Tiberius

I was very bored, and decided to write a potted history of a man I feel has been unfairly treated by History. WARNING: Simon Schama would hate this rant.




Once more, I find myself reasonably bored. So, in the interests of keeping me sane, I'm going to tell you a story...

This is the story of the Poor Oppressed Victim and the Big Bad Roman Emperor. Just to somewhat confuse matters, they're both the same person. Tiberius (or to give him his full name, Tiberius Claudius Nero; bit of a mouthful...) gets something of a shitty deal in the history books. He's now known (when remembered at all) as an Olympic standard sexual pervert and sadist. And I suppose there's a grain of truth in that, but in the interest of striking a blow (or taking a blow; any offers? Any at all?) for historical fairness and showing off, it seems only right to give the opposing view. And besides, with luck you'll find it entertaining.

So, Tiberius was born in 42 BC to Claudius Nero and Livia, a stultifyingly awful woman and poisoner extraordinaire. In attitude, she wasn't a million miles away from her namesake in The Soprano's. He was born in what would politely be called interesting times, and realistically called incredibly scary times. Three gentlemen named Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar had just finished using the Roman Republic as the battleground for settling their long running game of one-upmanship (it was really rather silly;
"Caesar, the noble Pompey has conquered the Greeks and Armenians!"
"Hah! I'll see those countries, and raise him...conquering Gaul and the Britons! How d'you like THEM apples, motherfucker? What say you Crassus? Crassus? Oh...some Syrians seem to have rinsed his mouth out with molten gold...").

Unfortunately, 3 other chaps named Octavian (or Augustus), Lepidus, and Antony enjoyed the game so much that they carried it on. Rome degenerated into a bloodbath, with high society and the foremost Roman Citizens being especially at risk from the mob (it was sort of like the prototype version "I'm a Celebrity; Get Me Out of Here!", with rather more worrying penalties than putting ones hand in a box of centipedes).

Each side attracted supporters, and each side took great pains to cause great pain to the other team. Unsurprisingly, living out the first years of ones life in constant fear of being A: Brutally murdered by the nobles of Rome, B: Brutally murdered by the people of Rome, or C: Being handed over by ones own mother to be brutally murdered instead of her, had rather an adverse effect on the young man. He became quiet, sullen, and surly; think of Kevin the Teenager in a toga and you've got the right idea.

Livia, being wonderfully devious, not only ended up on the winning side of the Roman Civil War, she married the captain of the winning team, the Emperor Augustus (aka. the bad guy from Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra). Tiberius was now the Emperors stepson. Huzzah for him, you may think; time to relax, to try (and fail) to build up a wine cellar. However, there's nothing like not knowing whether today will be the last day of your life to put a total dampener on ones celebratory mood. Tiberius wanted a peaceful life out of the public eye and (more importantly) the public lynch mob. He had married a lady named Vipsania, to whom he was devoted, and was spending much of his time studying Greek mythology and literature. If, he reasoned, he made it clear that he had no ambitions beyond academia and raising a family, he'd finally be safe from the assassin's knife.

And if he had a mother who didn't make Margaret Thatcher look like Snow White, he may have been allowed to do so. Livia wasn't satisfied with being the Cherie to Augustus' Tony. She wanted to be the Hilary to his Bill. And she wanted to start a dynasty of Emperors that would guarantee her immortality (literally; she wanted to be made a Goddess in the Roman religion. Not even Thatcher ever went that far...). Guess who her only child was? Yup. So, despite the fact that she and her confidants had used him as the butt of insult after insult during his life, Tiberius found himself being used by his mother as a means to an end for the next 30 years.

Firstly, he was forced to divorce his beloved Vipsania and marry his stepsister Julia (of whom historical records show that she was the first person to have been the subject of the comment "I wouldn't say she was easy, but she had a mattress strapped to her back"). Then he was dragged from his books, and signed up to the army. On the plus side, his elevated status meant he commanded armies rather than fighting in the front line. On the minus side, he had to fight the inhabitants of the Balkans.

In what was an eerie foretaste of every century to come, the people of the Balkans were doing their very best to kill anyone and everyone who wasn't a member of their tribe. Tiberius showed himself to be a superb military commander via the medium of annihilating anyone who crossed them (though curiously, Tiberius' army was once trapped in a valley, and the enemy commander allowed him to withdraw instead of ambushing and destroying the Roman army. I rather thought that was the point of warfare...). However, in deference to the fact that Tiberius did NOT want to be there, he was a strict general who was harsh with his troops. "Let them fear me, so long as they obey me" was his maxim.

Meanwhile, back in Rome, Livia was keeping herself busy. Tiberius' stepbrothers, stepsisters, and anyone else who could be a rival claimant to the Empire succumbed one by one to the numerous cheese and arsenic parties thrown by the evil queen. Thanks to Livia, some were poisoned, some were starved to death, some were exiled, and still others were just plain, old fashioned murdered. The upper classes of Rome were slowly thinned out, and it was all done in the name of making Tiberius the Emperor.

He returned to Rome in the midst of this, where the plots and machinations resembled an Eastenders storyline with additional orgies and murders. He loathed Julia (apparently, he felt that the woman one returns home to shouldn't have vaginal scars and rectal stretchmarks...). He was also afraid for his life; Livia was not the only powerful person who wanted a specific candidate installed as Emperor. With the dark and fearful memories of his childhood still haunting him, the last thing Tiberius wanted was to be put in a position where he was the target for ambitious men.

So he asked Augustus for permission to retire from public life to Rhodes, where he intended to devote the rest of his life to books and studies. Augustus, who had never really like his grim-faced stepson (he used to make jokes about Tiberius' slow chewing movement; I suppose if the Emperor makes a joke then everyone finds it funny) was only too happy to send him away from Rome. Livia, naturally, was furious at this uncharacteristic show of defiance. As a petty revenge, she spread stories about Tiberius' supposed sexual perversions (just how bad does one have to behave to be considered a pervert in a society where orgies were a social occasion?!).

Rhodes didn't provide the sanctuary the Tiberius had hoped. He still feared for his life; now that he was out of the public eye he could be easily disposed of. And he found that the Greeks poked fun at him and his dour manner. After a few years of unhappy retirement, he returned to Rome and public life, a rather more bitter man than he had been when he left.

By this time, Tiberius was the only realistic heir to Augustus. Sensing this, Livia poisoned Augustus (he was ready for her and only ate food he prepared himself; she however was ready for him and poisoned some figs whilst they were still on the tree. What a bitch, eh?) and had Tiberius installed as Emperor. He became the one of the few people to receive supreme power who didn't want it. However, he had spent a lifetime acquiring grudges against those who made fun of him, those who questioned his intellect, and those who had looked at him in a bit of a funny way. He was to be Emperor for 23 years, and by the time he died, not one of those people whom he bore a grudge against had died of natural causes.

At first, he was a slave to Livia's will. He was Emperor, but she ruled. Gradually however, he weaned himself away from her control, and by the time of her death he was pretty much his own man. Although he never felt entirely safe at Rome, he began to appreciate the benefits of power. He also developed a rather fun sense of humour. He delivered every speech and every statement in a deadpan manner, but would intersperse them with surreal and bizarre jokes. No one was ever sure whether he was joking or serious, and people were afraid to do laugh in case it was the latter. I always imagine him to be a bit like Jack Dee at this point. Well, Jack Dee with the power of life and death over millions anyway. Okay...so maybe it's just me that appreciates his sense of humour! He, however, found their uncertainty and subsequent insecurity hilarious .

In all of this time, the Empire remained secure and stable. He was a fair Emperor to the people (he castigated any governors who set their taxes too high), though the whispers and rumours started by Livia et al never really died away. After 12 years of his reign, he decided to go on a little holiday to the island of Capri. He never came back to Rome for the remaining 11 years he was Emperor. He felt completely secure on his island, and so in the lap of luxury and with absolute power at his disposal, he began to enjoy himself.

I don't doubt that some of the enjoyment was gained from shagging anything with a pulse. By this time, Vipsania had died and he felt no need to restrain himself. He also harboured a hatred of the Empire itself. He never wanted it, and it had ruined his life. But by the same token, it allowed him to get revenge on those who had wronged him (you wouldn't have liked to have been the Greek scholar who had insulted Tiberius back in Rhodes...) and it afforded him a measure of security.

That said, his paranoia was still ever present; a fisherman surprised him on Caprii with a huge fish that he had caught and wanted to present to the Emperor. Tiberius had him beaten with it (inspiration for Monty Python's 'Fish Dance'?), jabbed and poked with crab claws, then threw him off a cliff. All in all, he was not a man to get on the wrong side of.

When he died in 37 AD, he was a mess of contradictions. The paranoia that haunted him from his childhood was now being inflicted on others in the form of treason trials, which saw many innocent people die. He wanted desperately to be a good person, but the disappointments of his life led him to become bitter and twisted; he cheerfully had his own son starved to death, allowed two thugs (Sejanus and Macro) to rule on his behalf. Above all, he hated Rome and it's people. By this time his maxim was "Let them hate me, so long as they obey me". His final revenge on Rome was to adopt the fiercely insane Gaius Caligula as his heir. He said that he was nursing a viper for the bosom of Rome. Caligula's time as Emperor is legendary for it's cruelty and barbarity.

But still, I find myself pitying Tiberius. He wanted a quiet life and because he didn't get it, he made damn sure that no one else did either. As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't make him a beast. It makes him endearingly human.

And thus concludes probably the most whistle-stop treatment that the life of Tiberius has ever been treated too. Now what do I do to stave off boredom?!

Xmas Cheer

The theme of governments being in power for the sake of power is not a new one. From my point of view, it's an obvious 1984 influence and it crops up again and again in my writing.





You can tell it's near Christmas by the increase in media items of no real consequence that no one is particularly interested in. For example, Cherie Blair's recent financial faux pas (which, near as I can tell, seems to revolve around allowing a friend of questionable honesty to do some financial dealings on her behalf) has entirely failed to rouse a huge amount of interest outside of the media. Pretty much everyone I've talked to about it couldn't give the remotest beginnings of a shit. Yet if you read the papers you'd think it was a scandal on a par with finding that John Prescott buggers and sacrifices a live ostrich every night.

To a certain extent, the fuss is the fault of the Labour party itself. It was originally elected on a wave of public antipathy towards the Conservative party and the attendant sleaze allegations against it. To fully capitalise on that, Labour cast itself as a group of men and women so ethically pure that they wouldn't be out of place in the Vatican. The problem is, now that they're the entrenched government and now that the full glare of the media has been applied to pretty much every dealing of every Labour party member and all of their relatives. Naturally enough, we're finding that the government really wouldn't be out of place in the Vatican. Unfortunately, as it seems that 1 in every 3 paedophiles and pederasts is a Catholic priest, that is no longer such a grand boast.

So then, we're finding out that our government and their families are not perfect models of integrity. Is anybody actually surprised? I mean look at the Conservative government; it seemed to consist entirely of people whose facade of normality was so studied and false that we were expected to believe that not one of them had ever acted in a weak, foolish, and altogether human way. No, all of these men and women were infallible! And, unsurprisingly, that facade didn't stand up to scrutiny. Did that lead to the realisation that it is unreasonable of us to expect perfection in our politicians? Did it create an atmosphere similar to that of France, where politicians seem to get a mistress or toyboy as a part of their job description? Of course not. It led to us electing a bunch of people who made equally unreasonable claims to perfection, but who simply hadn't been caught out yet.

There are a couple of standard get out clauses exercised by most people (myself especially) at this point, one of the favourites being "They're all the same so there's no point in voting. The same kind of bastards will always get in". Well, yes they will. For as long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by the meaningless popularity contest that is politics in the UK they will anyway. How many people know anything about any political parties other than the Conservatives or Labour? Come to think of it, how many people even know whom their local MP is? Essentially, when it comes to election time we decide who we think looks the most 'normal' out of the politicians who appear on our TV. Then (assuming we can all be bothered to drag our fat arses off the sofa) we vote for them. And yes, we get people who are imperfect (some more than others). If our media actually did their job and bothered to find out about their ability as politicians, rather than how many affairs they've had, or how many dodgy friends they've got; and if we deigned to care about such trivialities like "Who are the best people to govern the country?" then chances are we'd be spared this false high-ground haughtiness that the press indulge in the instant a scandal is required to boost newspaper sales. What right has anyone got to say, "They're all the same" when very few know what the fuck any of them are like in the first place?

At which point did leadership stop being about ability and start being about popularity? Or has it always been like this? Can anyone seriously imagine that Dubya would be in office if we lived in a meritocracy? He's a bumbling idiot who got where he is by money and luck. In our own government, only Gordon Brown springs to mind as a politician who's ability to do the job is adequate to justify him being there. There was a while when I thought the tide may have been turning against those who ruminate scandal for scandal's sake; by the end of Clinton's time as US president, everyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together was sick to death of hearing about his poor taste in women. Yet the only effect that the long running saga had was to give Clinton a peculiar sort of legitimacy; all of his other (many) errors and failures, as well as most of his successes were pushed to the back of our collective minds. We don't really remember that he ordered bombs launched at suspected Al-Quaida camps, or that he so nearly brought peace to Israel. We only remember a smear of sperm on a cheap dress. So it's impossible (or at least, so difficult as to be nearly impossible) to say whether he was a good leader or a bad one (Happily the only scandals that have thus far surrounded Dubya concern corruption on such a huge scale that one feels rather more justified in complaining about him).

The faint whiff of scandal surrounding the Blairs is being magnified so that it has become a stench, yet they have acted little differently from someone getting a sacked British Gas Engineer to fit their boiler on the cheap. Or asking a struck off solicitor to give legal advice. Or asking a friend to bring back rather more beer and wine from a trip to France than they otherwise would have. If we're going to have a tabloid feeding frenzy around 10 Downing St, is it really that unrealistic to ask that it's about something like the forests of money that have gone into businessmen’s pockets due to Public-Private partnerships? There are many reasons for us to mistrust our government. Let's not get distracted by a rapidly growing molehill of a scandal.

Still, Merry Christmas eh?

Death of the Boogeywoman

A boogeyman died this last weekend. Well, to be more accurate it was a boogeywoman. Myra Hindley, Moors Murderess and English hate figure for over 30 years, died peacefully in her sleep. Almost everyone in the UK knew her by name. She was practically unknown outside the UK; bearing in mind the US churns out serial killers whose sadism makes Hindley and Ian Brady seem like a benevolent Aunt and Uncle, this is hardly surprising. She died without having been forgiven for her crimes, or at least not by the UK public. Are some things so terrible that they cannot be forgiven, no matter how sincere the repentance? Before looking too closely at that question it's worth reminding ourselves of her particular claim to immortality.

She, at the behest of her lover Ian Brady, participated in the abduction, torture, rape, and murder of a number of youths in Manchester (There is an official count, but if I'm honest I find that I'm starting to disapprove of the practice of keeping a scorecard for different murderers; I think it was the number of people in the UK who take pride in the fact that Dr Harold Shipman was the worlds most prolific serial killer that gave me an opinion on this, but I digress...). After putting their victims through a fairly grotty version of hell (ironically, the murder of the victim that led to their capture died quickest of all; Brady took an axe to him) in the name of getting themselves horny, they would bury the remains on the Moors in the North West of England.

One of the things that set this particular case apart was the fact that Hindley and Brady had made audio tapes of the rape and torture of one of the young girls (I'm rather ashamed to say that I can't remember her name; I believe I've already made the point in the past that it is curious how we recall the murderers and not the murdered). The tape was played in court, and Hindley's complete callousness to the fate of their victim guaranteed her the enmity of anyone and everyone who ever read any details of the case. Thanks to the efforts of the media, everyone in the UK ended up reading such details on a semi regular basis. Why was this the case? Well, it was probably because Hindley had, over the course of the last 36 years, reformed and sought parole at every available opportunity.

The tabloids greeted every new parole hearing with a barrage of headlines of the "This Evil Old Hag must be Flayed Alive!" variety, coupled with numerous interviews with relatives of the victims, forced to relieve their grief anew, all of whom (unsurprisingly) wanted Hindley kept in prison for the rest of her life. (Brady is less troublesome as far as the press are concerned; he has been on hunger strike for the last 3 years as he is determined to die. The state is equally determined to keep him alive. Brady's less than idyllic childhood notwithstanding, bearing in mind the suffering he has caused others, this seems entirely appropriate.) Even the news of her death was greeted with the sort of bile normally reserved for newly captured paedophiles. But what of Hindley herself?

Here is a woman who had converted to Christianity in her time in prison, had the backing of numerous humanitarians in her quest for freedom, and who was described by pretty much everyone who came into contact with her as "no danger to the general public". She had done (she claimed) her best to assist the authorities searching the moors to find the last victims (one body has never been found and quite probably never will). Surely this goes some way to redressing the imbalance caused by her crimes?

To be blunt, no. Not in my opinion anyway. Though I dislike the media's manipulation of public opinion in order to paint her as a demonic presence on earth, I dislike even more the idea of a serial killer being released at any point before their death. Some of the arguments used in favour of her release are pretty much all laughable (and I realise that I was in favour of the release of the Bulger killers; the difference being that those boys are young enough to have been rehabilitated), ranging from "She's accepted God into her life and so the Christian thing to do is to forgive her" to "Far worse crimes are committed today, and the perpetrators of those may well be released soon". The former means approximately fuck all when one considers the tendency towards mania shown by many of those who are committed to the religion of their parents' choice. The latter is perhaps the most insulting thing one could say to those affected by the murders; is crime now to be downgraded retrospectively?

I also resent the holier than thou posturing of those good souls who could find it in their hearts to forgive her (and yes, I am being sarcastic; it's rather easy to forgive a wrong done to someone else, quite another to forgive it when done to you or those dear to you). Their implication that, because they were magnanimous enough to forgive her, then everyone else should be, smacks of the smug self-righteousness of the left-wing do-gooder (by which I mean that shower of spunkwits who do their utmost to impose their morality on everybody else. Though their motivations are different they're no better than the religious and political right, and give the left wing a bad name).

What is more, they then mewl about how unjust it is that Hindley languishes in prison (as opposed to languishing under a few feet of dank earth on a moor). Well, sorry to break this to you, but Justice was created to serve the will of the majority. Whether whipped up into a hate fuelled fervour or simply reading the facts of the case, I rather think that it would be the will of the majority that Hindley live her life in captivity. The do-gooders response is usually along the lines that "The majority are wrong", followed by a thinly veiled piece of patronising sophistry that implies that what people need is to have their minds made up for them by a privileged few who have the intellectual capacity to make the correct decision. Which is, again, horseshit. These days we hear a lot about the right trying to reserve power to a few. This rather obstructs our view of the fact that certain of the left wing are equally inclined to elitism. Beware of anyone who says that they know what you should be thinking.

To sum up, there very definitely are some things that are unforgivable to some, and not to others. It's up to the majority to decide what can be forgiven. No one can imagine Adolf Hitler being given leniency had he thrown himself on the mercy of the Jewish people, so why should a once-evil woman be treated any differently if most people do not believe that she should be free?

We are the dead

1984 is my favourite book, and it's influence on me is clear in pretty much everything I write. Here, I make that influence more explicit than usual.



"We are the Dead"

That line, from Orwell's 1984, is Winston and Julia's acceptance that they have no hope in life. In the context of the whole book, we later find out that although they were quite correct when they said it, they didn't really know what they meant or what the implications of that statement were. It takes continuous physical and psychological torture at the hands of O'Brien (the strangely charismatic and, by our standards, quite insane Inner Party member) for Winston Smith to truly appreciate that it is not just he and Julia who fall into this joyless category. It is everyone outside of the ruling inner party. The Proles, the outer party, the continually warring factions; everything exists solely for the benefit of those privileged few who have control over their own lives. Everyone else may just as well be a walking corpse for all the independence that they are allowed.

1984 is probably my favourite piece of literature of all time. A chilling warning about the inherent inhumanity of totalitarianism (although very much a product of post WWII UK in tone), it is a bleak view of a bleak future that, happily, has not come to pass. Or at least, certainly not in the unremittingly grim fashion that Orwell predicted. The basic fear that Orwell expressed was of a dystopian world where we no longer have control of our own lives; a return to the medieval times of total slavery to a privileged caste. The hellish Party of 1984 kept the population servile by convincing them that they were actually happy with their lot (they did so by numerous methods that, if I were to detail them here would take up more than even you have the patience to read...), and being as how my mind works the way it does (i.e. in a rather rambling and slightly neurotic fashion) I've found myself wondering if the same could be said of us.

Do we have control of our own lives, or are we little more than serfs who have been distracted from our servitude by pretty baubles and garish soap opera’s. Obviously, one cannot look at the minutiae of everybody's everyday life, so you'll forgive me if I break our lives down into these nice, easy to remember sections; work, play, and love (by which I mean both friendships and sex. In some cases both...).

I've always believed in getting the bad news out of the way first, so let's have a look at work. This is the area that many who believe that we are already living in a world of shit tend to hold up as proof of their belief. And in truth, it's probably not too difficult to see where they're coming from. Very few people are spending their working life in a job that they feel valued and which bolsters rather than knocks lumps out of their self-esteem. But whose fault is that? To a certain extent it is the fault of society (and, by implication, those at the top of the heap who shape society to suit their needs). We are encouraged to get some sort of 9-5 job, though of course we are all encouraged to get the best paid job available. Modern life compounds the pressure; we need money to pay the bills and to live a comfortable life. Our own fear of poverty is probably the final factor involved; we are told that we need to live a certain lifestyle and, good little drones that we are, we try our best to do so. To opt out of the rat-race is (unless you are fortunate, wealthy, talented, lucky, or for preference, all four) to kiss goodbye to the bland and almost identical dream life that we all aspire to (and as I write that, I am reminded of the book "Brave New World", where hypnosis is used to teach sleeping children what kind of life they will enjoy as an adult, thus vast swathes of people grow up to want the same things out of life).

Yet however unattractive we are encouraged to believe the alternatives are, there are at least alternatives. In 1984, there was no freedom to choose. There was not even the illusion of that freedom. If I were to be especially cynical I would say that we do have the oldest and most basic right of free people; the freedom to be destitute. That would, however, be misleading. We do have that freedom which was denied to Winston (historically, we probably have more freedom than at any other point in history), it's just that few of us choose to exercise it. In respect of work I believe that we do have control of our lives. It's just that most of us have chosen to abdicate responsibility for making that choice.

In the world of leisure time, we are certainly not trapped in the 1984 nightmare. Again, we have more leisure time now than at any other time in the history of mankind. There are restrictions on what we may choose to do with our time that we may not like (anti-drug laws continue to place a paternalistic straightjacket on how one chooses to spend ones own time, and those bleating idiots who bray their mindless refrain of "drugs are for losers" are probably the most totalitarian types that one can encounter; their "I don't like it ergo no-one should" attitude is typical of the unimaginative and the intolerant. If you don't like it, no problem; nobody is forcing you to. So stop forcing others not to), but by and large we are left to our own devices on the condition that we do not cause any harm to others.

If there is a problem with our leisure time, it is that we ourselves do not make enough use of it. This is our life and our responsibility. Yet when I have heard (and made) complaints about any aspect of my spare time, it is rare for the blame to land at ones own door. If one is not happy with an aspect of ones life outside of work, then surely it is up to us to try and remedy that?

Finally we have our love lives and our friends. This was and still is the most abhorrent aspect of 1984 for me; the gradual destruction of the social bonding structures that we would recognise in society and the replacement of them with loyalty only to Big Brother. Winston had no friends, only acquaintances whom he feared as possible informers. We do not have that in our lives (or at least, not in modern western society; Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and pretty much anybody's Russia all featured this entertainingly unpleasant addition to their social lives). We are free to make friends and enemies as we see fit. I've never felt forced to like somebody whom I could have cheerfully shot, nor do I feel any pressure to hate somebody to whom I am indifferent. The prejudices that do exist in society (racism and sexism being at the top of the scale, PC-manufactured bias' such as weightism at the very bottom) are all a matter of personal choice and although we may occasionally feel pressure to 'fit in' by taking on the prejudices of a peer group, there is no cage of rats attached to our face that forces us to do so.

As to our love lives...well, if I were going to make a complaint about this it would be that we have rather too much freedom of choice. Not because of things like the soaring divorce rate (which I care little about; I'm in favour of renewable marriage contracts as a valid solution to this problem), but because I'm still pissed off that my girlfriend dumped me. Grrrr....

But joking aside, no-one can realistically say that this aspect of our life is out of our control unless we choose to hand over control of it (i.e. by picking one of the various flavours of religion that seek to tell you what to do in the bedroom). Winston and Julia didn't really love each other. Their relationship was an act of rebellion against the state and so had little to do with their feelings for each other. I'm not going to be so smug as to say that if they were truly in love then they would not have betrayed each other, because I am in general agreement with the cliché that you always hurt the one you love. But their sexual encounters were as close as one could get to romance in a world where the only love that existed was the love of power. Whilst that love plays a large part in the real world, it is certainly not to the exclusion of everything else. Speaking personally, although I think that love is hard work I also think that it gives us the most joy out of life. It makes life a lot more worthwhile and rewarding than it would otherwise be. If today's world really were like the one inhabited by Winston and Julia, no-one would even understand what that joy meant. So maybe we are not making the most of our life, but we are most emphatically not the dead.

The Bali Bomb

Unlike 9/11 and 7/7, the Bali bomb has been pretty much forgotten here. Clearly it needed a snappy, date-based acronym.




Well, once again we find terrorism is taking up a large amount of space in the news. And for once, America is pretty much uninvolved (apart from one or two spectacularly paranoid conspiracy theories which I'll return to later). A terrorist bomb exploded in Bali last week and, in doing so, reopened the War on Terror debate in earnest. This time Australia claimed the lion’s share of the grief arising from this tragedy. However, as on September 11th, Al-Quaida and their numerous affiliates are being (probably rightly) blamed although no statements have been made by the terrorists to confirm this. So where do we now stand in this stop-start war? Is this a case of "Another day, another atrocity" or is it likely to galvanise those opposed to terrorism into some sort of action other than invading a secular nation that has bugger all to do with sponsoring religious, ideologically led terrorists?

It would seem logical to firstly examine the reaction in Australia. Naturally, a mixture of grief and anger was the immediate reaction. Bali was a popular holiday destination for young Australians and so there have been numerous headlines of the "losing the flower of our youth" type. However, one of the main reactions seems to have been "This bomb is proof that we should have no part of the War on Terror". Now I'm not exactly Pro-Dubya. And I think his little war is nothing more than a cack-handed grab for oil. But leaving aside my distaste for Dubya's warmongering, I'm not sure I agree with the aforementioned Australian reaction at all.

Perhaps it's because I grew up in the UK during the 80's, when bombings by the IRA and INLA were a weekly occurrence. And maybe it's because I grew up in Thatcher's Britain, where the idea of surrender to terror was simply unthinkable. But whatever the reason, it makes those Australians who believe the Balinese bomb was their cue to back off the terrorists sound cowed and beaten to my mind. I'm not arguing the point that the American led War on Terror is a bullshit exercise. What I am arguing is that the people that they are ostensibly fighting the war against, Al-Quaida, are just as big a bunch of bastards as the American government are. Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely amending my position here; I still believe that sorting out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the only way to get peace in the Middle East. But just as the US government is being hijacked by stupid old men who want a war to bolster their self esteem, the leadership of the terrorist network is full of equally stupid old men who want a war for exactly the same reasons. Peace in the Middle East won't stop these few hardline terrorists, but it will rob them of their recruiting grounds. Backing down at the first sign of trouble is giving in to the latter group of idiots. Supporting a war on terror on ones own terms and not those dictated by the US is not necessarily giving in to the former.

And then we have Bali itself. Currently, the Indonesian authorities (who, for the record, are as large a bunch of totalitarian, militaristic, corrupt scum as one could possibly hope to avoid) are placing the blame on a gentleman named Abu Bakr Bashir. He is a Moslem cleric and is noted for being something of a radical. So radical in fact that he and his followers have been linked to numerous bombs in Indonesia over the last few years. However, as none of these bombs killed Westerners and as the only fatalities were Indonesian civilians whom even their own government don't care about, you could be forgiven for never having heard of him or his alleged terrorist activities.

As a side note, I do have to express a certain amount of admiration for Bashir for his intelligent use of the media in the aftermath of the bombing. He gave an interview where he stated that people in the employ of the American government planted the bomb. His logic for this was that America had recently issued warnings to its citizens not to travel to Indonesia. Never mind the fact that America has all but warned it's citizens that anyone outside of it's borders is an evil foreigner and not to be trusted. Never mind the fact that most Western nations remain uneasy about Indonesia due to its history of breathtakingly violent civil uprisings. Never mind the fact that a supposedly Moslem terror group will almost certainly have had few qualms about planting a bomb on a predominantly Hindu island. What Bashir has done here is tap into that vein of American thought that states that all of the bad things in the world are the fault of the US government.

I believe I've commented before on that brand of small mindedness that is incapable of accepting that there is a world outside of America, and that there are people there who are just as blinkered, selfish, and destructive as any US President. Now that Bashir has opened Pandora's Box, you can bet that there will be any number of emotionally stunted Americans who will leap to the defense of Bashir (who may well have nothing to do with the bombing for all anyone knows) and once more bray their idiot refrain that all bad things in the world are the fault of America. Again I should stress; I'm not trying to say that the hands of angels touch everything America does. I'm saying that there are terrorists who are warlike and bent on destruction as well.

America itself has barely figured in the reportage of the bomb in Bali. Aside from committing FBI resources to the investigation it has done little apart from making an effort to say that the bomb "proved that we're right in wanting to invade Iraq". Erm....how, exactly? Not long after Dubya made his speech saying that their was clear evidence linking Iraq to Al-Quaida, the CIA released a statement saying that they were not aware of any such evidence. The fact that the people of the American capital are currently living in an ecstasy of fear due to a sniper dealing with his/her personal issues in a very public way (there has even been credible speculation that the sniper is a terrorist. Personally I think it's the blokes from the Grassy Knoll; they haven't taken kindly to being pensioned off and so they're taking their revenge!) whilst their President tries to whip up support for his land grab hasn't helped Dubya's approval rating, so the sloppy attempt to link Bali with Iraq hasn't gone down at all well thus far.

All in all, the bomb in Bali has given the Indonesian authorities a mandate to be even more oppressive. It has given John Howard, the right wing (in the British Conservative style of right wing, i.e. an unpleasant bigot) PM of Australia, a chance to prove his hard line credentials. And it has given me another reason to point at Dubya and laugh at him until there are tears in my eyes. But it has given the terrorists a victory in that a wave of fear has once more swept over the western world. As far as I can see, it was one more step toward polarising the world into 2 opposing camps. Somewhere, there are some rich, stupid old men cackling at the way things are shaping up.

Revenge

Basically, this isn't much more than an attempted justification of my desire to revenge myself on those who wrong me. Which sounds very grand, but that revenge usually consists of little more than epic and intricate levels of personal abuse.



Have you ever heard the phrase "To err is human, to forgive divine"? I always liked that saying; it carried the implication that the many and varied cock-ups I was going to make in my life were expected and would simply be par for the course. As to the idea of forgiveness being some sort of superhuman feat; that merely helped reinforce my overwhelming sense of self-satisfaction when I didn't react to a real or imagined slight against me. Not that I needed any excuse to be unbearably smug about myself, but it's always nice to have an excuse!

Anyway, I spent an awful lot of time in blissful arrogance, happy that anyone who couldn't bring themselves to drop whatever petty little grievances that they had accumulated over time was simply not as good a person as I was. Happily, (or unhappily depending on ones viewpoint) I've had to revise this point of view rather substantially over the last couple of years. You see, despite all of my best efforts, it turns out that I'm really a quite frighteningly vindictive sort of person. Not to the extent of overkill (for example, a group of ratboys set their Staffordshire Bull Terrier onto one of my cats a few weeks ago. Had I reacted the way I wanted to, I would almost certainly be on remand for charges of false imprisonment, ABH, and GBH etc), but rather I find that I simply MUST have my pound of flesh so that I can accept that the matter is settled and so that I can move on. An eye for an eye is still too harsh an ideal for me, but I don't have any problems with a tooth for a tooth.

Now I don't pretend that my attitude in this respect is the correct one. But I don't think it makes me particularly unique, or even a hugely bad person. I think it just makes me a typical example of how humanity deals with being dumped on. On a small (i.e. personal) scale, this isn't particularly harmful or destructive. Okay, so maybe it can be for the person on the receiving end of somebody's ire, but that is part of the process of living your life. It's when others get pulled into the vortex of anger and revenge that things start to get ugly. Again, as a personal example, I once found myself dragging two complete innocents into a dispute I was having with somebody. It had nothing to do with them whatsoever, and the net result was that everybody ended up being pissed off at everybody else. I suppose that, if nothing else, this taught me the valuable lesson of not allowing ones anger to overwhelm ones reason (or, if I were to admit to being as big a Star Wars fan as I actually am, I learned not to give in to the Dark Side...). Sackcloth and ashes were duly donned, and I think that I and the people whom I still care about have come out of the sorry little mess wiser and, for the most part, unscathed.

Okay, so I think that pretty much establishes that to err is indeed human. I know that all of my friends have made mistakes in their lives, and when I look at the news I can see mistakes being made on a daily basis and with global implications; Palestinian suicide bombers, Israeli occupation, American belligerence, European self-righteousness, African chaos...all of these things can be seen and read about on a daily basis (though it can get pretty bloody depressing should you choose to do so). But to stick with the idea of mistakes on a much larger scale, are we right to just expect all the involved parties to behave in a way that is entirely human (i.e. involves the total and unconditional hatred of a group of people whom one has never met and whom one may get along famously with if they met at a party, purely on the basis of something arbitrary like their religion or the colour of their skin)?

For example, the situation in Israel at the moment is the result of a numerous mistakes being made by both Palestinians and Israeli's since the late 1940's. The Palestinians were mistaken in their (and their Arab neighbours) efforts to wipe Israel from the map. Israel was mistaken in their attempt to colonise occupied Palestinian territory. The Palestinians are just plain wrong in their continued guerilla war against Israel that sees more and more innocent Israeli's being blown apart for the crime of going about their daily business. The Israeli's are equally as wrong in their seeming determination to level every Palestinian occupied building in range of their tank shells. We're told that both sides quite simply hate each other with venom not seen since Trotsky called Stalin a big, fat, moustachioed poofter. But was it really as simple as that? Did two whole nations wake up one day and decide that they HAD to commit some barbarous act or other to get revenge for some sort of wrong committed against them?

No, I don't really think that they did. I think a very small group of people is responsible for this particular conflagration. Unfortunately, those people form the leadership of both sides. Yasser Arafat has grievances against the Israeli people that he seemingly cannot forgive. Likewise for Ariel Sharon and his feelings toward the Palestinians. However, because of the vindictiveness of these two people and their attendant cronies, millions of people get the unrivalled opportunity to live in fear, hate, and discord. If the two of them were locked into a room and only one of them were allowed to walk out, I'm inclined to think that it would be a much better way of helping them settle their differences. Instead, a whole nation is used to get revenge by proxy.

I'll restate my point again; two individuals feeling the need to gain petty revenge on each other is A-okay as far as I'm concerned. Two individuals dragging others into their dispute is a bad thing. And if they drag whole nations and cost them their lives...well, it becomes divine in that a truly biblical level of carnage ensues, but that's about it. I think what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing monstrous, or evil, or inhuman about many of the world leaders who sentence a random number of their populace to death for the international equivalent of what their Kev said about our Sharon. They're behaving in just the kind of blinkered, selfish, and petty way that is exactly what we should expect from a human being.

Not that I'm saying that we should simply say "Well that's okay then. We may as well let them carry on until no one has any eyes or teeth left". Going back to revenge on a personal level, I believe that it can be a positive thing (allowing one to let go of whatever dislike has been consuming us, and so allowing one to get on with ones life). But it can very easily become negative and destructive, to the point where revenge is all that matters above and beyond everything else. We usually have the benefit of a friend telling us to calm the hell down, and perhaps to rethink, for example, sending ones enemy a forged letter from a hospital informing them that one of their recent sexual partners has been diagnosed as HIV +. No one close to him is going to tell Dubya that declaring war on Iraq because Saddam pissed daddy off is a bad idea. Maybe I am being unreasonable to expect a little more of the divine in our leaders, but when they are making decisions that will affect my life based predominantly on their personal grudges, I doubt I'll be alone in making that wish.

Nice idea, shame about reality

This was written more in hope than expectation, though my annoyance with leftist Anti-Americanism remains as strong as it was then.



If I were a true, died in the wool, moaning leftie (as the Sun is calling anybody who raises a single question about the wisdom of war against Iraq), I would doubtless be a very disappointed man this week. After all, I've spent a few weeks now getting myself riled and annoyed (not to mention deeply, breathtakingly paranoid) at Dubya and his All Star Clown Show (otherwise known as the US Government). I've scribbled down dire warnings of the dangers of American unilateralism and perceived anti-Islamic policies, to much the same effect as the bloke at Newcastle Monument who keeps telling strangers that Jesus loves them. And then, just as all was starting to seem as hopeless as Ronald Reagan at a pub quiz, something rather nice happened.

Dubya made a speech to the UN on Friday. For once, the most interesting thing about it wasn't his tortured syntax and mangled vocabulary (from what I could gather, he seems to think that "Elsewhere" is actually a country...). Having read the speech, it would appear that the US Government have finally realised that perhaps pissing off every other nation on the face of the planet is a bad idea. In essence, Dubya said that the US would consult the UN over Iraq, but the UN had to stop shirking it's responsibilities or else face being marginalised in the same way as the League of Nations was just before WWII. In an admittedly token gesture, he also signed the US back up to UNESCO (a UN project by which signatory nations share educational, cultural, and scientific information). Thus, the US addressed the accusation that it would act unilaterally and ride roughshod over the objections of others. The first main objection to war with Iraq had an answer.

Then he went a stage further. He stated that America was committed to a self governed, independent state for the Palestinians. Suddenly, the second main objection to war, that the US are being discriminatory against Moslems in this, thus far, farcical and inconclusive war against terror, was addressed too. Of course, saying that one is in agreement with an idea is entirely different to actually taking steps to put that idea into practice. Nevertheless, this showed that Dubya (or at least, his speechwriters and his government. Let's be honest here; Dubya is a man who takes stupidity to epic levels. For ease of reference, when I mention the monkey, I'm in fact talking about the organ grinders) has at least paid attention to why there is such opposition to his war. Moreover, it showed that there was the political savvy to try and do something about it rather than fixing objectors with a blank stare and accuse them of being on a par with Saddam himself in terms of evil.

This unexpected but welcome outburst of common sense got me to thinking; why, if one takes the leap of faith that Dubya actually means what he says, should there be any more objections to war with Iraq? After all, the UN does indeed have obligations to the international community to enforce the resolutions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War (of course, it also has obligations to enforce the 2 resolutions ordering Israel to leave the Palestinians alone, but lets push that gently to one side for now). Why on earth shouldn't America demand that UN do what it was set up to do and bring a rogue state in line? If nothing else, it clears the way for any nation who is genuinely interested in justice to make the same demands concerning Israel.

And that of course is the key phrase; "genuinely interested in justice". I don't think that a single member state of the UN meets this criterion. All they are interested in is naked self-interest. For all that Dubya assuaged my two big fears about a war with Iraq on Friday, I'm not so naive as to think that he wants the war for any other reason than greater access to oil reserves. And yet we seem to insist that America acts according to a higher moral standard than we are willing to impose on other nations. In fairness, America brings a lot of that on itself with its absurd "Land of the Free" rhetoric, yet we are far more willing to point out America's self interest when they actually act on the world stage.

For example, when the UK sent troops to Sierra Leone, we were generally praised in the international community for helping to defend a legitimate government from wild and savage rebel soldiers. Do you suppose that the diamond mines that we were fighting to defend were an insignificant detail? Of course not; they were the entire reason that we were there. However, the Sierra Leone government did not fall. The rebels were beaten back. The reasons for our intervention were less than pure (unless you count pure greed) but the results were definitely desirable. And as we observed the niceties of international law (or at least, made reference to them), there were no objections in the UN.

Could the same not be said here of America? Again, I must stress that if the UN speech was a blip and the US does indeed plough on with it's unilateral action then all bets are off. But just look at the difference that those words have made; America is trying to keep up the appearance of consulting with the international community. Dubya has backed the UN into a corner by pointing out that the US would be enforcing existing UN resolutions, and that all nations have a duty to support UN approved actions. Though the war would be about oil, the result would be the end of one of the most despotic regimes on earth.

It seems that the US is doomed in its efforts to assuage the left wing in this matter. No matter what they do, there will always be the calls and reminders that the US, like every other nation on the planet, has and continues to behave in it's own interests first. Naturally, I wish that this were different, but does anyone really think that never-ending vilification is going to do the trick? The right wing was belligerent until Friday, happy to stick two fingers up to the rest of the world due to their conviction that they were pursuing the correct course of action by divine right. Though their bluster and bullshit will no doubt continue, and though they will almost certainly deride the UN as no more than a talking shop, it will rankle them no end that the path to war has been smoothed by diplomacy and not by threats of force.

With time, and with all nations being forced into the position of having to consult with the UN should they wish to preserve their pretence of legitimacy and selflessness, we may hopefully find that the world will actually consist of countries with legitimate and genuinely selfless governments. It is, after all, a round world and we're all the same race of people when all is said and done. Until then, the demand of the left for all nations (especially America) to act like paragons of virtue without any coercion or anything in it for them is unrealistic. We demanded the US consult the UN. They have done so. The left cannot simply go on criticising because it doesn't like what the UN does in response. That is no better than the whining of the right who get upset at the UN for not letting them use their nice new bombs. The way is now clear for genuine debate about what should be done with Iraq, and I'd hate to see it derailed by the left because they don't want Dubya to get what he wants. The US may have questionable motives, but after the Friday's speech, there are many who say that the benefits of a war now outweigh the problems it would cause. It's time for the left to address that point and stop miring itself in a list of complaints that can be easily twisted to be made to look like nothing more than rabid anti Americanism. Here's hoping that they rise to the challenge.

Nice idea, shame about reality

This was written more in hope than expectation, though my annoyance with leftist Anti-Americanism remains as strong as it was then.



If I were a true, died in the wool, moaning leftie (as the Sun is calling anybody who raises a single question about the wisdom of war against Iraq), I would doubtless be a very disappointed man this week. After all, I've spent a few weeks now getting myself riled and annoyed (not to mention deeply, breathtakingly paranoid) at Dubya and his All Star Clown Show (otherwise known as the US Government). I've scribbled down dire warnings of the dangers of American unilateralism and perceived anti-Islamic policies, to much the same effect as the bloke at Newcastle Monument who keeps telling strangers that Jesus loves them. And then, just as all was starting to seem as hopeless as Ronald Reagan at a pub quiz, something rather nice happened.

Dubya made a speech to the UN on Friday. For once, the most interesting thing about it wasn't his tortured syntax and mangled vocabulary (from what I could gather, he seems to think that "Elsewhere" is actually a country...). Having read the speech, it would appear that the US Government have finally realised that perhaps pissing off every other nation on the face of the planet is a bad idea. In essence, Dubya said that the US would consult the UN over Iraq, but the UN had to stop shirking it's responsibilities or else face being marginalised in the same way as the League of Nations was just before WWII. In an admittedly token gesture, he also signed the US back up to UNESCO (a UN project by which signatory nations share educational, cultural, and scientific information). Thus, the US addressed the accusation that it would act unilaterally and ride roughshod over the objections of others. The first main objection to war with Iraq had an answer.

Then he went a stage further. He stated that America was committed to a self governed, independent state for the Palestinians. Suddenly, the second main objection to war, that the US are being discriminatory against Moslems in this, thus far, farcical and inconclusive war against terror, was addressed too. Of course, saying that one is in agreement with an idea is entirely different to actually taking steps to put that idea into practice. Nevertheless, this showed that Dubya (or at least, his speechwriters and his government. Let's be honest here; Dubya is a man who takes stupidity to epic levels. For ease of reference, when I mention the monkey, I'm in fact talking about the organ grinders) has at least paid attention to why there is such opposition to his war. Moreover, it showed that there was the political savvy to try and do something about it rather than fixing objectors with a blank stare and accuse them of being on a par with Saddam himself in terms of evil.

This unexpected but welcome outburst of common sense got me to thinking; why, if one takes the leap of faith that Dubya actually means what he says, should there be any more objections to war with Iraq? After all, the UN does indeed have obligations to the international community to enforce the resolutions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War (of course, it also has obligations to enforce the 2 resolutions ordering Israel to leave the Palestinians alone, but lets push that gently to one side for now). Why on earth shouldn't America demand that UN do what it was set up to do and bring a rogue state in line? If nothing else, it clears the way for any nation who is genuinely interested in justice to make the same demands concerning Israel.

And that of course is the key phrase; "genuinely interested in justice". I don't think that a single member state of the UN meets this criterion. All they are interested in is naked self-interest. For all that Dubya assuaged my two big fears about a war with Iraq on Friday, I'm not so naive as to think that he wants the war for any other reason than greater access to oil reserves. And yet we seem to insist that America acts according to a higher moral standard than we are willing to impose on other nations. In fairness, America brings a lot of that on itself with its absurd "Land of the Free" rhetoric, yet we are far more willing to point out America's self interest when they actually act on the world stage.

For example, when the UK sent troops to Sierra Leone, we were generally praised in the international community for helping to defend a legitimate government from wild and savage rebel soldiers. Do you suppose that the diamond mines that we were fighting to defend were an insignificant detail? Of course not; they were the entire reason that we were there. However, the Sierra Leone government did not fall. The rebels were beaten back. The reasons for our intervention were less than pure (unless you count pure greed) but the results were definitely desirable. And as we observed the niceties of international law (or at least, made reference to them), there were no objections in the UN.

Could the same not be said here of America? Again, I must stress that if the UN speech was a blip and the US does indeed plough on with it's unilateral action then all bets are off. But just look at the difference that those words have made; America is trying to keep up the appearance of consulting with the international community. Dubya has backed the UN into a corner by pointing out that the US would be enforcing existing UN resolutions, and that all nations have a duty to support UN approved actions. Though the war would be about oil, the result would be the end of one of the most despotic regimes on earth.

It seems that the US is doomed in its efforts to assuage the left wing in this matter. No matter what they do, there will always be the calls and reminders that the US, like every other nation on the planet, has and continues to behave in it's own interests first. Naturally, I wish that this were different, but does anyone really think that never-ending vilification is going to do the trick? The right wing was belligerent until Friday, happy to stick two fingers up to the rest of the world due to their conviction that they were pursuing the correct course of action by divine right. Though their bluster and bullshit will no doubt continue, and though they will almost certainly deride the UN as no more than a talking shop, it will rankle them no end that the path to war has been smoothed by diplomacy and not by threats of force.

With time, and with all nations being forced into the position of having to consult with the UN should they wish to preserve their pretence of legitimacy and selflessness, we may hopefully find that the world will actually consist of countries with legitimate and genuinely selfless governments. It is, after all, a round world and we're all the same race of people when all is said and done. Until then, the demand of the left for all nations (especially America) to act like paragons of virtue without any coercion or anything in it for them is unrealistic. We demanded the US consult the UN. They have done so. The left cannot simply go on criticising because it doesn't like what the UN does in response. That is no better than the whining of the right who get upset at the UN for not letting them use their nice new bombs. The way is now clear for genuine debate about what should be done with Iraq, and I'd hate to see it derailed by the left because they don't want Dubya to get what he wants. The US may have questionable motives, but after the Friday's speech, there are many who say that the benefits of a war now outweigh the problems it would cause. It's time for the left to address that point and stop miring itself in a list of complaints that can be easily twisted to be made to look like nothing more than rabid anti Americanism. Here's hoping that they rise to the challenge.

9/11: One Year On

I find it interesting to re-read this and note just how quickly Dubya squandered the goodwill and sympathy generated by 9/11.





As milestones go, forgetting about tomorrow would probably rank about equal to forgetting about one's partners birthday the day after neglecting to buy them a present for the wedding anniversary in the eyes of many Americans. And in truth, it would be churlish to expect America to feel anything other than a sense of grief and loss 1 year on from the worst atrocity that they have ever suffered in peacetime. So before I even get started, I have to make it clear that I have nothing but sympathy for the families who were affected by September 11th. Nor do I wish to cheapen the impact of that dreadful day on the rest of the nation. What I do want to do, however, is address the mindset that now seems to be emerging in America; that is, that because they have suffered because of a terrorist atrocity, they have divine right to do whatever they please in order to get their pound of flesh. I'd also like to briefly examine the cynical manipulation by the American government of the grief and anger justly felt by many Americans in order to make confused and blundering motions of aggression toward whomever they choose, whilst attempting to silence any criticism or doubts over their (quite remarkably ill-thought out) policy by claiming that dissent is equal to treachery.

It is of course difficult to make any sort of substantial comment about America and American policy as a result of 9/11. After all, their government doesn't seem to be entirely sure what they are doing these days (do we invade Iraq? Do we go through the UN? Have we finished in Afghanistan? Answers on a post card to the White House, because frankly, I don't think Dubya has the first clue...), so trying to decipher the intent behind their clumsy words and murky thoughts is a labour that would rival anything Hercules did. However, certain things can be gleaned from the avalanche of misinformation, contradiction, and blind stupidity that has become the hallmark of the US government of late. Obviously, they want war against Iraq. The removal of an evil dictator who had some part in 9/11, plus freeing of an oppressed people is the reason that is being played to the gallery. Naturally, nobody but the blindest patriot believes this. The real reasons are a matter of speculation; oil, distraction from the economic corruption that has mired the government down, revenge on behalf of Daddy...any, all, or none of these could be true. The government has been doing it's best to convince the public of this by blandly repeating the mantra that Saddam is a real and immediate threat, whilst at the same time providing no evidence for this.

I find it extremely annoying that the US government has made such a botched job of this whole affair; nobody would grieve Saddam's passing as dictator of Iraq. Yet by refusing to provide evidence for the danger he poses (and surely there must be some; we're talking about a man who used to routinely order the mass murder of Kurds and Marsh Arabs living in Iraq), and by suppressing any political opposition to an invasion by painting support for an invasion as the only way to be patriotic, Dubya's government are showing themselves to be as politically astute and as media savvy as Prince Phillip on a visit to China. I think it's rather telling that on the same day that the CIA have announced that there is little evidence linking Saddam to international terrorism, a news item has surfaced purporting to be an interview with a former lover of the Iraqi dictator. Apparently he likes watching torture videos and dancing to Sinatra in his spare time. Shit, why don't they go the whole hog and announce that scientific evidence has been found that gives a clear indication that Saddam Hussein is the closest living relative of the Boogeyman. It would appear that America is trying to win the war of hearts and minds via the National Enquirer...

So, now that I've qualified what I want to say to the point of rendering it almost irrelevant, I may as well proceed. What has been happening in America in the last year? Has the US public good reason to be proud of the actions of their government over the last year? Well, we should have been forewarned by the fact that no-one seemed to give much of a damn about the fact that the result of the election was...well, it was bollocks. Indeed, I'm sure that in years to come, historians on the education board will set aside a lesson specifically to allow future generations of schoolchildren to have a bloody good laugh at the gullibility of the American public and the sheer audacity of the Republican party (they may be corrupt and ignorant, but if nothing else they must have balls the size of watermelons to say that there was nothing remotely questionable about the result). And, true to form, America really doesn't seem to care that it's government has managed to alienate the entire world (no mean feat when one considers the outpouring of sympathy a year ago). Why doesn't it care?

The cynic in me suspects that the reason they don't care about the opinion of the rest of the world because America is a nation in the grip of self obsession. Prior to 9/11, nobody in America particularly cared about the fact that their government was a huge sponsor of terrorism. At best, they were indifferent to the suffering and misery in South America, Afghanistan, and Africa as a direct result of American funding of terror. At worst, they contributed toward it themselves (as any IRA quartermaster would no doubt confirm, the good old US public made huge contributions to their cause). Only now that America has begun to reap what it has sown has the American public in general made the belated discovery that terrorism is bad.

Now that terrorism has become a domestic problem for America, Americans have to think about it. This was something that they never had to trouble themselves with when it was happening overseas (incidentally, I'm not suggesting that the American public is unique in this rather selfish approach to the world; as an Englishman I'd be hypocritical to do so...). However, the prevailing attitude regarding how to prevent another 9/11 shows an imperiousness that has not been seen since Victorian times. Their seems to be an assumption that America can do what it damn well pleases, just so long as whatever is done stops the terrorists from attacking America again. The fact that America is militarily stronger than any other nation reinforces the belief that they can do what they like without fear of retribution. Their government have obliged by telling the rest of the world what they want, then stamping their feet and wailing "If you're not with us, you're against us" if they meet with anything less than total compliance (and if we bear in mind that the UK is the only country to have offered unconditional support, that adds up to a lot of rattles being thrown out of Dubya's pram).

There is a name for this; it's called "Gunboat Diplomacy", and it's something that the American public seems to approve of greatly. Well, not wishing to piss on their chips, but the last empire to try gunboat diplomacy was the same one that invented it; the British Empire. As I recall from the history of our little empire, we too had something of a belief in our divine right to tell the rest of the world what to do. We too took advantage of having a better military than anybody else. And yet here we are, dancing to whatever tune that Dubya spits out. We're no longer the biggest kid on the block. And do you know why? Because, after all the resentment that built up towards the imperious attitude of the English, the rest of the world made damned sure that it brought Britain down a peg or two at the first available opportunity. In our case, that opportunity was the Second World War. After the defeat of the axis powers, the UN was formed with the idea that no one nation should be able to bully the rest of the world into complying with whatever fun packed scheme they had come up with during that particular week. Britain had to hand its empire back to the people who actually lived there.

The American public seems to believe, rather sweetly, that this could never ever happen to them. I've tried asking a couple of them to justify this belief and have been met with answers ranging from "We could conquer the world so no one will ever mess with us" (evidently this gentleman belongs to the school of thought that believes Vietnam and Somalia aren't worth conquering...), to "It won't happen" (I tried pressing the giver of that last answer for a reason why it will never happen; unless you count repeating "It won't happen" over and over in the hope that I'd go away as a reason, none was forthcoming). Of course, the last time it took a world war to make something like this happen. Will it take the same thing happening again?

Let's put it this way; during the cold war, the leadership of America had an upsettingly high proportion of fundamentalist Christians in its numbers. These are the people who believe that the Revelations portion of the bible was not in fact the work of a gibbering fool who had spent too long in the desert eating mushrooms, but was in fact the exact representation of God's will. Happily, the Russian leadership were altogether more pragmatic, eschewing a dogmatic belief in the end of the world in favour of a belief in the need for keeping their own people on a tight leash. So all we had was 45 years of arse clenching fear, and no war. This time round, the Russians have been replaced with Moslem fundamentalists; people who are to the Islamic ideals of love and justice what Dubya is to the ideals of intellect and statesmanship. They too have a hankering for an apocalyptic "end of the world" scenario. So it seems that both teams want one big, messy conflict between good and evil. And each has found in the other someone perfectly willing to oblige that desire. Frankly, my only hope is that Dubya can be stalled until the next election, because surely the US public wouldn't be stupid enough to allow him to steal a second election, would they?

Would they?

Mad or Bad

Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley are the Tabloid candidates to replace Ian Brady and Myra Hindley in the pantheon of evildoers. The fact that Carr was not much more than a battered and abused woman under Huntley's domination hasn't deterred those tabloid rags from trying to spur the whole nation into a self-righteous witch burning.




Summer is drawing to a close now, and just like every other summer that I can remember we find that the headlines are taken up with the death of children. Milly Dowler has found herself shunted from the pages. The dismembered torso of the child found in the Thames is barely mentioned. The baby who was left to drown in it's buggy in Wales has been all but forgotten. There is now a double murder that has horrified people like nothing that has been seen before (or at least, horrified like nothing that was seen before last summer). Just over 2 weeks ago, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman went missing. Their bodies, still officially unidentified, were found on Saturday last. Somewhat uniquely in this kind of high profile case, the suspects were identified and questioned before the enquiry changed from missing persons to murder. By all rights this should have been a cut and dried, open and shut case whereby the two murderers are reviled, condemned, judged, and sent down. Not that that would have been any comfort to the parents of Holly and Jessica, but it would at least have been something. Now it seems that matters are getting complicated.

The two people who were arrested, Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley, both worked at the same school attended by Holly and Jessica as teaching assistant and caretaker respectively. This alone sent a thrill of revulsion through me. Whilst I appreciate that (unfortunately) murder victims are generally killed by people whom they know, this seemed like a desperately horrifying betrayal of trust. People send their children to school every day on trust that they will be safe, and that the people employed by the school will care for them. It seemed to me that the school had employed the modern day equivalent of Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. It was assumed by many that the two would be charged, and that a sorry (yet, God help us, familiar) tale would be recounted at the inevitable trial.

Then, yesterday, there were a series of announcements that wrong footed everybody. Firstly we were told that Huntley had been charged with the girls' murder, but also that he had been detained under the Mental Health Act of 1983, and that he was being held in Rampton Secure Hospital. Then we were told that Carr had been charged. Not with murder, but with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. What are the implications of these decisions? Like everyone else, I can only speculate based on the limited and confusing facts available. I don't claim to have any special insight into what might be going on, but I would like to try and make sense of it.

Firstly, we have Huntley. As things stand, and assuming his guilt, he is the sole murderer of Holly and Jessica. I'm sure that I wasn't the only one who assumed that the girls had been murdered by a paedophile, but now I am no longer certain. The main thing that puts doubt into my mind is the fact that he is being detained in a secure mental hospital. There is also the fact that the girls' bodies have yet to be formally identified. Is this because he committed acts of such appalling savagery that a post mortem was unable to determine the cause of death? It's an awful thought, but I suspect that the truth is somewhat more mundane (or as mundane as a double murder can be). We've just had 2 weeks of hot and humid weather in England, and if one assumes that the girls were murdered not long after their abduction then their bodies will have been left to decompose during that time. Hence the inability to identify both them and the cause of death.

That is the first part of the fog that is obscuring the events in Soham. Huntley's detention at Rampton is another. Basically, under the MHA, 2 doctors must state in writing that they believe Huntley has a psychotic disorder which makes him a danger to himself and/or others. The doctors at Rampton have anything up to 6 months to assess him and find out what, if anything is wrong with him (apart, of course, from the fact that he has probably murdered two children). What must this man have told the police during questioning that led them to consider the possibility that he is not fit to stand trial?

There seem to be a few of possibilities here; one is that he is genuinely mentally ill. Another is that this is merely a ploy by Huntley to avoid standing trial. Finally, it may be that the police wish to utterly eliminate the possibility of Huntley using the Insanity defence at trial, and so they are having him assessed by the doctors best able to determine whether or not he is psychotic.

I wouldn't like to say which, if any, of these possibilities is the most likely. But I do know a little bit about Rampton, and I know that the people who are held there are (in the words of a consultant who used to work there) "really, truly, properly insane". So if we assume that his insanity is real and not faked, and if one recalls the TV clips showing a calm yet concerned Huntley saying that he feels so helpless as to what to do about the disappearance of the girls, not to mention the uniqueness of the police sectioning him before charging him, a picture does begin to emerge. It tends to suggest a man that has completely disassociated himself from what he did to such a degree that he believes utterly that he did not commit the crime.

I find this relevant because of the current archaic laws concerning insanity in a criminal case. To paraphrase the MacNaughton legal rules, to make use of a defence of insanity, Huntley will have to show that he did not know what he was doing or that he didn't know that it was illegal. I would assume that the doctors at Rampton are now trying to determine whether this is indeed the case.

Then we have Carr. As I write this, it would appear that she isn't a murderess. Rather she is a foolish woman who did a stupid thing to cover for the man whom she loves (or at any rate, believes that she does). At her first appearance at the Magistrates Court this morning, the usual rent-a-mob showed up to leech some of the high tension and emotion from the aftermath of this dreadful situation in order to fill their otherwise empty lives. Maybe if people like them expended more effort putting their own lives in order rather than using somebody else's tragedy to pass their time, then the world in general would be a better place, but I digress.

As you may have guessed, I have some sympathy for Maxine Carr. Only up to a point though, as she would appear to be responsible in part for prolonging the agony of Holly and Jessica's parents. Yet before anyone rushes to condemn her for protecting Huntley, I would say this; I have seen a lot of women stand by their men, despite the fact that their men are responsible for beating them, mentally and emotionally abusing them, destroying their self esteem, and generally reducing them to the level of a timid and unquestioning piece of chattel. If we're saying that it's Carr’s fault for allowing Huntley to do that to her (and again, I'm making the assumption that he did), then one may as well say that rape victims are asking for it, or that battered wives had it coming.

I would also point out that there is a degree of uncertainty about the events leading up to Huntley and Carr being questioned. Their are conflicting reports of what happened; some say that they handed themselves in voluntarily, others that they were taken by police from the home of Huntley's father. There is, at the moment at least, the possibility that Carr went to the police first, and Huntley's detention followed soon afterwards. If that is the case, and if the home circumstances of Carr and Huntley are as I suspect, then she is to be as much praised for her later courage as she is to be reviled for her earlier cowardice.

Of course, as I have said this is all merely speculation. We have the luxury of being able to examine such facts that are available and then draw our own conclusions. Though having written this, I am now beginning to see why it is easier to simply condemn the accused out of hand. To try and look at what happened, to attempt to see beyond the grief felt by those who loved the girls, or beyond the vitriol yelled by those who were strangers to them, raises uncomfortable questions about a society in which tragedy's like this can happen. Is it any wonder that we usually cast about for a scapegoat to explain the murderous behaviour of these people? Maybe it's our way of protecting ourselves from answers that we don't want to hear.

Fear is the mindkiller

For some reason, I was in a state of utter terror when I wrote this one. I like to think I hid it well....




Normally, when I write these things, I find that whatever it is that was on my mind and thus worrying me tends to recede into my background thoughts and leaves my brain free to consider such weighty matters as why it's really good that women wear skimpy clothing during summer. With my last rant, I hoped that I could ease off the paranoia about Dubya's dad starting a war by proxy. Not forget about it altogether you understand, I just wanting it to stop blazing white-hot streaks of fear across my cerebellum and allow me to get on with being a lecherous git. Of course, life is never that simple and so here I am again to add something more to what I wrote last time. Whether it's to make me feel better or to make you feel as uneasy about the future as I currently am...well, it's a little from column A and a little from column B. Anyway, regardless of that I think I've got reason to be unsettled. Now let me tell you why....

It's not exactly the world's best-kept secret that America wants to and is almost certainly going to attack Iraq. I've already talked about their possible reasons for wanting to do so, so I'll not retread that path. What I do want to talk about are the possible consequences of such a war. And you should really brace yourself, because I have one or two funny ideas about that. For the record, I don't mean funny ha-ha either.

Okay, so the current situation is that Iraq has, as it's leader, a murdering scumbag who treats the ethnic minorities of his country (Kurds and Marsh Arabs) as target practice. They are second-class citizens and they are vulnerable to whatever jolly little scheme enters Saddam's head. America wants to depose Saddam and replace him with a leader more to their liking. Iraq is a Muslim country. As I'm sure you know, Osama bin Laden's aim has been to unite the whole Muslim world against America. Thus far, he has failed in this. When USA attacks Iraq it is my belief that bin Laden will get his wish. And why do I think that? One word; Israel.

Israel has as it's leader a murdering scumbag who treats the ethnic minorities of his country (Palestinians and Israeli Arabs) as target practice. They are second-class citizens and are vulnerable to the whims of the fat nazi who runs the country. He's finally starting to show his true colours by trying to expel from Israel the families of any suicide bombers. This is illegal under the Israeli constitution, mirrors the actions of the Nazi Party in the 30's in it's methods to get rid of unwanted elements from the country, and is about the closest parallel I've ever seen for the saying "Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted". Israel is not a Muslim country. America supports the government of Israel.

I hope it's becoming very clear what I'm driving at, but humour me by letting me spell it out. If America invades Iraq in a supposed war on injustice and terror whilst Ariel Sharon continues to follow his dreams of an ethnically pure Israel, and does so by continuing to bomb, shoot, and expel non-Jews from Israel, the Muslim world will NOT be happy. "So what?" you might think. And to be honest, I can see your point. The Muslim world seems to have been in an almost terminal state of unhappiness for as long as I can remember. And who can blame them? Their leaders are almost entirely composed of a small group of hyper-rich dictators. In general, the regime's they live under are oppressive, and Islamic in name only. Who's to say that the Muslim world won't do it's usual act of making a lot of unhappy noises before rolling over like good little lap dogs and keeping the oil flowing?

Maybe they will, and I hope that that is the case should America get it's war (because, for all my posturing, I like a peaceful life as much as the next man). But I can see trouble ahead. Most of the people of the Middle East have rather different opinions about the west in general, and America specifically, than their leaders. During the last Gulf War, Iraq fired missiles at Israel. Not one Middle East country supported Iraq. Yet their were people dancing in the streets in Egypt when they heard this news. This time around, not one Middle East country supports America (well...Kuwait and Quatar do. They are both tiny little Gulf States and their influence on the Muslim world is minimal). So if Iraq was to fire missiles at Israel this time, do you suppose that other Middle Eastern countries would be quite so restrained? Especially with fundamentalist Islam being so widespread at the moment?

Even if we assume that the Moslem governments act with restraint, who is to say that those same governments will stay in power? The likes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia have a big problem with right wing fundamentalist Moslems. Thus far, those governments have tried to keep a lid on the fundamentalists by being ever more oppressive and authoritarian. This can only work for so long because all you are doing is containing the pressure. One of the more popular fundamentalist mantras is that America is out to destroy the Moslem faith, and doesn't care about the injustices meted out to Moslems by ungodly governments who use their supposed faith to Allah as a cover for doing America's (or, if you like, the Great Satan's) dirty work. An attack on Iraq coupled with continued support for the butcher Ariel Sharon by America would give the fundamentalists (in their eyes) cast iron proof that this is indeed the case. And if their governments choose to do nothing about it? Then it is the sacred duty of every Moslem to defend his brothers. Lest you think that I'm being melodramatic, the Shah of Iran found out about the power of fundamentalism when he was sent running from the country he had ran as a dictator after the Islamic Revolution there in the 70's.

An awful lot of Islamic countries have authoritarian governments in power, with a populace who are content with their lot thus far, but whom are vulnerable to the sway of rather more radical Muslims. From Indonesia in the East through to Algeria in Africa and almost every country between those two fall into this category. What I am suggesting is that, by invading Iraq and ignoring the brutality in Israel, America is unwittingly providing the spark for a powder keg that covers half of the planet. Can you imagine the effect of a revolution occurring in most of these countries over the course of a few months? Just think of it; once one revolutions kicks off in one country, another would follow, and then another. Do you have that picture in your head? Okay then....can you then imagine how America would react to revolutions that would see unfriendly governments put into place in all of these (co-incidentally, primarily oil producing) countries?

It's not pretty at all, is it? If, as I suspect, the Islamic world explodes in a frenzy of righteous and fundamentalist ire, then America will be the big loser (well...Israel would probably be the bigger loser as it may well cease to exist within a few years of these events). I say this because the oil will stop flowing, and the American economy will nose dive. America will not take this lying down. They will fight to get back access to the oil that their economy needs. Hence we have America being directly opposed by Islam. Almost exactly the situation that bin Laden wanted and that Dubya said he would avoid in fact. The last time that America tried to stop a domino effect of countries replacing their leaders with governments unfriendly to the US was in Vietnam. Most of the rest of the world was sensible enough to let America behave like a bloody idiot during that conflict, and things are shaping up to be the same here. Or they would be, were it not for the fact that the west's economy is America's economy. If their's goes down the tubes, then so does ours. So will we just dumbly accept that? Nope. Would we side with Islam against America? What do you think?

Perhaps I'm being a little sneaky in making that Vietnam comparison; for what it's worth, I don't actually believe that America and the west would lose the potential conflict I've outlined. Then again, maybe I'm just biased. But even assuming a military victory for the west, what I do think we'd do is set the scene for decades of international terrorism where the targets would be any and everything western. It would be a situation not unlike the nightmarish Perpetual Conflict scenario that Hitler dreamed of when invading Russia (he hoped that the Slavs and Russians would continually wage low key terrorist war against Germany. This would keep Germany on it's toes and ready for battle at all times). If you want me to raise the paranoia stakes further still, then I'd draw your attention to the fact that China would probably stay out of any conflict between Islam and the west, thus leaving it all fresh and dandy whilst the two sides whittle each other down to nothingness. And would anyone care to place bets on what might happen then?
In the midst of all this knuckle whitening and excessive worry, about the only positive thing that I can draw from this is that, if we are facing WWIII in the face, then it'll probably not be in Europe again (after all, we hosted the last 2 so it's only fair for another continent to host this one. World wars should be like world cups; a different host nation for each one...) and it'll probably not be a nuclear conflict. This is probably an inappropriate thought for someone who has just spent a couple of hours writing an essay on why I think the world is teetering on the cusp of an epic shitstorm, but why can't we just be nice to one another? Ah well... here's hoping I'm wrong about all of this.

The Build up to Iraq

I supported and still support the war in Afghanistan. Iraq however is another matter entirely...


This is a rant that I rather hoped I wouldn't have had to write. You see, about a fortnight ago I sat down to write something about current affairs that was brimming with optimism. I didn't expect it to be hugely difficult; my personal and professional life are good, and I expected my general good mood to be reflected in what I wrote. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, I was wrong. That particular rant is still sitting in my Drafts folder gathering whatever passes for dust in a computer hard drive. And it's not like I didn't try; I started the damn thing 2 weeks ago and I've come back to it 8 or 9 times since. In that time I've managed to add one sentence. As I'm sure you can understand, this has caused no small amount of frustration; I've been banging my head against a brick wall trying to figure out a way to write down what I wanted to say. And now I've stopped trying. Why? Well, happy though I am with my life at the moment, it seems that I was rather foolish to think that this would allow me to obscure world events in the same fluffy pink fog that envelops one when one is personally very happy indeed. So I thought that I'd try a different angle; what in the hell is going on in the world that won't allow me to conclude a rant with the words "Hey, everything is going to work out just fine! Relax! Enjoy your life!"

Amazingly enough, the source of my deep-seated concern lies over the Atlantic in the personage of the US Government. (I was going to say a little something to stress that, despite my loathing of their current government, I'm not anti-American. However, seeing as the type of person who would scream at me for being some sort of Arab-loving, liberal, commie, subversive idiot would do so if I did anything less than praise the Land of the Free unconditionally whilst ignoring the catalogue of hypocrisy, arrogance, and political shortsightedness that has become the trademark of the Republican and Democrat parties...well, you'll excuse me if I'm inclined to think "Fuck 'em" and plough on regardless). The reasons why I am growing increasingly nervous are neither new nor particularly special to America. It's just that the possible consequences are enough to allow me to preserve my hard-won veneer of cynicism in the face of my actually being genetically indistinguishable from a pig in shit these days.

So, what the hell am I talking about? Astoundingly enough, bearing in mind that I'm talking about a government who's leader is widely regarded as heroic in his efforts to push back the boundaries of incumbent stupidity (and as he has Ronnie "Alzheimer" Reagan to compete with, this is no mean feat...) I'm talking about America doing it's level best to start another war. Apparently Afghanistan was merely an appetiser to those good old boys in the White House; all it did was give them a taste for blowing the hell out of little brown people attending wedding parties. The main dish is, of course, Iraq.

Here in the UK, we have been made vaguely aware that Dubya is trying to whip the nation into the kind of jingoistic fervour required to get popular support for a war. I say vaguely because the mainstream media, perhaps aware of the significance of the UK being drawn into a conflict that has barely any international support and that is almost certainly illegal under international law, has spoon-fed the great British public with stories of such huge significance as "Man Feels Queen's Arse" and "Big Brother’s Jade: Why I'm not a Minger". I don't mean to denigrate people for lapping up these stories (because I know I do), and I don't mean to sound as paranoid as I actually am, but doesn't it concern anyone that, whilst our attention has been distracted ("Hey, dumbass! Look at the pretty story! You looove Pop Idol...listen to Will wax lyrical about the significance of whatever sweltering turd he's inflicted on the charts! You think animals are cuuute...here, here's a story about some poor whales getting beached and nice people trying to save them, isn't that nice? Yep, the world sure is great folks, so don't you worry about a thing. And especially don't worry about what YOUR government that YOU allowed into power are doing, 'kay?") ,that nice Mr. Blair has all but choked on Dubya's dick in his eagerness to involve the UK in a war against Iraq? I mean Jesus Christ, one can almost hear the sucking noises on the rare occasions that Blair is on TV explaining how we're going to be backing America all the way.

Now then; why should anyone care that a war on Iraq seems to be imminent? Who cares if Saddam Hussein is toppled from power? What does it matter if America is choosing to fight the good fight and release the Iraqi people from virtual slavery? I'll deal with America's motivation for wanting a war in a moment, but firstly I have to confess; I'd love to see a change of regime in Iraq. I have a long-standing hatred of dictators and totalitarians and it would be a delight to see the moustachioed old bastard standing trial for the long, LONG list of atrocities that he is responsible for. However, these things have to be done in a certain way. When the first Gulf War was fought, it was fought with a UN mandate and an international coalition with America at it's head. There was a clear objective, widespread support from Iraq's neighbours in the Middle East, and whatever opposition to war that could be mustered was quickly marginalised due to it's impressive refusal to accept the facts and the reality of the situation. This war, if it is fought, will do so without reference to the UN, a coalition consisting of some gung-ho American and some reluctant British troops, no objective beyond "Saddam must Die!", and no support (in fact, there will probably be active opposition) from Iraq's neighbours. This time, it's not the opponents of war who have closed their eyes to reality.

Essentially, America is talking about ignoring the will of the rest of the world and doing what it wants because it believes it to be the right thing. Again, not necessarily a bad thing (as Winston Churchill discovered), but why exactly is the US government so determined to stick 2 fingers up to the world and behave in a manner not unlike the sports 'jock' stereotype that can be found in every bad American teen movie since the 70's? There are two schools of thought on this. One says that America is being true to the ideals of freedom and democracy on which it was founded, that it is acting in the defence of a poor and oppressed people and...I'm sorry, even as I was typing that I found myself chuckling. It's quite clearly a large and unmistakable pile of bullshit isn't it? The land of freedom and democracy has toppled democratically elected governments on a whim and, as a result, reduced the freedom available to huge swathes of people across the planet. They've done plenty to advance the cause of oppression (currently they're opposing an international agreement to end the use of torture by governments. There reason for doing so is that they don't want foreign observers allowed into US prisons. Way to stamp moral authority on your regime Dubya...), so all the protestations by Rumsfeld et al that they're doing this for apple pie and liberty sound rather hollow.

The other school of thought is a little fragmented, but runs thus; America is currently reaping the whirlwind caused by decades of corporate greed. The stockmarket is crashing, people's savings and pensions are being devalued to the point of worthlessness, and all the while a few CEO's are stuffing their cavernous pockets with money. Unsurprisingly, people are not happy about this. When they are not happy, they tend to register their disapproval in the time-honoured tradition of blaming the president for everything. Dubya's approval rating is falling (something that, after September 11th, no-one thought would happen for years) and he needs something that will send it shooting back up to election landslide levels. Happily, his Dad left unfinished business in Iraq, and so what better way to make people forget about their raped economy than a war with a country that coincidentally has huge oil reserves. What would help repair the economy better than a new supply of oil that would free America from it's need to keep it's Arabian allies sweet?

This sounds a little more believable, doesn't it? Perhaps a little too harsh in places (I can't bring myself to believe that their government is composed entirely of soulless monsters who believe in nothing more than their own self interest), but all in all it's a hypothesis that holds a lot of water. So that is what America is doing. It is willing to risk causing civil wars across the Middle East, a massive increase in terrorist recruitment, and a ruining of the economy that will make the current crash seem like a particularly nice dream involving 4 Playboy Playmates, some whipped cream, and a red snapper. All because a group of stupid white men want to cling on to their power and influence in America, and fuck the rest of the world if they don't like it. Yet the UK is supporting all of this. And I'll bet most of us didn't even know that we were.

It does seem that war is inevitable. It also seems that we in the UK are going to be part of it. If that does happen, then I'm patriotic enough to want 'us' to win; only a fool would wish defeat on his own country. But if I'm honest, I wish that Tony Blair would grow some balls and tell Dubya that we want no part of his attempt to win the approval of his Daddy and the American Public. We've supported his War on Terror, and that is all well and good. But we avoided the first Vietnam, so it would be nice if we could avoid their next one. Let's not support his War on Common Sense, eh?