This was a reaction to 7/7, and also reflects my growing unease that the majority of both left and right wing camps couldn't give a shit about the cost in human lives.
The last 7 days have been what might be euphemistically referred to as "Interesting Times". What with bombings in London, riots in Belfast, and the re-emergence of the Mullet as a fashion statement, it's almost like being in the 1980's again. All we need is for the country's 27 remaining miners to go on strike and get beaten to a bloody puddle by some overly zealous policemen, and the illusion will be complete.
Upon hearing of the bombings, I confess that my first reaction was "My word; the French Olympic Bid team really ARE bad losers aren't they?". Self-congratulatory sarcasm soon gave way to a somewhat despairing sense of helplessness; I go on at great length about the War on Terror, and it's destablising effect on the security of ordinary people like you and me. Yet here was something that was happening as a direct result of the WoT, and I couldn't do jack sh!t except talk about it. Did this prove that Dubya and Tony's little crusade does have a basis in reality? Or was it a case of proving my point for me; that the only reason a War on Terror is "necessary" is because that self same War has increased the likelihood of terrorism across the western world?
Before any of that though, I think it's worth making the following couple of points; firstly, in the aftermath of the bombs in London, the way that both the emergency services and ordinary Londoners dealt with it left me awestruck with admiration. The sense of calm, of stoicism, of a determination not to panic...I'm not going to try to claim these traits as part of any notion of national character. But I am going to say that, to a very large extent, they defeated the purpose of any such terrorism. I'm sure that the sense of anger and outrage will grow in the coming weeks, but as a knee-jerk reaction to a dreadful event, one cannot fault it.
Secondly, both Blair and Ken Livingstone (the mayor of London) struck exactly the right note in their responses. The former displayed his usual stage-managed affront and outrage, but his language was both temperate and soothing to the nation at large in my opinion. He displayed that nebulous quality called "statesmanship", and for all the gallons of vitriol I have in reserve for Blair, that was what was needed from a Prime Minister. Livingstone on the other hand cut through the bullsh!t and called the bombings exactly what they were; a cowardly and indiscriminate attack on ordinary people. The bombings would not make life more difficult for the people who make the decisions that generate the outrage that provides extremists with their recruits (if one is of an extremely paranoid mindset, one could make a case for it making their lives easier...). All it did was create a little pocket of misery, nothing more.
So then; what does last weeks bombing say about the War on Terror? Unsurprisingly, my conclusion is that the bombing indicates that the Iraqi land grab has made the world a far more dangerous place. I've found that a lot of the more Pro-war people whom I talk to with any regularity are claiming that the bombing proves that the Anti-Terror legislation brought in by the government was not just a tactic to keep people uncertain and afraid, but something that was desperately necessary. My response is always the same; how did that "duck and cover" style pamphlet of last year help prepare us for the bomb? And how could putting tanks in public places (as was done in the terror drill of not so long ago) made even the slightest of differences to the events of last Thursday? How would ID cards have prevented the bombs exploding?
The only planning that made any difference was the quiet preparations of the emergency services for terror attacks, and those plans pre-date the ludicrous and unwinnable WoT. Not one of the high profile "WOOOO....darkie terrorists will murder your budgie!! Vote for us and we'll keep you safe!" announcements made by the government made a blind bit of difference to the bombs going off.
I also think that the government's reaction to anyone who attempted to draw a link between the WoT and the bombing backs up what I'm trying to say. George Galloway expressed outrage at the bombs and the devastation to ordinary Londoners, but made it clear that it was an inevitable price of the WoT. And the government...launched the kind of ferocious and highly personal attack on him that they usual try to condemn when made by the likes of Galloway. Note, however, that they did not try to give any hard factual reasons why he was wrong. The LibDem leader Charles Kennedy made much the same point yesterday, and faced a similarly smear-heavy/fact-lite attack. Dear Lord, the speaker of the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) stated the obvious in his condemnation of the bombing; his words were presented by many news organisations in a "Look what the evil foreign man is saying" kind of fashion, but they couldn't present anything in the way of facts as to why he was wrong.
And the response of the pro war faction of politics? "Oh, it didn't take long for the 'I told you so' brigade to start crowing about this, did it?" Well...no, it didn't. Does that made them wrong, or do you simply hate to admit they have a point? Leaving aside this sour grapes on the part of those in favour of war, that did get me thinking about something else...
Amidst all the inevitable "He said, she said" bickering resulting from this bombing and the reasons that it happened, I've seen very little from either side talking about compassion for the poor sods who lost lives, limbs, and loves as a result of the bomb. The initial messages of "Christ, is everyone okay?" have given way to the apportioning of blame. In fact, the only mention of compassion I've read since the first 24 hours after this squalid little murder was on the website where the Extremist organisation claimed responsibility for the bombing. Apparently it was proof of Allah's mercy and compassion; clearly their definition of those words differ somewhat from mine.
But then again, should I be surprised? A lot of the talk about the Iraqi people suffering the equivalent of a daily London bombing (at least) is, although clearly well intentioned, usually the precursor to a political statement about how this PROVES that Dubya and Blair are pure, moronic evil. I'm just as guilty of doing that (in defence of that school of thought, I would say that at least we acknowledge the human cost of the land grab. The coalition refuses to even keep a count of how many Iraqi civilians are killed in the name of securing their freedom...), so I find myself rather shamefaced even as I make the criticism.
It seems that, in amongst all the partisan discussions that use loss of life or the threat of it that are used to fuel the pro and anti war ideologies, we very easily forget the important thing; the loss of life itself. I've seen people say that the bombing shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things because, hey, look at all the poor Iraqi's being murdered by the coalition bombing. By the same token, I also heard someone advance the charming opinion that Iraqi loss of life shouldn't be given as much weight as the loss of Western ones because their history means they don't place the same value on life as we do. Both of these arguments have their intellectual merits, but as statements of humanity and empathy they are about as worthwhile as a charity drive for Windsor family. What the hell happened to the very basic idea that killing people, for whatever reason, is a fundamentally bad thing to do?
But no; the deaths of 50+ people in London has, together with the deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bali, New York, Madrid, Sudan, Israel, Uzbekistan, Russia, Chechnya, (I could go on but you get the idea...), those deaths have become one more aspect of a cause for people who, if they're honest, care more about being proved right than about the death and misery. Be they the lunatic fringe of the left (one of whom claimed, within hours of the bombs going off, that it was clearly CIA who had planted them; had he been referring to the fact that Al-Quaida only exists because of the CIA, he would have had a point...), or the lunatic fringe of the right (Ann Coulter's claim that the whole War on Terror can be ended by "killing their leaders and converting the rest to Christianity" never fails to raise a chuckle and a cold sweat), or all points in between, we all seem to lose sight of the fact that people are dying for no reason than someone, somewhere, wants to be proved right.
Maybe I'm just mellowing in my old age and coupledom, but I don't think a human life is a fair price to pay for a group of people to say "HA! I KNEW I was right!". If ideas aren’t worth dying for (and I don't believe they are), then they're not worth killing for either. By all means, debate the rights and wrongs of the WoT (damn sure I'm still going to do so...), just try to keep in mind that some things are more important than our opinions, however justified we feel them to be.
Wednesday, 13 July 2005
Friday, 15 April 2005
Election Fever
In just a few weeks, we in the UK will get to choose which group of egocentric, self-serving, utterly corrupt and venal suits full of fuck all will enrich themselves at our expense. Even as I write this, the various political leaders are trolling round the country, engaging in whatever piece of populist bullshit they think will dazzle the plebs enough to get them off their cellulite-ridden, Netto-fuelled arses and waddle to the nearest polling station to cack-handedly scrawl an X next to the liar of their choice. It's that most fabulous of times in the political calendar; it's the General Election.
I suppose the first thing that needs to be said from my point of view (aside from "Jesus Christ, have I REALLY been churning out vitriol for over 4 years? I've just re-read the rants I wrote leading up to the last election and...well, I was hoping I'd have grown less angry over the years. Not, as it would appear, more so...) is that in this coming election we at least have the illusion of greater choice. Last time round, it was a one horse race between Labour and nobody else. The Tories were being lead to national mediocrity by a smirking Yorkshire dwarf named Hague. The Libdems...well, let's be honest here; not many people either knew or cared what the Libdems were up to, and were only dimly aware that a plump, ginger Scots gentleman was quietly campaigning for people to vote for him. If you lived in Scotland, Northern Ireland, or Wales, you had the additional choice of that nation's Nationalist party. It was obvious that Labour would walk to victory, and as such it was difficult to care (though God knows, I tried to...).
This time round, things are looking somewhat different. The political map seems to have opened up a little; aside from the above mentioned parties (of whom more later) we also have the increasing influence of the various "Darkies are bad and evil and should all be deported before they rape your budgie and bomb your Gran" parties; UKIP, the BNP, and Kilory's Veritas (or Vanitas to give it it's more accurate name) form the vanguard of this movement. The net effect of all of these parties will almost certainly be to steal a chunk of the chav vote from the Tories and Labour. Whether or not they actually gain anything in terms of Parliamentary seats is another matter; I suspect not, as they're all squabbling for votes among the same target group. However, there is a good chance that they will steal Labour and the Tories' thunder on immigration by splitting the racist vote 4 ways and rendering it irrelevant. Which would make this the single only worthwhile thing that Kilroy has ever achieved in his thus far worthless life.
On the left of the spectrum, we have the Respect coalition. The most visible member of this group is the former Labour member and current MP, George Galloway. They are fighting on an anti-war, anti-Labour bullshit platform, and have the potential to do rather well in the London seats they're fighting. Despite his pandering to the (I suspect, imaginary) Pro-Life tendencies of the Moslems who make up the vast majority of Respect's target audience, I rather like Mr. Galloway. Unlike many current members of the Labour party, he purports to be a socialist. What's more, he's survived the barrage of mud slung his way as a result of his opposition to the Iraqi land grab and come out of it smelling more rose-like than at any other time in his career. Whilst I don't agree with all of his principles, the mere fact that he has any raises him a cut above most MP's.
The final element outside the big 3 (well...big 2 and a half) parties, is the rise of the Independent Candidate. Since Martin Bell's unseating of the Hamilton's from their fief, Independent Single-Issue candidates have started popping up and doing rather well. Dr Richard Taylor is currently the member for Wyre Forest, and was elected solely on the promise of fighting cuts to the local Kidderminster holiday. This time round, we have the likes of Reg Keys, standing against Tony Blair in Sedgefield. His campaign is based on debating the lies Blair told to take us to war. Also there is Demitrious Panton, who is standing against the Children's Minister (what the hell does a Children's Minister do? Visit schools in order to patronise children? Shout "Nyer Nyer, Michael Howard smells of wee!" in the Commons?) and basing his campaign on her failure to accept responsibility for an abuse scandal during her time as leader of Islington Council. These candidates are what I would call "wild cards". They may not get enough votes to win, but they will almost certainly take enough votes off the MP's they're standing against to cause a headache. As such, I find that I adore these people for no other reason than they inject a little uncertainty and (in a deeply boring way) some excitement into the election.
And so that leaves us with the main parties. The Tories, the Libdems, and Labour. To make things clear, I'm now a fully paid up member of the Libdems, so I suppose it's going to be pretty obvious where my sympathies lie. Even so, I still think it's worth having a look at all three in as objective a manner as a shouty and bilious man such as myself can manage.
Firstly we have the Tories. Well...it seems that, according to the polls, they've pulled their socks up and are now no longer the laughing stock they have been over the last 10 years. And how have they done this? Mainly by appointing a man to whom "scruples" is nothing more than a vaguely amusing parlor game from the 80's, as their election Guru. The gentleman in question is named Lynton Crosby. It was he who suggested that the "Pigs might Fly" poster produced by Labour was Anti-Semitic. Apparently, because Michael Howard is Jewish, portraying him as a pig is an act of Anti-Semitism. Obviously, this had to be explained to everyone, otherwise they might have missed what an inflammatory and racist poster it was. Needless to say, Crosby's entire campaign strategy is negative, and revolves around smearing all opponents with as many slurs as possible, whilst ratcheting up the populist rhetoric (i.e. shouting "Foreign Types are coming to steal your way of life!!" from the highest hills) in the meantime. As strategy goes, I personally find it repellant, but it seems to be working. It could almost make your forget about the doctored photographs, the admission that the Tories are lying about their spending plans, the budgetary sums that don't add up, the fact that Michael Howard is the man who was asked the same question for about 5 minutes on National TV and constantly evaded answering it, and the fact that Anne Widdecombe found him to be creepy (ANNE WIDDECOMBE for God's sake...).
Next up, the Libdems. They seem to have taken a rather odd step in their campaign to become worth noticing; they're campaigning on the basis of what they think the country needs, rather than what the opinion polls suggests the country wants. Naturally, in an age where self-interest and "What's in it for me?" have been raised to such a level that even Machiavelli would blush at having to praise it, this is political suicide. Or so it would seem. The Libdems can claim, with some justification, to be the only genuine opposition. When one looks at the policies and behaviour of Labour and the Tories these days....well, it's rather like the closing lines of Orwell's "Animal Farm;
"(they) looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which".
The Libdems are the only major party to have given any real opposition to Labour on taxation, the Iraqi Land Grab and subsequent whitewashes, Student Loans and Top up fees, Law and Order...the list goes on. What's more, they seem to genuinely care about doing the best for the country; they're still attempting the necessary evil of engaging with Big Business, but seem to be at least trying to do so in a way that will make some attempt to rein in the corruption that is rife in dealings between Business and Politics. Of course, I could be just being naive, and they'll turn out to be just as big a bunch of lying mongdongs as Labour and the Tories. ~shrug~ The only way we'll find out is by voting for them.
Finally, we have Labour. Nobody seems to trust Tony Blair these days. The fact that he dished up the biggest selection of lies since Hitler's post-Sudetenland "I have no further territorial claims to make" porky of 1938, in order to take us to war in Iraq seems to have played a large part in that. However, it doesn't seem to have played a big enough part. There seems to be an attitude of "Oh yeah, he lied to us about sending in our army to slaughter brown people by the thousand in order to remove a dictator who we kept in place for years until he stopped obeying orders...but I'm sure he can be trusted on more important things. Like our money.". They say that every man has his price. It would seem that our price is an extra 100 quid a year or thereabouts. In exchange for that, we'll cheerfully turn a blind eye to whatever act of genocide Blair wants to cheerlead for. In respect of our money, Gordon Brown is the biggest boon the Labour party could hope for. As a chancellor, I like him; he has the thankless task of pandering to Big Business whilst trying to introduce socially fair economic policies, and maintaining economic stability all the while. That he does this very well is worthy of respect (that he does so in a job so apocalyptically boring is also to his credit). But I can't help feeling rather sad at how mercenary we seem to be as a nation that we can be bought off giving a shit about human rights in exchange for a little bit of money.
One final note; every single party seems to be using fear as a cornerstone of it's campaign. I suppose it must be the post 9/11 effect, but it's strange to see Kilroy telling us to be scared of anyone brown (ironic when one considers his tan), Respect telling us to be scared of Labour's Totalitarianism, the Tories telling us to be scared because if Labour win then darkies will commit acts of murder in a funny accent, and Labour telling us to be scared that, if the Tories won, we'll all be killed in our sleep by Arab turrists. The only party who don't seem to be doing this so far are the LibDems. They're concentrating on the good that they can do. And that, more than anything else, probably ensures that they won't see government in my lifetime.
Of course, bearing in mind how utterly wrong I was about the last election when I ranted about it, this could all be complete cockrot. Time will tell.
I suppose the first thing that needs to be said from my point of view (aside from "Jesus Christ, have I REALLY been churning out vitriol for over 4 years? I've just re-read the rants I wrote leading up to the last election and...well, I was hoping I'd have grown less angry over the years. Not, as it would appear, more so...) is that in this coming election we at least have the illusion of greater choice. Last time round, it was a one horse race between Labour and nobody else. The Tories were being lead to national mediocrity by a smirking Yorkshire dwarf named Hague. The Libdems...well, let's be honest here; not many people either knew or cared what the Libdems were up to, and were only dimly aware that a plump, ginger Scots gentleman was quietly campaigning for people to vote for him. If you lived in Scotland, Northern Ireland, or Wales, you had the additional choice of that nation's Nationalist party. It was obvious that Labour would walk to victory, and as such it was difficult to care (though God knows, I tried to...).
This time round, things are looking somewhat different. The political map seems to have opened up a little; aside from the above mentioned parties (of whom more later) we also have the increasing influence of the various "Darkies are bad and evil and should all be deported before they rape your budgie and bomb your Gran" parties; UKIP, the BNP, and Kilory's Veritas (or Vanitas to give it it's more accurate name) form the vanguard of this movement. The net effect of all of these parties will almost certainly be to steal a chunk of the chav vote from the Tories and Labour. Whether or not they actually gain anything in terms of Parliamentary seats is another matter; I suspect not, as they're all squabbling for votes among the same target group. However, there is a good chance that they will steal Labour and the Tories' thunder on immigration by splitting the racist vote 4 ways and rendering it irrelevant. Which would make this the single only worthwhile thing that Kilroy has ever achieved in his thus far worthless life.
On the left of the spectrum, we have the Respect coalition. The most visible member of this group is the former Labour member and current MP, George Galloway. They are fighting on an anti-war, anti-Labour bullshit platform, and have the potential to do rather well in the London seats they're fighting. Despite his pandering to the (I suspect, imaginary) Pro-Life tendencies of the Moslems who make up the vast majority of Respect's target audience, I rather like Mr. Galloway. Unlike many current members of the Labour party, he purports to be a socialist. What's more, he's survived the barrage of mud slung his way as a result of his opposition to the Iraqi land grab and come out of it smelling more rose-like than at any other time in his career. Whilst I don't agree with all of his principles, the mere fact that he has any raises him a cut above most MP's.
The final element outside the big 3 (well...big 2 and a half) parties, is the rise of the Independent Candidate. Since Martin Bell's unseating of the Hamilton's from their fief, Independent Single-Issue candidates have started popping up and doing rather well. Dr Richard Taylor is currently the member for Wyre Forest, and was elected solely on the promise of fighting cuts to the local Kidderminster holiday. This time round, we have the likes of Reg Keys, standing against Tony Blair in Sedgefield. His campaign is based on debating the lies Blair told to take us to war. Also there is Demitrious Panton, who is standing against the Children's Minister (what the hell does a Children's Minister do? Visit schools in order to patronise children? Shout "Nyer Nyer, Michael Howard smells of wee!" in the Commons?) and basing his campaign on her failure to accept responsibility for an abuse scandal during her time as leader of Islington Council. These candidates are what I would call "wild cards". They may not get enough votes to win, but they will almost certainly take enough votes off the MP's they're standing against to cause a headache. As such, I find that I adore these people for no other reason than they inject a little uncertainty and (in a deeply boring way) some excitement into the election.
And so that leaves us with the main parties. The Tories, the Libdems, and Labour. To make things clear, I'm now a fully paid up member of the Libdems, so I suppose it's going to be pretty obvious where my sympathies lie. Even so, I still think it's worth having a look at all three in as objective a manner as a shouty and bilious man such as myself can manage.
Firstly we have the Tories. Well...it seems that, according to the polls, they've pulled their socks up and are now no longer the laughing stock they have been over the last 10 years. And how have they done this? Mainly by appointing a man to whom "scruples" is nothing more than a vaguely amusing parlor game from the 80's, as their election Guru. The gentleman in question is named Lynton Crosby. It was he who suggested that the "Pigs might Fly" poster produced by Labour was Anti-Semitic. Apparently, because Michael Howard is Jewish, portraying him as a pig is an act of Anti-Semitism. Obviously, this had to be explained to everyone, otherwise they might have missed what an inflammatory and racist poster it was. Needless to say, Crosby's entire campaign strategy is negative, and revolves around smearing all opponents with as many slurs as possible, whilst ratcheting up the populist rhetoric (i.e. shouting "Foreign Types are coming to steal your way of life!!" from the highest hills) in the meantime. As strategy goes, I personally find it repellant, but it seems to be working. It could almost make your forget about the doctored photographs, the admission that the Tories are lying about their spending plans, the budgetary sums that don't add up, the fact that Michael Howard is the man who was asked the same question for about 5 minutes on National TV and constantly evaded answering it, and the fact that Anne Widdecombe found him to be creepy (ANNE WIDDECOMBE for God's sake...).
Next up, the Libdems. They seem to have taken a rather odd step in their campaign to become worth noticing; they're campaigning on the basis of what they think the country needs, rather than what the opinion polls suggests the country wants. Naturally, in an age where self-interest and "What's in it for me?" have been raised to such a level that even Machiavelli would blush at having to praise it, this is political suicide. Or so it would seem. The Libdems can claim, with some justification, to be the only genuine opposition. When one looks at the policies and behaviour of Labour and the Tories these days....well, it's rather like the closing lines of Orwell's "Animal Farm;
"(they) looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which".
The Libdems are the only major party to have given any real opposition to Labour on taxation, the Iraqi Land Grab and subsequent whitewashes, Student Loans and Top up fees, Law and Order...the list goes on. What's more, they seem to genuinely care about doing the best for the country; they're still attempting the necessary evil of engaging with Big Business, but seem to be at least trying to do so in a way that will make some attempt to rein in the corruption that is rife in dealings between Business and Politics. Of course, I could be just being naive, and they'll turn out to be just as big a bunch of lying mongdongs as Labour and the Tories. ~shrug~ The only way we'll find out is by voting for them.
Finally, we have Labour. Nobody seems to trust Tony Blair these days. The fact that he dished up the biggest selection of lies since Hitler's post-Sudetenland "I have no further territorial claims to make" porky of 1938, in order to take us to war in Iraq seems to have played a large part in that. However, it doesn't seem to have played a big enough part. There seems to be an attitude of "Oh yeah, he lied to us about sending in our army to slaughter brown people by the thousand in order to remove a dictator who we kept in place for years until he stopped obeying orders...but I'm sure he can be trusted on more important things. Like our money.". They say that every man has his price. It would seem that our price is an extra 100 quid a year or thereabouts. In exchange for that, we'll cheerfully turn a blind eye to whatever act of genocide Blair wants to cheerlead for. In respect of our money, Gordon Brown is the biggest boon the Labour party could hope for. As a chancellor, I like him; he has the thankless task of pandering to Big Business whilst trying to introduce socially fair economic policies, and maintaining economic stability all the while. That he does this very well is worthy of respect (that he does so in a job so apocalyptically boring is also to his credit). But I can't help feeling rather sad at how mercenary we seem to be as a nation that we can be bought off giving a shit about human rights in exchange for a little bit of money.
One final note; every single party seems to be using fear as a cornerstone of it's campaign. I suppose it must be the post 9/11 effect, but it's strange to see Kilroy telling us to be scared of anyone brown (ironic when one considers his tan), Respect telling us to be scared of Labour's Totalitarianism, the Tories telling us to be scared because if Labour win then darkies will commit acts of murder in a funny accent, and Labour telling us to be scared that, if the Tories won, we'll all be killed in our sleep by Arab turrists. The only party who don't seem to be doing this so far are the LibDems. They're concentrating on the good that they can do. And that, more than anything else, probably ensures that they won't see government in my lifetime.
Of course, bearing in mind how utterly wrong I was about the last election when I ranted about it, this could all be complete cockrot. Time will tell.
Wednesday, 30 March 2005
Onward Christian Soldiers
In common with almost every sentient being outside of America, I despise the Evangelical right. This was my attempt at a reasoned argument against the set of wankers.
Okay; it's now nearly April 2005. The US Presidential elections were held back in November 2004. I think I've just about calmed down enough to talk about what that unbelievably christawful result might now mean for the rest of us. Why did I need so long to cool my enflamed hate gland? Well, because the aspect of Dubya's election victory that I'm going to talk about is the increasing power of the Christian Right.
The first thing that needs to be said about the Christian Right (apart from the fact that they're a bunch of joyless f**ksocks with all the personal charm of a Nazi on a sightseeing tour of Israel...hey, I may have calmed down, but that doesn't mean I'm not still furious...) is that their name is...well, a lie. They're not very Christian, and they're never right.
So why do I so utterly despise these Evangelically minded morons, and am I insisting that they're about as far removed from the spirit of Christianity as it's possible to be without donning a horn and hoof ensemble, painting themselves red, and singing hymns to Mephistopheles? Probably because their actions since the election give them away for the totalitarian, freedom-hating, backward bigots that they are.
One of the biggest giveaways to this mindset is their approach to abortion. A woman's right to an abortion in the US is enshrined in the case of Roe vs. Wade, which was decided by the Supreme Court back in 1973. Ever since then (and particularly under the Republican regimes of the 80's), the Supreme Court has been packed with increasingly conservative judges, and Pro-Life lobbyists (almost without exception members of the Christian Right) have been pushing for the case to be reviewed and overhauled (and, if they had their way, burnt). However, as the recent Right To Die case of Terri Schiavo has shown, the US Judiciary has done a decent job of maintaining its independence from populist, rabble-rousing "moral issues". And so, Roe vs. Wade remains law.
And the reaction of the Christian Right? It's been very balanced. All they've done is encourage the murder of abortion doctors. And demonise any and every member of government and judiciary who isn't messianically opposed to abortion as a baby-killer. And demand that the church-dwelling chimp in the White House outlaws abortion altogether. And pretty much gone out of their way to dismiss any debate over this highly contentious issue, and demand that their view be accepted as the unvarnished truth and implemented without delay.
Is it just me, or is their attitude that of a spoilt brat who has thrown an epic huff at not being allowed to play with their favourite toy? I don't recall Jesus saying "Deliver unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Unless you don't want to; in which case, stand like a placard-waving, glassy-eyed automaton chanting ill-conceived slogans and threats at anyone who doesn't go to the same church as you". Yet the Christian Right seem to have taken His message of humility, love, tolerance, and brotherhood, and turned it into "Love thy neighbour. Unless he's funny lookin'. And doesn't think exactly like you do." It's sweet that they assume that, if they say abortions shouldn't happen, then they won't. But when one bears in mind the number of backstreet abortionists who flourished back in the days when it was illegal (which also caused 15% of maternal deaths back in those happy-go-lucky days of prim insanity), I'm rather inclined to think that their prurient wishful thinking will lead to misery and pain for countless women.
It's not as if Evangelical churches don't have a good track record in using their influence to do make changes that benefit everyone; during the time of the British Empire, the Victorian Evangelical Churches campaigned fearlessly against slavery. They can take pretty much all of the credit for the abolition of this hideous practice which in turn enabled civilisation to genuinely lay claim to being civilised. What have the Christian Right spent their time campaigning against? The right of a woman to choose what to do with her body. Oh, and Spongebob Squarepants.
I'm serious; this mighty, monolithic collection of Holy Warriors has spent months campaigning against Spongebob Squarepants because "he's clearly gay". Apparently, because he holds the hand of his best friend in the cartoon, he encourages homosexuality amongst children. It takes a very special kind of mind to see homosexual propaganda in a kids show. In fact, it sounds like the sort of thing a stoned student would say at 3am (having once claimed that Mr. Benn was an allegory of the battle between Good and Evil, I know what I'm talking about...).
If anything shows that the Christian Right are an organisation interested in controlling the thoughts, words, and deeds of everyone, a mean-minded crusade against a cartoon character (a f**king CARTOON CHARACTER for f**ks sake...mind you, they tried to claim that one of the teletubbies was less than manly cos he carried a handbag, so...) should do it. I shudder to think how they'd react to the prospect of primary schoolkids holding hands when they go on a school trip.
What really concerns me is that, since the US Election was decided on "Moral issues", and since the President is a member of the Christian Right himself, the assumption is that it should be the Christian Right who set the moral agenda on all issues from now. After the downfall of televangelists such as Swaggart and Bakker in the 90's, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch of the imagination to realise that the US is trying to appoint a gang of hypocrites, liars, and thieves as their moral guardians.
What is even more worrying is that the arrogance of the Evangelists seems to be spreading here. 2 weeks ago, most people on the street couldn't have given the faintest hint of a damn about the 24-week limit on abortion. Thanks to the grinning charlatan living at Number 10 and his slithering insistence that he's a good Christian, we have church leaders trying to make it an election issue. Nothing too troubling in that, because everyone has the right to raise their concerns. But I'm never in favour of allowing Religious groups trying to set political agendas; as we can see in Iran, Afghanistan, America, and most recently in Iraq, it leads to a minority forcing their will on the majority. More than that, it leads to intolerance, and persecution of anyone who can't or won't conform with their will.
So then; the Christian Right of America, who constantly bray about how the freedoms of America are the best in the world, are trying to dictate how the law should develop. They're trying to say what is acceptable in culture. They're trying to subvert democratic process. They're trying to tell us all what we're allowed to do, what we're allowed to see, and how we're allowed to think. They're causing honest-to-God Christians to be viewed as equally intolerant and hateful as the Evangelicals. And they're doing all of this in the name of God.
The only other organisation I can think of that did this was the Taliban. And they were ostensibly ousted by the US Military for being an undemocratic organisation who sheltered terrorists. By my reckoning, the sh!theels who shoot doctors and bomb abortion clinics at the behest of the undemocratic Christian Right are terrorists. Might I suggest that, if Dubya is serious about spreading democracy, he declares his next war on them?
Okay; it's now nearly April 2005. The US Presidential elections were held back in November 2004. I think I've just about calmed down enough to talk about what that unbelievably christawful result might now mean for the rest of us. Why did I need so long to cool my enflamed hate gland? Well, because the aspect of Dubya's election victory that I'm going to talk about is the increasing power of the Christian Right.
The first thing that needs to be said about the Christian Right (apart from the fact that they're a bunch of joyless f**ksocks with all the personal charm of a Nazi on a sightseeing tour of Israel...hey, I may have calmed down, but that doesn't mean I'm not still furious...) is that their name is...well, a lie. They're not very Christian, and they're never right.
So why do I so utterly despise these Evangelically minded morons, and am I insisting that they're about as far removed from the spirit of Christianity as it's possible to be without donning a horn and hoof ensemble, painting themselves red, and singing hymns to Mephistopheles? Probably because their actions since the election give them away for the totalitarian, freedom-hating, backward bigots that they are.
One of the biggest giveaways to this mindset is their approach to abortion. A woman's right to an abortion in the US is enshrined in the case of Roe vs. Wade, which was decided by the Supreme Court back in 1973. Ever since then (and particularly under the Republican regimes of the 80's), the Supreme Court has been packed with increasingly conservative judges, and Pro-Life lobbyists (almost without exception members of the Christian Right) have been pushing for the case to be reviewed and overhauled (and, if they had their way, burnt). However, as the recent Right To Die case of Terri Schiavo has shown, the US Judiciary has done a decent job of maintaining its independence from populist, rabble-rousing "moral issues". And so, Roe vs. Wade remains law.
And the reaction of the Christian Right? It's been very balanced. All they've done is encourage the murder of abortion doctors. And demonise any and every member of government and judiciary who isn't messianically opposed to abortion as a baby-killer. And demand that the church-dwelling chimp in the White House outlaws abortion altogether. And pretty much gone out of their way to dismiss any debate over this highly contentious issue, and demand that their view be accepted as the unvarnished truth and implemented without delay.
Is it just me, or is their attitude that of a spoilt brat who has thrown an epic huff at not being allowed to play with their favourite toy? I don't recall Jesus saying "Deliver unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Unless you don't want to; in which case, stand like a placard-waving, glassy-eyed automaton chanting ill-conceived slogans and threats at anyone who doesn't go to the same church as you". Yet the Christian Right seem to have taken His message of humility, love, tolerance, and brotherhood, and turned it into "Love thy neighbour. Unless he's funny lookin'. And doesn't think exactly like you do." It's sweet that they assume that, if they say abortions shouldn't happen, then they won't. But when one bears in mind the number of backstreet abortionists who flourished back in the days when it was illegal (which also caused 15% of maternal deaths back in those happy-go-lucky days of prim insanity), I'm rather inclined to think that their prurient wishful thinking will lead to misery and pain for countless women.
It's not as if Evangelical churches don't have a good track record in using their influence to do make changes that benefit everyone; during the time of the British Empire, the Victorian Evangelical Churches campaigned fearlessly against slavery. They can take pretty much all of the credit for the abolition of this hideous practice which in turn enabled civilisation to genuinely lay claim to being civilised. What have the Christian Right spent their time campaigning against? The right of a woman to choose what to do with her body. Oh, and Spongebob Squarepants.
I'm serious; this mighty, monolithic collection of Holy Warriors has spent months campaigning against Spongebob Squarepants because "he's clearly gay". Apparently, because he holds the hand of his best friend in the cartoon, he encourages homosexuality amongst children. It takes a very special kind of mind to see homosexual propaganda in a kids show. In fact, it sounds like the sort of thing a stoned student would say at 3am (having once claimed that Mr. Benn was an allegory of the battle between Good and Evil, I know what I'm talking about...).
If anything shows that the Christian Right are an organisation interested in controlling the thoughts, words, and deeds of everyone, a mean-minded crusade against a cartoon character (a f**king CARTOON CHARACTER for f**ks sake...mind you, they tried to claim that one of the teletubbies was less than manly cos he carried a handbag, so...) should do it. I shudder to think how they'd react to the prospect of primary schoolkids holding hands when they go on a school trip.
What really concerns me is that, since the US Election was decided on "Moral issues", and since the President is a member of the Christian Right himself, the assumption is that it should be the Christian Right who set the moral agenda on all issues from now. After the downfall of televangelists such as Swaggart and Bakker in the 90's, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch of the imagination to realise that the US is trying to appoint a gang of hypocrites, liars, and thieves as their moral guardians.
What is even more worrying is that the arrogance of the Evangelists seems to be spreading here. 2 weeks ago, most people on the street couldn't have given the faintest hint of a damn about the 24-week limit on abortion. Thanks to the grinning charlatan living at Number 10 and his slithering insistence that he's a good Christian, we have church leaders trying to make it an election issue. Nothing too troubling in that, because everyone has the right to raise their concerns. But I'm never in favour of allowing Religious groups trying to set political agendas; as we can see in Iran, Afghanistan, America, and most recently in Iraq, it leads to a minority forcing their will on the majority. More than that, it leads to intolerance, and persecution of anyone who can't or won't conform with their will.
So then; the Christian Right of America, who constantly bray about how the freedoms of America are the best in the world, are trying to dictate how the law should develop. They're trying to say what is acceptable in culture. They're trying to subvert democratic process. They're trying to tell us all what we're allowed to do, what we're allowed to see, and how we're allowed to think. They're causing honest-to-God Christians to be viewed as equally intolerant and hateful as the Evangelicals. And they're doing all of this in the name of God.
The only other organisation I can think of that did this was the Taliban. And they were ostensibly ousted by the US Military for being an undemocratic organisation who sheltered terrorists. By my reckoning, the sh!theels who shoot doctors and bomb abortion clinics at the behest of the undemocratic Christian Right are terrorists. Might I suggest that, if Dubya is serious about spreading democracy, he declares his next war on them?
Monday, 24 January 2005
Blue Monday
A generalised whine about the perils of rose-tinted glasses.
Today is January 24th. The most depressing day (according to scientists) of the most depressing month of the year. And to cap it all, it's a Monday too. January is like the longest Monday in history, so to actually be stuck in the middle of a January Monday is something akin to purgatory. So I need to do something to distract me from this christawful dog’s ringpiece of a day.
I suppose it's unfortunate for me that I have no enemies to distract me. That would be the best solution, as it would undoubtedly give me something to focus all my hatred on, and put my hopes and desires in that context too. Having someone whom I hate and fear with all of my heart would probably make the day seem much easier to deal with. Do you know what I mean? No? Well, if you can bear to stay with me on this one, you very soon will do.
Whilst reading through a magazine recently, I noticed that it referred to the years of the Cold War as a "golden age for peace in the western world". I re-read the piece, just to make sure it hadn't been soaked in some sort of invisible irony. Apparently the author was completely serious. He felt that the 40 odd years of cold-sweating fear of nuclear war constituted a golden age. I've mentioned this to one or two people, and it seems he's not alone in that opinion. An awful lot of people feel less secure now than they did then. Why?
Well, it's my belief that the reason for today's world being considered far more dangerous than that of 20 years ago is that we don't have a monolithic, seemingly unstoppable enemy to distract us from our everyday fears. During the Cold War, we all grew up and grew older on the understanding that the USSR was, at any moment, going to kill us all. They were, as far as I was concerned, plotting to take over the whole world (that's what happens when you get your early political theory from your mother...) and either enslave us all, or turn us to atomic dust. When one has all that on ones mind, it's sorta difficult to concentrate on the everyday existential ennui and torpor that is a feature of the post millennial western world.
But the cold war ended with the 80's. And did we all explode in happiness at the release of this nightmarish pressure? Did we hell. If one looks at the popular culture of the UK and (especially) the US through the 90's, one is struck by just how many disparate groups we were being told to be frightened of. It's as if, free of the burden of hate and fear at long last, all we wanted was something else to be scared of. Is it a coincidence that the most popular TV series of the decade was the X-Files, a show which told us that something was indeed out there, and given half a chance it was going to abduct and anal probe us with satanic glee? In fact there was something of a rash of shows that tried to convince America that they had to look to the skies to find their next enemy. However, pretty much every show through the 90's that did try to create a new enemy almost always fell back to the exact same plot; it was the government wot really did it.
To me, it seemed that we were engaging in a collective national introspection in both the UK and the US. And it doesn't appear that we like what we'd found. According to popular culture, our governments were part of epic, epoch-spanning conspiracies involving any and all semi-mythical bogeymen from Aliens to Aryans. Their only interest was in experimenting on us, or trading us on an intergalactic slave market, or turning us into unthinking consumerist drones. In other words, deprived of someone or something to concentrate our hate on, we all seem to go a little bit hysterical. It didn't matter how outlandish the enemy was (or at least, it didn't to David Icke). All that mattered was that we had one. And for some reason, we seem to need to know who our enemy is in order to feel happy. And if we don't actually have any enemies? Well, we can always rely on the TV to tell us whom we SHOULD be hating.
Of course, it's not just the TV networks who were kind enough to create enemies for us; Governments are pretty good at it too (as an aside, perhaps one of the more annoying things about the likes of David Icke, Alex Jones, and other self-serving conspiracy theorist out there is this; by insisting on ranting at length about how the government are made up of reptilian aliens who practice night-time rape rituals overseen by mythical owls, they make us automatically skeptical of anyone who tries to point out that perhaps those people who are our rulers might just be a bunch of money-hungry hypocrites. Thus it's impossible to call a government into question without being thought of as a little paranoid. Thanks guys.)
Look at the global hysteria about Al-Quaida. Here is a group whose membership numbers a few thousand (perhaps even a few hundred) individuals. They were concentrated mainly in a few camps in countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. But if you listened to the increasingly shrill briefings given by Blair and Bush, they're an evil organisation ran by a supergenius. They have their dark tendrils snaking across the world, ready to sink into and corrupt the purity of our wonderful western way of life (incidentally, has anyone stopped to think why Osama Bin Laden hasn't attacked Holland? After all, according to Dubya, he only hates us for our freedom...). They all have Einstein's intelligence, Hitlers evil, Hercules' strength, and Moses' fashion sense. And seemingly, the only way to beat them is to shoot or bomb everyone in the middle east who's skin is offensively brown whilst trilling mindlessly that anyone who disapproves of this approach "may as well be beheading hostages in Iraq".
It works both ways of course; the fun-loving criminals in Al-Quaida are doing their very best to convince the people of the Muslim world that the US and UK are the twin Luciferian nations of Gog and Magog (if those names aren't proof that the bloke who wrote the Revelations book of the Bible wasn't tripping, I'd like to know what is...) made reality. Both their worldview, and that of Dubya and his Neo-Conservative buddies is nothing more than fearmongering lies. But those lies have so far been persuasive enough to cause war. Why should that be the case when anyone with half a brain can tell that both sets of cockwits are lying?
Could it be because we're all so desperate for an enemy to focus our hate on that we're willing to be so blatantly lied to in order to get one? It's an unpleasant conclusion to come to, but unfortunately it's one that seems to make sense. Nothing unites people like a common enemy; Dubya's re-election would seem to prove that, as would the Labour governments insistence that anything other than an election victory for them will invite a terrorist attack. Maybe we need to remind ourselves that the "golden age" we lived in up to the end of the 80's was not much more than 40 years of holding our breath and waiting for oblivion. That hardly seems like an ideal scenario to go back to.
Today is January 24th. The most depressing day (according to scientists) of the most depressing month of the year. And to cap it all, it's a Monday too. January is like the longest Monday in history, so to actually be stuck in the middle of a January Monday is something akin to purgatory. So I need to do something to distract me from this christawful dog’s ringpiece of a day.
I suppose it's unfortunate for me that I have no enemies to distract me. That would be the best solution, as it would undoubtedly give me something to focus all my hatred on, and put my hopes and desires in that context too. Having someone whom I hate and fear with all of my heart would probably make the day seem much easier to deal with. Do you know what I mean? No? Well, if you can bear to stay with me on this one, you very soon will do.
Whilst reading through a magazine recently, I noticed that it referred to the years of the Cold War as a "golden age for peace in the western world". I re-read the piece, just to make sure it hadn't been soaked in some sort of invisible irony. Apparently the author was completely serious. He felt that the 40 odd years of cold-sweating fear of nuclear war constituted a golden age. I've mentioned this to one or two people, and it seems he's not alone in that opinion. An awful lot of people feel less secure now than they did then. Why?
Well, it's my belief that the reason for today's world being considered far more dangerous than that of 20 years ago is that we don't have a monolithic, seemingly unstoppable enemy to distract us from our everyday fears. During the Cold War, we all grew up and grew older on the understanding that the USSR was, at any moment, going to kill us all. They were, as far as I was concerned, plotting to take over the whole world (that's what happens when you get your early political theory from your mother...) and either enslave us all, or turn us to atomic dust. When one has all that on ones mind, it's sorta difficult to concentrate on the everyday existential ennui and torpor that is a feature of the post millennial western world.
But the cold war ended with the 80's. And did we all explode in happiness at the release of this nightmarish pressure? Did we hell. If one looks at the popular culture of the UK and (especially) the US through the 90's, one is struck by just how many disparate groups we were being told to be frightened of. It's as if, free of the burden of hate and fear at long last, all we wanted was something else to be scared of. Is it a coincidence that the most popular TV series of the decade was the X-Files, a show which told us that something was indeed out there, and given half a chance it was going to abduct and anal probe us with satanic glee? In fact there was something of a rash of shows that tried to convince America that they had to look to the skies to find their next enemy. However, pretty much every show through the 90's that did try to create a new enemy almost always fell back to the exact same plot; it was the government wot really did it.
To me, it seemed that we were engaging in a collective national introspection in both the UK and the US. And it doesn't appear that we like what we'd found. According to popular culture, our governments were part of epic, epoch-spanning conspiracies involving any and all semi-mythical bogeymen from Aliens to Aryans. Their only interest was in experimenting on us, or trading us on an intergalactic slave market, or turning us into unthinking consumerist drones. In other words, deprived of someone or something to concentrate our hate on, we all seem to go a little bit hysterical. It didn't matter how outlandish the enemy was (or at least, it didn't to David Icke). All that mattered was that we had one. And for some reason, we seem to need to know who our enemy is in order to feel happy. And if we don't actually have any enemies? Well, we can always rely on the TV to tell us whom we SHOULD be hating.
Of course, it's not just the TV networks who were kind enough to create enemies for us; Governments are pretty good at it too (as an aside, perhaps one of the more annoying things about the likes of David Icke, Alex Jones, and other self-serving conspiracy theorist out there is this; by insisting on ranting at length about how the government are made up of reptilian aliens who practice night-time rape rituals overseen by mythical owls, they make us automatically skeptical of anyone who tries to point out that perhaps those people who are our rulers might just be a bunch of money-hungry hypocrites. Thus it's impossible to call a government into question without being thought of as a little paranoid. Thanks guys.)
Look at the global hysteria about Al-Quaida. Here is a group whose membership numbers a few thousand (perhaps even a few hundred) individuals. They were concentrated mainly in a few camps in countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. But if you listened to the increasingly shrill briefings given by Blair and Bush, they're an evil organisation ran by a supergenius. They have their dark tendrils snaking across the world, ready to sink into and corrupt the purity of our wonderful western way of life (incidentally, has anyone stopped to think why Osama Bin Laden hasn't attacked Holland? After all, according to Dubya, he only hates us for our freedom...). They all have Einstein's intelligence, Hitlers evil, Hercules' strength, and Moses' fashion sense. And seemingly, the only way to beat them is to shoot or bomb everyone in the middle east who's skin is offensively brown whilst trilling mindlessly that anyone who disapproves of this approach "may as well be beheading hostages in Iraq".
It works both ways of course; the fun-loving criminals in Al-Quaida are doing their very best to convince the people of the Muslim world that the US and UK are the twin Luciferian nations of Gog and Magog (if those names aren't proof that the bloke who wrote the Revelations book of the Bible wasn't tripping, I'd like to know what is...) made reality. Both their worldview, and that of Dubya and his Neo-Conservative buddies is nothing more than fearmongering lies. But those lies have so far been persuasive enough to cause war. Why should that be the case when anyone with half a brain can tell that both sets of cockwits are lying?
Could it be because we're all so desperate for an enemy to focus our hate on that we're willing to be so blatantly lied to in order to get one? It's an unpleasant conclusion to come to, but unfortunately it's one that seems to make sense. Nothing unites people like a common enemy; Dubya's re-election would seem to prove that, as would the Labour governments insistence that anything other than an election victory for them will invite a terrorist attack. Maybe we need to remind ourselves that the "golden age" we lived in up to the end of the 80's was not much more than 40 years of holding our breath and waiting for oblivion. That hardly seems like an ideal scenario to go back to.
Friday, 19 November 2004
Foxhunters
Foxhunters: A much maligned and victimised bunch of whining pricks, or spoilt and selfish cocksocks who excite all the public sympathy of a paedophile campaigning for access rights to his attractive, pert-bottomed 6 year old son?
I've been half-heartedly following the whole debate about banning foxhunting in this country, and I've found myself increasingly astounded at some of the things that the Countryside Alliance have been saying. At first I thought that their bleating about how banning foxhunting would lead to a breakdown in society, or how a ban would infringe their human rights, must have been a joke. You know, like when Hitler signed Neville Chamberlains Piece of Paper for Peace, and was afterwards heard to say "Well, he seemed like such a nice old gentleman. I thought I would give him my autograph."
But no, there was no hint of a smirk on their collective face. They were serious. Or at least, they wanted everyone to think that they were. So why are they so absolutely hellbent on preserving an archaic and bloodthirsty practice that even they agree is rife with cruelty? And why are we being bombarded with messages from the Alliance that this is the first step on the slide to a brutal and totalitarian government who ride roughshod over the rights of the people? Well, as is always the case in these matters, it's about money and priviledge. And, of course, politics.
On the side of the Pro-Hunt supporters, we have the Countryside Alliance. Supposedly a confederation of people who are concerned with the raw deal that rural folk are getting from the government, they claim to be fighting on behalf of Farmers, huntsmen, shepherds, Forestry commision workers; pretty much any and all issues relating to the countryside will be dealt with by the Alliance. On the Anti-Hunt side, we have pretty much the entire rest of the country.
If you were to believe the Alliance, the public have been lied to by the government when it comes to foxhunting. We're just ignorant and uninformed souls who don't understand their country ways, and why it's absolutely VITAL that foxes are chased down and slaughtered by braying Sloane's rather than shot or trapped by farm workers. And rather than interfere, we should just let them get on with the hunt. Because if they're shot, they'll suffer far more than they would if they were chased for hours before being torn to pieces by a pack of baying hounds, and we urban types are only concerned with cute ickle animals and we don't want anyfink nasty to happen to 'em, oo we?
Which is, of course, a remarkably patronising piece of nonsense on their part. I think the main objection that most people have to foxhunting is that it simply doesn't sit right with us that, in this day and age, a certain section of society are getting their kicks from an activity that is rooted in bloodthirst and deliberate cruelty. The whole attitude of the Alliance is one of condescending patronisation to anyone who doesn't hunt. And I'm rather glad about this as it means that they have no chance whatsoever of their various lies and half truths having any effect on the general public. Why am I so adamant that the Alliance has no case in favour of Fox hunting? Well, it's because the whole Countryside Alliance is a sham. It's a piece of sleight-of-hand to distract attention from the fact that this whole storm in a teacup is about nothing more than a tiny percentage of wealthy people fighting tooth and nail to preserve an ancient method of distinguishing themselves from the common herd.
And just what do I mean by that suspiciously rabble-rousing statement? Well, the Alliance claim to fight for all countryside issues. Yet the only thing you'll hear them scream loudest about is foxhunting. Has anyone heard any complaint that it will be illegal for farm workers to go Hare Coursing? Nope. Have you opened your morning paper to read a shrieking denounciation of the inevitable end of taking terriers out Ratting? Nuh uh. Yet both of these activities are covered by the ban on hunting with dogs. So why no hue and cry about them? Could it be because that these activities are the exclusive preserve of people at the lower end of the social spectrum (or "oiks" to give them their official Countryside Alliance title)?
And what about other rural issues? Why aren't the Alliance marching on London to demand that Supermarkets be forced to pay farmers the full value of their produce, rather than forcing them into a position where they sell their stock for peanuts and thus unable to eke out even a basic living? How about hearing them complain about the lot of the average sheep farmer who is forced to support himself and his family on an income of less than £5,000 per year? Strangely, the leading lights of the Alliance stay quiet about that, and I'm sure it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with their being shareholders (and in some cases, boardmembers) of the companies that profit out of this rural misery. Where are their frenzied demands for decent compensation for the farmers forced into utter despair because of the Foot and Mouth epidemic? Could it be because the Alliance leaders tend to be major landowners who have received ample government compensation and care not one bit for the (fewer and fewer) small landowning farmers and tenant farmers?
The simple fact is that these people don't give a shit about the countryside. They don't care about the job losses, the death knell of families' way of life, the hardship, or the human suffering caused by the Government. They care about keeping their social calender intact. Do you really think that Simon Hart, the head of the Countryside Alliance, will lose his livlihood and home when hunting with dogs is finally banned? Or will it be the people who work on the Hunt who are turfed out and left to fend for themselves? And were the Lords and MP's who opposed the compromise yesterday (a compromise which would have delayed the ban until 2006 to give huntsmen time to find other jobs) doing so in the interests of the people who will undoubtedly suffer as a result of the ban? Or by guaranteeing it will be banned in February 2005, were they just looking to cause problems for the government, who will now face civil disobedience and protests from those living in rural areas throughout the election campaign next year?
If we want evidence that our government are unrepresentative bullies, we need look no further than Blair's slithering denial of any blame for lying to us in the lead up to the gulf war. Or their refusal to acknowledge the fact that our pensions are screwed, and we'll need to work longer for a smaller pension whilst they retire wealthy and happy. Or that the NHS is dying a gradual death and all they can do is invite private industry to pick at it's corpse. I'm happy to fight for those rights that affect an overwhelming majority. But fighting for the right of a few to sate their bloodlust? Put it this way; if packs of chavs started hunting urban foxes with packs of rottweilers, does anyone seriously doubt that these same people demanding that their right to hunt be preserved would be screaming in Daily Mail-inspired fury at the behaviour of 'uncivilised ruffians'? There are more important government policies for us to be worried about, and more important rural issues to fight for. Let the hunt, and foxes, die a comparatively quick and painless death.
I've been half-heartedly following the whole debate about banning foxhunting in this country, and I've found myself increasingly astounded at some of the things that the Countryside Alliance have been saying. At first I thought that their bleating about how banning foxhunting would lead to a breakdown in society, or how a ban would infringe their human rights, must have been a joke. You know, like when Hitler signed Neville Chamberlains Piece of Paper for Peace, and was afterwards heard to say "Well, he seemed like such a nice old gentleman. I thought I would give him my autograph."
But no, there was no hint of a smirk on their collective face. They were serious. Or at least, they wanted everyone to think that they were. So why are they so absolutely hellbent on preserving an archaic and bloodthirsty practice that even they agree is rife with cruelty? And why are we being bombarded with messages from the Alliance that this is the first step on the slide to a brutal and totalitarian government who ride roughshod over the rights of the people? Well, as is always the case in these matters, it's about money and priviledge. And, of course, politics.
On the side of the Pro-Hunt supporters, we have the Countryside Alliance. Supposedly a confederation of people who are concerned with the raw deal that rural folk are getting from the government, they claim to be fighting on behalf of Farmers, huntsmen, shepherds, Forestry commision workers; pretty much any and all issues relating to the countryside will be dealt with by the Alliance. On the Anti-Hunt side, we have pretty much the entire rest of the country.
If you were to believe the Alliance, the public have been lied to by the government when it comes to foxhunting. We're just ignorant and uninformed souls who don't understand their country ways, and why it's absolutely VITAL that foxes are chased down and slaughtered by braying Sloane's rather than shot or trapped by farm workers. And rather than interfere, we should just let them get on with the hunt. Because if they're shot, they'll suffer far more than they would if they were chased for hours before being torn to pieces by a pack of baying hounds, and we urban types are only concerned with cute ickle animals and we don't want anyfink nasty to happen to 'em, oo we?
Which is, of course, a remarkably patronising piece of nonsense on their part. I think the main objection that most people have to foxhunting is that it simply doesn't sit right with us that, in this day and age, a certain section of society are getting their kicks from an activity that is rooted in bloodthirst and deliberate cruelty. The whole attitude of the Alliance is one of condescending patronisation to anyone who doesn't hunt. And I'm rather glad about this as it means that they have no chance whatsoever of their various lies and half truths having any effect on the general public. Why am I so adamant that the Alliance has no case in favour of Fox hunting? Well, it's because the whole Countryside Alliance is a sham. It's a piece of sleight-of-hand to distract attention from the fact that this whole storm in a teacup is about nothing more than a tiny percentage of wealthy people fighting tooth and nail to preserve an ancient method of distinguishing themselves from the common herd.
And just what do I mean by that suspiciously rabble-rousing statement? Well, the Alliance claim to fight for all countryside issues. Yet the only thing you'll hear them scream loudest about is foxhunting. Has anyone heard any complaint that it will be illegal for farm workers to go Hare Coursing? Nope. Have you opened your morning paper to read a shrieking denounciation of the inevitable end of taking terriers out Ratting? Nuh uh. Yet both of these activities are covered by the ban on hunting with dogs. So why no hue and cry about them? Could it be because that these activities are the exclusive preserve of people at the lower end of the social spectrum (or "oiks" to give them their official Countryside Alliance title)?
And what about other rural issues? Why aren't the Alliance marching on London to demand that Supermarkets be forced to pay farmers the full value of their produce, rather than forcing them into a position where they sell their stock for peanuts and thus unable to eke out even a basic living? How about hearing them complain about the lot of the average sheep farmer who is forced to support himself and his family on an income of less than £5,000 per year? Strangely, the leading lights of the Alliance stay quiet about that, and I'm sure it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with their being shareholders (and in some cases, boardmembers) of the companies that profit out of this rural misery. Where are their frenzied demands for decent compensation for the farmers forced into utter despair because of the Foot and Mouth epidemic? Could it be because the Alliance leaders tend to be major landowners who have received ample government compensation and care not one bit for the (fewer and fewer) small landowning farmers and tenant farmers?
The simple fact is that these people don't give a shit about the countryside. They don't care about the job losses, the death knell of families' way of life, the hardship, or the human suffering caused by the Government. They care about keeping their social calender intact. Do you really think that Simon Hart, the head of the Countryside Alliance, will lose his livlihood and home when hunting with dogs is finally banned? Or will it be the people who work on the Hunt who are turfed out and left to fend for themselves? And were the Lords and MP's who opposed the compromise yesterday (a compromise which would have delayed the ban until 2006 to give huntsmen time to find other jobs) doing so in the interests of the people who will undoubtedly suffer as a result of the ban? Or by guaranteeing it will be banned in February 2005, were they just looking to cause problems for the government, who will now face civil disobedience and protests from those living in rural areas throughout the election campaign next year?
If we want evidence that our government are unrepresentative bullies, we need look no further than Blair's slithering denial of any blame for lying to us in the lead up to the gulf war. Or their refusal to acknowledge the fact that our pensions are screwed, and we'll need to work longer for a smaller pension whilst they retire wealthy and happy. Or that the NHS is dying a gradual death and all they can do is invite private industry to pick at it's corpse. I'm happy to fight for those rights that affect an overwhelming majority. But fighting for the right of a few to sate their bloodlust? Put it this way; if packs of chavs started hunting urban foxes with packs of rottweilers, does anyone seriously doubt that these same people demanding that their right to hunt be preserved would be screaming in Daily Mail-inspired fury at the behaviour of 'uncivilised ruffians'? There are more important government policies for us to be worried about, and more important rural issues to fight for. Let the hunt, and foxes, die a comparatively quick and painless death.
Friday, 3 September 2004
Golem
Leaving aside the hopelessly optimistic sentiment at the end of this piece, I'm still rather proud of the comparison between Ariel Sharon and the Golem of legend.
It's that time of year when the damp, humid, and sweaty summer gradually turns into damp, cold, and freezing autumn. As we bid farewell for another year to the carefree months of rainstorms and floods and watch the days grow steadily shorter, it seems a good time to look at a land where life is hard. Where life can be so tough that, if the worst the people who live there had to complain about was the weather, they'd be so relieved that they might even forget to organise their regular atrocities. Once again, and to probable sighs of "Aw, not again...” I'm talking about Israel.
It's been fairly quiet in Israel recently. Until the double bomb attack on 2 Israeli buses in Beersheba this week, the leadership of Hamas et al had stopped trying to liberate their people by sending some of their people to blow themselves up. And because of that, the Israeli forces hadn't had much of an excuse to win more Palestinian hearts and minds by destroying terrorists structures such as water pipes, electricity mains, and sewage systems as well as shooting dead potential terrorists (as some of these 'potential terrorists' are children, does that mean we'll soon be seeing abortion doctors sent to Muslim nations as part of the war on terror?). So what's happening? Are these two peoples, of similar racial makeup and geographical origin, separated only by their respective faiths, finally learning to live with one another? Did the 5 months of relative peace preceding the bombs give us an indication that the end of the Palestine-Israeli conflict is in sight? Well, bearing in mind Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat are still the leaders of each gang, what do you think?
I suppose one of the reasons that we haven't been hearing much of the continuing story of "Our God is bigger than your God" from Israel is because we've had a glut of stories about bombings and shootings from Iraq. Why import stories about one group of Semitic people murdering another group of Semitic people in a city we've never heard of when one can read about decent, English speaking white folk being murdered by small Arabic men in a city we've never heard of? But another reason we've not heard about bombings and shootings is pretty much because there haven't been any. There are a quite a few reasons for this, but the biggest one is a wall (or to give its proper title, a "security fence").
Basically, that nice Mr. Sharon authorised the building of a wall to encircle the Palestinian Authority-controlled territory of Israel. This, it was reasoned, would go some way to stopping suicide bombers making their way into Israel itself in order to explode. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that this security fence has echoes of the ghettoisation that the Jews themselves suffered throughout most of their recent history, and the fact that it has been declared illegal by an International court, don't the facts speak for themselves? The wall is erected, and suicide bombs become a comparative rarity rather than a daily eventuality. Doesn't that mean that the wall is a good thing?
Although the answer to that is both yes and no, it's more no than yes. On the one hand the long-suffering Israeli people have every right to do whatever is necessary to guarantee their safety, and the condemnation of an International court probably means little to a people who are used to being condemned by gentiles for...well, for pretty much anything and everything. On the other hand, Ariel Sharon's approach of reducing the Palestinian controlled cities to rubble and then fencing them in to face poverty, disease, and a growing hatred of all things Israeli doesn't exactly seem to be the most far-sighted approach. In fact, it smacks of a short-term solution to guarantee short-term electibility at a time when hard-line Jewish politicians are making life difficult for him. At the moment, there is a plan in place for Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. However, the hardliners oppose this. As Sharon relies on the hardliners to shore up his increasingly blood-soaked regime, he has to be seen to be doing something to ensure that any withdrawal will not compromise national security. Hence the wall.
It seems pretty obvious to my mind that keeping a bunch of people poor, hungry, and angry is not the best way to guarantee that you'll be able to live in peace with them. Surely, even through the entirely understandable siege mentality of the Israeli's, the same thing must have occurred to them? Why have they put a man who has done more for anti-Semitism than Hitler in charge of their security and their future?
The whole scenario reminds me of a famous story in Jewish folklore; the Golem. The story, in a nutshell, runs as follows;
The Jews of 16th Century Prague need to protect themselves from the occasionally murderous anti Semitism of their neighbours. So a wise Jewish Cabbalist, Rabbi Judah Loew, created the Golem to protect the Jews. This golem was an enormous clay Frankenstein's monster-like automaton, brought to life by mystical incantations and the word "Emet" (meaning 'Truth') on its forehead.
However, as the Golem gained experience of the world, it became a menace to the public safety it was supposed to be protecting; the power it wielded went to it's head, and it threatened innocent lives supposedly in the name of protecting the Jews. Rabbi Loew saw that the actions of the Golem reflected badly on the Jewish people of Prague, and realised that the Golem was no longer protecting the people but, through it's violent actions, putting them at risk. So he removed the first letter E from the word on the Golem's forehead (Met means "Death" in Hebrew), and the Golem died.
I believe that, in Ariel Sharon, the people of Israel have created a latter-day Golem. He is supposed to be their protector, and yet all he does is incite hatred and violence by his actions. After stopping the Golem, Rabbi Loew warned the Jews of Prague that strength itself could be dangerous when used indiscriminately, and he cautioned that the strong mustn't abuse their power in order to dominate and crush anything weak that is within their reach.
As a closing point, I became aware of a curious coincidence when writing this; the wise Rabbi Loew was a real man, and lived in Prague in the 16th century. It took his wisdom and bravery to show the Jews of Prague that a defender that creates more enemies is far more dangerous to their safety than anything their enemies could do. It seems that the Democratic candidate for the presidency, John Kerry, is a descendent of Rabbi Loew. Will he be able to convince the Jews of Israel that their leader is amplifying the danger that he is supposed to be protecting them from? And perhaps also convince the Palestinians that they will never know peace whilst Arafat continues to stumble along as their lame-duck leader? As ever, time will tell.
It's that time of year when the damp, humid, and sweaty summer gradually turns into damp, cold, and freezing autumn. As we bid farewell for another year to the carefree months of rainstorms and floods and watch the days grow steadily shorter, it seems a good time to look at a land where life is hard. Where life can be so tough that, if the worst the people who live there had to complain about was the weather, they'd be so relieved that they might even forget to organise their regular atrocities. Once again, and to probable sighs of "Aw, not again...” I'm talking about Israel.
It's been fairly quiet in Israel recently. Until the double bomb attack on 2 Israeli buses in Beersheba this week, the leadership of Hamas et al had stopped trying to liberate their people by sending some of their people to blow themselves up. And because of that, the Israeli forces hadn't had much of an excuse to win more Palestinian hearts and minds by destroying terrorists structures such as water pipes, electricity mains, and sewage systems as well as shooting dead potential terrorists (as some of these 'potential terrorists' are children, does that mean we'll soon be seeing abortion doctors sent to Muslim nations as part of the war on terror?). So what's happening? Are these two peoples, of similar racial makeup and geographical origin, separated only by their respective faiths, finally learning to live with one another? Did the 5 months of relative peace preceding the bombs give us an indication that the end of the Palestine-Israeli conflict is in sight? Well, bearing in mind Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat are still the leaders of each gang, what do you think?
I suppose one of the reasons that we haven't been hearing much of the continuing story of "Our God is bigger than your God" from Israel is because we've had a glut of stories about bombings and shootings from Iraq. Why import stories about one group of Semitic people murdering another group of Semitic people in a city we've never heard of when one can read about decent, English speaking white folk being murdered by small Arabic men in a city we've never heard of? But another reason we've not heard about bombings and shootings is pretty much because there haven't been any. There are a quite a few reasons for this, but the biggest one is a wall (or to give its proper title, a "security fence").
Basically, that nice Mr. Sharon authorised the building of a wall to encircle the Palestinian Authority-controlled territory of Israel. This, it was reasoned, would go some way to stopping suicide bombers making their way into Israel itself in order to explode. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that this security fence has echoes of the ghettoisation that the Jews themselves suffered throughout most of their recent history, and the fact that it has been declared illegal by an International court, don't the facts speak for themselves? The wall is erected, and suicide bombs become a comparative rarity rather than a daily eventuality. Doesn't that mean that the wall is a good thing?
Although the answer to that is both yes and no, it's more no than yes. On the one hand the long-suffering Israeli people have every right to do whatever is necessary to guarantee their safety, and the condemnation of an International court probably means little to a people who are used to being condemned by gentiles for...well, for pretty much anything and everything. On the other hand, Ariel Sharon's approach of reducing the Palestinian controlled cities to rubble and then fencing them in to face poverty, disease, and a growing hatred of all things Israeli doesn't exactly seem to be the most far-sighted approach. In fact, it smacks of a short-term solution to guarantee short-term electibility at a time when hard-line Jewish politicians are making life difficult for him. At the moment, there is a plan in place for Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. However, the hardliners oppose this. As Sharon relies on the hardliners to shore up his increasingly blood-soaked regime, he has to be seen to be doing something to ensure that any withdrawal will not compromise national security. Hence the wall.
It seems pretty obvious to my mind that keeping a bunch of people poor, hungry, and angry is not the best way to guarantee that you'll be able to live in peace with them. Surely, even through the entirely understandable siege mentality of the Israeli's, the same thing must have occurred to them? Why have they put a man who has done more for anti-Semitism than Hitler in charge of their security and their future?
The whole scenario reminds me of a famous story in Jewish folklore; the Golem. The story, in a nutshell, runs as follows;
The Jews of 16th Century Prague need to protect themselves from the occasionally murderous anti Semitism of their neighbours. So a wise Jewish Cabbalist, Rabbi Judah Loew, created the Golem to protect the Jews. This golem was an enormous clay Frankenstein's monster-like automaton, brought to life by mystical incantations and the word "Emet" (meaning 'Truth') on its forehead.
However, as the Golem gained experience of the world, it became a menace to the public safety it was supposed to be protecting; the power it wielded went to it's head, and it threatened innocent lives supposedly in the name of protecting the Jews. Rabbi Loew saw that the actions of the Golem reflected badly on the Jewish people of Prague, and realised that the Golem was no longer protecting the people but, through it's violent actions, putting them at risk. So he removed the first letter E from the word on the Golem's forehead (Met means "Death" in Hebrew), and the Golem died.
I believe that, in Ariel Sharon, the people of Israel have created a latter-day Golem. He is supposed to be their protector, and yet all he does is incite hatred and violence by his actions. After stopping the Golem, Rabbi Loew warned the Jews of Prague that strength itself could be dangerous when used indiscriminately, and he cautioned that the strong mustn't abuse their power in order to dominate and crush anything weak that is within their reach.
As a closing point, I became aware of a curious coincidence when writing this; the wise Rabbi Loew was a real man, and lived in Prague in the 16th century. It took his wisdom and bravery to show the Jews of Prague that a defender that creates more enemies is far more dangerous to their safety than anything their enemies could do. It seems that the Democratic candidate for the presidency, John Kerry, is a descendent of Rabbi Loew. Will he be able to convince the Jews of Israel that their leader is amplifying the danger that he is supposed to be protecting them from? And perhaps also convince the Palestinians that they will never know peace whilst Arafat continues to stumble along as their lame-duck leader? As ever, time will tell.
Wednesday, 21 July 2004
Fahrenheit 9/11
So then; Fahrenheit 9/11. As pretty much anyone with in an interest in either films or politics will know, this is Michael Moore's latest documentary. His documentary films tend to get peoples attention; he won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, and he's won the Palme D'Or for this one, so his film are now pretty mainstream. They're certainly available for everyone to watch; I watched it last night at a multiplex cinema. It's not so long ago that Moore would have been dismissed as a cranky, left wing conspiracy theorist. Now he's an award winning documentary maker, so that accusation becomes a little difficult to justify.
Anyway, the basics for the film for anyone who for whatever reason hasn't heard much about it; it looks at the Dubya presidency from start to (hopefully) finish. It looks at how he stole the election (giving us numerous reasons to doubt the result), followed by a brief look at how Dubya spent the first part of his presidency (on holiday), then his reaction to 9/11. Aside from that, we are shown just how easy it is to link all the president's men to some VERY wealthy Saudi Arabians, to the extent that American interests come second to those of the multi-billionaire Saudis. And if that weren't enough, we're also treated to seeing the raw deal given to both the Iraqi's, and to the US soldiers who are being killed daily in order to secure the enormous amount of money being made by Dubya's friends in business.
That's a very rushed synopsis of what you can expect from Fahrenheit 9/1. What's that you say? It sounds incredibly biased? It sounds like Moore is gunning for Dubya and will throw absolutely anything and everything onscreen in order to besmirch his reputation and make him seem like an appalling President? Well...yeah. Yeah it is. Your point being?
Whilst the criticisms of this film emanating from the Right wing of the political spectrum (ranging from "it's unfair to show such a political film in the run-up to an election", to "Michael Moore is fat and ugly") are fairly predictable and easily dismissed, what has surprised me is the slew of anger emerging from the political Left about the film. The central criticism of the left seems to go as follows;
"The film is too sentimental and mawkish, and relies on an emotional connection when it should present the facts in a clearer manner and with more honesty. Not only that, but Moore comes across as partisan and biased"
This seems to be a very odd criticism to make. Relying on an emotional connection? Well, I thought that's what a film was meant to do; give the viewer a catharsis. Sentimental? A big part of the film's message is that Dubya is sending US troops to die unnecessarily. If we're going to show sentiment about something, a rich man sending poor people to die in order to make his friends richer seems like a pretty damned good reason to get more than sentimental; it's a reason to get angry. When a man responded to the worst attack on American soil in a way that was designed to keep a foreign interest happy, shouldn't we be biased against him?
So bearing in mind that this film is doing more to damage Dubya's re-election hopes than anything the Democrats have thrown at him, why are so many of the political Left (supposedly who the Democrats represent) heaping criticism on the film, and on Moore personally?
Probably because they suffer from the major handicap of the Left; they're not capable of relating to the average man on the street. I've debated with people on both sides of the political spectrum, and generally speaking I find those on the Left far more intellectually gifted than those on the Right. However, those on the Right seem to have a better sense of what will get a positive reaction from the group loosely termed "the people".
This is a cause of much frustration among the Left; they can present a clear argument with evidence supporting it that cannot be faulted intellectually speaking. Then a Right wing person makes a few rabble-rousing (and usually inaccurate) statements, and the majority of people tend to gravitate toward that point of view. Which is, understandably, annoying. However, generally no effort is made to make Left wing arguments accessible; another criticism of the Left is that, in general, they love to show off how clever they are (and I hold my hands up to this one as well...). If you're looking for long words (I almost wrote "polysyllabic words", which sorta proves my own point for me), and obscure cultural references, then the political Left is for you! If however you're looking for something that is simple, direct, and doesn't cause confusion, then look no further than the political Right.
Michael Moore is the first man to successfully break that mould; he presents Left-wing arguments, but he does it without showing off the extent of his vocabulary. He appeals to people on an emotional, gut level. And yes, he does this at the expense of giving a full explanation of all the issues involved (in other words, he keeps it simple and accessible). He doesn't tell lies, but he does present evidence in a way biased toward his point of view. This seems to be his great crime in the eyes of some on the Left; he's not being intellectually rigorous enough for their liking.
Maybe it's just me, but I find that to be an incredibly selfish criticism. Basically they're saying "Well, it's too simplistic for me personally, ergo it's wrong." What kind of ego must one have to have to demand that everything be pitched at your particular level? Isn't that as elitist as Dubya and his Neo-Conservative government are accused of being? This in itself is another point that is worth addressing; most of the Left have a habit of referring to the general public as "the mob", "the rabble", "the herd", etc. Of course, so do the Right, but at least they're sensible enough to do it in private. The Left, an altogether more honest bunch, tend not to be so shy about their disdain. The reason for this condescension? Well, because the public have been swayed time and time again by the lies and half-truths of the Right, and have failed to grasp the significance of the arguments of the Left. Therefore, any difficulties the world faces today that were caused by Dubya, are the fault of the people for being easily swayed and easily led (because it CAN'T be the fault of those on the Left for presenting a self-congratulatory and convoluted argument that plays brilliantly to anyone else immersed in Left wing politics, but reads like treacle to anyone who isn't). It's worth making clear that this attitude simply has to stop; would you vote for a group who look down on you and will treat you as morons if you cannot instantly grasp the thrust of what they are saying? No? Neither would I. No-one likes to be made to feel stupid, and the Left in general need to stop giving in to this sense of petulant unfairness that their arguments are not being accepted.
Also, the simple fact of political debate these days is that it's polarised; no effort is made by the Right wing to give a balanced argument. Yet some on the Left wing seem to think that an argument is only pure if gives absolutely all of the evidence both for and against it. Neither wonder the Right wing are in the ascendant in the US and UK; all they have to do is wait for the political Left to bore the senses out of the general public, then they come in with a handy scapegoat for all of life’s problems (usually some brand of foreigner or other) and a soundbite or two, and voila; the Right have popular support whilst the Left sit fuming impotently.
Moore has done nothing more than tailor the presentation of his arguments so that they're better received by the general public. For the first time, the left can be sure that the general public will actually give due consideration to their arguments. For too long, it has been easy to dismiss the Left as being preachy, whining, boring, dryly intellectual elitists. Michael Moore gives the Left a voice that appeals to the public, and they would be foolish in the extreme to try and silence it.
Anyway, the basics for the film for anyone who for whatever reason hasn't heard much about it; it looks at the Dubya presidency from start to (hopefully) finish. It looks at how he stole the election (giving us numerous reasons to doubt the result), followed by a brief look at how Dubya spent the first part of his presidency (on holiday), then his reaction to 9/11. Aside from that, we are shown just how easy it is to link all the president's men to some VERY wealthy Saudi Arabians, to the extent that American interests come second to those of the multi-billionaire Saudis. And if that weren't enough, we're also treated to seeing the raw deal given to both the Iraqi's, and to the US soldiers who are being killed daily in order to secure the enormous amount of money being made by Dubya's friends in business.
That's a very rushed synopsis of what you can expect from Fahrenheit 9/1. What's that you say? It sounds incredibly biased? It sounds like Moore is gunning for Dubya and will throw absolutely anything and everything onscreen in order to besmirch his reputation and make him seem like an appalling President? Well...yeah. Yeah it is. Your point being?
Whilst the criticisms of this film emanating from the Right wing of the political spectrum (ranging from "it's unfair to show such a political film in the run-up to an election", to "Michael Moore is fat and ugly") are fairly predictable and easily dismissed, what has surprised me is the slew of anger emerging from the political Left about the film. The central criticism of the left seems to go as follows;
"The film is too sentimental and mawkish, and relies on an emotional connection when it should present the facts in a clearer manner and with more honesty. Not only that, but Moore comes across as partisan and biased"
This seems to be a very odd criticism to make. Relying on an emotional connection? Well, I thought that's what a film was meant to do; give the viewer a catharsis. Sentimental? A big part of the film's message is that Dubya is sending US troops to die unnecessarily. If we're going to show sentiment about something, a rich man sending poor people to die in order to make his friends richer seems like a pretty damned good reason to get more than sentimental; it's a reason to get angry. When a man responded to the worst attack on American soil in a way that was designed to keep a foreign interest happy, shouldn't we be biased against him?
So bearing in mind that this film is doing more to damage Dubya's re-election hopes than anything the Democrats have thrown at him, why are so many of the political Left (supposedly who the Democrats represent) heaping criticism on the film, and on Moore personally?
Probably because they suffer from the major handicap of the Left; they're not capable of relating to the average man on the street. I've debated with people on both sides of the political spectrum, and generally speaking I find those on the Left far more intellectually gifted than those on the Right. However, those on the Right seem to have a better sense of what will get a positive reaction from the group loosely termed "the people".
This is a cause of much frustration among the Left; they can present a clear argument with evidence supporting it that cannot be faulted intellectually speaking. Then a Right wing person makes a few rabble-rousing (and usually inaccurate) statements, and the majority of people tend to gravitate toward that point of view. Which is, understandably, annoying. However, generally no effort is made to make Left wing arguments accessible; another criticism of the Left is that, in general, they love to show off how clever they are (and I hold my hands up to this one as well...). If you're looking for long words (I almost wrote "polysyllabic words", which sorta proves my own point for me), and obscure cultural references, then the political Left is for you! If however you're looking for something that is simple, direct, and doesn't cause confusion, then look no further than the political Right.
Michael Moore is the first man to successfully break that mould; he presents Left-wing arguments, but he does it without showing off the extent of his vocabulary. He appeals to people on an emotional, gut level. And yes, he does this at the expense of giving a full explanation of all the issues involved (in other words, he keeps it simple and accessible). He doesn't tell lies, but he does present evidence in a way biased toward his point of view. This seems to be his great crime in the eyes of some on the Left; he's not being intellectually rigorous enough for their liking.
Maybe it's just me, but I find that to be an incredibly selfish criticism. Basically they're saying "Well, it's too simplistic for me personally, ergo it's wrong." What kind of ego must one have to have to demand that everything be pitched at your particular level? Isn't that as elitist as Dubya and his Neo-Conservative government are accused of being? This in itself is another point that is worth addressing; most of the Left have a habit of referring to the general public as "the mob", "the rabble", "the herd", etc. Of course, so do the Right, but at least they're sensible enough to do it in private. The Left, an altogether more honest bunch, tend not to be so shy about their disdain. The reason for this condescension? Well, because the public have been swayed time and time again by the lies and half-truths of the Right, and have failed to grasp the significance of the arguments of the Left. Therefore, any difficulties the world faces today that were caused by Dubya, are the fault of the people for being easily swayed and easily led (because it CAN'T be the fault of those on the Left for presenting a self-congratulatory and convoluted argument that plays brilliantly to anyone else immersed in Left wing politics, but reads like treacle to anyone who isn't). It's worth making clear that this attitude simply has to stop; would you vote for a group who look down on you and will treat you as morons if you cannot instantly grasp the thrust of what they are saying? No? Neither would I. No-one likes to be made to feel stupid, and the Left in general need to stop giving in to this sense of petulant unfairness that their arguments are not being accepted.
Also, the simple fact of political debate these days is that it's polarised; no effort is made by the Right wing to give a balanced argument. Yet some on the Left wing seem to think that an argument is only pure if gives absolutely all of the evidence both for and against it. Neither wonder the Right wing are in the ascendant in the US and UK; all they have to do is wait for the political Left to bore the senses out of the general public, then they come in with a handy scapegoat for all of life’s problems (usually some brand of foreigner or other) and a soundbite or two, and voila; the Right have popular support whilst the Left sit fuming impotently.
Moore has done nothing more than tailor the presentation of his arguments so that they're better received by the general public. For the first time, the left can be sure that the general public will actually give due consideration to their arguments. For too long, it has been easy to dismiss the Left as being preachy, whining, boring, dryly intellectual elitists. Michael Moore gives the Left a voice that appeals to the public, and they would be foolish in the extreme to try and silence it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)