is seemingly powerless so long as the Federal Policing authorities (US Marshalls and FBI) are backing these executive orders.

Overall what is happening is an overt attack on democracy and DOGE is clearly nothing more or less than Trump’s Gestapo. It has become a full blown secret state police run by Elon Musk under the guise of economic efficiency. This is a deeply concerning development. The idea that a Trump created agency with no congressional or judicial authority is deploying agents, backed by armed US Marshalls and FBI agents, to forcibly take over legitimate government agencies is an outrage. Together with outright breaches  of Judicial Orders and the rule of law Trump is being allowed to do anything he likes. Having installed his stooges as heads of the Justice Department, the FBI and other agencies he can ignore the law at will. Whereas heads of these policing authorities should defy illegal edicts from Trump and push back, they are instead ‘following orders’.

If the United States is ever to become a federal democratic republic under the rule of law again, then it must act now. To allow a charlatan and dangerous psychotic narcissist, and dupe to Putin, to continue is his current vein will bring the whole edifice crashing down. It may no longer be good enough to have TV pundits advise a small viewership about possible consequences of failing to connect the dots of the developing tyranny in various agencies and institutions of government. Ignore them at your peril.. I see enough opposition on YouTube and on line from a variety of sources. Is it not time to increase the effort and really pull together? Don’t say you have not been warned.

Here is but one example:  (for some reason the previus video was changed - this is a replacemen(

 

 

WHEN WILL WE SEE THE END OF THE PROTEST SONG

It is clearly time to follow Bette’s advice (and appreciate a bit of early Marilyn). The international and domestic reaction to Trump’s second presidency is now very clear. Celia pointed out to me the Senator of the French Parliament, Claude Malhuret’s speech to the Parliament on Tuesday the 4th March 2025 as an instance in point. M. Malhuret is now leader of Les Indépendants – République et Territoires, LIRT, party in the Senate and appears to have a far greater knowledge of the Constitution of the United States and its implications than does Donald Trump. Herewith his opening salvo (Translation of transcript):

“President, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, My dear colleagues,
Europe is at a critical turning point in its history. The American shield is crumbling, Ukraine risks being abandoned, Russia strengthened.
Washington has become the court of Nero, a fiery emperor, submissive courtiers and a ketamine-fueled jester in charge of purging the civil service.
This is a tragedy for the free world, but it is first and foremost a tragedy for the United States. Trump’s message is that there is no point in being his ally since he will not defend you, he will impose more customs duties on you than on his enemies and will threaten to seize your territories while supporting the dictatorships that invade you.
The king of the deal is showing what the art of the deal is all about. He thinks he will intimidate China by lying down before Putin, but Xi Jinping, faced with such a shipwreck, is probably accelerating preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.
Never in history has a President of the United States capitulated to the enemy. Never has anyone supported an aggressor against an ally. Never has anyone trampled on the American Constitution, issued so many illegal decrees, dismissed judges who could have prevented him from doing so, dismissed the military general staff in one fell swoop, weakened all checks and balances, and taken control of social media.
This is not an illiberal drift, it is the beginning of the confiscation of democracy. Let us remember that it took only one month, three weeks and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its Constitution.
I have faith in the strength of American democracy, and the country is already protesting. But in one month, Trump has done more harm to America than in four years of his last presidency. We were at war with a dictator, now we are fighting a dictator backed by a traitor…”

And he goes on at some length.  Would that more European politicians made similar up front condemnation of what is happening in the United States. It is not just a mater of stepping up militarily but strenuously distancing oneself, politically and morally, from the Trump Administration's view of the world and what it purports to claim as the will of the American people.

Numerous views have been expressed in a number of Newspaper Editorials and by columnists' opinion pieces which describe and excoriate the gangsterism and rank stupidity of Mr Trump and his acolytes. As shocking as the now infamous display by Messrs Trump and Vance of their bullying of President Zelensky appeared to be, it was not at all surprising. It was however enraging and prompted a general worldwide revulsion of the United States’ heads of state. The so called free press in attendance did nothing to redeem itself either, with its ludicrous notions of sartorial respect. 

This is not normal. Far from it. The chaos being engendered throughout the world is significant. It is similar to the analogy of the butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon thereby creating a hurricane in the Atlantic, except Trump is a deadly moth fluttering in the glow of the Office of President of the United States which he should never have been allowed to enter.

But we have what we have, and so fasten your seat belts, That so many are having to suffer increased injury and death as result of these machinations is catastrophic. One has to accept the stoicism of the character of Clemenza in the Godfather movie, he of the “leave the gun - take the cannoli” line.

                                       

What is it about movies and screenplays that somehow, now and again, strikes a cord? Oddly, over the years the cinema has portrayed a variety of political stories with heroes and villains galore. Corruption has been at the heart of many salutary lessons of American political drama. All The King’s Men,  Mr Smith Goes To Washington, Advise and Consent, The Front Page, State of the Union, Manchurian Candidate and many others around the world. Indeed, stories of corruption and political chicanery, both real and fictional, have been portrayed in the cinema since its inception by  the Lumière brothers in 1895. Unfortunately, even before that event, history reveals that political corruption was rife in ancient Rome and Greece, so why has the lesson never been learnt? How long are we destined to exist in this ceaseless insanity? Will we ever hear the end of the protest song?

STOP PUSSYFOOTING AROUND

The following paragraphs were written on Thursday 6th March 2025, prior to the "pause' on tarriffs imposed on Canada and Mexico:

 

We have been here before; yet, nothing about the current global situation smacks of repetition.   Whereas we have seen countries descend into authoritarian states, e.g. Italy, Germany and the Soviet Union, particularly between 1920 and 1935, which culminated in the second world war, the resurgence of far right and nationalist movements in Western Europe and the Americas has never been so comprehensive. There are rather curious differences, and its effect on democracy is very worrying.

 

The two, allegedly, main powers on the globe, Russia and the United States, have leaders who seek to rule by decree and executive order. The Russia leader has effectively silenced opposition through chicanery, outright gangsterism and murder. The United States President has marshalled an obsequious political party through repeated lies and by gaslighting a sheepish, poorly educated and gullible electorate into accepting his proven mendacious and criminal character. He has surrounded himself with deliberately mediocre advisors and administrators to do his bidding. His executioner in chief is an unelected, unvetted and unapproved rich scoundrel from South Africa.

 

It would seem, on the face of it, although not yet fully in control, they are operating hand in hand to bully the rest of the free world into submission.

 

China, the world’s second largest economy sits, oddly, hovering between the two. On reasonably friendly terms with Russia and somewhat strained relations with the United States, it is sufficiently powerful to hold its own. It allows the other two, for the moment, to run their course. Just when it might step in more forcefully is open to conjecture.

 

As an aside, it should be noted that Russia is only the 11^th largest economy, so one wonders on what basis their power rests. As to military strength, Russia has had to call on assistance from North Korea to swell the numbers, and in addition it has had military hardware from China and Iran. It is strange that the whole of Russian military might can be held off as much as it has been by Ukrainian forces alone. Just how mighty are those Russian forces?

 

In any event, Russia now has some additional help from the United States which is looking to lift sanctions and is now depriving Ukraine of rather important military assistance in the shape of hardware and defensive security information. This is being done under the banner of achieving a peaceful settlement to the crisis. Not very believable given the despicable character of Donald Trump. His spoken desire to end the killing sounds good, but coming from such a psychotic narcissist it is hard to credit. Everything is about him. Do not make the mistake of thinking otherwise.

 

So, given the state of play, the European continent, Canada, and Mexico are now in the position or having to brace up on the economic front as well as militarily, not only to support Ukraine in arriving at a just peace, but arriving at their own complete independence from the United Sates. This wakeup call is not only evident to leftist and centralist political parties in European countries but to the right and right of centre as well. The European right is just as alarmed and worried about the autocracy of Trump has it is with Putin. It is only the far right that shows favour, but only in the hope of receiving substantial financial benefit.  Nigel Farage is an instance in point.  

 

Still there is hope and apparently substantial push back in the United States against Trumpism in the form of mass demonstrations by many citizens, amongst whom one finds a number of Republicans. His ‘day one’ promises are far from being fulfilled. Inflation and economics have taken a downward turn, and his support for Mr Putin has not helped his cause. A Quinnipiac University Poll released this Wednesday found 81 percent of respondents said Putin should not be trusted, including 73 percent of Republicans surveyed and 93 percent of Democrats.

 

In addition his executive orders have met with resistance in the courts which have blocked a number of them taking effect as being contrary to law and the constitution of the United States. His latest litigation before the Supreme Court has failed 5 to 4, including his own favourites who sided against him, Justices Roberts and Coney Barrett.

 

So in effect, although the Trump rhetoric has been very similar to the kind of crap one had from dictators of the 1930’s, the overall shift in today’s world toward the right is not as unifying as it might appear. Whether there is any comfort in this difference, I am not at all sure. Indeed my analysis is probably completely wrong. I am however, still allowed to be right or wrong and voice opinion, if only to a few. Contrary to the views of the Vice President of the United States, Great Britain really does have free speech.

 

Friday 7 March 2025

There is an example of free speech on the floor of the United States Senate which is well worth a view and listen. U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Thursday (6^th March 2025) spoke on the U.S. Senate floor to expose the unprecedented corruption of the Trump administration’s first six weeks in office. Murphy condemned Trump’s normalization of pay-to-play politics, where billionaire donors dictate policy and taxpayer money is funnelled into the pockets of the president, Elon Musk, and the corporate elite. I urge you to take it in.

 

Stop the insanity. The United States no longer has a government capable of participating in world affairs on a rational basis. It has gone the way of massive organised crime along with the so called Russian Federation. The violence being perpetrated in Ukraine by disembodied drones to target basic infrastructure (water, electricity, food supply, communications..) in order to starve, destroy and annihilate the Ukrainian people’s means of existence, shows just how vile and monstrous the Russian leadership has become. All this is approved and accepted by the Trump administration. It is time for Governments around the world to condemn this behaviour and cut off the United States from all diplomatic relations. Stop trying to placate Trump and Putin. Politicians in every democratic country should stop trying not to openly criticise Mr Trump in the hope of bringing him round to reason. He is not a reasonable man. He is a criminal and should be held to account. What he and his cronies are doing is completely unacceptable. Enforce the warrants issued by the International Criminal Court and extend it to Donald Trump as co-defendant.

 

Do not forget that nearly as many people in the United States loath Trump as voted for him. They will support a solid European movement to ostracise Trump and bring the United States back into a proper league of rational nations. For the United Nations to allow this charade to continue is beyond comprehension.  Get it together. Stop pussyfooting around. Stop this insanity.

 

THERE ARE OTHER AMERICAN VOICES

One can only hope that these other voices in the United States will hold sway across the country. Gangsterism of this kind on show in the Oval Office is a scene straight out of the Godfather.

 

 

And again  from poscast of Bryan Tyler Cohen

 

A NOTE ABOUT PERFORMANCE

Once again I am baffled by writers who express opinion about performance. I shall explain.

Nineteen years ago (I cannot believe it was that long) I embarked on a course of study at Dartington College of Art. Whilst in Devon on the point moving permanently back to London, I spotted in the Guardian’s list of University Clearances, a writing course at Dartington. It was labelled ‘Performance Writing’. After some deliberation and tentative enquiries I was finally encouraged by Charles Carne, a friend who had also embarked on a university course, to make a proper appointment and go to the establishment to discuss the possibilities with a real person at the college.

 

It was a bit late in the year and the fall term was starting in a couple of weeks. There was not much time left to enrol; nonetheless I made the appointment and met the course tutor Jerome Fletcher. We discussed and it ended with Jerome saying I could start at the beginning of the week. I had no idea what was meant by Performance Writing. I assumed it was connected with writing scripts for theatre, film, television, radio and any other form of media that required a prepared text to perform to the public.

 

I had previously taken Robert McKee’s screen writing course in London. It was a two day course on the finer points of how to tell a story through writing a screenplay. Not just any screenplay, but one that might actually have a chance of being produced. I had heard that John Cleese had taken the course and apparently A Fish Called Wanda was the result. There were a number of luminaries on the course at the time I sat through it, so the notion of John Cleese having taken the course seemed probable.

 

I had also written a play which I presented to a playwriting competition run by director Ted Craig at the Warehouse Theatre in Croydon. It was actually one of five works shortlisted in the competition. Not too shabby for one’s first play, and a bit encouraging; however, there had been no follow up. Procrastination and shameful laziness are all I can say.

 

So having been accepted on the course at Dartington, I assumed the discipline required to complete a University Degree course would eventually produce great works of art. Indeed after obtaining my writing degree (BA writing) I went on to complete an MA in the subject and even embarked on doing a Phd. Sadly, I have not continued with the doctorate nor have I produced any great works of art, but I do have an understanding of what performance writing is about. That first year, nineteen years ago, was the beginning of an appreciation of just what words can do.

 

So I repeat, I am baffled by writers who express opinion about ‘performance’ who do not seem to have any real appreciation of what is being ‘performed’. When I read an article purporting to be an analysis and appreciation of a stage play, film, concert, art gallery, museum or whatever venue presenting and showing stuff to look at, read or listen to, I am, on the whole, able to distinguish whether the writer understands what their own writing is about and how it is performing

 

One has to realise that just about everything we do is part of performance. Everything we say, hear, feel and imagine, physically or emotionally is preforming. Never has this been made more apparent than in the current digital age. AI programs, such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, Otter, NotebookLM, Grammarly, Siri, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Claude etc. are all performance engines. As an example, using Perplexity, one can put in, either through speech of by text, a number of words including a suggestion as to the outcome, and the program will produce a text, within seconds. A usable text that will most likely meet your requirements or at least something that you can use to deal with those requirements. That text will perform for you. Whether it is good or bad, or rather whether it is appreciated or not, in part or whole, depends on the recipient of the performance. How the viewer or listener receives and analyses the performance depends on the recipients own point of view and knowledge.

 

For example, even if someone is presented with a text in a foreign language they do not understand, they will know that the text is in a language they do not understand, in which case the text has performed. It has revealed itself as something the recipient knows nothing about and either creates a sense of curiosity and intrigue or a sense of indifference, but it will have created an emotion of some kind.  The recipient may not even recognise what language is being performed, but if they do, then that is another level of performance and indicates additional knowledge of the recipient.

 

The brain is a curious instrument. It always seeks a way of understanding what it perceives; however, if it cannot find a way, it will disregard or overlook whatever it might be that perplexes it. It might also invent or fantasise an explanation. Whatever it is, the brain will seek some sort of explanation. That is just the nature of things.

 

As part of our culture and background, in particular since the Greek Civilisation, we have developed the theatre, which is the most iconic form of performance, with its continuously developing conventions, protocols and traditions of presentation. Along with this development came the analysis, appreciation or valuation of the performance, its creators and the performers as well. Alongside this evolution there has been a growing intellectual valuation of performance and a hierarchy attributed to certain aspects of performance, such as great, magnificent, worthy, terrible, poor, indifferent etc. all attributes put on the performance by those who have seen the work in question.

 

Along with this development has come a commercial aspect of theatrical performance in that people are invited to come and see the work performed at a specific site or theatre. As part of the commercial exercise, the work is presented for analysis and valuation on a chosen day, and the various individuals who are chosen to produce their analysis and appreciation, generally produce their piece shortly after viewing the performance. One must appreciate of course that the evaluators work is itself a form of performance writing and subject to the same kind of evaluation. Each and every piece of this kind is a critique that runs and runs, quite like the opposing mirrors shot in Citizen Kane, as Kane walks out of his wife’s demolished bedroom passing by the mirrors holding the snow globe that is the little catalyst of memory leading to his final word at death ‘rosebud’, there is an infinity of images.  But that is another story. Readers of this blog who have seen Citizen Kane will know whereof I speak, for those who have not, it will be like a foreign language they know of, but do not fully understand, and will either be intrigued enough to see the film or not as the case may be. In any event, the critic is very much a part of todays performance, and therefor subject to the same type of analysis.

 

So I come back to my bafflement about writers who express opinion about performance. There is at the moment a play called The Score being presented at the Theatre Royal Haymarket, in London. A number of people have now produced their analysis of the performance and some of them do not appear to fully understand what it is they have witnessed.  Some of their comments indicate that they have the same problem as the person hearing a foreign language and not knowing what to do, and so invent or divert attention elsewhere to some other aspect of the work they see as separate from the whole. Not wishing to appear ignorant of course, they will make comment on all aspects of the piece in order to appear knowledgeable.

 

Naturally everyone is entitled to have an opinion, informed or not, as the case may be, and those views are perfectly valid in so far as they represent an opinion. What baffles me is the emphasis put on one aspect of the performance by separating it from a part of the performance that is entirely allied to the one aspect they seek to emphasise. They seek to separate the acting from the text. They speak of the actor’s performance as if the actor were inventing the words they are performing on the spot. The idea of wonderful performance, sorry about the text, does not make sense. The actor’s performance does not happen without the text to perform. As the text performs, so does the actor. One occasionally hears the comment actor proof text, one rarely hears of text proof actors. Truly great performance only comes from good text.  It is sometimes said that some actors can read the phone book and make it great. That is not true and only demonstrates that the actor can amuse to great effect by being flamboyant. So what. Anyone can light a math which goes out in a flash. A sustained performance requires substance.

 

In my view the text of the play gave it substance. The levels and variety of ideas touched upon, personalities concerned and the situation enacted were the seeds giving up a wonderful and thought provoking performance. There may be quibbles about this or that aspect of the ensemble, set, costume, sound, direction or bits of business, but the soundness of the text gave the whole a life of its own to which the audience showed much appreciation. Indeed there is a scene in the play in which the character of Mrs Bach sees off one of King Frederick’s billeting officers in the town of Leipzig which brought about an instant reaction and cheer from members of the audience. How often does that happen in a play of any kind? There were other moments of this kind as well, which brought about audible reaction from the audience.

 

What it boils down to, of course, is that opinion in the arts is just that, an opinion. It usually stands on its own without opposition.  Sometimes it does attract opposition, which is a sure sign that the performance has been a great success as it promotes controversy and discussion, which is proof of life for any play. Of The Score  I say, lang may your lum reek.