Foxhunters: A much maligned and victimised bunch of whining pricks, or spoilt and selfish cocksocks who excite all the public sympathy of a paedophile campaigning for access rights to his attractive, pert-bottomed 6 year old son?
I've been half-heartedly following the whole debate about banning foxhunting in this country, and I've found myself increasingly astounded at some of the things that the Countryside Alliance have been saying. At first I thought that their bleating about how banning foxhunting would lead to a breakdown in society, or how a ban would infringe their human rights, must have been a joke. You know, like when Hitler signed Neville Chamberlains Piece of Paper for Peace, and was afterwards heard to say "Well, he seemed like such a nice old gentleman. I thought I would give him my autograph."
But no, there was no hint of a smirk on their collective face. They were serious. Or at least, they wanted everyone to think that they were. So why are they so absolutely hellbent on preserving an archaic and bloodthirsty practice that even they agree is rife with cruelty? And why are we being bombarded with messages from the Alliance that this is the first step on the slide to a brutal and totalitarian government who ride roughshod over the rights of the people? Well, as is always the case in these matters, it's about money and priviledge. And, of course, politics.
On the side of the Pro-Hunt supporters, we have the Countryside Alliance. Supposedly a confederation of people who are concerned with the raw deal that rural folk are getting from the government, they claim to be fighting on behalf of Farmers, huntsmen, shepherds, Forestry commision workers; pretty much any and all issues relating to the countryside will be dealt with by the Alliance. On the Anti-Hunt side, we have pretty much the entire rest of the country.
If you were to believe the Alliance, the public have been lied to by the government when it comes to foxhunting. We're just ignorant and uninformed souls who don't understand their country ways, and why it's absolutely VITAL that foxes are chased down and slaughtered by braying Sloane's rather than shot or trapped by farm workers. And rather than interfere, we should just let them get on with the hunt. Because if they're shot, they'll suffer far more than they would if they were chased for hours before being torn to pieces by a pack of baying hounds, and we urban types are only concerned with cute ickle animals and we don't want anyfink nasty to happen to 'em, oo we?
Which is, of course, a remarkably patronising piece of nonsense on their part. I think the main objection that most people have to foxhunting is that it simply doesn't sit right with us that, in this day and age, a certain section of society are getting their kicks from an activity that is rooted in bloodthirst and deliberate cruelty. The whole attitude of the Alliance is one of condescending patronisation to anyone who doesn't hunt. And I'm rather glad about this as it means that they have no chance whatsoever of their various lies and half truths having any effect on the general public. Why am I so adamant that the Alliance has no case in favour of Fox hunting? Well, it's because the whole Countryside Alliance is a sham. It's a piece of sleight-of-hand to distract attention from the fact that this whole storm in a teacup is about nothing more than a tiny percentage of wealthy people fighting tooth and nail to preserve an ancient method of distinguishing themselves from the common herd.
And just what do I mean by that suspiciously rabble-rousing statement? Well, the Alliance claim to fight for all countryside issues. Yet the only thing you'll hear them scream loudest about is foxhunting. Has anyone heard any complaint that it will be illegal for farm workers to go Hare Coursing? Nope. Have you opened your morning paper to read a shrieking denounciation of the inevitable end of taking terriers out Ratting? Nuh uh. Yet both of these activities are covered by the ban on hunting with dogs. So why no hue and cry about them? Could it be because that these activities are the exclusive preserve of people at the lower end of the social spectrum (or "oiks" to give them their official Countryside Alliance title)?
And what about other rural issues? Why aren't the Alliance marching on London to demand that Supermarkets be forced to pay farmers the full value of their produce, rather than forcing them into a position where they sell their stock for peanuts and thus unable to eke out even a basic living? How about hearing them complain about the lot of the average sheep farmer who is forced to support himself and his family on an income of less than £5,000 per year? Strangely, the leading lights of the Alliance stay quiet about that, and I'm sure it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with their being shareholders (and in some cases, boardmembers) of the companies that profit out of this rural misery. Where are their frenzied demands for decent compensation for the farmers forced into utter despair because of the Foot and Mouth epidemic? Could it be because the Alliance leaders tend to be major landowners who have received ample government compensation and care not one bit for the (fewer and fewer) small landowning farmers and tenant farmers?
The simple fact is that these people don't give a shit about the countryside. They don't care about the job losses, the death knell of families' way of life, the hardship, or the human suffering caused by the Government. They care about keeping their social calender intact. Do you really think that Simon Hart, the head of the Countryside Alliance, will lose his livlihood and home when hunting with dogs is finally banned? Or will it be the people who work on the Hunt who are turfed out and left to fend for themselves? And were the Lords and MP's who opposed the compromise yesterday (a compromise which would have delayed the ban until 2006 to give huntsmen time to find other jobs) doing so in the interests of the people who will undoubtedly suffer as a result of the ban? Or by guaranteeing it will be banned in February 2005, were they just looking to cause problems for the government, who will now face civil disobedience and protests from those living in rural areas throughout the election campaign next year?
If we want evidence that our government are unrepresentative bullies, we need look no further than Blair's slithering denial of any blame for lying to us in the lead up to the gulf war. Or their refusal to acknowledge the fact that our pensions are screwed, and we'll need to work longer for a smaller pension whilst they retire wealthy and happy. Or that the NHS is dying a gradual death and all they can do is invite private industry to pick at it's corpse. I'm happy to fight for those rights that affect an overwhelming majority. But fighting for the right of a few to sate their bloodlust? Put it this way; if packs of chavs started hunting urban foxes with packs of rottweilers, does anyone seriously doubt that these same people demanding that their right to hunt be preserved would be screaming in Daily Mail-inspired fury at the behaviour of 'uncivilised ruffians'? There are more important government policies for us to be worried about, and more important rural issues to fight for. Let the hunt, and foxes, die a comparatively quick and painless death.
Friday 19 November 2004
Friday 3 September 2004
Golem
Leaving aside the hopelessly optimistic sentiment at the end of this piece, I'm still rather proud of the comparison between Ariel Sharon and the Golem of legend.
It's that time of year when the damp, humid, and sweaty summer gradually turns into damp, cold, and freezing autumn. As we bid farewell for another year to the carefree months of rainstorms and floods and watch the days grow steadily shorter, it seems a good time to look at a land where life is hard. Where life can be so tough that, if the worst the people who live there had to complain about was the weather, they'd be so relieved that they might even forget to organise their regular atrocities. Once again, and to probable sighs of "Aw, not again...” I'm talking about Israel.
It's been fairly quiet in Israel recently. Until the double bomb attack on 2 Israeli buses in Beersheba this week, the leadership of Hamas et al had stopped trying to liberate their people by sending some of their people to blow themselves up. And because of that, the Israeli forces hadn't had much of an excuse to win more Palestinian hearts and minds by destroying terrorists structures such as water pipes, electricity mains, and sewage systems as well as shooting dead potential terrorists (as some of these 'potential terrorists' are children, does that mean we'll soon be seeing abortion doctors sent to Muslim nations as part of the war on terror?). So what's happening? Are these two peoples, of similar racial makeup and geographical origin, separated only by their respective faiths, finally learning to live with one another? Did the 5 months of relative peace preceding the bombs give us an indication that the end of the Palestine-Israeli conflict is in sight? Well, bearing in mind Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat are still the leaders of each gang, what do you think?
I suppose one of the reasons that we haven't been hearing much of the continuing story of "Our God is bigger than your God" from Israel is because we've had a glut of stories about bombings and shootings from Iraq. Why import stories about one group of Semitic people murdering another group of Semitic people in a city we've never heard of when one can read about decent, English speaking white folk being murdered by small Arabic men in a city we've never heard of? But another reason we've not heard about bombings and shootings is pretty much because there haven't been any. There are a quite a few reasons for this, but the biggest one is a wall (or to give its proper title, a "security fence").
Basically, that nice Mr. Sharon authorised the building of a wall to encircle the Palestinian Authority-controlled territory of Israel. This, it was reasoned, would go some way to stopping suicide bombers making their way into Israel itself in order to explode. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that this security fence has echoes of the ghettoisation that the Jews themselves suffered throughout most of their recent history, and the fact that it has been declared illegal by an International court, don't the facts speak for themselves? The wall is erected, and suicide bombs become a comparative rarity rather than a daily eventuality. Doesn't that mean that the wall is a good thing?
Although the answer to that is both yes and no, it's more no than yes. On the one hand the long-suffering Israeli people have every right to do whatever is necessary to guarantee their safety, and the condemnation of an International court probably means little to a people who are used to being condemned by gentiles for...well, for pretty much anything and everything. On the other hand, Ariel Sharon's approach of reducing the Palestinian controlled cities to rubble and then fencing them in to face poverty, disease, and a growing hatred of all things Israeli doesn't exactly seem to be the most far-sighted approach. In fact, it smacks of a short-term solution to guarantee short-term electibility at a time when hard-line Jewish politicians are making life difficult for him. At the moment, there is a plan in place for Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. However, the hardliners oppose this. As Sharon relies on the hardliners to shore up his increasingly blood-soaked regime, he has to be seen to be doing something to ensure that any withdrawal will not compromise national security. Hence the wall.
It seems pretty obvious to my mind that keeping a bunch of people poor, hungry, and angry is not the best way to guarantee that you'll be able to live in peace with them. Surely, even through the entirely understandable siege mentality of the Israeli's, the same thing must have occurred to them? Why have they put a man who has done more for anti-Semitism than Hitler in charge of their security and their future?
The whole scenario reminds me of a famous story in Jewish folklore; the Golem. The story, in a nutshell, runs as follows;
The Jews of 16th Century Prague need to protect themselves from the occasionally murderous anti Semitism of their neighbours. So a wise Jewish Cabbalist, Rabbi Judah Loew, created the Golem to protect the Jews. This golem was an enormous clay Frankenstein's monster-like automaton, brought to life by mystical incantations and the word "Emet" (meaning 'Truth') on its forehead.
However, as the Golem gained experience of the world, it became a menace to the public safety it was supposed to be protecting; the power it wielded went to it's head, and it threatened innocent lives supposedly in the name of protecting the Jews. Rabbi Loew saw that the actions of the Golem reflected badly on the Jewish people of Prague, and realised that the Golem was no longer protecting the people but, through it's violent actions, putting them at risk. So he removed the first letter E from the word on the Golem's forehead (Met means "Death" in Hebrew), and the Golem died.
I believe that, in Ariel Sharon, the people of Israel have created a latter-day Golem. He is supposed to be their protector, and yet all he does is incite hatred and violence by his actions. After stopping the Golem, Rabbi Loew warned the Jews of Prague that strength itself could be dangerous when used indiscriminately, and he cautioned that the strong mustn't abuse their power in order to dominate and crush anything weak that is within their reach.
As a closing point, I became aware of a curious coincidence when writing this; the wise Rabbi Loew was a real man, and lived in Prague in the 16th century. It took his wisdom and bravery to show the Jews of Prague that a defender that creates more enemies is far more dangerous to their safety than anything their enemies could do. It seems that the Democratic candidate for the presidency, John Kerry, is a descendent of Rabbi Loew. Will he be able to convince the Jews of Israel that their leader is amplifying the danger that he is supposed to be protecting them from? And perhaps also convince the Palestinians that they will never know peace whilst Arafat continues to stumble along as their lame-duck leader? As ever, time will tell.
It's that time of year when the damp, humid, and sweaty summer gradually turns into damp, cold, and freezing autumn. As we bid farewell for another year to the carefree months of rainstorms and floods and watch the days grow steadily shorter, it seems a good time to look at a land where life is hard. Where life can be so tough that, if the worst the people who live there had to complain about was the weather, they'd be so relieved that they might even forget to organise their regular atrocities. Once again, and to probable sighs of "Aw, not again...” I'm talking about Israel.
It's been fairly quiet in Israel recently. Until the double bomb attack on 2 Israeli buses in Beersheba this week, the leadership of Hamas et al had stopped trying to liberate their people by sending some of their people to blow themselves up. And because of that, the Israeli forces hadn't had much of an excuse to win more Palestinian hearts and minds by destroying terrorists structures such as water pipes, electricity mains, and sewage systems as well as shooting dead potential terrorists (as some of these 'potential terrorists' are children, does that mean we'll soon be seeing abortion doctors sent to Muslim nations as part of the war on terror?). So what's happening? Are these two peoples, of similar racial makeup and geographical origin, separated only by their respective faiths, finally learning to live with one another? Did the 5 months of relative peace preceding the bombs give us an indication that the end of the Palestine-Israeli conflict is in sight? Well, bearing in mind Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat are still the leaders of each gang, what do you think?
I suppose one of the reasons that we haven't been hearing much of the continuing story of "Our God is bigger than your God" from Israel is because we've had a glut of stories about bombings and shootings from Iraq. Why import stories about one group of Semitic people murdering another group of Semitic people in a city we've never heard of when one can read about decent, English speaking white folk being murdered by small Arabic men in a city we've never heard of? But another reason we've not heard about bombings and shootings is pretty much because there haven't been any. There are a quite a few reasons for this, but the biggest one is a wall (or to give its proper title, a "security fence").
Basically, that nice Mr. Sharon authorised the building of a wall to encircle the Palestinian Authority-controlled territory of Israel. This, it was reasoned, would go some way to stopping suicide bombers making their way into Israel itself in order to explode. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that this security fence has echoes of the ghettoisation that the Jews themselves suffered throughout most of their recent history, and the fact that it has been declared illegal by an International court, don't the facts speak for themselves? The wall is erected, and suicide bombs become a comparative rarity rather than a daily eventuality. Doesn't that mean that the wall is a good thing?
Although the answer to that is both yes and no, it's more no than yes. On the one hand the long-suffering Israeli people have every right to do whatever is necessary to guarantee their safety, and the condemnation of an International court probably means little to a people who are used to being condemned by gentiles for...well, for pretty much anything and everything. On the other hand, Ariel Sharon's approach of reducing the Palestinian controlled cities to rubble and then fencing them in to face poverty, disease, and a growing hatred of all things Israeli doesn't exactly seem to be the most far-sighted approach. In fact, it smacks of a short-term solution to guarantee short-term electibility at a time when hard-line Jewish politicians are making life difficult for him. At the moment, there is a plan in place for Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. However, the hardliners oppose this. As Sharon relies on the hardliners to shore up his increasingly blood-soaked regime, he has to be seen to be doing something to ensure that any withdrawal will not compromise national security. Hence the wall.
It seems pretty obvious to my mind that keeping a bunch of people poor, hungry, and angry is not the best way to guarantee that you'll be able to live in peace with them. Surely, even through the entirely understandable siege mentality of the Israeli's, the same thing must have occurred to them? Why have they put a man who has done more for anti-Semitism than Hitler in charge of their security and their future?
The whole scenario reminds me of a famous story in Jewish folklore; the Golem. The story, in a nutshell, runs as follows;
The Jews of 16th Century Prague need to protect themselves from the occasionally murderous anti Semitism of their neighbours. So a wise Jewish Cabbalist, Rabbi Judah Loew, created the Golem to protect the Jews. This golem was an enormous clay Frankenstein's monster-like automaton, brought to life by mystical incantations and the word "Emet" (meaning 'Truth') on its forehead.
However, as the Golem gained experience of the world, it became a menace to the public safety it was supposed to be protecting; the power it wielded went to it's head, and it threatened innocent lives supposedly in the name of protecting the Jews. Rabbi Loew saw that the actions of the Golem reflected badly on the Jewish people of Prague, and realised that the Golem was no longer protecting the people but, through it's violent actions, putting them at risk. So he removed the first letter E from the word on the Golem's forehead (Met means "Death" in Hebrew), and the Golem died.
I believe that, in Ariel Sharon, the people of Israel have created a latter-day Golem. He is supposed to be their protector, and yet all he does is incite hatred and violence by his actions. After stopping the Golem, Rabbi Loew warned the Jews of Prague that strength itself could be dangerous when used indiscriminately, and he cautioned that the strong mustn't abuse their power in order to dominate and crush anything weak that is within their reach.
As a closing point, I became aware of a curious coincidence when writing this; the wise Rabbi Loew was a real man, and lived in Prague in the 16th century. It took his wisdom and bravery to show the Jews of Prague that a defender that creates more enemies is far more dangerous to their safety than anything their enemies could do. It seems that the Democratic candidate for the presidency, John Kerry, is a descendent of Rabbi Loew. Will he be able to convince the Jews of Israel that their leader is amplifying the danger that he is supposed to be protecting them from? And perhaps also convince the Palestinians that they will never know peace whilst Arafat continues to stumble along as their lame-duck leader? As ever, time will tell.
Wednesday 21 July 2004
Fahrenheit 9/11
So then; Fahrenheit 9/11. As pretty much anyone with in an interest in either films or politics will know, this is Michael Moore's latest documentary. His documentary films tend to get peoples attention; he won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, and he's won the Palme D'Or for this one, so his film are now pretty mainstream. They're certainly available for everyone to watch; I watched it last night at a multiplex cinema. It's not so long ago that Moore would have been dismissed as a cranky, left wing conspiracy theorist. Now he's an award winning documentary maker, so that accusation becomes a little difficult to justify.
Anyway, the basics for the film for anyone who for whatever reason hasn't heard much about it; it looks at the Dubya presidency from start to (hopefully) finish. It looks at how he stole the election (giving us numerous reasons to doubt the result), followed by a brief look at how Dubya spent the first part of his presidency (on holiday), then his reaction to 9/11. Aside from that, we are shown just how easy it is to link all the president's men to some VERY wealthy Saudi Arabians, to the extent that American interests come second to those of the multi-billionaire Saudis. And if that weren't enough, we're also treated to seeing the raw deal given to both the Iraqi's, and to the US soldiers who are being killed daily in order to secure the enormous amount of money being made by Dubya's friends in business.
That's a very rushed synopsis of what you can expect from Fahrenheit 9/1. What's that you say? It sounds incredibly biased? It sounds like Moore is gunning for Dubya and will throw absolutely anything and everything onscreen in order to besmirch his reputation and make him seem like an appalling President? Well...yeah. Yeah it is. Your point being?
Whilst the criticisms of this film emanating from the Right wing of the political spectrum (ranging from "it's unfair to show such a political film in the run-up to an election", to "Michael Moore is fat and ugly") are fairly predictable and easily dismissed, what has surprised me is the slew of anger emerging from the political Left about the film. The central criticism of the left seems to go as follows;
"The film is too sentimental and mawkish, and relies on an emotional connection when it should present the facts in a clearer manner and with more honesty. Not only that, but Moore comes across as partisan and biased"
This seems to be a very odd criticism to make. Relying on an emotional connection? Well, I thought that's what a film was meant to do; give the viewer a catharsis. Sentimental? A big part of the film's message is that Dubya is sending US troops to die unnecessarily. If we're going to show sentiment about something, a rich man sending poor people to die in order to make his friends richer seems like a pretty damned good reason to get more than sentimental; it's a reason to get angry. When a man responded to the worst attack on American soil in a way that was designed to keep a foreign interest happy, shouldn't we be biased against him?
So bearing in mind that this film is doing more to damage Dubya's re-election hopes than anything the Democrats have thrown at him, why are so many of the political Left (supposedly who the Democrats represent) heaping criticism on the film, and on Moore personally?
Probably because they suffer from the major handicap of the Left; they're not capable of relating to the average man on the street. I've debated with people on both sides of the political spectrum, and generally speaking I find those on the Left far more intellectually gifted than those on the Right. However, those on the Right seem to have a better sense of what will get a positive reaction from the group loosely termed "the people".
This is a cause of much frustration among the Left; they can present a clear argument with evidence supporting it that cannot be faulted intellectually speaking. Then a Right wing person makes a few rabble-rousing (and usually inaccurate) statements, and the majority of people tend to gravitate toward that point of view. Which is, understandably, annoying. However, generally no effort is made to make Left wing arguments accessible; another criticism of the Left is that, in general, they love to show off how clever they are (and I hold my hands up to this one as well...). If you're looking for long words (I almost wrote "polysyllabic words", which sorta proves my own point for me), and obscure cultural references, then the political Left is for you! If however you're looking for something that is simple, direct, and doesn't cause confusion, then look no further than the political Right.
Michael Moore is the first man to successfully break that mould; he presents Left-wing arguments, but he does it without showing off the extent of his vocabulary. He appeals to people on an emotional, gut level. And yes, he does this at the expense of giving a full explanation of all the issues involved (in other words, he keeps it simple and accessible). He doesn't tell lies, but he does present evidence in a way biased toward his point of view. This seems to be his great crime in the eyes of some on the Left; he's not being intellectually rigorous enough for their liking.
Maybe it's just me, but I find that to be an incredibly selfish criticism. Basically they're saying "Well, it's too simplistic for me personally, ergo it's wrong." What kind of ego must one have to have to demand that everything be pitched at your particular level? Isn't that as elitist as Dubya and his Neo-Conservative government are accused of being? This in itself is another point that is worth addressing; most of the Left have a habit of referring to the general public as "the mob", "the rabble", "the herd", etc. Of course, so do the Right, but at least they're sensible enough to do it in private. The Left, an altogether more honest bunch, tend not to be so shy about their disdain. The reason for this condescension? Well, because the public have been swayed time and time again by the lies and half-truths of the Right, and have failed to grasp the significance of the arguments of the Left. Therefore, any difficulties the world faces today that were caused by Dubya, are the fault of the people for being easily swayed and easily led (because it CAN'T be the fault of those on the Left for presenting a self-congratulatory and convoluted argument that plays brilliantly to anyone else immersed in Left wing politics, but reads like treacle to anyone who isn't). It's worth making clear that this attitude simply has to stop; would you vote for a group who look down on you and will treat you as morons if you cannot instantly grasp the thrust of what they are saying? No? Neither would I. No-one likes to be made to feel stupid, and the Left in general need to stop giving in to this sense of petulant unfairness that their arguments are not being accepted.
Also, the simple fact of political debate these days is that it's polarised; no effort is made by the Right wing to give a balanced argument. Yet some on the Left wing seem to think that an argument is only pure if gives absolutely all of the evidence both for and against it. Neither wonder the Right wing are in the ascendant in the US and UK; all they have to do is wait for the political Left to bore the senses out of the general public, then they come in with a handy scapegoat for all of life’s problems (usually some brand of foreigner or other) and a soundbite or two, and voila; the Right have popular support whilst the Left sit fuming impotently.
Moore has done nothing more than tailor the presentation of his arguments so that they're better received by the general public. For the first time, the left can be sure that the general public will actually give due consideration to their arguments. For too long, it has been easy to dismiss the Left as being preachy, whining, boring, dryly intellectual elitists. Michael Moore gives the Left a voice that appeals to the public, and they would be foolish in the extreme to try and silence it.
Anyway, the basics for the film for anyone who for whatever reason hasn't heard much about it; it looks at the Dubya presidency from start to (hopefully) finish. It looks at how he stole the election (giving us numerous reasons to doubt the result), followed by a brief look at how Dubya spent the first part of his presidency (on holiday), then his reaction to 9/11. Aside from that, we are shown just how easy it is to link all the president's men to some VERY wealthy Saudi Arabians, to the extent that American interests come second to those of the multi-billionaire Saudis. And if that weren't enough, we're also treated to seeing the raw deal given to both the Iraqi's, and to the US soldiers who are being killed daily in order to secure the enormous amount of money being made by Dubya's friends in business.
That's a very rushed synopsis of what you can expect from Fahrenheit 9/1. What's that you say? It sounds incredibly biased? It sounds like Moore is gunning for Dubya and will throw absolutely anything and everything onscreen in order to besmirch his reputation and make him seem like an appalling President? Well...yeah. Yeah it is. Your point being?
Whilst the criticisms of this film emanating from the Right wing of the political spectrum (ranging from "it's unfair to show such a political film in the run-up to an election", to "Michael Moore is fat and ugly") are fairly predictable and easily dismissed, what has surprised me is the slew of anger emerging from the political Left about the film. The central criticism of the left seems to go as follows;
"The film is too sentimental and mawkish, and relies on an emotional connection when it should present the facts in a clearer manner and with more honesty. Not only that, but Moore comes across as partisan and biased"
This seems to be a very odd criticism to make. Relying on an emotional connection? Well, I thought that's what a film was meant to do; give the viewer a catharsis. Sentimental? A big part of the film's message is that Dubya is sending US troops to die unnecessarily. If we're going to show sentiment about something, a rich man sending poor people to die in order to make his friends richer seems like a pretty damned good reason to get more than sentimental; it's a reason to get angry. When a man responded to the worst attack on American soil in a way that was designed to keep a foreign interest happy, shouldn't we be biased against him?
So bearing in mind that this film is doing more to damage Dubya's re-election hopes than anything the Democrats have thrown at him, why are so many of the political Left (supposedly who the Democrats represent) heaping criticism on the film, and on Moore personally?
Probably because they suffer from the major handicap of the Left; they're not capable of relating to the average man on the street. I've debated with people on both sides of the political spectrum, and generally speaking I find those on the Left far more intellectually gifted than those on the Right. However, those on the Right seem to have a better sense of what will get a positive reaction from the group loosely termed "the people".
This is a cause of much frustration among the Left; they can present a clear argument with evidence supporting it that cannot be faulted intellectually speaking. Then a Right wing person makes a few rabble-rousing (and usually inaccurate) statements, and the majority of people tend to gravitate toward that point of view. Which is, understandably, annoying. However, generally no effort is made to make Left wing arguments accessible; another criticism of the Left is that, in general, they love to show off how clever they are (and I hold my hands up to this one as well...). If you're looking for long words (I almost wrote "polysyllabic words", which sorta proves my own point for me), and obscure cultural references, then the political Left is for you! If however you're looking for something that is simple, direct, and doesn't cause confusion, then look no further than the political Right.
Michael Moore is the first man to successfully break that mould; he presents Left-wing arguments, but he does it without showing off the extent of his vocabulary. He appeals to people on an emotional, gut level. And yes, he does this at the expense of giving a full explanation of all the issues involved (in other words, he keeps it simple and accessible). He doesn't tell lies, but he does present evidence in a way biased toward his point of view. This seems to be his great crime in the eyes of some on the Left; he's not being intellectually rigorous enough for their liking.
Maybe it's just me, but I find that to be an incredibly selfish criticism. Basically they're saying "Well, it's too simplistic for me personally, ergo it's wrong." What kind of ego must one have to have to demand that everything be pitched at your particular level? Isn't that as elitist as Dubya and his Neo-Conservative government are accused of being? This in itself is another point that is worth addressing; most of the Left have a habit of referring to the general public as "the mob", "the rabble", "the herd", etc. Of course, so do the Right, but at least they're sensible enough to do it in private. The Left, an altogether more honest bunch, tend not to be so shy about their disdain. The reason for this condescension? Well, because the public have been swayed time and time again by the lies and half-truths of the Right, and have failed to grasp the significance of the arguments of the Left. Therefore, any difficulties the world faces today that were caused by Dubya, are the fault of the people for being easily swayed and easily led (because it CAN'T be the fault of those on the Left for presenting a self-congratulatory and convoluted argument that plays brilliantly to anyone else immersed in Left wing politics, but reads like treacle to anyone who isn't). It's worth making clear that this attitude simply has to stop; would you vote for a group who look down on you and will treat you as morons if you cannot instantly grasp the thrust of what they are saying? No? Neither would I. No-one likes to be made to feel stupid, and the Left in general need to stop giving in to this sense of petulant unfairness that their arguments are not being accepted.
Also, the simple fact of political debate these days is that it's polarised; no effort is made by the Right wing to give a balanced argument. Yet some on the Left wing seem to think that an argument is only pure if gives absolutely all of the evidence both for and against it. Neither wonder the Right wing are in the ascendant in the US and UK; all they have to do is wait for the political Left to bore the senses out of the general public, then they come in with a handy scapegoat for all of life’s problems (usually some brand of foreigner or other) and a soundbite or two, and voila; the Right have popular support whilst the Left sit fuming impotently.
Moore has done nothing more than tailor the presentation of his arguments so that they're better received by the general public. For the first time, the left can be sure that the general public will actually give due consideration to their arguments. For too long, it has been easy to dismiss the Left as being preachy, whining, boring, dryly intellectual elitists. Michael Moore gives the Left a voice that appeals to the public, and they would be foolish in the extreme to try and silence it.
Tuesday 8 June 2004
Evil Ronnie
Ronnie Reagan died over the weekend. To give you some sort of clue as to how that event made me feel, my friends and I played a song in his honour after we read the news. The song was called "Lake of Fire" and it is a heartwarming little tale of going to Hell and suffering for all eternity.
Now that may seem rather spiteful in spirit. After all, we're talking about Ronnie! The harmless dope who made "Well, I uh...I don't recall" a catchphrase. The good-natured buffoon who bumbled his way through every episode of Spitting Image. Not only that but he'd spent the last 10 years watching his brain slowly going soggy thanks to the onset of Alzheimer’s disease (we'll draw a discreet veil over the fact that he almost certainly started to develop the illness in the last years of his Presidency; bearing in mind the Pope is another victim of dementia, yet is still allowed to issue edicts that affect Catholics worldwide, having a 'confused' US President seems almost reasonable). So why, bearing in mind that the death of another person isn't really something one should be celebrating, did my friends and I react with a little whoop of joy and "he's finally dead" sentiments?
Well, because the cuddly image of a genial old buffer who had made it his business to wipe out the menace of Communism to secure freedom for future generations is, to be blunt, a lie. Much eulogising has already been done about how Ronnie "oversaw the defeat of Communism"; He made a speech whilst President that described the USSR as 'an evil empire'. That speech has been reprinted as his finest moment. If we are to listen to the tributes that pour in, we'd think that ol' Ronnie was the last of the Cowboys; a brave and noble soul who fought the bad guys at high noon and sent them packing. But it's horseshit. Why? Well...
Firstly, because there was a lot more to the Ronnie Regime than the end of Communism. I actually don't really dispute that it was his presidency that saw the cracks in the Soviet Union become chasms. However, those cracks had been on their way for a while; the Soviet leadership had concentrated pretty much entirely on the Arms Race with the US, and so had neglected its infrastructure and agriculture. So one was left with a cluster of countries with top-notch weapons, but where food rotted uncollected in the fields. Unsurprisingly, this led to a certain amount of unhappiness. Mikhail Gorbachev capitalised on that feeling to start the dismantling of the Single Party State. In other words, it was already happening before Ronnie and his Movie Star Speeches. To give him credit for the end of Communism is like giving a father credit at the birth of a child; sure, he was there at the time. But in the long run he had very little to do with it.
Mainly however, it's the rank stench of hypocrisy (that gives off a pungent odour not unlike one of his Presidential nappies that were a feature of the last years of his life) that bothers me about him. Throughout his reign, he made speeches that had two fundamental pillars to them; that the USSR was an Empire and therefore evil, and that he was using his presidency to guarantee truth, justice, and the American way.
Let's deal with the latter first of all. To listen to Ronnie speak, you'd think that he was turning the US into the Superhero of the world. Under his auspices, poverty and hunger would be eliminated and everyone would be able to sleep soundly in their beds. But if that's the case, why did his policies include deliberate Genocide? No, I'm not making this up; that nice Mr. Reagan gave his approval to a policy that explicitly ordered the Genocide of the people of El Salvador and Nicaragua. Not all of them of course; no, only those troublesome left wing people. Because we don't want no dirty commies on our doorstep, no sirree (I think someone must have told him that Cuba had disappeared or something like that as it was pretty much left alone under a screen of sanctions). So he gave his authorisation for the CIA to train up some of the most brutal torturers in world history and let them loose on the peoples of other nations.
Now maybe I'm being naive (and after seeing how the US military and CIA treat their prisoners in Iraq, I almost certainly am), but encouraging mass murder doesn't really sound very All-American to me. Nor does propping up the various dictatorships in South America. Or arming and encouraging rebels in African states (or governments, depending whether the left or right wing were in power) to commit ever more savage acts of butchery in the name of 'defeating communism'. To me, it sounds like he was advocating and spreading terrorism to a far greater degree than the sandal wearing defectives in Al-Quaida. And, for the most part, he's gotten clean away with it; the American people saw little of this. All they knew was that the Soviet Union had fell, and they were getting some seriously good quality cocaine at low prices (didn't I mention that the right wing governments in South and Central America had no problem using drugs to get additional funds? And that the CIA were perhaps the biggest drug runners of them all?) so who cares if some little brown men get carved up in front of their families. Or if a bunch of street kids get kicked to death by police 'hit squads'.
Of course, now America is reaping what it has sown in terms of the terror it engendered throughout the world. And is it the likes of Reagan and his echelon of money whores who supported him that are suffering? Of course it isn't. It's the ordinary people of America who are having their freedoms curtailed, being told to be afraid of anyone different, and (if you're poor enough) being pretty much forced into the army to serve in the 3rd Brigade (Cannon Fodder Division) in Iraq or Afghanistan. In the meantime, an equally unpleasant and even more astonishingly hypocritical President continues the work of spreading terror (Dubya said his favourite philosopher was Jesus; at which point in the Bible exactly did Jesus say "And lo, thou shalt launch a pre-emptive strike on thine enemies"?) and thus pretty much guarantee that the good people of America will be the most hated and fearful folks in the world. It seems to me that Americans shouldn't be mourning this man; they should be cursing him for leaving them a world of hate, fear, and terror. Good ol' Ronnie gave America the world it lives in today. But hey, who cares? He got rid of the evil empire.
A closing note about the end of the USSR; which Imperial power has now replaced the Soviets? Well, the US maintains military bases in roughly 100 different countries. Iraq is being turned into a client state where the 'sovereign' Iraqi government will have to keep the large number of US and UK troops in the country. Afghanistan is being discarded now that it's been invaded. It seems we have a new Evil Empire, with a chimpanzee as their Emperor. Thanks Ronnie; this is your legacy.
Now that may seem rather spiteful in spirit. After all, we're talking about Ronnie! The harmless dope who made "Well, I uh...I don't recall" a catchphrase. The good-natured buffoon who bumbled his way through every episode of Spitting Image. Not only that but he'd spent the last 10 years watching his brain slowly going soggy thanks to the onset of Alzheimer’s disease (we'll draw a discreet veil over the fact that he almost certainly started to develop the illness in the last years of his Presidency; bearing in mind the Pope is another victim of dementia, yet is still allowed to issue edicts that affect Catholics worldwide, having a 'confused' US President seems almost reasonable). So why, bearing in mind that the death of another person isn't really something one should be celebrating, did my friends and I react with a little whoop of joy and "he's finally dead" sentiments?
Well, because the cuddly image of a genial old buffer who had made it his business to wipe out the menace of Communism to secure freedom for future generations is, to be blunt, a lie. Much eulogising has already been done about how Ronnie "oversaw the defeat of Communism"; He made a speech whilst President that described the USSR as 'an evil empire'. That speech has been reprinted as his finest moment. If we are to listen to the tributes that pour in, we'd think that ol' Ronnie was the last of the Cowboys; a brave and noble soul who fought the bad guys at high noon and sent them packing. But it's horseshit. Why? Well...
Firstly, because there was a lot more to the Ronnie Regime than the end of Communism. I actually don't really dispute that it was his presidency that saw the cracks in the Soviet Union become chasms. However, those cracks had been on their way for a while; the Soviet leadership had concentrated pretty much entirely on the Arms Race with the US, and so had neglected its infrastructure and agriculture. So one was left with a cluster of countries with top-notch weapons, but where food rotted uncollected in the fields. Unsurprisingly, this led to a certain amount of unhappiness. Mikhail Gorbachev capitalised on that feeling to start the dismantling of the Single Party State. In other words, it was already happening before Ronnie and his Movie Star Speeches. To give him credit for the end of Communism is like giving a father credit at the birth of a child; sure, he was there at the time. But in the long run he had very little to do with it.
Mainly however, it's the rank stench of hypocrisy (that gives off a pungent odour not unlike one of his Presidential nappies that were a feature of the last years of his life) that bothers me about him. Throughout his reign, he made speeches that had two fundamental pillars to them; that the USSR was an Empire and therefore evil, and that he was using his presidency to guarantee truth, justice, and the American way.
Let's deal with the latter first of all. To listen to Ronnie speak, you'd think that he was turning the US into the Superhero of the world. Under his auspices, poverty and hunger would be eliminated and everyone would be able to sleep soundly in their beds. But if that's the case, why did his policies include deliberate Genocide? No, I'm not making this up; that nice Mr. Reagan gave his approval to a policy that explicitly ordered the Genocide of the people of El Salvador and Nicaragua. Not all of them of course; no, only those troublesome left wing people. Because we don't want no dirty commies on our doorstep, no sirree (I think someone must have told him that Cuba had disappeared or something like that as it was pretty much left alone under a screen of sanctions). So he gave his authorisation for the CIA to train up some of the most brutal torturers in world history and let them loose on the peoples of other nations.
Now maybe I'm being naive (and after seeing how the US military and CIA treat their prisoners in Iraq, I almost certainly am), but encouraging mass murder doesn't really sound very All-American to me. Nor does propping up the various dictatorships in South America. Or arming and encouraging rebels in African states (or governments, depending whether the left or right wing were in power) to commit ever more savage acts of butchery in the name of 'defeating communism'. To me, it sounds like he was advocating and spreading terrorism to a far greater degree than the sandal wearing defectives in Al-Quaida. And, for the most part, he's gotten clean away with it; the American people saw little of this. All they knew was that the Soviet Union had fell, and they were getting some seriously good quality cocaine at low prices (didn't I mention that the right wing governments in South and Central America had no problem using drugs to get additional funds? And that the CIA were perhaps the biggest drug runners of them all?) so who cares if some little brown men get carved up in front of their families. Or if a bunch of street kids get kicked to death by police 'hit squads'.
Of course, now America is reaping what it has sown in terms of the terror it engendered throughout the world. And is it the likes of Reagan and his echelon of money whores who supported him that are suffering? Of course it isn't. It's the ordinary people of America who are having their freedoms curtailed, being told to be afraid of anyone different, and (if you're poor enough) being pretty much forced into the army to serve in the 3rd Brigade (Cannon Fodder Division) in Iraq or Afghanistan. In the meantime, an equally unpleasant and even more astonishingly hypocritical President continues the work of spreading terror (Dubya said his favourite philosopher was Jesus; at which point in the Bible exactly did Jesus say "And lo, thou shalt launch a pre-emptive strike on thine enemies"?) and thus pretty much guarantee that the good people of America will be the most hated and fearful folks in the world. It seems to me that Americans shouldn't be mourning this man; they should be cursing him for leaving them a world of hate, fear, and terror. Good ol' Ronnie gave America the world it lives in today. But hey, who cares? He got rid of the evil empire.
A closing note about the end of the USSR; which Imperial power has now replaced the Soviets? Well, the US maintains military bases in roughly 100 different countries. Iraq is being turned into a client state where the 'sovereign' Iraqi government will have to keep the large number of US and UK troops in the country. Afghanistan is being discarded now that it's been invaded. It seems we have a new Evil Empire, with a chimpanzee as their Emperor. Thanks Ronnie; this is your legacy.
Monday 7 June 2004
Won't someone please think of the children?
I can't stand our national obsession with forcing people into the unwanted position of role model, then criticising them for failing to live up to it.
We in the UK have a defining national characteristic that confuses the hell out of me. It's something that we're all aware of and that we all partake in, and I can't decide if it means that we're an embittered nation, or that we simply refuse to respect those whom we are assured are our betters. I'm referring to our great national pastime of building up our heroes before knocking them right back down again.
Oddly it was the Beckham 'scandal' about his allegedly naughty behavior with his PA, Rebecca Loos that got me thinking about this. Once I'd calmed down from my standard "we're living in a world run by a powerful and greedy elite who are making war without any consideration for how it affects ordinary people, yet we're content to let ourselves be diverted by THIS sloppy panda poo of a story?!" position that I always take about frivolous news items (a position which, although I still agree with, sort of indicates just how much I needed to lighten up), I actually started to feel rather sorry for Goldenballs.
I should qualify that; the man has basically consented to be used as a market brand and, although it's making him obscene amounts of cash, it's making his sponsors and advertisers rather more. He's handed over his life to the public domain, and if you live by the sword you die by the sword when it comes to publicity and selling yourself via the media. However, even with all that in mind I was more than a little sympathetic towards him. Why? Well, because the main tone taken by tabloid journalists was that Beckham had let down the people (mainly the children) who idolise and look up to him.
Now maybe this is just me, but how exactly did he let anyone down? By rutting with a bisexual nymphomaniac with a filthy mind and highly developed bedroom skills? Who did he let down by doing that, because surely that's a class above emptying himself up a talentless, vain, bulimic babyprovider with a face like Dutch elm disease. As near as I can tell, he was being criticised for setting a bad example to the precious children of the world. Apparently "millions of kids look up to Beckham; what kind of lesson does it teach them when their hero cheats on his wife?" (although one could say he's teaching them not to marry a Prada-bedecked ghost train skeleton).
So then; that's the answer to the soaring divorce rate in the UK. It's all the fault of David Beckham. Glad we've got that one cleared up. I confidently expect to find that, if he puts on a few pounds, he'll be to blame for the rise in obesity in children. Doubtless Labour’ll soon blame him for increasing voter apathy in elections. Maybe we'll see him cited as the reason for domestic violence next (of course, if he does take it into his head to batter his wife into a bloody smear on the wall, he'd almost certainly get a knighthood).
This is, of course, complete and utter camelbollocks. I don't deny that Beckham is an idol to millions, but to say that his actions will be reflected by his legion of admirers is rather like saying that we're a society so devoid of individuality and ideas that we're content to try and turn our children into clones of anodyne, soulless clones of supposedly perfect people. Unfortunately, it seems that that's exactly what this society is doing.
What do I mean by that? Well, firstly I want to look at how we view heroes in the first place. This little scandal seemed to me to say that if someone is a hero to millions, then those millions should try and emulate that person exactly. They should give up any vestiges of their own personality and identity in order to try and become their hero (and alas, with the number of brainbubblingly poor girlbands that make up the pop industry these days, anyone who knows their way around a football pitch will probably consider a member of Liberty X as their birthright). Then the same tabloids that criticise Beckham for having "let down his fans" run a story about the "evil freak" that is stalking Britney/Xtina/{Insert name of Pop Tart here}.
Even leaving aside the standard media hypocrisy of encouraging people to worship celebrities whilst demonising those whose lives are so empty that they stalk the object of their obsessions, it seems to me that we've got our treatment of heroes all wrong. Yes, a hero is someone to look up to and emulate. But a hero is not someone whom we should expect absolute perfection in every conceivable way from; they're simply someone who sets an example to us to live our life in a particular way. OUR life, not a bland Xeroxed copy of the hero's life. So, for example, my biggest hero in life is Bill Hicks and I try to emulate him in key areas of my life. However, I don't share his philosophy on relationships for example. Nor do I allow my adulation of him to dictate exactly what my opinions are; unlike him, I don't believe that a UFO will come down and rescue me from planet earth to educate and enlighten me about our place in the cosmos (by the way, Hicks did an extraordinary amount of hallucinogens which I think sort of explains his UFO beliefs...).
What my hero-worship of Hicks amounts to is that I'm compelled to speak my mind, tell the truth, and stand up for my beliefs. Beckham is a footballer, so why should anyone’s adulation of him go beyond "I want to be a good footballer"? Why in the name of Mary's minge should he be a role model for the perfect family life? He's a multi millionaire; who can reasonably expect to have a family life involving shopping trips to Milan, villas in 5 countries, and a disposable income so vast that looks like it should be stated as a physics? No-one is criticising him for setting a bad example by giving people false hope of impossible dreams, so why criticise him for something done by depressingly large numbers of people anyway?
Well, because we'll criticise anything and anyone if it means we don't have to acknowledge that the society in which we live has some major flaws in it. Don't want to acknowledge our hypocrisy in marketing youth and young women as being sexually attractive whilst jumping up and down in a frenzied rage about paedophiles? (Of which the finest example has to be the Daily Mail running an article on 15-year-old Charlotte Church having a nice ass, whilst on the opposite page an article about protecting our kids from Paedogeddon screamed out at us) Simple; just blame pornography. Upset that house prices are rising and wages are still low? Then blame immigrants. Don't fancy acknowledging that the failure of the model of an ideal family is losing relevance in the modern western world? No problem, just blame celebrities and say that their infidelity is bringing down western civilisation.
If we want our oh-so-valuable children to grow up to be good footballers, Beckham is as good a role model as any. If we want them to be angry and paranoid middle class white men, Bill Hicks is your chap. If we want them to grow up to be faithful to their partners, tolerant of differences in others, determined, hard working, compassionate, brave, and decent then maybe we should look at ourselves and start closer to home. After all, we can't blame celebrities for everything. However amusing it is to do so.
We in the UK have a defining national characteristic that confuses the hell out of me. It's something that we're all aware of and that we all partake in, and I can't decide if it means that we're an embittered nation, or that we simply refuse to respect those whom we are assured are our betters. I'm referring to our great national pastime of building up our heroes before knocking them right back down again.
Oddly it was the Beckham 'scandal' about his allegedly naughty behavior with his PA, Rebecca Loos that got me thinking about this. Once I'd calmed down from my standard "we're living in a world run by a powerful and greedy elite who are making war without any consideration for how it affects ordinary people, yet we're content to let ourselves be diverted by THIS sloppy panda poo of a story?!" position that I always take about frivolous news items (a position which, although I still agree with, sort of indicates just how much I needed to lighten up), I actually started to feel rather sorry for Goldenballs.
I should qualify that; the man has basically consented to be used as a market brand and, although it's making him obscene amounts of cash, it's making his sponsors and advertisers rather more. He's handed over his life to the public domain, and if you live by the sword you die by the sword when it comes to publicity and selling yourself via the media. However, even with all that in mind I was more than a little sympathetic towards him. Why? Well, because the main tone taken by tabloid journalists was that Beckham had let down the people (mainly the children) who idolise and look up to him.
Now maybe this is just me, but how exactly did he let anyone down? By rutting with a bisexual nymphomaniac with a filthy mind and highly developed bedroom skills? Who did he let down by doing that, because surely that's a class above emptying himself up a talentless, vain, bulimic babyprovider with a face like Dutch elm disease. As near as I can tell, he was being criticised for setting a bad example to the precious children of the world. Apparently "millions of kids look up to Beckham; what kind of lesson does it teach them when their hero cheats on his wife?" (although one could say he's teaching them not to marry a Prada-bedecked ghost train skeleton).
So then; that's the answer to the soaring divorce rate in the UK. It's all the fault of David Beckham. Glad we've got that one cleared up. I confidently expect to find that, if he puts on a few pounds, he'll be to blame for the rise in obesity in children. Doubtless Labour’ll soon blame him for increasing voter apathy in elections. Maybe we'll see him cited as the reason for domestic violence next (of course, if he does take it into his head to batter his wife into a bloody smear on the wall, he'd almost certainly get a knighthood).
This is, of course, complete and utter camelbollocks. I don't deny that Beckham is an idol to millions, but to say that his actions will be reflected by his legion of admirers is rather like saying that we're a society so devoid of individuality and ideas that we're content to try and turn our children into clones of anodyne, soulless clones of supposedly perfect people. Unfortunately, it seems that that's exactly what this society is doing.
What do I mean by that? Well, firstly I want to look at how we view heroes in the first place. This little scandal seemed to me to say that if someone is a hero to millions, then those millions should try and emulate that person exactly. They should give up any vestiges of their own personality and identity in order to try and become their hero (and alas, with the number of brainbubblingly poor girlbands that make up the pop industry these days, anyone who knows their way around a football pitch will probably consider a member of Liberty X as their birthright). Then the same tabloids that criticise Beckham for having "let down his fans" run a story about the "evil freak" that is stalking Britney/Xtina/{Insert name of Pop Tart here}.
Even leaving aside the standard media hypocrisy of encouraging people to worship celebrities whilst demonising those whose lives are so empty that they stalk the object of their obsessions, it seems to me that we've got our treatment of heroes all wrong. Yes, a hero is someone to look up to and emulate. But a hero is not someone whom we should expect absolute perfection in every conceivable way from; they're simply someone who sets an example to us to live our life in a particular way. OUR life, not a bland Xeroxed copy of the hero's life. So, for example, my biggest hero in life is Bill Hicks and I try to emulate him in key areas of my life. However, I don't share his philosophy on relationships for example. Nor do I allow my adulation of him to dictate exactly what my opinions are; unlike him, I don't believe that a UFO will come down and rescue me from planet earth to educate and enlighten me about our place in the cosmos (by the way, Hicks did an extraordinary amount of hallucinogens which I think sort of explains his UFO beliefs...).
What my hero-worship of Hicks amounts to is that I'm compelled to speak my mind, tell the truth, and stand up for my beliefs. Beckham is a footballer, so why should anyone’s adulation of him go beyond "I want to be a good footballer"? Why in the name of Mary's minge should he be a role model for the perfect family life? He's a multi millionaire; who can reasonably expect to have a family life involving shopping trips to Milan, villas in 5 countries, and a disposable income so vast that looks like it should be stated as a physics? No-one is criticising him for setting a bad example by giving people false hope of impossible dreams, so why criticise him for something done by depressingly large numbers of people anyway?
Well, because we'll criticise anything and anyone if it means we don't have to acknowledge that the society in which we live has some major flaws in it. Don't want to acknowledge our hypocrisy in marketing youth and young women as being sexually attractive whilst jumping up and down in a frenzied rage about paedophiles? (Of which the finest example has to be the Daily Mail running an article on 15-year-old Charlotte Church having a nice ass, whilst on the opposite page an article about protecting our kids from Paedogeddon screamed out at us) Simple; just blame pornography. Upset that house prices are rising and wages are still low? Then blame immigrants. Don't fancy acknowledging that the failure of the model of an ideal family is losing relevance in the modern western world? No problem, just blame celebrities and say that their infidelity is bringing down western civilisation.
If we want our oh-so-valuable children to grow up to be good footballers, Beckham is as good a role model as any. If we want them to be angry and paranoid middle class white men, Bill Hicks is your chap. If we want them to grow up to be faithful to their partners, tolerant of differences in others, determined, hard working, compassionate, brave, and decent then maybe we should look at ourselves and start closer to home. After all, we can't blame celebrities for everything. However amusing it is to do so.
Wednesday 2 June 2004
How to Hate
Good moods always seem to lead to ruminations on bad things with me. Christ knows why. Whatever it is, it's doubtless Freudian.
It's been a while since I sat down to vent my spleen into one of these rants. A new lady in my life has meant that I'm full to bursting with the milk of human kindness; I'm so obscenely in love that most of my friends are convinced that they're seeing the first stages of Invasion of the Bodysnatchers. And so, my mind being the fun-packed, "Glass half full" thing that it is, it seems entirely appropriate that I spend a little time considering the nature of hate. Because, y'know, I'm Iike that.
Hate is rather an odd emotion. We will frequently hear the old wives saying that it is nothing more than the flip side of the coin to love. We may also be informed that to hate someone, you must have loved him or her first. But is there anything to back up these sayings? And regardless of whether there is or is not, is hate always the negative thing that we think it is? Or are there any circumstances where hate is acceptable? Or even desirable? And what exactly defines hatred anyway?
So is hate just love in reverse gear? Well, to a certain extent I think it is. If one is in love with someone, then one is willing to do anything at all for that person (although it seems that anal is not included in that criteria, and God knows I've tried...) to the extent that one will put ones own hopes and desires on the backburner in the name of doing whatever it is your loved one desires. If one hates someone then one is equally willing to do anything at all to hurt or damage that person in some way, to the point of ruining one's own life if it means causing pain to the object of your hate. Love and Hate are two very extreme emotions, and the actions they inspire are equally as extreme.
But the thing is, how can we tell if we hate someone? I'm sure you've talked to friends who have agonised over whether they really love a particular partner. Maybe you've done so yourself. Yet we don't seem to have any difficulty in knowing whom we hate. You'll hear the phrase "I hate him/her" FAR more often than you will "I love him/her". Does that mean that we're an emotionally bankrupt bunch of hatemongers? Or are we confusing Hate with mere Dislike?
In an unusually optimistic move, I'm going to say it's the latter and I'm going to do so for a reason of personal bias. Despite being a worryingly good example of a bilious and generally vitriolic chap, I can count on one finger the number of people that I truly hate. On the other hand, I'd need more digits that the decimal value of Pi to count the number of people and things that I dislike (and did I really just make a maths joke?). Whilst we all seem to recognise the value of Love and are sparing in committing to just who and what we do love, the distinction between fiery hatred and lukewarm dislike is much less distinct in our heads.
It's worth diverting our attention for a moment to consider something else; does hate just apply to individuals? It's seems entirely possible to hate a group of people, or an organisation (as that happy-go-lucky cluster of ignorance known as the BNP proves rather well). Is this the same as the Hate one may have for an individual? Hating a group of people is, without any exceptions, an example of unthinking, blind hatred. However, as one can be unthinkingly and blindly in love with someone, this doesn't really work as a distinction.
However, you rarely (if ever; I know I can't think of an example of this) hear of someone being in love with a group of people (despite what some unfaithful partners might protest!). So if we agree that Hate and Love are opposites, we cannot define this group hatred as being Hate in the truest sense. It could be an educated and considered dislike (something only appropriate for hatred of organisations, e.g. an animal lovers hatred of vivisectionists, a Labour activists hatred of the Tories, everyone's hatred of Manchester United, etc), or it could be an empty headed loathing of a racial group (anti-Semitism, the Gunmen who attacked foreigners in Saudi over the weekend, and xenophobic hatred of asylum seekers being the best examples here).
So then; we can perhaps accept that Love and Hate are indeed opposite sides of the same coin. So does that mean that one has to have loved someone to hate then? Absolutely not; if we accept this logic than that would mean that it's only possible to truly love someone if you've hated him or her first, and that is ludicrous. It is of course possible to hate someone whom you've previously loved, and vice versa (the chap who is the object of my hatred is a former friend for example) but it's not exactly compulsory.
Just as love is, to an extent, indefinable then so is hate; you may find yourself thinking that the person or people in your life whom you love have 'a certain something' about them that you love, as well as all the doubtless huge number of more concrete reasons for your warm feelings toward them. By exactly the same token, although we may have good reason to hate the object of our ire, there will almost certainly be 'a certain something' about them that makes you want to smash them in the face with a shovel. These two different types of 'something' are completely independent of each other, and so there is no reason to suppose that we must have one to have the other (though I do accept that perhaps you have to have experienced one to fully appreciate the other).
So having looked at what Hate is and it's relative relation with Love, can we find any circumstances where it is a positive thing? To be blunt, no. If one is, as per my earlier definition of hate, willing to destroy ones own life just to hurt someone, then this is surely not a good thing. I've even found myself working on trying to downgrade my venomous loathing of the lucky chap that I hate to some sort of simmering discontent on the basis that I don't want to ruin my life over that cockwasp. Both Love and Hate are selfish emotions, but whilst an expression of love is designed to make someone else happy as well as making yourself feel good, that selfishness is entirely forgivable. Hate has no such get out clause.
I can, however, see circumstances where the hatred of organisations could be seen as positive (and I'd best tread carefully here; can we all assume that I believe any form of racism is a particularly awful thing so as to forestall the cries of "You're a fascist!"? We can? Jolly good...). Some types of group hatred stem from the following assumption;
"This group is trying to destroy something good. I do not want it destroyed, and will fight to protect it".
I would contend that this type of hatred is a good thing in theory, if not always in practice. If someone hates injustice, then one is naturally inclined to try and fight it. We can accept that as a good thing. That said, I suppose whether or not you consider it a good thing will depend on your own views and outlook; I hate the current US Government for their blatant greed in launching the land grab in Iraq. Others would disagree, and say that they hate the defeatist and appeasing attitude of people opposed to a war that was fully justified. But then, the world would be a boring place if we all had the same opinions, and some of the most interesting discussions I've ever had have been with people who's hatreds are diametrically opposed to mine. I don't hate these people, and I'm pretty sure they don't hate me. The trouble with this form of hatred only arises when we confuse it with hatred of an individual whose beliefs differ to yours. When that happens, we're back to being unpleasant bigots and that is the kind of thinking that I never want to be guilty of.
And that, in a long and rambling nutshell, is what I think of hate. I shall now return to being a doe-eyed and gooey lump of blissed out happiness and think loving and lustful thoughts about the wonderful lady in my life. If that sentence doesn't make you all hate me, nothing will.
It's been a while since I sat down to vent my spleen into one of these rants. A new lady in my life has meant that I'm full to bursting with the milk of human kindness; I'm so obscenely in love that most of my friends are convinced that they're seeing the first stages of Invasion of the Bodysnatchers. And so, my mind being the fun-packed, "Glass half full" thing that it is, it seems entirely appropriate that I spend a little time considering the nature of hate. Because, y'know, I'm Iike that.
Hate is rather an odd emotion. We will frequently hear the old wives saying that it is nothing more than the flip side of the coin to love. We may also be informed that to hate someone, you must have loved him or her first. But is there anything to back up these sayings? And regardless of whether there is or is not, is hate always the negative thing that we think it is? Or are there any circumstances where hate is acceptable? Or even desirable? And what exactly defines hatred anyway?
So is hate just love in reverse gear? Well, to a certain extent I think it is. If one is in love with someone, then one is willing to do anything at all for that person (although it seems that anal is not included in that criteria, and God knows I've tried...) to the extent that one will put ones own hopes and desires on the backburner in the name of doing whatever it is your loved one desires. If one hates someone then one is equally willing to do anything at all to hurt or damage that person in some way, to the point of ruining one's own life if it means causing pain to the object of your hate. Love and Hate are two very extreme emotions, and the actions they inspire are equally as extreme.
But the thing is, how can we tell if we hate someone? I'm sure you've talked to friends who have agonised over whether they really love a particular partner. Maybe you've done so yourself. Yet we don't seem to have any difficulty in knowing whom we hate. You'll hear the phrase "I hate him/her" FAR more often than you will "I love him/her". Does that mean that we're an emotionally bankrupt bunch of hatemongers? Or are we confusing Hate with mere Dislike?
In an unusually optimistic move, I'm going to say it's the latter and I'm going to do so for a reason of personal bias. Despite being a worryingly good example of a bilious and generally vitriolic chap, I can count on one finger the number of people that I truly hate. On the other hand, I'd need more digits that the decimal value of Pi to count the number of people and things that I dislike (and did I really just make a maths joke?). Whilst we all seem to recognise the value of Love and are sparing in committing to just who and what we do love, the distinction between fiery hatred and lukewarm dislike is much less distinct in our heads.
It's worth diverting our attention for a moment to consider something else; does hate just apply to individuals? It's seems entirely possible to hate a group of people, or an organisation (as that happy-go-lucky cluster of ignorance known as the BNP proves rather well). Is this the same as the Hate one may have for an individual? Hating a group of people is, without any exceptions, an example of unthinking, blind hatred. However, as one can be unthinkingly and blindly in love with someone, this doesn't really work as a distinction.
However, you rarely (if ever; I know I can't think of an example of this) hear of someone being in love with a group of people (despite what some unfaithful partners might protest!). So if we agree that Hate and Love are opposites, we cannot define this group hatred as being Hate in the truest sense. It could be an educated and considered dislike (something only appropriate for hatred of organisations, e.g. an animal lovers hatred of vivisectionists, a Labour activists hatred of the Tories, everyone's hatred of Manchester United, etc), or it could be an empty headed loathing of a racial group (anti-Semitism, the Gunmen who attacked foreigners in Saudi over the weekend, and xenophobic hatred of asylum seekers being the best examples here).
So then; we can perhaps accept that Love and Hate are indeed opposite sides of the same coin. So does that mean that one has to have loved someone to hate then? Absolutely not; if we accept this logic than that would mean that it's only possible to truly love someone if you've hated him or her first, and that is ludicrous. It is of course possible to hate someone whom you've previously loved, and vice versa (the chap who is the object of my hatred is a former friend for example) but it's not exactly compulsory.
Just as love is, to an extent, indefinable then so is hate; you may find yourself thinking that the person or people in your life whom you love have 'a certain something' about them that you love, as well as all the doubtless huge number of more concrete reasons for your warm feelings toward them. By exactly the same token, although we may have good reason to hate the object of our ire, there will almost certainly be 'a certain something' about them that makes you want to smash them in the face with a shovel. These two different types of 'something' are completely independent of each other, and so there is no reason to suppose that we must have one to have the other (though I do accept that perhaps you have to have experienced one to fully appreciate the other).
So having looked at what Hate is and it's relative relation with Love, can we find any circumstances where it is a positive thing? To be blunt, no. If one is, as per my earlier definition of hate, willing to destroy ones own life just to hurt someone, then this is surely not a good thing. I've even found myself working on trying to downgrade my venomous loathing of the lucky chap that I hate to some sort of simmering discontent on the basis that I don't want to ruin my life over that cockwasp. Both Love and Hate are selfish emotions, but whilst an expression of love is designed to make someone else happy as well as making yourself feel good, that selfishness is entirely forgivable. Hate has no such get out clause.
I can, however, see circumstances where the hatred of organisations could be seen as positive (and I'd best tread carefully here; can we all assume that I believe any form of racism is a particularly awful thing so as to forestall the cries of "You're a fascist!"? We can? Jolly good...). Some types of group hatred stem from the following assumption;
"This group is trying to destroy something good. I do not want it destroyed, and will fight to protect it".
I would contend that this type of hatred is a good thing in theory, if not always in practice. If someone hates injustice, then one is naturally inclined to try and fight it. We can accept that as a good thing. That said, I suppose whether or not you consider it a good thing will depend on your own views and outlook; I hate the current US Government for their blatant greed in launching the land grab in Iraq. Others would disagree, and say that they hate the defeatist and appeasing attitude of people opposed to a war that was fully justified. But then, the world would be a boring place if we all had the same opinions, and some of the most interesting discussions I've ever had have been with people who's hatreds are diametrically opposed to mine. I don't hate these people, and I'm pretty sure they don't hate me. The trouble with this form of hatred only arises when we confuse it with hatred of an individual whose beliefs differ to yours. When that happens, we're back to being unpleasant bigots and that is the kind of thinking that I never want to be guilty of.
And that, in a long and rambling nutshell, is what I think of hate. I shall now return to being a doe-eyed and gooey lump of blissed out happiness and think loving and lustful thoughts about the wonderful lady in my life. If that sentence doesn't make you all hate me, nothing will.
Monday 19 January 2004
Free Speech
Though I think the points raised about Free Speech are valid, the reason behind this rant was simple; I fucking HATE Kilroy-Silk.
You may have seen over the weekend that Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit his job as the Most Annoying Little Smear of Dogturd on British Television, saying, "the time is right for me to go" (though personally I felt that 1976 was the right time for him to go, preferably into an oversized mincing machine). I'm sure that the fact that the BBC scored an extra million viewers in the slot where his program was before it was suspended did nothing at all to convince the arrogant dollop of rectal bacteria that maybe the public DIDN'T share his belief that he could walk on water, and maybe cure lepers of their ailment. And I'm especially sure that the uproar over his column in the Sunday Express branding all Arab people as barbaric, suicide bombing, women abusing limb amputators had no bearing at all on his long overdue decision.
Anyway, I've just about stopped laughing at the downfall of this abhorrent little man now, so I now find myself looking back over the couple of weeks since his initial racist faux pas. There are two things about it that really interest me. One is the response of Kilroy to the swathes of people who were offended by what he wrote. The other is the somewhat surprising defence used by his apologists; that he was simply exercising freedom of speech.
So then; what did the silver haired simpleton say in his defence? Well, firstly he said that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. To a certain extent, he actually has a point; the column was a reprint that had been published earlier in 2003 with not a squeak of protest being raised. He then went on to apologise for causing offence whilst, at the same time, standing by what he'd said. This is a quite stultifying piece of arrogance on his part; he seemed to be implying that, as what he said is sparkling with universal truth, it must therefore be the fault of those oversensitive suicide bombers that they got offended. As he was magnanimous enough to forgive them for that and say sorry, he assumed it would sooth their angry, tea towel encased heads.
Even the fact that he stood by what he said should indicate that Kilroy thought he was hosting an edition of his program. Only this time, he was unable to shout down or ignore guests who disagreed with his ill-informed bigotry. He couldn't fake the face of a sensitive listener before closing the program with a semi-retarded stream of clichés that belittled whichever poor sod he'd just been patronising, whilst trying to bolster his own hype of a straight talking man of the people. No, this time he found that he was on the defensive. And faced with the task of justifying how "Arabs have never contributed anything to civilisation" is a valid statement (all the science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy that we got from Arabic and Persian worlds mustn't count in his world; I'll make the differentiated between Arabs and Persians, even if Kilroy didn't know or care about it), he decided to tuck his tail between his legs and resign. Though he didn't actually withdraw his remarks. He didn't even spend much time trying to qualify them; had he been pointing the finger at one or two Middle Eastern governments, I daresay that he wouldn't have come in for so much, or any, flak. So, not only has the BBC lost a bullying, arrogant egotist, but a cowardly one to boot.
And it would have ended there, were it not for the multitude of people who were willing to defend Kilroy for braying this jingoistic headspew. When I read about the BBC's decision to suspend him from his job because of the comments made I, perhaps naively, expected the reaction of the overwhelming majority to be the same as mine; hate-filled, mocking laughter. Instead, there was a chorus of cries that Kilroy was being picked on for his "courageous stance on free speech" and that his suspension was "political correctness gone mad".
This was a reaction that took me entirely by surprise; Kilroy had made some pretty hateful comments; had he replaced the word 'Arab' with the word 'Jew' or 'Black', then there would have been a race to Kilroy's house, with the lucky winner getting to change him from an annoying minor celebrity into about 200 pounds of rapidly cooling meat. Should we really be talking about protecting bigotry under the heading of free speech? Does that mean I can start ranting about wogs, spiks, kikes, poofs, slags, ragheads, and so on and so forth, and claim the same justification? Of course it doesn't.
So what about the charge that the BBC are pandering to the politically correct by suspending him? Well, there is a certain amount of logic to that argument; why the hell wasn't he suspended when the article was first published? But beyond that, there is no real case for the BBC to answer. There are laws against inciting racial hatred in this country, and Kilroy has fallen foul of them by pretty much anybody's definition. His employer has every right to suspend him for his public declaration of racism. Would you expect to still have a job if you marched into work offering a cheery "Sieg Heil" to all of your colleagues? If you wrote a newspaper article stating that all Black people are worthless as a race, would you really be surprised to find a P45 waiting for you in your day job? Personally, I find it far more offensive that he got away with these remarks earlier. If I were to complain about anything in this incident, it would be that the media are only against racism when it's newsworthy.
Finally, as we reached the last desperate dregs of humanity who attempted to stand up on behalf of Kilroy, we had that old favourite; "There wouldn't have been as much fuss if it had been a non-white making these comments". I always enjoy seeing racists whining that they're not allowed to be as bigoted as those goddamn pesky blacks. Well, much though I hate to sprinkle foul-smelling urine on their parade, they're talking complete and utter asshat. If this is a case of de poor ol' white man getting victimised, how come he had to publish the bilious cack twice before anyone raised an objection? And if non-whites do get away with more bigotry than whites, how come Abu Hamza (the London based Moslem cleric/James Bond villain wannabe with the hook for a hand) was barred from preaching at his Finsbury Park Mosque for his racist, anti-Semitic nonsense?
All in all, I find myself wondering whether these apologists would have been quite as vehement in defending an Arab making negative comments about English culture? If it's all about free speech, then those same people are presumably equally irate at Hamza being silenced. Except that they're not. The majority of these people are arguing for the same right that Kilroy seems to have dedicated his life and career too; the right to remain ignorant racists. If stopping someone in the public eye from encouraging hatred of another person based on nothing more than race is "Political Correctness gone mad", then pass me the straitjacket.
Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and gets offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising my right of free speech.
You may have seen over the weekend that Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit his job as the Most Annoying Little Smear of Dogturd on British Television, saying, "the time is right for me to go" (though personally I felt that 1976 was the right time for him to go, preferably into an oversized mincing machine). I'm sure that the fact that the BBC scored an extra million viewers in the slot where his program was before it was suspended did nothing at all to convince the arrogant dollop of rectal bacteria that maybe the public DIDN'T share his belief that he could walk on water, and maybe cure lepers of their ailment. And I'm especially sure that the uproar over his column in the Sunday Express branding all Arab people as barbaric, suicide bombing, women abusing limb amputators had no bearing at all on his long overdue decision.
Anyway, I've just about stopped laughing at the downfall of this abhorrent little man now, so I now find myself looking back over the couple of weeks since his initial racist faux pas. There are two things about it that really interest me. One is the response of Kilroy to the swathes of people who were offended by what he wrote. The other is the somewhat surprising defence used by his apologists; that he was simply exercising freedom of speech.
So then; what did the silver haired simpleton say in his defence? Well, firstly he said that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. To a certain extent, he actually has a point; the column was a reprint that had been published earlier in 2003 with not a squeak of protest being raised. He then went on to apologise for causing offence whilst, at the same time, standing by what he'd said. This is a quite stultifying piece of arrogance on his part; he seemed to be implying that, as what he said is sparkling with universal truth, it must therefore be the fault of those oversensitive suicide bombers that they got offended. As he was magnanimous enough to forgive them for that and say sorry, he assumed it would sooth their angry, tea towel encased heads.
Even the fact that he stood by what he said should indicate that Kilroy thought he was hosting an edition of his program. Only this time, he was unable to shout down or ignore guests who disagreed with his ill-informed bigotry. He couldn't fake the face of a sensitive listener before closing the program with a semi-retarded stream of clichés that belittled whichever poor sod he'd just been patronising, whilst trying to bolster his own hype of a straight talking man of the people. No, this time he found that he was on the defensive. And faced with the task of justifying how "Arabs have never contributed anything to civilisation" is a valid statement (all the science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy that we got from Arabic and Persian worlds mustn't count in his world; I'll make the differentiated between Arabs and Persians, even if Kilroy didn't know or care about it), he decided to tuck his tail between his legs and resign. Though he didn't actually withdraw his remarks. He didn't even spend much time trying to qualify them; had he been pointing the finger at one or two Middle Eastern governments, I daresay that he wouldn't have come in for so much, or any, flak. So, not only has the BBC lost a bullying, arrogant egotist, but a cowardly one to boot.
And it would have ended there, were it not for the multitude of people who were willing to defend Kilroy for braying this jingoistic headspew. When I read about the BBC's decision to suspend him from his job because of the comments made I, perhaps naively, expected the reaction of the overwhelming majority to be the same as mine; hate-filled, mocking laughter. Instead, there was a chorus of cries that Kilroy was being picked on for his "courageous stance on free speech" and that his suspension was "political correctness gone mad".
This was a reaction that took me entirely by surprise; Kilroy had made some pretty hateful comments; had he replaced the word 'Arab' with the word 'Jew' or 'Black', then there would have been a race to Kilroy's house, with the lucky winner getting to change him from an annoying minor celebrity into about 200 pounds of rapidly cooling meat. Should we really be talking about protecting bigotry under the heading of free speech? Does that mean I can start ranting about wogs, spiks, kikes, poofs, slags, ragheads, and so on and so forth, and claim the same justification? Of course it doesn't.
So what about the charge that the BBC are pandering to the politically correct by suspending him? Well, there is a certain amount of logic to that argument; why the hell wasn't he suspended when the article was first published? But beyond that, there is no real case for the BBC to answer. There are laws against inciting racial hatred in this country, and Kilroy has fallen foul of them by pretty much anybody's definition. His employer has every right to suspend him for his public declaration of racism. Would you expect to still have a job if you marched into work offering a cheery "Sieg Heil" to all of your colleagues? If you wrote a newspaper article stating that all Black people are worthless as a race, would you really be surprised to find a P45 waiting for you in your day job? Personally, I find it far more offensive that he got away with these remarks earlier. If I were to complain about anything in this incident, it would be that the media are only against racism when it's newsworthy.
Finally, as we reached the last desperate dregs of humanity who attempted to stand up on behalf of Kilroy, we had that old favourite; "There wouldn't have been as much fuss if it had been a non-white making these comments". I always enjoy seeing racists whining that they're not allowed to be as bigoted as those goddamn pesky blacks. Well, much though I hate to sprinkle foul-smelling urine on their parade, they're talking complete and utter asshat. If this is a case of de poor ol' white man getting victimised, how come he had to publish the bilious cack twice before anyone raised an objection? And if non-whites do get away with more bigotry than whites, how come Abu Hamza (the London based Moslem cleric/James Bond villain wannabe with the hook for a hand) was barred from preaching at his Finsbury Park Mosque for his racist, anti-Semitic nonsense?
All in all, I find myself wondering whether these apologists would have been quite as vehement in defending an Arab making negative comments about English culture? If it's all about free speech, then those same people are presumably equally irate at Hamza being silenced. Except that they're not. The majority of these people are arguing for the same right that Kilroy seems to have dedicated his life and career too; the right to remain ignorant racists. If stopping someone in the public eye from encouraging hatred of another person based on nothing more than race is "Political Correctness gone mad", then pass me the straitjacket.
Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and gets offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising my right of free speech.
Wednesday 7 January 2004
I want the truth
"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" Anyone with a passing familiarity with the legal system as seen in the world of film and TV will recognise those words as one of the cornerstones of a trial (when I first head them spoken in a real trial I had to stifle a giggle; I was half expecting the defendant to bark "You can't handle the truth" at the court clerk...). It's a ritual formula that assumes there is a definitive story behind whatever chain of events led to some poor b*stard standing in the dock. I've always assumed the same; that most events in life have a clear beginning, middle, and an end. And there is always one version of the story that is the pure, unvarnished truth. But now I'm not so sure. I've just finished a relationship that, although it was unquestionably the right thing to do, I didn't hugely want to end. I did so because of my obsession with knowing 'the truth'. So this seems as good a time as any to ask if there really is any such thing as a universal truth.
For example, think of any event witnessed by yourself and some of your friends. If I were to ask each and every one of you what happened at that event, would your stories be exactly the same? Of course they wouldn't; unless you'd had time to get your stories straight then everyone would give a slightly different version (I once sat in on police interviews with 3 clients accused of burglary. Their stories matched identically. Right down to the exact words used in answer to the questions. Astoundingly, the police didn't believe them. Mind you, I was their solicitor, and neither did I). Does that mean that one of you is telling the truth and the others are all lying? Well, perhaps it does (I'm sure we've all been guilty of embellishing a story), but I think it more likely that all of you will promise faithfully that you are giving me the truth.
So what does that mean? That we're a race of chronic liars (or, to use the correct name for a group of liars, lawyers)? Well, I like to display a little more faith in my fellow man, so I'm going to say that it does not (though if we really are all predisposed towards lying, that's probably another fib). What I think it does demonstrate is that the truth, far from always being something immutable and fixed in stone, is a little more flexible than we may have thought. The truth varies according to who it was that witnessed the event, and what their perception of it was.
Okay; that sounds like abstract bumslop of the worst kind so I'll explain myself a little more. The best place to see that the truth varies depending on your own perceptions is, perversely, politics. Usually, the wide and varied political spectrum is split into two for ease of identifying where one's basic sympathies are; left wing and right wing (or Liberal and Conservative). It is rare indeed that you'll find any sort of agreement between these two sides (mainly because the Conservatives want to preserve all the existing evils and injustices of the world. Liberals want to replace them with an entirely new set of evils and injustices), and you will see this being reflected in the media. There are left wing papers (The Guardian, The Mirror) and right wing (The Times, The Mail). Generally speaking they report on much the same stories. But the reports are rather different to one another.
Take the recent and continuing war in Iraq. Should you read the Mail (assuming you can find news about the war in between the pages and pages of jingoistic, anti-immigrant bile) , then the invasion wasn't just necessary, it was an imperative. It was about freeing a nation from a tyrant. The subsequent steady stream of dead soldiers and civilians is regrettable but shouldn't affect our resolve to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. If however you read the Guardian, then the war is nothing more than a grab for resources by the Americans. The soldiers dying every day are evidence that the Iraqi people don't want the kind of freedom offered to them by an invading army. The indisputable fact is that Iraq was invaded. Yet here are two wildly different versions of just why it happened, and what the result is.
I have my own bias; I'm more inclined to find the left wing version of events more to my liking. And I can produce all manner of reasons and justifications as to why I believe it that are, in my mind, unassailable. Yet I've spoken to people who are equally as adamant that the political right is, well, right. And they (well...some of them) can produce completely valid facts and figures that would seem to prove that they are correct and I am mistaken (and what with my temper, mistaken at the top of my voice). How can this be? Well, mainly because we look for the facts that back up our beliefs and then do our best to either ignore those tricky points that debunk our opinions, or we look for more facts to make those troublesome opposing ideas seem like naively held beliefs at best, lies at worst.
Of course, I'm just talking about people who are able to articulate just why they hold the beliefs they do, and why they believe in one version of events rather than another. I'm excluding entirely another category of people; those screeching idiots who are only able to shout down an opposing view. I'm inclined to believe that these people are not remotely interested in the truth, be it universal or not. Being too stupid to have any actual beliefs of their own, they are interested only in one thing; being seen to be right. Happily, these people are incredibly easy to humiliate into silence; try pressing them on specific facts and watch them dissolve into a red-faced, teary-eyed mess reduced to ranting "You're wrong!" ad infinitum. Unfortunately, an awful lot of these type of people seem to hold fairly important positions in society, and so it means we actually give credence to the menstrual waste that they laughably refer to as their version of the truth.
As a side note, if I had to pick one of the many insultingly idiotic arguments used by this group of people to justify why their blinkered Me-Muppetry cannot be disproved by any available facts as the worst, it would have to be "The media is biased towards the Liberals/Conservatives (delete according to political affiliation), so they will never report facts that prove what I say is right. Not that they have to, because I'm right and I know I am. And if you disagree, you're an idiot". These are always the same people who will cheerfully refer to newspaper articles that support whatever they're braying out as proof of how clever they are. Funnily, they only accuse the media of bias when they produce something that disagrees with them, but I digress.
What I'm driving at in this little rant is that we cannot expect to get a nice, neat version of events that is the undisputed truth. Usually, an event happens. Then different people give their different perceptions of what happened. We then have to look at those different perceptions and make up our own minds as to where the truth lies. As a race, we seem inclined to look for something that fits the 'story' structure; we look for explanations that have a clearly defined beginning, middle, and end. The fact that our lives rarely fit the storybook mould doesn't seem to bother us; we expect the rest of the world to do so. So it's not really the truth we look for, but the story that we're most inclined to hear.
But of course, that's just my perception of the truth. Yours could be completely different.
For example, think of any event witnessed by yourself and some of your friends. If I were to ask each and every one of you what happened at that event, would your stories be exactly the same? Of course they wouldn't; unless you'd had time to get your stories straight then everyone would give a slightly different version (I once sat in on police interviews with 3 clients accused of burglary. Their stories matched identically. Right down to the exact words used in answer to the questions. Astoundingly, the police didn't believe them. Mind you, I was their solicitor, and neither did I). Does that mean that one of you is telling the truth and the others are all lying? Well, perhaps it does (I'm sure we've all been guilty of embellishing a story), but I think it more likely that all of you will promise faithfully that you are giving me the truth.
So what does that mean? That we're a race of chronic liars (or, to use the correct name for a group of liars, lawyers)? Well, I like to display a little more faith in my fellow man, so I'm going to say that it does not (though if we really are all predisposed towards lying, that's probably another fib). What I think it does demonstrate is that the truth, far from always being something immutable and fixed in stone, is a little more flexible than we may have thought. The truth varies according to who it was that witnessed the event, and what their perception of it was.
Okay; that sounds like abstract bumslop of the worst kind so I'll explain myself a little more. The best place to see that the truth varies depending on your own perceptions is, perversely, politics. Usually, the wide and varied political spectrum is split into two for ease of identifying where one's basic sympathies are; left wing and right wing (or Liberal and Conservative). It is rare indeed that you'll find any sort of agreement between these two sides (mainly because the Conservatives want to preserve all the existing evils and injustices of the world. Liberals want to replace them with an entirely new set of evils and injustices), and you will see this being reflected in the media. There are left wing papers (The Guardian, The Mirror) and right wing (The Times, The Mail). Generally speaking they report on much the same stories. But the reports are rather different to one another.
Take the recent and continuing war in Iraq. Should you read the Mail (assuming you can find news about the war in between the pages and pages of jingoistic, anti-immigrant bile) , then the invasion wasn't just necessary, it was an imperative. It was about freeing a nation from a tyrant. The subsequent steady stream of dead soldiers and civilians is regrettable but shouldn't affect our resolve to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. If however you read the Guardian, then the war is nothing more than a grab for resources by the Americans. The soldiers dying every day are evidence that the Iraqi people don't want the kind of freedom offered to them by an invading army. The indisputable fact is that Iraq was invaded. Yet here are two wildly different versions of just why it happened, and what the result is.
I have my own bias; I'm more inclined to find the left wing version of events more to my liking. And I can produce all manner of reasons and justifications as to why I believe it that are, in my mind, unassailable. Yet I've spoken to people who are equally as adamant that the political right is, well, right. And they (well...some of them) can produce completely valid facts and figures that would seem to prove that they are correct and I am mistaken (and what with my temper, mistaken at the top of my voice). How can this be? Well, mainly because we look for the facts that back up our beliefs and then do our best to either ignore those tricky points that debunk our opinions, or we look for more facts to make those troublesome opposing ideas seem like naively held beliefs at best, lies at worst.
Of course, I'm just talking about people who are able to articulate just why they hold the beliefs they do, and why they believe in one version of events rather than another. I'm excluding entirely another category of people; those screeching idiots who are only able to shout down an opposing view. I'm inclined to believe that these people are not remotely interested in the truth, be it universal or not. Being too stupid to have any actual beliefs of their own, they are interested only in one thing; being seen to be right. Happily, these people are incredibly easy to humiliate into silence; try pressing them on specific facts and watch them dissolve into a red-faced, teary-eyed mess reduced to ranting "You're wrong!" ad infinitum. Unfortunately, an awful lot of these type of people seem to hold fairly important positions in society, and so it means we actually give credence to the menstrual waste that they laughably refer to as their version of the truth.
As a side note, if I had to pick one of the many insultingly idiotic arguments used by this group of people to justify why their blinkered Me-Muppetry cannot be disproved by any available facts as the worst, it would have to be "The media is biased towards the Liberals/Conservatives (delete according to political affiliation), so they will never report facts that prove what I say is right. Not that they have to, because I'm right and I know I am. And if you disagree, you're an idiot". These are always the same people who will cheerfully refer to newspaper articles that support whatever they're braying out as proof of how clever they are. Funnily, they only accuse the media of bias when they produce something that disagrees with them, but I digress.
What I'm driving at in this little rant is that we cannot expect to get a nice, neat version of events that is the undisputed truth. Usually, an event happens. Then different people give their different perceptions of what happened. We then have to look at those different perceptions and make up our own minds as to where the truth lies. As a race, we seem inclined to look for something that fits the 'story' structure; we look for explanations that have a clearly defined beginning, middle, and end. The fact that our lives rarely fit the storybook mould doesn't seem to bother us; we expect the rest of the world to do so. So it's not really the truth we look for, but the story that we're most inclined to hear.
But of course, that's just my perception of the truth. Yours could be completely different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)