One A stands for America, one for Afghanistan. Laboured, hackneyed, and a bit shit as a title. Much like this rant.
Well, what with the World Cup providing further reasons to laugh at French people until they cry, India and Pakistan eyeballing each other across Kashmir, and Big Brother ruling the airwaves, I've found my attention has been very successfully drawn away from that most epically boring yet unpleasantly important of issue's; the War Against Terror. In truth, it's been rather relaxing not watching the news and having at least one "Oh no, what has he done NOW?" moment whenever the US President hoves into view. But as John Gotti might have said (well...actually he probably said "Arrrggh...." and then choked slowly to death on his throat cancer, and good bloody riddance to him) "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". So whilst it's a bit melodramatic (not to mention egotistical) to imply that Dubya is my enemy, he's certainly someone who causes me a lot of concern and so I like to keep up to date with what he's up to. If only so that my imagination doesn't run away with me trying to guess what amount of fuckwittage he's inflicting on the rest of the world...
But enough of my own little neuroses; what's been happening recently? Particularly in America (where the first terrorist atrocities of the war were committed) and Afghanistan (where the first shots of the war were fired).
The USA is of course the main prosecutor of the war against terror. Since 11th September there have been numerous developments (the most pathetic of which concerns those British people who wrote to complain about how the date was being expressed as 9/11 in the American fashion rather than 11/9 in the British; isn't it nice to know that in the wake of the worst loss of civilian life for year, people can still be as petty and xenophobic as ever. Almost makes one proud to live in the UK...), although you would be forgiven for missing them because apparently the media aren't interested in stories that don't involve big explosions or pitched battles. As I'm going to spend a bit of time criticising the US government for it's current stance, I suppose I should make one thing clear to silence the inevitable bleating of those right wingers who believe that any questioning of government policy concerning the War is tantamount to shopping for Semtex and changing one's name to Usama. I continue to believe that the US was fully justified in starting this war. Their country had been shat upon from a very great height and to expect them to sit back and do nothing whilst various debates concerning the morality of war raged on was unrealistic. Any claims that the US is acting like a bully toward Afghanistan are equally as disingenuous. Yes, the US is far and away superior to the Taliban in military terms. But I'm inclined to think that it's not America's fault that the nation responsible for it's woes is as developed as medieval Europe. What should they have done? Only sent in low-tech equipment to make it a fair fight? Most critics would say black if a US spokesman said white, and I wish they'd be honest about their own motivation for trying to discredit any and every American statement and action.
That said I'm now going to be unpleasant about American statements and actions. My personal bias comes from the fact that I believe the upper echelons of the Republican Party to be venal, corrupt, stupid old men. And as venal, corrupt and stupid goes George W. Bush is pretty much the pinnacle of achievement. There are numerous things that one could pick out to exemplify this, so let's start with the semi-regular terrorist alerts that are becoming a feature of American life.
Basically, it would seem that the many and varied intelligence agencies of America are somewhat embarrassed at having missed the fact that a major terrorist attack was brewing in early September. Because of this, they are now ready to warn the US public of imminent terrorist attacks on the basis of such evidence as "Well, the Golden Gate Bridge is pretty big and if I were a terrorist, that's where I would attack". However, it is interesting to note that these warnings only seem to occur when the government finds itself facing criticism. So are we seeing the FBI, CIA, NSA, and however many other alphabet agencies there are being over cautious? Or are we seeing a government who cheated their way to victory doing their level best to cheat further still?
Take, for example, the May arrest of Abdullah al-Muhajir. This American gentleman, formerly known as Chicago gang member Jose Padilla (incidentally, I did hear of someone who honestly believed that the airlines could once again be made safe by running double checks on anyone who looks like a Moslem, or who has an Islamic name; what a fucking boy genius he is! The fact that Al-Quaida has a huge amount of support in, for example, the Philippines or Indonesia where such names as Edilberto Adan are commonplace doesn't seem to have troubled him...) has been detained by the US on the grounds that he was part of an Al-Quaida plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in America. The evidence for this is...well, we don't actually know what the evidence is as he hasn't been before a court as yet, nor is he likely to. Instead, he's been handed over to the military where he will be held indefinitely.
Now again, I should make it clear that I would be a fool to disapprove of heightened security in America these days. And if this man was indeed planning something of this magnitude then the US is certainly doing the right thing in apprehending him. But even leaving aside the fact that the atrocity he is accused of planning is identical to that of the upcoming film 'The Sum of All Fears', holding a man in indefinite military custody when absolutely no evidence that he was involved in any such plot has been presented...well, isn't that just a little bit totalitarian? Why is the government so afraid of giving us a few little tidbits to satisfy the public that there was indeed such a threat? If nothing else, it would piss on the chips of people like me who enjoy nothing more than being given an excuse to criticise a blundering and stupid government led by a blundering and stupid man. There have been so many false alarms and exercises in misdirection by Dubya's government that there is more than a touch of the boy who cried wolf about this.
As we finish looking at America, it is also worth looking at Dubya's favourite soundbite, the Axis of Evil. He recently extended this group to include Cuba. For some reason, he chose to announce this in Florida, co-incidentally the state where his brother is running for re-election and where there are huge numbers of anti-Castro Cuban expatriates registered as voters. It's also the state that won the presidency for Dubya. When members of his own party are criticising Dubya for his cack-handed attempt to further demonise a country where, if you believe some Americans, is holiday home to all that is evil and satanic, it leads me to believe that perhaps Dubya isn't interested in pursuing the war against terror in order to safeguard the people who elected him. He's doing it to safeguard his re-election prospects. Not that that should be a surprise to anybody, but it's nice to have some tangible proof of this.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan nothing very much happened. Well...that's not true of course, it's just that India and Pakistan held the potential for far greater fireworks, and so Afghanistan was ignored. But there has been much activity over there. Coalition soldiers have scoured the country and found approximately no Taliban or Al-Quaida troops (they're all in Pakistan, or perhaps even Kashmir by now...). So they've had to be content with blowing up the cave networks and ammunition dumps that were left behind. It might not be very exciting, but taking away the mountain hideaways is a fairly substantial step towards lasting stability in the region. After all, it's difficult to be a successful guerilla fighter if you can't run and hide after taking a few potshots at the army that vastly outnumbers you.In the meantime, the interim government has been busy trying to create a permanent and lasting democratic and transparent government. Naturally, for a country whose idea of human rights was, until recently, giving the condemned man a blindfold, there have been problems doing this. A tribal power struggle is going on behind the scenes as various clan leaders and warlords jockey for position in the new government. The former king has even had to go on record to say that he does not intend to reclaim the throne (and give a veneer of legitimacy to some very unsavoury people who would use him as a figurehead for their government).
Many commentators have used this power struggle as an excuse to look down their noses at the Afghanistani's, citing it as proof that they are nothing better than savages and should be left to their own devices. Hm, well yes I can see how it is unreasonable of them not to have developed the same level of transparency and efficiency in government in a few months when it took us in the west centuries to get from feudalism to democracy. How typically barbaric of them! And, as we have seen, the current American government isn't exactly something that should be aspired to. Who knows, maybe Afghanistan will create a government that really is democratic. And then America and the West can learn from them.
Wednesday, 12 June 2002
Tuesday, 11 June 2002
Commercial Break
Adverts are a fact of life now. Rather than railing against them all, I prefer to rail against unimaginative and shitty adverts. That still leaves no shortage of material.
Advertising. Doesn't it just bug the hell out of you? Don't you find your blood steadily begin to boil as those insipid, simpering fuckwits on the Halifax advert commit yet another crime against nature with that godawful advertising campaign? Does anyone else find that they can no longer watch a Werther's Original advert without thinking of a Grandfather being arrested for committing paedophillic acts on his grandson and then giving him sweets to keep quiet? Would you take out insurance with a firm whose jingle and phone/car-hybrid mascot are without doubt the most annoying thing on television and, were it not for the UK's strict gun laws, would be responsible for the thousands of TV repairmen being called out to repair gunshot damage to televisions? No? Then why the hell not?! Is advertising responsible for dumbing down and selling out (depending on whether you watch or star in an advertisement) or is it just doing what it says on the tin; bringing goods and services to our attention and not much more?
Looking at what advertising is and what it actually does is nothing new, and for a supposedly ephemeral industry, it generates pretty strong feelings. Bill Hicks said that anyone involved in advertising should kill himself or herself in order to save their own souls. He also said that the words of an artist who has appeared in an advert were like turds falling into his drink. This may be funny, it may even be true, but is it fair? Why should adverts attract such a stigma, to the extent that some actors only appear in commercials that are guaranteed not to be shown to their domestic audience? (any number of Hollywood A-list stars have starred in advertisements for Japanese products for example)
One of the reasons why adverts so offended Bill Hicks (and many others) was that they cheapen art. By art, I mean any artistic expression be it painting, acting, singing, etc. A program called The Day Today showed a spoof advert featuring Nirvana using a similar song to "Smells like Teen Spirit" to advertise panty liners. The sketch was funny to me because I simply couldn't imagine Kurt Cobain 'selling out' and allowing his music to be used on adverts (of course, since his death and the passing of copyright to Courtney Love, Nirvana songs have began to show up in commercial breaks; she truly is a Yoko Ono for the 21st century). By contrast, no-one was surprised in the least when the Spice Girls appeared in adverts for Pepsi (amongst many, many other things). Nirvana were (and still are) viewed as serious artists who wrote music because it was something imperative to them, whereas the Spice Girls were (and still are) regarded as money whores who would have advertised Zyklon-B if they'd been offered enough cash.
Let's stay with the Spice Girls example; the multitude of products they advertised increased their profile with the public. The product's profile was also raised by having well known people advertise it. Would a multinational company like Pepsi have asked them to star in an advertising campaign if they weren't high profile (and presumably, high earners) as well? And would the Spice Girls have appeared in the commercials for anything other than a huge amount of money? It doesn't take a genius to work out that the answer to both of those questions is no. But should that actually matter? Well, from one point of view, definitely. If artists stopped relying on inspiration that comes from within and started basing their work on the desires of a big spending corporation, then the world would be a less interesting place. Would Da Vinci have painted the Mona Lisa? ("The thing is Leonardo, the sponsors just don't like the smile. Teeth and tits my friend; now THAT sells!") Would Shakespeare have written so much and with such quality? ("Now then William; we need to do something about the witches in Macbeth. Ugly old women just don't fly in today's market. The young people find them repulsive and the old people get offended. Now if they were sexy young witches who seduced Macbeth...maybe one of them could fall in love with him, so we won't need Lady Macbeth...c'mon Will, work with me here...").
It's pretty obvious that I'm biased about this, but I do tend to think that the advertising industry should keep it's grubby little hands to itself when it comes to images and idea's that have been inspirational, or hilarious, or uplifting to other people. For example; Samuel L Jackson, the baaaadest motherfucka ever to appear on a cinema screen, Mace Windu and Shaft combined, recently did an advert for Barclays Bank. It was quite obvious that Barclays wished to associate their name with the extraordinary coolness that is synonymous with Sam. What we actually got was Sam making some sort of Jedi-inspired speech about finance that probably left a bad taste in his mouth. The net effect of that advert has been to lower him in many people's estimation. And Barclays? There is still nothing cool or Jedi-like about high street banking. So why did he do it? Simple; for the money. And should we think "Good for him"? Well, you can if you like, but wouldn't you have rather the money spent on an expensive advertising campaign be spent on improving their service? (and perhaps to plug up my overdraft? I wonder if Sam Jackson has ever in his life received a letter from his bank telling him he's exceeded his limit again...).
With all of that said, one of the reasons that I personally dislike adverts is because the vast majority of them are utter toss. I object to sitting through a mercenary attempt to sell me the food/drink/bra that will change my life when the advert promoting it doesn't engage or entertain me. I'm happy to say that advertising has no effect on my spending habits, so I don't think I'm being too hypocritical by saying that all I want out of an advert is a 30 second burst of entertainment. For example, I love the new Mr. Kipling's cake adverts that portray him as a sadistic, malicious, selfish git. But I only enjoy them because I remember the adverts for the same product in the 80's, where Mr. Kipling was a genial and good natured old duffer who sounded disturbing like the Emperor in Return of the Jedi. Watching the new adverts is rather like discovering a kindly old uncle is on the FBI 10 most wanted list (and yes, the fact that I find THAT funny probably says far too much about my sense of humour...).
Adverts do have the potential to gain artistic merit in their own right, but all too often they are either obvious pieces of plagiarism (a McDonalds advertising campaign of a few years ago was a shoddy rip off of the spoof 'Top Tips' section of Viz magazine), anodyne, limp wristed shite (the Halifax adverts, in trying to be inoffensive adverts that the whole family can enjoy, have become the biggest cause of increased blood pressure in my house since the announcement that N'Sync may be appearing in Attack of the Clones), or just plain dreadful (an advert for water filters was on TV recently; I forget the name of the filter, but the advert will live with me for all time due to it's wooden acting and 80's soap opera plot). Yet the people who work for advertising agencies are, by and large, creative and imaginative people, so there is no reason why most adverts shouldn't be as fun to watch as the programs that they interrupt (or even more so if most TV these days is anything to go by). Ok, so their work is going to be used as a sales pitch. So what? No-one forces anyone to buy something on the strength of an advert. Commercials and advertisements are here and they can't be uninvented or made to go away, and there are more of them in a wider range of places than ever before. So can we at least make them worth watching? Surely that's not too much to ask of the industry that convinced us that Dr Pepper is a nice tasting drink.
Advertising. Doesn't it just bug the hell out of you? Don't you find your blood steadily begin to boil as those insipid, simpering fuckwits on the Halifax advert commit yet another crime against nature with that godawful advertising campaign? Does anyone else find that they can no longer watch a Werther's Original advert without thinking of a Grandfather being arrested for committing paedophillic acts on his grandson and then giving him sweets to keep quiet? Would you take out insurance with a firm whose jingle and phone/car-hybrid mascot are without doubt the most annoying thing on television and, were it not for the UK's strict gun laws, would be responsible for the thousands of TV repairmen being called out to repair gunshot damage to televisions? No? Then why the hell not?! Is advertising responsible for dumbing down and selling out (depending on whether you watch or star in an advertisement) or is it just doing what it says on the tin; bringing goods and services to our attention and not much more?
Looking at what advertising is and what it actually does is nothing new, and for a supposedly ephemeral industry, it generates pretty strong feelings. Bill Hicks said that anyone involved in advertising should kill himself or herself in order to save their own souls. He also said that the words of an artist who has appeared in an advert were like turds falling into his drink. This may be funny, it may even be true, but is it fair? Why should adverts attract such a stigma, to the extent that some actors only appear in commercials that are guaranteed not to be shown to their domestic audience? (any number of Hollywood A-list stars have starred in advertisements for Japanese products for example)
One of the reasons why adverts so offended Bill Hicks (and many others) was that they cheapen art. By art, I mean any artistic expression be it painting, acting, singing, etc. A program called The Day Today showed a spoof advert featuring Nirvana using a similar song to "Smells like Teen Spirit" to advertise panty liners. The sketch was funny to me because I simply couldn't imagine Kurt Cobain 'selling out' and allowing his music to be used on adverts (of course, since his death and the passing of copyright to Courtney Love, Nirvana songs have began to show up in commercial breaks; she truly is a Yoko Ono for the 21st century). By contrast, no-one was surprised in the least when the Spice Girls appeared in adverts for Pepsi (amongst many, many other things). Nirvana were (and still are) viewed as serious artists who wrote music because it was something imperative to them, whereas the Spice Girls were (and still are) regarded as money whores who would have advertised Zyklon-B if they'd been offered enough cash.
Let's stay with the Spice Girls example; the multitude of products they advertised increased their profile with the public. The product's profile was also raised by having well known people advertise it. Would a multinational company like Pepsi have asked them to star in an advertising campaign if they weren't high profile (and presumably, high earners) as well? And would the Spice Girls have appeared in the commercials for anything other than a huge amount of money? It doesn't take a genius to work out that the answer to both of those questions is no. But should that actually matter? Well, from one point of view, definitely. If artists stopped relying on inspiration that comes from within and started basing their work on the desires of a big spending corporation, then the world would be a less interesting place. Would Da Vinci have painted the Mona Lisa? ("The thing is Leonardo, the sponsors just don't like the smile. Teeth and tits my friend; now THAT sells!") Would Shakespeare have written so much and with such quality? ("Now then William; we need to do something about the witches in Macbeth. Ugly old women just don't fly in today's market. The young people find them repulsive and the old people get offended. Now if they were sexy young witches who seduced Macbeth...maybe one of them could fall in love with him, so we won't need Lady Macbeth...c'mon Will, work with me here...").
It's pretty obvious that I'm biased about this, but I do tend to think that the advertising industry should keep it's grubby little hands to itself when it comes to images and idea's that have been inspirational, or hilarious, or uplifting to other people. For example; Samuel L Jackson, the baaaadest motherfucka ever to appear on a cinema screen, Mace Windu and Shaft combined, recently did an advert for Barclays Bank. It was quite obvious that Barclays wished to associate their name with the extraordinary coolness that is synonymous with Sam. What we actually got was Sam making some sort of Jedi-inspired speech about finance that probably left a bad taste in his mouth. The net effect of that advert has been to lower him in many people's estimation. And Barclays? There is still nothing cool or Jedi-like about high street banking. So why did he do it? Simple; for the money. And should we think "Good for him"? Well, you can if you like, but wouldn't you have rather the money spent on an expensive advertising campaign be spent on improving their service? (and perhaps to plug up my overdraft? I wonder if Sam Jackson has ever in his life received a letter from his bank telling him he's exceeded his limit again...).
With all of that said, one of the reasons that I personally dislike adverts is because the vast majority of them are utter toss. I object to sitting through a mercenary attempt to sell me the food/drink/bra that will change my life when the advert promoting it doesn't engage or entertain me. I'm happy to say that advertising has no effect on my spending habits, so I don't think I'm being too hypocritical by saying that all I want out of an advert is a 30 second burst of entertainment. For example, I love the new Mr. Kipling's cake adverts that portray him as a sadistic, malicious, selfish git. But I only enjoy them because I remember the adverts for the same product in the 80's, where Mr. Kipling was a genial and good natured old duffer who sounded disturbing like the Emperor in Return of the Jedi. Watching the new adverts is rather like discovering a kindly old uncle is on the FBI 10 most wanted list (and yes, the fact that I find THAT funny probably says far too much about my sense of humour...).
Adverts do have the potential to gain artistic merit in their own right, but all too often they are either obvious pieces of plagiarism (a McDonalds advertising campaign of a few years ago was a shoddy rip off of the spoof 'Top Tips' section of Viz magazine), anodyne, limp wristed shite (the Halifax adverts, in trying to be inoffensive adverts that the whole family can enjoy, have become the biggest cause of increased blood pressure in my house since the announcement that N'Sync may be appearing in Attack of the Clones), or just plain dreadful (an advert for water filters was on TV recently; I forget the name of the filter, but the advert will live with me for all time due to it's wooden acting and 80's soap opera plot). Yet the people who work for advertising agencies are, by and large, creative and imaginative people, so there is no reason why most adverts shouldn't be as fun to watch as the programs that they interrupt (or even more so if most TV these days is anything to go by). Ok, so their work is going to be used as a sales pitch. So what? No-one forces anyone to buy something on the strength of an advert. Commercials and advertisements are here and they can't be uninvented or made to go away, and there are more of them in a wider range of places than ever before. So can we at least make them worth watching? Surely that's not too much to ask of the industry that convinced us that Dr Pepper is a nice tasting drink.
Monday, 27 May 2002
Kashmir
Until this rant, I only ever thought of Kashmir as a rather good Led Zep song.
So then; India and Pakistan. You can't leave them alone for a minute these days. Even if they both promise to be on their best behaviour, the second you turn your back they're busy threatening each other with mutual annihilation, the naughty little tricksters. Should we be worried about the reports emerging from the sub-continent (that tend to get tucked away behind more important news stories such as Jordan giving birth, or the new series of Big Brother) or is it yet another case where we will see the international equivalent of 2 blokes squaring up to each other on a Saturday night whilst their girlfriends screech "He's not worth it Kev, just leave it!" in the background?
Before attempting to unravel just why these two countries are currently behaving in the same way that England and France wish they still could, it's worth having a look at the history behind the two. In recent history, it all began when England got it's wrist slapped for still having an Empire at the end of WWII. Part of that Empire was the Indian sub-continent. In 1947-8, there were various elections and statutes aimed at dismantling the British Empire. The elections on the subcontinent showed that the majority of people in what is now Pakistan (it was West Pakistan; East Pakistan is now Bangladesh, but as it is a country made up almost entirely of mud, sediment, and poverty, India rarely seems to feel the need to rattle it's sabre to the east) wanted a Muslim state whilst the people of India were predominantly Hindu with a sizeable Sikh minority. So, hence the division of the subcontinent into Hindu India and Moslem Pakistan.
This all seems fairly reasonable so far. But, as is clearly stated in the United Nations Charter, paragraph 15; "Every silver lining must have a cloud". In this case, the cloud has turned out to be Kashmir. And it's a pretty substantial cloud too judging by the fact that India and Pakistan have either been at war or threatening to go to war over Kashmir for the last 40 or 50 years. And the reason that they're willing to go to war over it is that, thanks to those elections in 1947-8, it's currently divided between the two, completely owned by neither one country nor the other.
Now you may think that this tells you everything that you need to know about the current situation; 2 countries, both of whom are saying "Mine! Gimme!" about a piece of land on their border where the population are divided by religion. Not entirely dissimilar to Northern Ireland really, correct? Nope, alas not. I've been doing a little background research concerning Kashmir (which was previously best known to me as the title of a rather good Led Zeppelin tune, which was itself ripped off by such luminaries as Puff Daddy for a film about a dinosaur, and by the BBC for their World Cup coverage) and I find that things are not quite that straightforward.
Kashmir was a separate kingdom for many centuries. Although it was divided along religious lines, it's cultural makeup is almost entirely Persian, meaning that they have more in common with Iran than either India or Pakistan. As such, Kashmir wants to be independent from both nations. As to whether they could run the country without it degenerating into either a bloodbath (the fear of Humanitarians) or a haven for terrorists (the fear of Politicians)....well, barring the occasional bout of religious zeal (funny how absolute devotion to religions that are supposed to be about Brotherhood tends to get expressed by a desire to kill as many human beings in as short a space of time as possible...), the Hindu and Moslem populations lived together in relative peace. Now the poor bastards are being used to represent the India-Pakistan antipathy in microcosm. The conflict over Kashmir has, in fact, got almost nothing to do with Kashmir. Like most bad things in the world, it's about national pride and international politics.
For example, India and Pakistan are neighbours and rivals. The issue of Kashmir has been grinding along for some time now. Occasionally, peace talks are mooted and these usually centre round the idea that maybe a place that was independent for most of recorded history should be independent once more. Then, once everyone gets round the table, one side or other finds an excuse for not talking to the other, everyone goes away in a huff, and the people of Kashmir find that their country is once more being used as battlefield practice by the Indian military and Pakistan sponsored Islamic militants.
As to why both nations behave with the maturity of England fan after seeing Germany getting beat 5 – 1... well that would take a lot more time than I currently have to look at. But in short, India doesn't want to give up any territory as it would
A: Be regarded as giving in to Islamic militant terrorists, and
B: Have to give up some land. And it's their land. And no one else can have it. So yah, boo, sucks to you.
Pakistan is also rather reluctant to settle the issue. Their reasons are somewhat different. As we have had demonstrated to us over the last few months, Pakistan has a rich and proud tradition of producing Islamic militants so toe-curlingly insane that they make Fred and Rose West look like Zippy and George. When these happy go lucky types aren't calling for death to anyone who has committed the heinous crime of not being a Moslem, they're generally calling for the overthrow of the government in order to replace it with something like hell on earth. The Pakistani government has previously dealt with this in two way; the first was to encourage said fanatics to go to Afghanistan and fight their ideological battles against other Moslems. The second was to encourage them to go to Kashmir and fight for the liberation of their Moslem brothers and sisters.
As they no longer have the first option open to them (well...not whilst America is looking on), that leaves Kashmir as the only option. Or in other words, it suits Pakistan to leave Kashmir divided as it takes care of a possible domestic problem. It suits India to do so because angry rhetoric over Kashmir is a sure-fire vote winner. The only people who it doesn't suit are the people of Kashmir. And why should anyone care about them when they're not a real country anyway?
And so, because no-one in the world really cared too much about Indians and Pakistanis killing Kashmiri’s and each other with gay abandon, the whole rather shabby mess has been allowed to degenerate further still. And now, suddenly, everyone is paying attention and sweating gently with fear. Why? Good old nuclear weapons, that's why! As it's painfully clear how frightened I am of Nuclear War, I won't restate the point again (although if a nuclear war does break out in the next few weeks, the biggest concentration of journalists from around the world are going to be a stones throw away in Japan for the World Cup. Does anyone else find the idea of John Motson commentating on the apocalypse rather amusing, or is it just me?). But what I will say is that it's funny how the rest of the world only started caring about Kashmir when it became clear that it might be about to be reduced to molten rock along with the Indian subcontinent and most of the southern former Soviet republics. Not to mention the cataclysmic effect on the world's eco-system that even a small scale nuclear war would have. In other words, the second it started looking like it might affect us, then we're all ears.
Happily, the warlike posturing of both nations is beginning to die down a little. Presumably the leaders of both countries recognise that they would like to have countries left to lead. But in a strange sort of way I find myself applauding both of them. After all, it's nice of them to remind the US and Europe that, if we insist on allowing nations we regard as lesser or inferior to try and obliterate each other when in it's our interests to allow them to do so, and if we arm those nations to help them along, then we shouldn't be too surprised when they decide to go the whole hog and develop the most destructive weapons of all. With luck, one day the supposedly civilised West will realise that a peaceful and contented life for all is in everyone's best interests. Until then we can look forward to various 'patriots' continuing to demand that other countries sort their own mess out, whilst burying their heads in the sand as to who is responsible for the mess in the first place.
So then; India and Pakistan. You can't leave them alone for a minute these days. Even if they both promise to be on their best behaviour, the second you turn your back they're busy threatening each other with mutual annihilation, the naughty little tricksters. Should we be worried about the reports emerging from the sub-continent (that tend to get tucked away behind more important news stories such as Jordan giving birth, or the new series of Big Brother) or is it yet another case where we will see the international equivalent of 2 blokes squaring up to each other on a Saturday night whilst their girlfriends screech "He's not worth it Kev, just leave it!" in the background?
Before attempting to unravel just why these two countries are currently behaving in the same way that England and France wish they still could, it's worth having a look at the history behind the two. In recent history, it all began when England got it's wrist slapped for still having an Empire at the end of WWII. Part of that Empire was the Indian sub-continent. In 1947-8, there were various elections and statutes aimed at dismantling the British Empire. The elections on the subcontinent showed that the majority of people in what is now Pakistan (it was West Pakistan; East Pakistan is now Bangladesh, but as it is a country made up almost entirely of mud, sediment, and poverty, India rarely seems to feel the need to rattle it's sabre to the east) wanted a Muslim state whilst the people of India were predominantly Hindu with a sizeable Sikh minority. So, hence the division of the subcontinent into Hindu India and Moslem Pakistan.
This all seems fairly reasonable so far. But, as is clearly stated in the United Nations Charter, paragraph 15; "Every silver lining must have a cloud". In this case, the cloud has turned out to be Kashmir. And it's a pretty substantial cloud too judging by the fact that India and Pakistan have either been at war or threatening to go to war over Kashmir for the last 40 or 50 years. And the reason that they're willing to go to war over it is that, thanks to those elections in 1947-8, it's currently divided between the two, completely owned by neither one country nor the other.
Now you may think that this tells you everything that you need to know about the current situation; 2 countries, both of whom are saying "Mine! Gimme!" about a piece of land on their border where the population are divided by religion. Not entirely dissimilar to Northern Ireland really, correct? Nope, alas not. I've been doing a little background research concerning Kashmir (which was previously best known to me as the title of a rather good Led Zeppelin tune, which was itself ripped off by such luminaries as Puff Daddy for a film about a dinosaur, and by the BBC for their World Cup coverage) and I find that things are not quite that straightforward.
Kashmir was a separate kingdom for many centuries. Although it was divided along religious lines, it's cultural makeup is almost entirely Persian, meaning that they have more in common with Iran than either India or Pakistan. As such, Kashmir wants to be independent from both nations. As to whether they could run the country without it degenerating into either a bloodbath (the fear of Humanitarians) or a haven for terrorists (the fear of Politicians)....well, barring the occasional bout of religious zeal (funny how absolute devotion to religions that are supposed to be about Brotherhood tends to get expressed by a desire to kill as many human beings in as short a space of time as possible...), the Hindu and Moslem populations lived together in relative peace. Now the poor bastards are being used to represent the India-Pakistan antipathy in microcosm. The conflict over Kashmir has, in fact, got almost nothing to do with Kashmir. Like most bad things in the world, it's about national pride and international politics.
For example, India and Pakistan are neighbours and rivals. The issue of Kashmir has been grinding along for some time now. Occasionally, peace talks are mooted and these usually centre round the idea that maybe a place that was independent for most of recorded history should be independent once more. Then, once everyone gets round the table, one side or other finds an excuse for not talking to the other, everyone goes away in a huff, and the people of Kashmir find that their country is once more being used as battlefield practice by the Indian military and Pakistan sponsored Islamic militants.
As to why both nations behave with the maturity of England fan after seeing Germany getting beat 5 – 1... well that would take a lot more time than I currently have to look at. But in short, India doesn't want to give up any territory as it would
A: Be regarded as giving in to Islamic militant terrorists, and
B: Have to give up some land. And it's their land. And no one else can have it. So yah, boo, sucks to you.
Pakistan is also rather reluctant to settle the issue. Their reasons are somewhat different. As we have had demonstrated to us over the last few months, Pakistan has a rich and proud tradition of producing Islamic militants so toe-curlingly insane that they make Fred and Rose West look like Zippy and George. When these happy go lucky types aren't calling for death to anyone who has committed the heinous crime of not being a Moslem, they're generally calling for the overthrow of the government in order to replace it with something like hell on earth. The Pakistani government has previously dealt with this in two way; the first was to encourage said fanatics to go to Afghanistan and fight their ideological battles against other Moslems. The second was to encourage them to go to Kashmir and fight for the liberation of their Moslem brothers and sisters.
As they no longer have the first option open to them (well...not whilst America is looking on), that leaves Kashmir as the only option. Or in other words, it suits Pakistan to leave Kashmir divided as it takes care of a possible domestic problem. It suits India to do so because angry rhetoric over Kashmir is a sure-fire vote winner. The only people who it doesn't suit are the people of Kashmir. And why should anyone care about them when they're not a real country anyway?
And so, because no-one in the world really cared too much about Indians and Pakistanis killing Kashmiri’s and each other with gay abandon, the whole rather shabby mess has been allowed to degenerate further still. And now, suddenly, everyone is paying attention and sweating gently with fear. Why? Good old nuclear weapons, that's why! As it's painfully clear how frightened I am of Nuclear War, I won't restate the point again (although if a nuclear war does break out in the next few weeks, the biggest concentration of journalists from around the world are going to be a stones throw away in Japan for the World Cup. Does anyone else find the idea of John Motson commentating on the apocalypse rather amusing, or is it just me?). But what I will say is that it's funny how the rest of the world only started caring about Kashmir when it became clear that it might be about to be reduced to molten rock along with the Indian subcontinent and most of the southern former Soviet republics. Not to mention the cataclysmic effect on the world's eco-system that even a small scale nuclear war would have. In other words, the second it started looking like it might affect us, then we're all ears.
Happily, the warlike posturing of both nations is beginning to die down a little. Presumably the leaders of both countries recognise that they would like to have countries left to lead. But in a strange sort of way I find myself applauding both of them. After all, it's nice of them to remind the US and Europe that, if we insist on allowing nations we regard as lesser or inferior to try and obliterate each other when in it's our interests to allow them to do so, and if we arm those nations to help them along, then we shouldn't be too surprised when they decide to go the whole hog and develop the most destructive weapons of all. With luck, one day the supposedly civilised West will realise that a peaceful and contented life for all is in everyone's best interests. Until then we can look forward to various 'patriots' continuing to demand that other countries sort their own mess out, whilst burying their heads in the sand as to who is responsible for the mess in the first place.
Monday, 13 May 2002
Women, eh?
This is what happens when a gobshite fails to get laid.
Women: You're all a bunch of fucking arseholes.
Okay, I realise that perhaps that seems a trifle harsh. Misogynistic even. D'you know something? I am now completely past giving even the remotest semblance of a shit whether it is or not. I've been in the vilest mood for the last couple of months and last week I had a sudden moment of clarity as to exactly why this should be. After all, I'm in the (admittedly slow) process of getting together with the woman whom I love, my money problems of the last year are rapidly diminishing, and Newcastle are playing European football next year. What cloud could possibly darken the horizon for me? Let me give you a clue; any man who has ever heard the words "You're like a brother to me" or "You're my best friend" off an achingly gorgeous woman will almost certainly be horribly familiar with the tirade that is about to unfold.
I was, and continue to be, single from November 2000. For any young man, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. And so, remembering the advice given to me by my lady friends, I set about doing my best to attract and woo myself back into a relationship.
Okay, I've read that back and even I can see that it's bollocks. What actually happened was that I asked my friends how I could guarantee myself a shag. Not particularly chivalrous I admit but hey, I'd been in a relationship for 9 years; cut me a little bit of slack here.
Anyway the advice of the ladies was to be a gentleman (or at least appear as if you are one), be friendly (well duh...), don't be afraid to use flattery, and generally portray oneself as a decent bloke. However, it has become increasingly apparent over the last year and a bit that they were either;
A - Lying
B - Having a laugh at my expense
C- Kidding themselves, or
D- They have no idea what women want.
And what women want, what they really really want, is a complete and total bastard of a man who will treat them with supreme indifference and, if they're really lucky, utter contempt. Well shit....
Now then; seeing as I've already discussed this with some of my lady friends, and seeing as the reaction has uniformly been "No we don't, women want a nice man who'll make them feel special", I feel that at this point I should offer an example of the truth of this statement by way of an explanation as to why I've come to this conclusion. And it's quite a simple one really. You see, I split from my girlfriend at about the same time as a former friend of mine split from his wife. I have, almost without exception, tried to behave like a gent in that time. I realise that, for those of you who know me and are aware of just how stultifying unpleasant and sarcastic I can be, this may seem difficult to swallow (though not nearly as difficult as it is to persuade a young lady to do so...). Believe me, it wasn't easy for me to keep hidden the bile and rancour that comes so naturally to me! And, being human, I have once drifted over to the realm of bastard-dom myself. But by and large, I've done my best to be a decent human being.
In the meantime, my erstwhile former friend behaved like a complete shit; sleeping with his best friends girlfriend, copping off with his step-sister in a nightclub mere months before her wedding (to another friend of his), getting one of his housemates drunk so that he could get her into bed, doing his best to make sure that the blame for any and all of this landed anywhere but on his own head...you know, all the kind of stuff that a woman would say that she can't stand.
And yet, whereas I have found my testicles swelling to the size of a small cottage in Suffolk due an extraordinary lack of amorous activity, that bastard has had to order himself a bigger and shittier stick with which to beat off the colossal number of women who cannot wait to get their oestrogen swollen hands on him! I'VE BEEN LAID 3 TIMES IN 9 MONTHS!! IT'S NOT FUCKING RIGHT!!!
And it gets better; whenever I complain about this (and oh, how I complain...) I am told that I should be grateful! Why should I be grateful? Well, I have acquired a much better and trusting relationship with whichever particular woman I spent my time getting to know, being friendly toward, treating her with respect, etc, whereas every woman he has slept with can't stand the sight of him. Well, that's a massive consolation! I'm sure that the knowledge of how many good looking, sexually active, female friends I have with get me through the night WHEN I'M ON MY BASTARD OWN AGAIN! THAT FUCKING PRICK IS BALLS DEEP WHENEVER HE FUCKING WANTS! D'YOU THINK HE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT HAVING FRIENDS AT THE END OF IT?!
(Incidentally, I suppose that in the interests of candour, I should come clean and admit that he is a better-looking man than I am. Even so, I like to think I'm not a hideously disfigured Elephant man lookalike. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken in this belief...)
Yet the ladies still keep saying "No, we don't want a bastard. We want a nice man who...". And it's at that point that I usually lean in towards them and look them in the eye. I look them in the eye so that they know that what I'm about to say is important. And then, in a loud and clear voice, I say "Bollocks". Every single woman who has started this particular line has now met with that particular response. And with one exception, they have a track record with men that would put Eva Braun to shame. They have almost all, with very few exceptions, spent large portions of their time with bastards who treated them like badger poo. Those who have not are lying, gay, or are just too ashamed to admit that they have done. If ANYONE can respond to me and prove me wrong, then I will gladly offer a personal apology to them for implying that they have, at some point in their lives, gone out with a man whom they know in the depths of their soul to be a bad bastard who would bring them nothing but grief.
Still, I suppose that some women don't hanker after a bastard. These are the women whom the bastards consider too ugly to have anything to do with. After all, why should he when he can have his pick of gorgeous women, ALL OF WHOM COME CRYING TO THE LIKES OF ARSEHOLES LIKE ME WHEN IT ALL GOES TO SHIT!! I am SICK to death of this! I've lost count of how many teary and humiliated women I've sat with, reassuring them that no, they're not a vile freak of nature and yes, he obviously doesn't know what he's missing out on. Oh...and you're feeling better now? So...oh, there you go with another piece of shit who manages to both lower your self esteem AND convince you of how much you need him. Can you really blame me for being so pissed off about this?!
Honest to Christ, I'm really starting to think I should just cut the fucking thing off, or turn celibate, or try and convince myself I fancy other men; anything at all rather than go through the torturous routine of yet another woman bleating that "You wouldn't want to go out with me; my life is such a mess". Hm, yes, I'm sure that I'd want nothing to do with your exceptionally tight, pert little mess. Why that would just break my fucking heart...
If it's not that, it's a friend saying "Well, women tend to like a bit of a bastard when they're younger. They grow out of it though..." WHEN?! I'M TWENTY FUCKING SIX; HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO WAIT GODDAMMIT!?!! And now that I come to think about it, I'm not even sure I like that as an explanation; are they trying to say that they want excitement? Fuck me, I spend most days PRAYING for a less eventful life! I have an over-abundance of excitement in my life (except at work of course; how else would I have the time to write these angry little missives?), I dream of a truly dull week, so it can't be that I'm boring (I hope).
Anyway, the point of all of this...well, the point is for me to get this out of my system really, but I do have a point I want to make as well. More of a plea really (although, surprisingly, not for a shag; my former friend was often reduced to pleading and I have such contempt for him that I refuse to drop to his level); ladies, if you're going to be friends with a man then do him one massive favour from the outset; make it very VERY clear that you have no desire whatsoever to sleep with him. Honestly, it'll save a lot of time and heartache, and it will also mean that those men who remain your friends are REALLY your friends, and are not just hanging around in the desperate hope that one day you'll suddenly want to fuck them. That way, people like me with find it less intolerable seeing you walking out of the door, arm in arm with yet another complete fucking wanker.
Women: You're all a bunch of fucking arseholes.
Okay, I realise that perhaps that seems a trifle harsh. Misogynistic even. D'you know something? I am now completely past giving even the remotest semblance of a shit whether it is or not. I've been in the vilest mood for the last couple of months and last week I had a sudden moment of clarity as to exactly why this should be. After all, I'm in the (admittedly slow) process of getting together with the woman whom I love, my money problems of the last year are rapidly diminishing, and Newcastle are playing European football next year. What cloud could possibly darken the horizon for me? Let me give you a clue; any man who has ever heard the words "You're like a brother to me" or "You're my best friend" off an achingly gorgeous woman will almost certainly be horribly familiar with the tirade that is about to unfold.
I was, and continue to be, single from November 2000. For any young man, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. And so, remembering the advice given to me by my lady friends, I set about doing my best to attract and woo myself back into a relationship.
Okay, I've read that back and even I can see that it's bollocks. What actually happened was that I asked my friends how I could guarantee myself a shag. Not particularly chivalrous I admit but hey, I'd been in a relationship for 9 years; cut me a little bit of slack here.
Anyway the advice of the ladies was to be a gentleman (or at least appear as if you are one), be friendly (well duh...), don't be afraid to use flattery, and generally portray oneself as a decent bloke. However, it has become increasingly apparent over the last year and a bit that they were either;
A - Lying
B - Having a laugh at my expense
C- Kidding themselves, or
D- They have no idea what women want.
And what women want, what they really really want, is a complete and total bastard of a man who will treat them with supreme indifference and, if they're really lucky, utter contempt. Well shit....
Now then; seeing as I've already discussed this with some of my lady friends, and seeing as the reaction has uniformly been "No we don't, women want a nice man who'll make them feel special", I feel that at this point I should offer an example of the truth of this statement by way of an explanation as to why I've come to this conclusion. And it's quite a simple one really. You see, I split from my girlfriend at about the same time as a former friend of mine split from his wife. I have, almost without exception, tried to behave like a gent in that time. I realise that, for those of you who know me and are aware of just how stultifying unpleasant and sarcastic I can be, this may seem difficult to swallow (though not nearly as difficult as it is to persuade a young lady to do so...). Believe me, it wasn't easy for me to keep hidden the bile and rancour that comes so naturally to me! And, being human, I have once drifted over to the realm of bastard-dom myself. But by and large, I've done my best to be a decent human being.
In the meantime, my erstwhile former friend behaved like a complete shit; sleeping with his best friends girlfriend, copping off with his step-sister in a nightclub mere months before her wedding (to another friend of his), getting one of his housemates drunk so that he could get her into bed, doing his best to make sure that the blame for any and all of this landed anywhere but on his own head...you know, all the kind of stuff that a woman would say that she can't stand.
And yet, whereas I have found my testicles swelling to the size of a small cottage in Suffolk due an extraordinary lack of amorous activity, that bastard has had to order himself a bigger and shittier stick with which to beat off the colossal number of women who cannot wait to get their oestrogen swollen hands on him! I'VE BEEN LAID 3 TIMES IN 9 MONTHS!! IT'S NOT FUCKING RIGHT!!!
And it gets better; whenever I complain about this (and oh, how I complain...) I am told that I should be grateful! Why should I be grateful? Well, I have acquired a much better and trusting relationship with whichever particular woman I spent my time getting to know, being friendly toward, treating her with respect, etc, whereas every woman he has slept with can't stand the sight of him. Well, that's a massive consolation! I'm sure that the knowledge of how many good looking, sexually active, female friends I have with get me through the night WHEN I'M ON MY BASTARD OWN AGAIN! THAT FUCKING PRICK IS BALLS DEEP WHENEVER HE FUCKING WANTS! D'YOU THINK HE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT HAVING FRIENDS AT THE END OF IT?!
(Incidentally, I suppose that in the interests of candour, I should come clean and admit that he is a better-looking man than I am. Even so, I like to think I'm not a hideously disfigured Elephant man lookalike. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken in this belief...)
Yet the ladies still keep saying "No, we don't want a bastard. We want a nice man who...". And it's at that point that I usually lean in towards them and look them in the eye. I look them in the eye so that they know that what I'm about to say is important. And then, in a loud and clear voice, I say "Bollocks". Every single woman who has started this particular line has now met with that particular response. And with one exception, they have a track record with men that would put Eva Braun to shame. They have almost all, with very few exceptions, spent large portions of their time with bastards who treated them like badger poo. Those who have not are lying, gay, or are just too ashamed to admit that they have done. If ANYONE can respond to me and prove me wrong, then I will gladly offer a personal apology to them for implying that they have, at some point in their lives, gone out with a man whom they know in the depths of their soul to be a bad bastard who would bring them nothing but grief.
Still, I suppose that some women don't hanker after a bastard. These are the women whom the bastards consider too ugly to have anything to do with. After all, why should he when he can have his pick of gorgeous women, ALL OF WHOM COME CRYING TO THE LIKES OF ARSEHOLES LIKE ME WHEN IT ALL GOES TO SHIT!! I am SICK to death of this! I've lost count of how many teary and humiliated women I've sat with, reassuring them that no, they're not a vile freak of nature and yes, he obviously doesn't know what he's missing out on. Oh...and you're feeling better now? So...oh, there you go with another piece of shit who manages to both lower your self esteem AND convince you of how much you need him. Can you really blame me for being so pissed off about this?!
Honest to Christ, I'm really starting to think I should just cut the fucking thing off, or turn celibate, or try and convince myself I fancy other men; anything at all rather than go through the torturous routine of yet another woman bleating that "You wouldn't want to go out with me; my life is such a mess". Hm, yes, I'm sure that I'd want nothing to do with your exceptionally tight, pert little mess. Why that would just break my fucking heart...
If it's not that, it's a friend saying "Well, women tend to like a bit of a bastard when they're younger. They grow out of it though..." WHEN?! I'M TWENTY FUCKING SIX; HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO WAIT GODDAMMIT!?!! And now that I come to think about it, I'm not even sure I like that as an explanation; are they trying to say that they want excitement? Fuck me, I spend most days PRAYING for a less eventful life! I have an over-abundance of excitement in my life (except at work of course; how else would I have the time to write these angry little missives?), I dream of a truly dull week, so it can't be that I'm boring (I hope).
Anyway, the point of all of this...well, the point is for me to get this out of my system really, but I do have a point I want to make as well. More of a plea really (although, surprisingly, not for a shag; my former friend was often reduced to pleading and I have such contempt for him that I refuse to drop to his level); ladies, if you're going to be friends with a man then do him one massive favour from the outset; make it very VERY clear that you have no desire whatsoever to sleep with him. Honestly, it'll save a lot of time and heartache, and it will also mean that those men who remain your friends are REALLY your friends, and are not just hanging around in the desperate hope that one day you'll suddenly want to fuck them. That way, people like me with find it less intolerable seeing you walking out of the door, arm in arm with yet another complete fucking wanker.
Tuesday, 23 April 2002
Jean Marie Le Pen
Well, much though it pains me to think about the French in any real detail, I find that recent events in that lovely country have forced my hand. You may or may not be aware that the good people of France have given the rest of the world one more reason to think less of them. Over the weekend, the first round of the Presidential elections took place. The purpose of the first round is to narrow the race down to two candidates, and the second round is a straight competition between them. Everyone in their right mind expected the Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, to go through to the second round and face President Chirac. Instead, thanks to the efforts of numerous people who clearly are not in their right mind, the National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has gone through to the second round.
Normally of course I am all for anything that heaps shame and indignation on the French, but if one puts the standard English-French antipathy to one side for a moment, then one can see that the first round result is not a good thing for all of us. The National Front, as their name suggests, are a party who hold French patriotism dear. This in itself is no bad thing (and lest you feel ready to scream "racist" at me I ask you to be patient; I shall explain that comment in more detail later on). However, much like the National Front of the UK they promote their idea of patriotism at the expense of anybody who doesn't pass muster as a true Frenchman.
You will not be surprised to learn that M. Le Pen believes that blacks, first and second generation immigrants, people of the French colonies, Jews, Moslems, socialists, in fact anybody who isn't a member of the National Front, is not a true Frenchman. His ideas on policy are beyond laughable (he wants to repatriate any and all French citizens of Arabic and African descent. This is the same man who claimed the French victory in the World Cup as proof of the superiority of the French. I wonder if anyone pointed out that half the team were black and that their star player was of North African descent...) and if he were elected it would surely spell doom for France's economy and viability as a leading part of Europe.
Various commentators assure us that M. Le Pen has no chance whatsoever of winning the election, and that he will only receive approximately 22% of the vote. Well okay, so he won't win. Good. But doesn't anybody else find the idea of almost a quarter of France voting for a right wing extremist who described the gassing of 6 million Jews as "a detail of history" just a little bit unsettling? With the strength of his support in mind, doesn't the fact that he wants to take France out of the EU provide a rather ominous omen for European integration?
The resurgence of the extreme right is by no means limited to France. In Austria, Jorg Haider found himself and his far right party sharing government with the centre right. In Italy, Silvio Berlisconi's coalition government includes the original fascist party founded by Mussolini back in the 1920's. And here in the UK, last summers race riots heralded increased activity from those glorious thugs in the British National Party. It seems that we are forgetting that no matter how well groomed and presented the various far right spokesmen are, no matter what their honeyed words assure, and no matter how much they may try and dissemble their nature, these people are racist thugs. The last time that the far right had such influence in Europe was in the 1930's, and I hardly need remind anyone what the overall result of that awful little decade was.
So why are the far right doing so well? What has led literally millions of people to think that having extremists in government is a good thing? Well, I suspect that there are a number of reasons behind it, ranging from voter apathy, political sleaze, and misappropriated patriotism. Not to mention the rise of extremism worldwide (Religious fundamentalists, Australia's stance on immigrants, militant pro-lifers etc.), although I would say that this is symptomatic of the problem rather than it's cause.
Firstly, voter apathy can be blamed to a large extent for M. Le Pen's victory. There was a 75% turnout at the polls in France. This is still considerably higher than in the UK (where the BNP stand to make huge gains in the council elections in early May due to the fact that most people won't bother to vote whilst the brain dead few who think that racism is a good thing will turn out in droves) and almost double that of the US (who's elected leader is regarded as a joke by the rest of the world and where the Evangelical Christian Right have an inordinate amount of influence despite their relatively small numbers), but it still means that a quarter of the country didn’t vote M. Le Pen received 16.9% of the votes, whilst M. Jospin took 16%. That tiny difference could quite easily have been bridged had just a few hundred more people voted. A few hundred people have been the difference between France choosing a racist and extremist to run for the presidency, or choosing a fairly ineffectual but good natured career politician who would have been little different from the previous President.
Which leads onto the next point; political sleaze. It's a common complaint of mine that there is no real choice in politics these days. All of the mainstream political parties in Europe and the US preach much the same doctrine; that of pragmatism. They almost all work to the idea that if they can guarantee that tomorrow is like today then people will grow docile and contented. If people care less and less about what goes on in the corridors of power, then politicians can get away with enacting their own personal agenda without even having to go through the motions of consulting the public. And whilst they do so, they become distant from our everyday lives, caring little that public services and infrastructure are creaking and falling apart.
So when a party comes along that promises to blast away the cobwebs of government and act in the interests of the people and who hearken back to a golden age in a nation's history (a golden age that, more often than not, has never existed outside of people's imaginations), then they are bound to attract attention from the angry and disillusioned. In the meantime, thanks to voter apathy, no one can be bothered to vote. And so, even though the extremist parties are attracting maybe only 10% of the electorate, the fact that only another 20% or so are voting means that the extremists get a disproportionately large vote. And so they find themselves in local government, or even in government itself.
As a final point, I'd like to address the various patriotic trappings that the various extremist parties use. In England, being patriotic is seen as a bad thing. This is because of thugs such as the BNP who claim that to be patriotic, you have to agree with them. In the meantime, the political party that is usually seen as the voice of the patriotic Englishman (the Tories) is slowly collapsing in on itself and performing with staggering ineptitude. The other mainstream parties, perhaps in a hangover from the National Front heyday of the late seventies coupled with Margaret Thatcher's shanghaiing of patriotism for her election campaign, shy away from overt patriotism. So a young man or woman who considers him or herself to be patriotic has the choice of a corrupt and toothless political party, or the vibrant and dynamic British National Party.
I deplore the fact that patriotism in England has been hijacked by thugs and racists; today is St Georges day and yet you will not see a single English flag hanging from the lampposts (I'm less concerned about the Union Jack; St George is England’s patron saint and the Union Jack is made up of all of the flags of Great Britain). Should you attempt to make a show of your pride in being English, be in no doubt that many will assume that you are racist. Why is this? No one bats an eyelid at the celebration of St Patrick’s Day. No one accuses the Scottish Nationalists of being bigots. Once again, I would say that apathy is the problem. "Why bother to reclaim the flag from extremists? It won't really matter. Just as long as tomorrow is like today." Just as our attitude towards electing the people who are going to make the decisions that change our lives is deplorable, so is our attitude to anything else that we feel doesn't directly concern us.
Well, I know it's such a hassle and a pain for people to walk anything up to 200 metres in order to vote, but if I could perhaps exhort them not to be so, well lets not mince words here, stupid and lazy? And perhaps do something to ensure that the country they live in does not become a bastion of intolerance and stupidity? Is it really much to ask? I have an awful feeling that the answer will be yes. Maybe this is how the likes of Hitler came to power and caused such destruction; not because people cared so much that they worked hard to get him into power, but because no-one cared enough to bother to stop him.
Normally of course I am all for anything that heaps shame and indignation on the French, but if one puts the standard English-French antipathy to one side for a moment, then one can see that the first round result is not a good thing for all of us. The National Front, as their name suggests, are a party who hold French patriotism dear. This in itself is no bad thing (and lest you feel ready to scream "racist" at me I ask you to be patient; I shall explain that comment in more detail later on). However, much like the National Front of the UK they promote their idea of patriotism at the expense of anybody who doesn't pass muster as a true Frenchman.
You will not be surprised to learn that M. Le Pen believes that blacks, first and second generation immigrants, people of the French colonies, Jews, Moslems, socialists, in fact anybody who isn't a member of the National Front, is not a true Frenchman. His ideas on policy are beyond laughable (he wants to repatriate any and all French citizens of Arabic and African descent. This is the same man who claimed the French victory in the World Cup as proof of the superiority of the French. I wonder if anyone pointed out that half the team were black and that their star player was of North African descent...) and if he were elected it would surely spell doom for France's economy and viability as a leading part of Europe.
Various commentators assure us that M. Le Pen has no chance whatsoever of winning the election, and that he will only receive approximately 22% of the vote. Well okay, so he won't win. Good. But doesn't anybody else find the idea of almost a quarter of France voting for a right wing extremist who described the gassing of 6 million Jews as "a detail of history" just a little bit unsettling? With the strength of his support in mind, doesn't the fact that he wants to take France out of the EU provide a rather ominous omen for European integration?
The resurgence of the extreme right is by no means limited to France. In Austria, Jorg Haider found himself and his far right party sharing government with the centre right. In Italy, Silvio Berlisconi's coalition government includes the original fascist party founded by Mussolini back in the 1920's. And here in the UK, last summers race riots heralded increased activity from those glorious thugs in the British National Party. It seems that we are forgetting that no matter how well groomed and presented the various far right spokesmen are, no matter what their honeyed words assure, and no matter how much they may try and dissemble their nature, these people are racist thugs. The last time that the far right had such influence in Europe was in the 1930's, and I hardly need remind anyone what the overall result of that awful little decade was.
So why are the far right doing so well? What has led literally millions of people to think that having extremists in government is a good thing? Well, I suspect that there are a number of reasons behind it, ranging from voter apathy, political sleaze, and misappropriated patriotism. Not to mention the rise of extremism worldwide (Religious fundamentalists, Australia's stance on immigrants, militant pro-lifers etc.), although I would say that this is symptomatic of the problem rather than it's cause.
Firstly, voter apathy can be blamed to a large extent for M. Le Pen's victory. There was a 75% turnout at the polls in France. This is still considerably higher than in the UK (where the BNP stand to make huge gains in the council elections in early May due to the fact that most people won't bother to vote whilst the brain dead few who think that racism is a good thing will turn out in droves) and almost double that of the US (who's elected leader is regarded as a joke by the rest of the world and where the Evangelical Christian Right have an inordinate amount of influence despite their relatively small numbers), but it still means that a quarter of the country didn’t vote M. Le Pen received 16.9% of the votes, whilst M. Jospin took 16%. That tiny difference could quite easily have been bridged had just a few hundred more people voted. A few hundred people have been the difference between France choosing a racist and extremist to run for the presidency, or choosing a fairly ineffectual but good natured career politician who would have been little different from the previous President.
Which leads onto the next point; political sleaze. It's a common complaint of mine that there is no real choice in politics these days. All of the mainstream political parties in Europe and the US preach much the same doctrine; that of pragmatism. They almost all work to the idea that if they can guarantee that tomorrow is like today then people will grow docile and contented. If people care less and less about what goes on in the corridors of power, then politicians can get away with enacting their own personal agenda without even having to go through the motions of consulting the public. And whilst they do so, they become distant from our everyday lives, caring little that public services and infrastructure are creaking and falling apart.
So when a party comes along that promises to blast away the cobwebs of government and act in the interests of the people and who hearken back to a golden age in a nation's history (a golden age that, more often than not, has never existed outside of people's imaginations), then they are bound to attract attention from the angry and disillusioned. In the meantime, thanks to voter apathy, no one can be bothered to vote. And so, even though the extremist parties are attracting maybe only 10% of the electorate, the fact that only another 20% or so are voting means that the extremists get a disproportionately large vote. And so they find themselves in local government, or even in government itself.
As a final point, I'd like to address the various patriotic trappings that the various extremist parties use. In England, being patriotic is seen as a bad thing. This is because of thugs such as the BNP who claim that to be patriotic, you have to agree with them. In the meantime, the political party that is usually seen as the voice of the patriotic Englishman (the Tories) is slowly collapsing in on itself and performing with staggering ineptitude. The other mainstream parties, perhaps in a hangover from the National Front heyday of the late seventies coupled with Margaret Thatcher's shanghaiing of patriotism for her election campaign, shy away from overt patriotism. So a young man or woman who considers him or herself to be patriotic has the choice of a corrupt and toothless political party, or the vibrant and dynamic British National Party.
I deplore the fact that patriotism in England has been hijacked by thugs and racists; today is St Georges day and yet you will not see a single English flag hanging from the lampposts (I'm less concerned about the Union Jack; St George is England’s patron saint and the Union Jack is made up of all of the flags of Great Britain). Should you attempt to make a show of your pride in being English, be in no doubt that many will assume that you are racist. Why is this? No one bats an eyelid at the celebration of St Patrick’s Day. No one accuses the Scottish Nationalists of being bigots. Once again, I would say that apathy is the problem. "Why bother to reclaim the flag from extremists? It won't really matter. Just as long as tomorrow is like today." Just as our attitude towards electing the people who are going to make the decisions that change our lives is deplorable, so is our attitude to anything else that we feel doesn't directly concern us.
Well, I know it's such a hassle and a pain for people to walk anything up to 200 metres in order to vote, but if I could perhaps exhort them not to be so, well lets not mince words here, stupid and lazy? And perhaps do something to ensure that the country they live in does not become a bastion of intolerance and stupidity? Is it really much to ask? I have an awful feeling that the answer will be yes. Maybe this is how the likes of Hitler came to power and caused such destruction; not because people cared so much that they worked hard to get him into power, but because no-one cared enough to bother to stop him.
Tuesday, 16 April 2002
Middle Eastern Thread
Along with 1984, the film "Threads" has been one of the three big influences on my way of thinking.
Mind you, the 3rd big influence is Romero's Zombies...
I watched Threads last night, which, if you know me, you'll know is not a good idea. Threads is a British film made in the mid 80's which deals with the impact of nuclear war on society (the 'impact' being that it wipes society and most of humanity off the map). The first half deals with the build up to the war (a series of incidents in the middle east provide the flashpoint, and they are inter-cut with various news items and government announcements heavy on phrases such as 'precautionary measure' and 'international condemnation') whilst the second half looks at the aftermath. Anyway, a friend of mine asked to watch it and, in much the same way as people enjoy going on rollercoasters, I enjoy watching a film which infuses me with extraordinary terror. So it was with the mingled sensations of fear, excitement, and anticipation that I pressed the Play button on the VCR. A little over 2 hours later and the shell-shocked face of my friend indicated that the film had had it's desired effect and that she now had the futility of war impressed quite firmly upon her. So I stopped the tape.
On came the news, and on came a number of items dealing with the current violence in Israel. We watched for a short while until we realised that perhaps listening to various people from the Middle East discussing 'precautionary measures' whilst shrugging off 'international condemnation' was not the best thing for us to do post film.
And so it is that I find myself thinking once more of Israel. It's a place that is occupying the thoughts and minds of many right now. Admittedly, a fair few of them only think of it in terms of "Why should I care what happens in Israel?” and should you be one of them then I would advise you to find a copy of Threads, watch it, and then take a few days off work to recover. But the fact remains that the current situation in Israel is very, VERY bad, and whether we like it or not it may well all end up having to care what happens there whether we like it or not.
Before I go any further, I should declare my own personal biases. I despise Ariel Sharon. I believe him to be a warmongering nazi of a man who is sacrificing peace in order to play out his own personal bigotry. I'm also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, by which I mean their right to self ruled homeland that is free of Israeli interference and in turn does not seek to interfere with the running of Israel. All straight forward so far.
That said, certain things should also be borne in mind before leaping to the conclusion that Israel is bad and Palestine is good. We have been hearing a lot recently about suicide bombers and Palestinian terrorists. They have been active long before now, with fanatical bombers and terrorists having waged war on Israel for decades. Whilst we tot up the daily death toll of Palestinian people due to Sharon's butchery, we should never forget that Israeli's have lived in the shadow of Palestinian and Arab sponsored terrorism for a long, long time.
Not only that, but since it's creation Israel has found itself in a position of fighting for it's very existence. The Arab and Palestinian states surrounding Israel swore to destroy it. They didn't succeed. But they tried (and in some cases, tried again). When that failed, some saw sense and sued for peace (Egypt, although recently it has severed most diplomatic links) whilst others sought to fund those who wanted to continue the violence. Thus Hamas, the PLO etc found that they had a source of money, which would enable them to wage a war of terror against Israel.
So all in all, it's becoming increasingly clear to see where the Israeli siege mentality comes in. It's easy for the rest of the world to condemn the actions of Israel, but can you think of many reasons why Israel should pay any attention? What did the international community do for Jews before and during WWII? Oh, that's right; there were various statements of condemnation at best, tacit approval at worst. How about during the various short and bloody conflicts of the past 40 years? The international community condemned the actions of Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc in the strongest possible terms...and did nothing more. What about the numerous terrorist attacks that have been aimed at Israel? Yes, more condemnation. No, no real action taken. And currently? Well, Israel is now facing much condemnation. Does Ariel Sharon think that anything will really be done to stop any of the military action? No. Do the Israeli people trust the international community to bring those responsible for the terror attacks on them to justice? No. Can anyone really blame them for thinking this way, under the weight of their short and bloody history? No.
So when I say that I condemn the actions of the Israeli military over the last few weeks, I'm not (as those conservatives who support what Israel is doing would have you think) a simpering liberal who thinks that the Palestinians are on the side of the angels. I'm not (as certain members of the Israeli government would have you believe) an anti-Semite who wants to see Israel wiped from the map. And however much I sympathise with the Palestinian cause, I'm certainly not praising the actions of those bombers and fanatics who have caused carnage in Israel. I feel the need to make that clear as it seems that we have a tendency to assume that by condemning one we support the other. In other words, their is a tendency to see the world in black and white.
That isn't the case of course; there are shades of grey in any dispute, and this one is no different. Yet we are still quick to try and assign the roles of good guy and bad guy. Perhaps this makes things simpler for us. Perhaps we're still hungover from WWII, where one side was clearly in the right and one was clearly in the wrong (and yet even there, a few moral ambiguities existed; try asking a member of the UK Military about the fate of the Karen people in Burma...). Perhaps there are a lot more anti-Semites in the world than I realised. Whatever it is, most people seem anxious to lay the blame with one side or other. Each side has it's apologists who deplore the atrocities committed against them whilst justifying or downplaying those committed against the other side. All perfectly understandable given human nature, but not exactly likely to bring hostilities to an end.
(As a side note, I realise that by saying how much I dislike the Israeli leader, apologists for Israel would say that I am a supporter of Yasser Arafat. For the record, Arafat is, in my opinion, a corrupt old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist factions to function as an effective leader of his people. He cannot be regarded by Israel as a man to negotiate with, or a man who can stop the terrorism whilst he is in hock to it's perpetrators. And yet, who else is there?)
The problem lies in self-interest. Actually, that's wrong; the problem lies in the fact that we are refusing to acknowledge our self-interest. The US are currently particularly interested in solving the problems in Israel. Isn't it funny how they only became interested in a solution involving both sides when it became clear that middle eastern support for it's little Boy's Own war against Iraq was approximately nil due to their speed in condemning Palestinian terror and sloth in condemning that which originates from Israel. The same can be said of the UK and, to a lesser degree, Europe. Various Moslem nations (particularly Saudi Arabia) are now seeking a resolution of the conflict, offering recognition of Israel and normalised relationships (i.e. the official position will no longer be "Death to Israel!"). Yet they were much less interested before their own people made uneasy mutterings about their leaders supporting the US who in turn support Israel who in turn oppress Palestinians. So are the Moslem nations interested in peace for the Palestinians, or are they only interested in holding on to their power?
We only act when it benefits ourselves; that is human nature. But we create high-minded rhetoric (such as 'international condemnation') to make that human nature seem like so much more than it is. I do believe that many people do want to see an end to killing in Israel for humanitarian reasons, but I wouldn't count our leaders among them. Nor would I condemn them for acting in the best interests of their own countries (human nature remember, although I do dislike the fact that we are still at evolutiononary stage where the most important thing in our lives is our own little fief). But I do condemn the fact that we all seem so determined to find somewhere to cast the blame, because that is what justifies the high minded rhetoric and disguises our own self-interest. In Threads, that led to a nuclear exchange. In Israel, it leads to further violence, which may spread beyond what we are currently seeing.
My point is this; it doesn't matter who started the violence, who is historically to blame, or who is a darker shade of grey up to now on the moral scale. What matter is that it needs to stop; Ariel Sharon knows he will not stop the suicide bombs using his current tactics. Whether you support him or not, I think that this is pretty much irrefutable. Nor will Yasser Arafat ever have sufficient authority to be able to stop the suicide bombers. It is in our interests for the violence to stop because it could spread far beyond the borders of Israel. I'm getting tired of seeing people argue over semantics about the terror in Israel; pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, those who seek a secular solution, those who use religion to justify the violence, etc. None of it really matters I'm afraid. The only thing that matters is stopping the cycle of violence and terror. The only thing stopping us is that we don't see how it benefits us. So go and watch Threads. You'll start to get an idea of why I think stopping the violence in the Middle East benefits every living being on the planet.
Mind you, the 3rd big influence is Romero's Zombies...
I watched Threads last night, which, if you know me, you'll know is not a good idea. Threads is a British film made in the mid 80's which deals with the impact of nuclear war on society (the 'impact' being that it wipes society and most of humanity off the map). The first half deals with the build up to the war (a series of incidents in the middle east provide the flashpoint, and they are inter-cut with various news items and government announcements heavy on phrases such as 'precautionary measure' and 'international condemnation') whilst the second half looks at the aftermath. Anyway, a friend of mine asked to watch it and, in much the same way as people enjoy going on rollercoasters, I enjoy watching a film which infuses me with extraordinary terror. So it was with the mingled sensations of fear, excitement, and anticipation that I pressed the Play button on the VCR. A little over 2 hours later and the shell-shocked face of my friend indicated that the film had had it's desired effect and that she now had the futility of war impressed quite firmly upon her. So I stopped the tape.
On came the news, and on came a number of items dealing with the current violence in Israel. We watched for a short while until we realised that perhaps listening to various people from the Middle East discussing 'precautionary measures' whilst shrugging off 'international condemnation' was not the best thing for us to do post film.
And so it is that I find myself thinking once more of Israel. It's a place that is occupying the thoughts and minds of many right now. Admittedly, a fair few of them only think of it in terms of "Why should I care what happens in Israel?” and should you be one of them then I would advise you to find a copy of Threads, watch it, and then take a few days off work to recover. But the fact remains that the current situation in Israel is very, VERY bad, and whether we like it or not it may well all end up having to care what happens there whether we like it or not.
Before I go any further, I should declare my own personal biases. I despise Ariel Sharon. I believe him to be a warmongering nazi of a man who is sacrificing peace in order to play out his own personal bigotry. I'm also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, by which I mean their right to self ruled homeland that is free of Israeli interference and in turn does not seek to interfere with the running of Israel. All straight forward so far.
That said, certain things should also be borne in mind before leaping to the conclusion that Israel is bad and Palestine is good. We have been hearing a lot recently about suicide bombers and Palestinian terrorists. They have been active long before now, with fanatical bombers and terrorists having waged war on Israel for decades. Whilst we tot up the daily death toll of Palestinian people due to Sharon's butchery, we should never forget that Israeli's have lived in the shadow of Palestinian and Arab sponsored terrorism for a long, long time.
Not only that, but since it's creation Israel has found itself in a position of fighting for it's very existence. The Arab and Palestinian states surrounding Israel swore to destroy it. They didn't succeed. But they tried (and in some cases, tried again). When that failed, some saw sense and sued for peace (Egypt, although recently it has severed most diplomatic links) whilst others sought to fund those who wanted to continue the violence. Thus Hamas, the PLO etc found that they had a source of money, which would enable them to wage a war of terror against Israel.
So all in all, it's becoming increasingly clear to see where the Israeli siege mentality comes in. It's easy for the rest of the world to condemn the actions of Israel, but can you think of many reasons why Israel should pay any attention? What did the international community do for Jews before and during WWII? Oh, that's right; there were various statements of condemnation at best, tacit approval at worst. How about during the various short and bloody conflicts of the past 40 years? The international community condemned the actions of Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc in the strongest possible terms...and did nothing more. What about the numerous terrorist attacks that have been aimed at Israel? Yes, more condemnation. No, no real action taken. And currently? Well, Israel is now facing much condemnation. Does Ariel Sharon think that anything will really be done to stop any of the military action? No. Do the Israeli people trust the international community to bring those responsible for the terror attacks on them to justice? No. Can anyone really blame them for thinking this way, under the weight of their short and bloody history? No.
So when I say that I condemn the actions of the Israeli military over the last few weeks, I'm not (as those conservatives who support what Israel is doing would have you think) a simpering liberal who thinks that the Palestinians are on the side of the angels. I'm not (as certain members of the Israeli government would have you believe) an anti-Semite who wants to see Israel wiped from the map. And however much I sympathise with the Palestinian cause, I'm certainly not praising the actions of those bombers and fanatics who have caused carnage in Israel. I feel the need to make that clear as it seems that we have a tendency to assume that by condemning one we support the other. In other words, their is a tendency to see the world in black and white.
That isn't the case of course; there are shades of grey in any dispute, and this one is no different. Yet we are still quick to try and assign the roles of good guy and bad guy. Perhaps this makes things simpler for us. Perhaps we're still hungover from WWII, where one side was clearly in the right and one was clearly in the wrong (and yet even there, a few moral ambiguities existed; try asking a member of the UK Military about the fate of the Karen people in Burma...). Perhaps there are a lot more anti-Semites in the world than I realised. Whatever it is, most people seem anxious to lay the blame with one side or other. Each side has it's apologists who deplore the atrocities committed against them whilst justifying or downplaying those committed against the other side. All perfectly understandable given human nature, but not exactly likely to bring hostilities to an end.
(As a side note, I realise that by saying how much I dislike the Israeli leader, apologists for Israel would say that I am a supporter of Yasser Arafat. For the record, Arafat is, in my opinion, a corrupt old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist factions to function as an effective leader of his people. He cannot be regarded by Israel as a man to negotiate with, or a man who can stop the terrorism whilst he is in hock to it's perpetrators. And yet, who else is there?)
The problem lies in self-interest. Actually, that's wrong; the problem lies in the fact that we are refusing to acknowledge our self-interest. The US are currently particularly interested in solving the problems in Israel. Isn't it funny how they only became interested in a solution involving both sides when it became clear that middle eastern support for it's little Boy's Own war against Iraq was approximately nil due to their speed in condemning Palestinian terror and sloth in condemning that which originates from Israel. The same can be said of the UK and, to a lesser degree, Europe. Various Moslem nations (particularly Saudi Arabia) are now seeking a resolution of the conflict, offering recognition of Israel and normalised relationships (i.e. the official position will no longer be "Death to Israel!"). Yet they were much less interested before their own people made uneasy mutterings about their leaders supporting the US who in turn support Israel who in turn oppress Palestinians. So are the Moslem nations interested in peace for the Palestinians, or are they only interested in holding on to their power?
We only act when it benefits ourselves; that is human nature. But we create high-minded rhetoric (such as 'international condemnation') to make that human nature seem like so much more than it is. I do believe that many people do want to see an end to killing in Israel for humanitarian reasons, but I wouldn't count our leaders among them. Nor would I condemn them for acting in the best interests of their own countries (human nature remember, although I do dislike the fact that we are still at evolutiononary stage where the most important thing in our lives is our own little fief). But I do condemn the fact that we all seem so determined to find somewhere to cast the blame, because that is what justifies the high minded rhetoric and disguises our own self-interest. In Threads, that led to a nuclear exchange. In Israel, it leads to further violence, which may spread beyond what we are currently seeing.
My point is this; it doesn't matter who started the violence, who is historically to blame, or who is a darker shade of grey up to now on the moral scale. What matter is that it needs to stop; Ariel Sharon knows he will not stop the suicide bombs using his current tactics. Whether you support him or not, I think that this is pretty much irrefutable. Nor will Yasser Arafat ever have sufficient authority to be able to stop the suicide bombers. It is in our interests for the violence to stop because it could spread far beyond the borders of Israel. I'm getting tired of seeing people argue over semantics about the terror in Israel; pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, those who seek a secular solution, those who use religion to justify the violence, etc. None of it really matters I'm afraid. The only thing that matters is stopping the cycle of violence and terror. The only thing stopping us is that we don't see how it benefits us. So go and watch Threads. You'll start to get an idea of why I think stopping the violence in the Middle East benefits every living being on the planet.
Middle Eastern Thread
Along with 1984, the film "Threads" has been one of the three big influences on my way of thinking.
Mind you, the 3rd big influence is Romero's Zombies...
I watched Threads last night, which, if you know me, you'll know is not a good idea. Threads is a British film made in the mid 80's which deals with the impact of nuclear war on society (the 'impact' being that it wipes society and most of humanity off the map). The first half deals with the build up to the war (a series of incidents in the middle east provide the flashpoint, and they are inter-cut with various news items and government announcements heavy on phrases such as 'precautionary measure' and 'international condemnation') whilst the second half looks at the aftermath. Anyway, a friend of mine asked to watch it and, in much the same way as people enjoy going on rollercoasters, I enjoy watching a film which infuses me with extraordinary terror. So it was with the mingled sensations of fear, excitement, and anticipation that I pressed the Play button on the VCR. A little over 2 hours later and the shell-shocked face of my friend indicated that the film had had it's desired effect and that she now had the futility of war impressed quite firmly upon her. So I stopped the tape.
On came the news, and on came a number of items dealing with the current violence in Israel. We watched for a short while until we realised that perhaps listening to various people from the Middle East discussing 'precautionary measures' whilst shrugging off 'international condemnation' was not the best thing for us to do post film.
And so it is that I find myself thinking once more of Israel. It's a place that is occupying the thoughts and minds of many right now. Admittedly, a fair few of them only think of it in terms of "Why should I care what happens in Israel?” and should you be one of them then I would advise you to find a copy of Threads, watch it, and then take a few days off work to recover. But the fact remains that the current situation in Israel is very, VERY bad, and whether we like it or not it may well all end up having to care what happens there whether we like it or not.
Before I go any further, I should declare my own personal biases. I despise Ariel Sharon. I believe him to be a warmongering nazi of a man who is sacrificing peace in order to play out his own personal bigotry. I'm also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, by which I mean their right to self ruled homeland that is free of Israeli interference and in turn does not seek to interfere with the running of Israel. All straight forward so far.
That said, certain things should also be borne in mind before leaping to the conclusion that Israel is bad and Palestine is good. We have been hearing a lot recently about suicide bombers and Palestinian terrorists. They have been active long before now, with fanatical bombers and terrorists having waged war on Israel for decades. Whilst we tot up the daily death toll of Palestinian people due to Sharon's butchery, we should never forget that Israeli's have lived in the shadow of Palestinian and Arab sponsored terrorism for a long, long time.
Not only that, but since it's creation Israel has found itself in a position of fighting for it's very existence. The Arab and Palestinian states surrounding Israel swore to destroy it. They didn't succeed. But they tried (and in some cases, tried again). When that failed, some saw sense and sued for peace (Egypt, although recently it has severed most diplomatic links) whilst others sought to fund those who wanted to continue the violence. Thus Hamas, the PLO etc found that they had a source of money, which would enable them to wage a war of terror against Israel.
So all in all, it's becoming increasingly clear to see where the Israeli siege mentality comes in. It's easy for the rest of the world to condemn the actions of Israel, but can you think of many reasons why Israel should pay any attention? What did the international community do for Jews before and during WWII? Oh, that's right; there were various statements of condemnation at best, tacit approval at worst. How about during the various short and bloody conflicts of the past 40 years? The international community condemned the actions of Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc in the strongest possible terms...and did nothing more. What about the numerous terrorist attacks that have been aimed at Israel? Yes, more condemnation. No, no real action taken. And currently? Well, Israel is now facing much condemnation. Does Ariel Sharon think that anything will really be done to stop any of the military action? No. Do the Israeli people trust the international community to bring those responsible for the terror attacks on them to justice? No. Can anyone really blame them for thinking this way, under the weight of their short and bloody history? No.
So when I say that I condemn the actions of the Israeli military over the last few weeks, I'm not (as those conservatives who support what Israel is doing would have you think) a simpering liberal who thinks that the Palestinians are on the side of the angels. I'm not (as certain members of the Israeli government would have you believe) an anti-Semite who wants to see Israel wiped from the map. And however much I sympathise with the Palestinian cause, I'm certainly not praising the actions of those bombers and fanatics who have caused carnage in Israel. I feel the need to make that clear as it seems that we have a tendency to assume that by condemning one we support the other. In other words, their is a tendency to see the world in black and white.
That isn't the case of course; there are shades of grey in any dispute, and this one is no different. Yet we are still quick to try and assign the roles of good guy and bad guy. Perhaps this makes things simpler for us. Perhaps we're still hungover from WWII, where one side was clearly in the right and one was clearly in the wrong (and yet even there, a few moral ambiguities existed; try asking a member of the UK Military about the fate of the Karen people in Burma...). Perhaps there are a lot more anti-Semites in the world than I realised. Whatever it is, most people seem anxious to lay the blame with one side or other. Each side has it's apologists who deplore the atrocities committed against them whilst justifying or downplaying those committed against the other side. All perfectly understandable given human nature, but not exactly likely to bring hostilities to an end.
(As a side note, I realise that by saying how much I dislike the Israeli leader, apologists for Israel would say that I am a supporter of Yasser Arafat. For the record, Arafat is, in my opinion, a corrupt old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist factions to function as an effective leader of his people. He cannot be regarded by Israel as a man to negotiate with, or a man who can stop the terrorism whilst he is in hock to it's perpetrators. And yet, who else is there?)
The problem lies in self-interest. Actually, that's wrong; the problem lies in the fact that we are refusing to acknowledge our self-interest. The US are currently particularly interested in solving the problems in Israel. Isn't it funny how they only became interested in a solution involving both sides when it became clear that middle eastern support for it's little Boy's Own war against Iraq was approximately nil due to their speed in condemning Palestinian terror and sloth in condemning that which originates from Israel. The same can be said of the UK and, to a lesser degree, Europe. Various Moslem nations (particularly Saudi Arabia) are now seeking a resolution of the conflict, offering recognition of Israel and normalised relationships (i.e. the official position will no longer be "Death to Israel!"). Yet they were much less interested before their own people made uneasy mutterings about their leaders supporting the US who in turn support Israel who in turn oppress Palestinians. So are the Moslem nations interested in peace for the Palestinians, or are they only interested in holding on to their power?
We only act when it benefits ourselves; that is human nature. But we create high-minded rhetoric (such as 'international condemnation') to make that human nature seem like so much more than it is. I do believe that many people do want to see an end to killing in Israel for humanitarian reasons, but I wouldn't count our leaders among them. Nor would I condemn them for acting in the best interests of their own countries (human nature remember, although I do dislike the fact that we are still at evolutiononary stage where the most important thing in our lives is our own little fief). But I do condemn the fact that we all seem so determined to find somewhere to cast the blame, because that is what justifies the high minded rhetoric and disguises our own self-interest. In Threads, that led to a nuclear exchange. In Israel, it leads to further violence, which may spread beyond what we are currently seeing.
My point is this; it doesn't matter who started the violence, who is historically to blame, or who is a darker shade of grey up to now on the moral scale. What matter is that it needs to stop; Ariel Sharon knows he will not stop the suicide bombs using his current tactics. Whether you support him or not, I think that this is pretty much irrefutable. Nor will Yasser Arafat ever have sufficient authority to be able to stop the suicide bombers. It is in our interests for the violence to stop because it could spread far beyond the borders of Israel. I'm getting tired of seeing people argue over semantics about the terror in Israel; pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, those who seek a secular solution, those who use religion to justify the violence, etc. None of it really matters I'm afraid. The only thing that matters is stopping the cycle of violence and terror. The only thing stopping us is that we don't see how it benefits us. So go and watch Threads. You'll start to get an idea of why I think stopping the violence in the Middle East benefits every living being on the planet.
Mind you, the 3rd big influence is Romero's Zombies...
I watched Threads last night, which, if you know me, you'll know is not a good idea. Threads is a British film made in the mid 80's which deals with the impact of nuclear war on society (the 'impact' being that it wipes society and most of humanity off the map). The first half deals with the build up to the war (a series of incidents in the middle east provide the flashpoint, and they are inter-cut with various news items and government announcements heavy on phrases such as 'precautionary measure' and 'international condemnation') whilst the second half looks at the aftermath. Anyway, a friend of mine asked to watch it and, in much the same way as people enjoy going on rollercoasters, I enjoy watching a film which infuses me with extraordinary terror. So it was with the mingled sensations of fear, excitement, and anticipation that I pressed the Play button on the VCR. A little over 2 hours later and the shell-shocked face of my friend indicated that the film had had it's desired effect and that she now had the futility of war impressed quite firmly upon her. So I stopped the tape.
On came the news, and on came a number of items dealing with the current violence in Israel. We watched for a short while until we realised that perhaps listening to various people from the Middle East discussing 'precautionary measures' whilst shrugging off 'international condemnation' was not the best thing for us to do post film.
And so it is that I find myself thinking once more of Israel. It's a place that is occupying the thoughts and minds of many right now. Admittedly, a fair few of them only think of it in terms of "Why should I care what happens in Israel?” and should you be one of them then I would advise you to find a copy of Threads, watch it, and then take a few days off work to recover. But the fact remains that the current situation in Israel is very, VERY bad, and whether we like it or not it may well all end up having to care what happens there whether we like it or not.
Before I go any further, I should declare my own personal biases. I despise Ariel Sharon. I believe him to be a warmongering nazi of a man who is sacrificing peace in order to play out his own personal bigotry. I'm also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, by which I mean their right to self ruled homeland that is free of Israeli interference and in turn does not seek to interfere with the running of Israel. All straight forward so far.
That said, certain things should also be borne in mind before leaping to the conclusion that Israel is bad and Palestine is good. We have been hearing a lot recently about suicide bombers and Palestinian terrorists. They have been active long before now, with fanatical bombers and terrorists having waged war on Israel for decades. Whilst we tot up the daily death toll of Palestinian people due to Sharon's butchery, we should never forget that Israeli's have lived in the shadow of Palestinian and Arab sponsored terrorism for a long, long time.
Not only that, but since it's creation Israel has found itself in a position of fighting for it's very existence. The Arab and Palestinian states surrounding Israel swore to destroy it. They didn't succeed. But they tried (and in some cases, tried again). When that failed, some saw sense and sued for peace (Egypt, although recently it has severed most diplomatic links) whilst others sought to fund those who wanted to continue the violence. Thus Hamas, the PLO etc found that they had a source of money, which would enable them to wage a war of terror against Israel.
So all in all, it's becoming increasingly clear to see where the Israeli siege mentality comes in. It's easy for the rest of the world to condemn the actions of Israel, but can you think of many reasons why Israel should pay any attention? What did the international community do for Jews before and during WWII? Oh, that's right; there were various statements of condemnation at best, tacit approval at worst. How about during the various short and bloody conflicts of the past 40 years? The international community condemned the actions of Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc in the strongest possible terms...and did nothing more. What about the numerous terrorist attacks that have been aimed at Israel? Yes, more condemnation. No, no real action taken. And currently? Well, Israel is now facing much condemnation. Does Ariel Sharon think that anything will really be done to stop any of the military action? No. Do the Israeli people trust the international community to bring those responsible for the terror attacks on them to justice? No. Can anyone really blame them for thinking this way, under the weight of their short and bloody history? No.
So when I say that I condemn the actions of the Israeli military over the last few weeks, I'm not (as those conservatives who support what Israel is doing would have you think) a simpering liberal who thinks that the Palestinians are on the side of the angels. I'm not (as certain members of the Israeli government would have you believe) an anti-Semite who wants to see Israel wiped from the map. And however much I sympathise with the Palestinian cause, I'm certainly not praising the actions of those bombers and fanatics who have caused carnage in Israel. I feel the need to make that clear as it seems that we have a tendency to assume that by condemning one we support the other. In other words, their is a tendency to see the world in black and white.
That isn't the case of course; there are shades of grey in any dispute, and this one is no different. Yet we are still quick to try and assign the roles of good guy and bad guy. Perhaps this makes things simpler for us. Perhaps we're still hungover from WWII, where one side was clearly in the right and one was clearly in the wrong (and yet even there, a few moral ambiguities existed; try asking a member of the UK Military about the fate of the Karen people in Burma...). Perhaps there are a lot more anti-Semites in the world than I realised. Whatever it is, most people seem anxious to lay the blame with one side or other. Each side has it's apologists who deplore the atrocities committed against them whilst justifying or downplaying those committed against the other side. All perfectly understandable given human nature, but not exactly likely to bring hostilities to an end.
(As a side note, I realise that by saying how much I dislike the Israeli leader, apologists for Israel would say that I am a supporter of Yasser Arafat. For the record, Arafat is, in my opinion, a corrupt old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist factions to function as an effective leader of his people. He cannot be regarded by Israel as a man to negotiate with, or a man who can stop the terrorism whilst he is in hock to it's perpetrators. And yet, who else is there?)
The problem lies in self-interest. Actually, that's wrong; the problem lies in the fact that we are refusing to acknowledge our self-interest. The US are currently particularly interested in solving the problems in Israel. Isn't it funny how they only became interested in a solution involving both sides when it became clear that middle eastern support for it's little Boy's Own war against Iraq was approximately nil due to their speed in condemning Palestinian terror and sloth in condemning that which originates from Israel. The same can be said of the UK and, to a lesser degree, Europe. Various Moslem nations (particularly Saudi Arabia) are now seeking a resolution of the conflict, offering recognition of Israel and normalised relationships (i.e. the official position will no longer be "Death to Israel!"). Yet they were much less interested before their own people made uneasy mutterings about their leaders supporting the US who in turn support Israel who in turn oppress Palestinians. So are the Moslem nations interested in peace for the Palestinians, or are they only interested in holding on to their power?
We only act when it benefits ourselves; that is human nature. But we create high-minded rhetoric (such as 'international condemnation') to make that human nature seem like so much more than it is. I do believe that many people do want to see an end to killing in Israel for humanitarian reasons, but I wouldn't count our leaders among them. Nor would I condemn them for acting in the best interests of their own countries (human nature remember, although I do dislike the fact that we are still at evolutiononary stage where the most important thing in our lives is our own little fief). But I do condemn the fact that we all seem so determined to find somewhere to cast the blame, because that is what justifies the high minded rhetoric and disguises our own self-interest. In Threads, that led to a nuclear exchange. In Israel, it leads to further violence, which may spread beyond what we are currently seeing.
My point is this; it doesn't matter who started the violence, who is historically to blame, or who is a darker shade of grey up to now on the moral scale. What matter is that it needs to stop; Ariel Sharon knows he will not stop the suicide bombs using his current tactics. Whether you support him or not, I think that this is pretty much irrefutable. Nor will Yasser Arafat ever have sufficient authority to be able to stop the suicide bombers. It is in our interests for the violence to stop because it could spread far beyond the borders of Israel. I'm getting tired of seeing people argue over semantics about the terror in Israel; pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, those who seek a secular solution, those who use religion to justify the violence, etc. None of it really matters I'm afraid. The only thing that matters is stopping the cycle of violence and terror. The only thing stopping us is that we don't see how it benefits us. So go and watch Threads. You'll start to get an idea of why I think stopping the violence in the Middle East benefits every living being on the planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)