The ‘civilest’ of wars

Why is it that when some people try to do good, others simply want to dismantle that good? When someone tries to promote peace, others are ready to stir up trouble and unrest. It’s almost like peace and tranquility are dull and boring and disturbance is exciting and fun. What we are seeing in the United States at the moment is not just a case of the mischevious school child being sneaky behind the teacher’s back. What we are seeing is nothing short of promoting and inciting a new civil war.

Under former President George W Bush, we saw eight years of incompetence, abuse of human rights, centralised control and an attempt at totally disempowering the ordinary citizen. George W Bush himself is trying to get on with his life, probably quietly happy that he can just be George the ‘good ‘ole boy’ again. Dick Cheney, however, is coming out guns blazing at attacks against his policies towards detainees at Guantanamo Bay. It is this strident chest beating that has inspired the right wing to ‘rise up’ and defend Cheney and all that he stood for. Leading this charge is right wing broadcaster Glenn Beck.

Mr. Beck likes to state that he just wants politicians to be ’straight’ with the people, whatever side of the political fence they sit on. He tries to make out that he favours neither Republican or Democrat, but he does have a show on the FOX News network, which is unashamedly right wing, and he believes Sarah Palin is more real than most politicians. But more dangerous is his encouragement of the American people to have what he calls ‘the ‘civilest’ of wars’.

Did Mr. Beck ask people to rise up when George Bush was in power? Did he ask people to ‘rise up’ when Cheney and Rumsfeld made torture an acceptable form of interrogation? Did he ask people to ‘rise up’ when we found out that the war on Iraq was started on a myth? I have searched high and low for comments from him that criticise the Republican party and for the life of me I can’t find one. But now, with President Obama in the White House, we find Mr. Beck on the warpath against a President who is trying to bring back credibilty to the United States for the first time in eight very long years.

Are the Democrats perfect? Of course they aren’t. No politician is. But to incite civil unrest simply because the new leader does not have the same ideological thinking as you do should be a punishable offence. President Obama has barely been in office five months. He has ideas in his head of where things should go, and has put in place some of those ideas, but if he dropped dead right now, his Presidency would be forgotten in history. It is way, way to early to tell how these policies will pan out in the long run, and the long run is what creates Presidential legacies. Bush’s legacy is not pretty, and barely has a flicker of credibility in it.

The point here is the United States government, under the ‘care’ of Bush/Cheney, have emphasised the importance of ‘national security’, and were at pains many times to warn us all of threats to that ’national security’. It became such a buzz phrase that now everyone around the world uses it. Robin Williams even made a joke of it once:

They couldn’t call it the Department of Fatherland Security, because they would have old German men saying “Zat’s very goot.”

If we are serious about protecting our citizens and our countries, then it is vitally important we put a stop to this ‘civilest of wars’ nonsense, because that threatens national security. If something, God forbid, happens to President Obama or his family, will the right wing stand back and say, “It wasn’t anything to do with us?” It sure as hell will have a lot to do with them. With people like Glenn Beck putting seeds of paranoia into the minds of his faithful, it is only a matter of time before the bomb goes off in someone’s head and the safety and well being of the President will become an issue.

Let me leave you with Glenn Beck on ‘The View’. What is absolutely priceless about this is how Barbara Walters pins down Beck and exposes him as a man who does not check his facts, and makes stuff up in order to get a reaction. If he does this when relaying a minor incident such as the one you will now hear about, what ‘facts’ is he presenting to the narrow right wing audience that watch his show?

Whoopi and Barbara? You go girls!

Enjoy your day

 

China must step up

A few blog posts back, I wrote about the strength of China. China is becoming incredibly powerful. In this day and age of the ’survival’ of the fittest, China is winning hands down. But what comes with that is a massive responsibility.

Two political regimes are continuing to cause havoc; Burma and North Korea. Burma is blatantly trumping up charges against opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, trying to ensure that she does not take part in elections to be held next year. They know she will win and they have to do something to ensure that she does not take part. Her home detention expires today, and they have no legal reason to detain her, so a trumped up charge must be created in order to maintain the status quo. International condemnation does little to Burma, if nothing at all.

Then there is North Korea. They have today declared that they have ‘torn up the truce’ between themselves and South Korea, effectively declaring a resumption to hostilities that ended in 1953. They have tested missiles and are ready to get nasty. Not a good situation.

This is where China has all the cards. I have said many times that only China can wield a big stick with Burma and with North Korea. They have condemned North Korea in the strongest terms, but not Burma. China has too many political prisoners of its own to preach to another country about theirs. So Burma will continue to be treated with kid gloves. Aung San Suu Kyi must hold out hope that the junta wake up on the right side of the bed on the day of the verdict and set her free. Unfortunately that is unlikely.

But China is showing some signs that they have had enough of North Korea. Why this change of heart toward a staunch ally and friend? Well, North Korea is ‘pushing the friendship’ and this is why China has had enough.

North Korea’s latest nuclear test raises the question of just how long the bonds forged between old communist allies will endure.

The test was conducted barely 50 miles from the Chinese border. The ground rumbled in northeast China, and some schools were evacuated because of fears of an earthquake.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-china-korea27-2009may27,0,4005894.story

North Korea are messing about just outside the Chinese border, miles away from Pyongyang. In choosing that particular area, the North Korean regime feels the need to sabre rattle even in the face of its friends. China is one of North Korea’s only friends, if not its only one, and the worst thing you can do is bite the hand that feeds you. They are the naughty kid in the family, and China has cut them a lot of slack. But now China feels that North Korea is ungrateful, not to mention reckless.

“The Chinese side vehemently demands North Korea abides by its denuclearisation promises, stop any actions which may worsen the situation and return to the six-party talks process.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/25/2580513.htm

The reaction to North Korea has only been so strong because it threatens China. If the tantrum by the North Korean regime was directed toward South Korea or Japan or anyone else in North Asia, I don’t think China would care. But it is so close to home, they are worried about the effect it will have on them.

The only way Burma will receive the same treatment is if the Burmese do something to offend China, or threaten its borders and its people. At the moment, none of that has happened. To the Chinese government, the trial of Aung San Suu Kyi will result in her possibly going to prison. It will effect her and her alone. The people will continue to be oppressed, but so do a lot of Chinese. In many ways, all Chinese live under some form of oppression, to varying degrees. If the Burmese regime stopped deals worth millions to China, we may see China get heavy handed. But it will take something of that magnitude to get China to act. Face it, it took North Korea to test a nuclear weapon on China’s doorstep for China to even think of acting.

What more can the international community do? This is a question I have posed too many times. I don’t have an answer. No one does. It is up to China, and with China coming to any table around the world as the strongest player, there is little we as the rest of the world can do to sway them to our way of thinking.

Enjoy your day

 

A whimper or a bang?

     

The title for this particular post is a question that has been posed to scientists and others for many years. We have no idea when the world will end, but I am sure each of us has thought about it. Will it simply die out whimpering or will it end in an enormous flurry of activity?

For at least the last fifteen or so years, we have been told that if we do not change our ways and fix the environmental problems of the world, our world will become terminally ill and die. I myself went to a lecture in about 1993 by a scholar of creation centred spirituality. Fr. Matthew Fox, then a Catholic priest, told us that this planet has 20 years left before we are at the point of no return. That was sixteen years ago. I may be bad at Mathematics, but I at least know that we have four years left! If you think we are going to change the minds of the entire world, co-ordinate world environmental policy, and have every country and every citizen in line to fix things in four years, you are severely dillusional my friend.

So do we just let the earth die; let it get to the point of no return? I’m afraid if that prognosis in 1993 is correct, then we may just have to. The phrase ‘Too late, too late she cried…’ is a pretty obvious fact at this point. But this is where we have a choice between whimpering or going out with a bang. The mobilisation of people all around the world is quite amazing. Plastic bag use is dropping dramatically. People are using public transport more, and we are quite simply getting off our collective backsides to make our world a better place.

Will it stop the polar ice cap from melting? Probabaly not. Will we save our environment as a whole? I hardly think so. But the original question is all about whether we are going to let this earth die in it’s sleep, or are we at least going to give it a fighting chance to live, albeit in a different form. That’s the real issue. This world is changing, as it has millions of times before. Will it be the same as we remember it? No. Will our children and our children’s children enjoy this planet in the future? Yes, of course they will. But it will be a different world, and their activities will be different activities. They will learn to live with changing weather conditions and everything else that comes with a planet in flux.

I have been watching and listening very carefully to all the ‘climate change’ talk that has gone on these last 15 years. I believe the science. The world is changing, and in a lot of ways, not for the better. But I also feel the science can have a detrimental effect on people’s attitudes. If the world does really have only 4 years left before it’s goodnight Irene, people will try their hardest until that point, and then will simply give up, and return to doing all the things that caused the destruction of the planet in the first place. Why? Because they will simply see no point. That’s surely not what we want. Those of us who are recycling, reusing, planting trees, catching the train to work and driving hybrid cars are determined not to whimper. If this planet is going to die, it will die fighting a damn good fight.

We have to realise that countries like China are not going to stop the environmental heresies it is involved in. Poor third world countries barely have the energy to care about living day to day. They don’t care about ‘carbon footprints’. Plus, you have to remember that their are millions of people who do not even believe the science, and call the whole thing a ‘beat up’. If they don’t believe it, they won’t be on board to assist those of us who do.

You might think what I have written is a ‘give up, lay down and die’ approach and I am advocating a ‘whimper’ standpoint. I am not. All I am saying is we need to continue to do what it is we are doing to save our environment as best we can. In that way, the earth won’t have as many problems as it would have if we did nothing. Will we turn it around completely? No, that’s imposible, no matter how much you love Al Gore. It’s very similar to the argument a slightly overweight person said to me when I asked why they continue to diet and watch what they eat when clearly it isn’t working. She told me, “If I didn’t perservere, I would be the size of a house!”

Same too with our environment. This world will be a wasteland if we throw in the towel in four years. We have always been told to ‘go out with a bang’ and that’s just what we should be doing.

Reduce. Reuse. Recyle. Give the planet a fighting chance to retain at least some of it’s former glory. We can’t save the whole planet, but we can mend at least parts of it.

Enjoy your day

 

Zuma’s challenge

Jacob Zuma has become South Africa’s fourth President since apartheid was dismantled in 1994. He is an interesting character, and someone who is not exactly the country’s most pure citizen. But the challenge he faces is not really about him proving his worth as a law abiding citizen. It is more about what he and the African National Congress (ANC) are going to do about the sorry state South Africa’s black majority still find themselves in long after Nelson Mandela has left the President’s office.

Apartheid was a system that did nothing for the black majority, so it was logical to think that when a black President took the reigns, things would get better. Ok, it was never going to happen overnight, but 15 years? In some cases, things are no different at all.

New estimates of poverty show that the proportion of people living in poverty in South Africa has not changed significantly between 1996 and 2001. However, those households living in poverty have sunk deeper into poverty and the gap between rich and poor has widened.

http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0000990/

What has happened since apartheid is some black South Africans have had a taste of the good life and they like it. It is akin to denying a kid entry into the candy shop and when he finally gets to go inside, he becomes a glutton and forgets about all the other kids that still don’t have that same access. Those who have been able to have, have grabbed it with both hands and no longer is South Africa divided on racial lines, but on class lines. A classic case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. South Africa has become like every other country in the modern world. It promised so much, but has delivered so little.

Former President Thabo Mbeki suffered from an affliction that befalls most world leaders. He was handpicked by Nelson Mandela, and we all thought that he would continue the dream of turning South Africa into a truly functioning African nation rising from the ashes of discrimination. But he was a leader out of touch with his people, totally unaware of their plight, and incapable of understanding what problems they faced. His complete lack of basic knowledge of HIV/AIDS in a continent where it is on the rise, bordered on negligence, not to mention his appalling handling of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. This last incident proved to the world that he was a failed leader, not just to his own people, but to the African continent as a whole.

But Jacob Zuma needs to demonstrate that he is far more effective than Mbeki. He comes across as a good time boy who seems not to have a good grasp of the issues at hand. Already he is blaming the ‘global economic downturn’ as a way of saying he can’t do things. Plus, he has admitted to having unprotected sex with a HIV+ woman, and ‘had a shower after’ to stop infection. Oh dear. Not another Mbeki.

When Nelson Mandela made his speech at the beginning of his historic Presidency he had this to say:

We enter into a covenant that we shall build the society in which all South Africans, both black and white, will be able to walk tall, without any fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity–a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/mandela.html

We have to ask ourselves, as does Jacob Zuma have to ask himself, has this dream of Mandela’s been realised, or were they words that sounded good at the time, but have paled into insignificance. Zuma needs to do so many things, but I believe he has a ‘top three’.

1. Put in place some firm policies to genuinely alleviate the suffering of the poor who have not moved one inch since apartheid.

2. Educate the country (and himself)  much more on HIV infection and be the leader in Africa on how to stop the spread of this disease which kills millions of Africans each year.

3. Be a true leader who will stand up to Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and stop the humanitarian crisis that occurs there. Poverty in South Africa will only worsen as thousands of Zimbabweans flee over the border. Sorting Zimbabwe can only benefit South Africa.

Let me leave you with some more of Mandela’s famous words. Let us hope true freedom will come to the poor in South Africa and true respect will finally be shown.

For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.

 

Enjoy your day

 

Dangerous voices

                  

When governments win elections, it is usually because the majority have spoken. Call it the popular vote, call it winning more seats than the other party, the fact still remains; the majority are needed for change of government to occur. That is what happened to Barack Obama.

President Barack Obama won the majority of the vote. But what seems to be happening is a gathering of strength in the conservative minority in the United States. Not only is it strong, vocal and obstructionist, but what scares me is it has the potential to become a lynch mob, stirred up by irresponsible right wing commentators hell bent on a riot. This is not only iresponsible, but dangerous and bordering on inciting a class war based on morals.

Terms like ‘Road to Socialism’ are meant to conjure up images of the Cold War era and Hugo Chavez dressed in red. The fact that Barack Obama is not a socialist is neither here nor there to the right wing. They just have to make their listeners think that Obama has a socialist agenda. That, in turn will incite them to rise up in revolt against what they see as a new ‘evil empire’.

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney was, and probably still is, an incredibly dangerous man. I have made this statement many times before. What he did and what he authorised during his time as Vice-President was nothing short of criminal, torture being just one of the many breaches of human decency he allowed to happen. But the right wing were not there when Cheney was taking away the civil liberties of his fellow human beings.

Hatred comes out of jealousy. The right wing have had their man lampooned for the last eight years from all circles. As a matter of fact, they never talk about him, or very rarely. Why? Well, wouldn’t you be embarrassed? In a recent discussion between right wing commentator Sean Hannity and columnist (interesting how they don’t call him a journalist) Mark Steyn, the childish schoolyard jealousy of the popular kid they see as Barack Obama shone through:

…and it’s amazing, when these gods walk among us, they do such a great job as passing as human. Who would have thought it?

This exchange between Hannity and Steyn would be seen by some as simply innocent fun banter, taking a gentle dig at the President. After all, the liberal media panned Bush for eight years and we all had a good laugh. But liberals are a different audience to the audience the right wing media appeal to. The right wing audience are much more narrow in their thinking, are heavily evangelical Christian and are much more gullible when it comes to sensational news stories with lots of hype and very little substance. You and I could watch the interchange between Steyn and Hannity and laugh, call them idiots, and walk off. Those that watch Sean Hannity religiously (pardon the pun) will interpret his comments to mean that 1) Obama is trying to be God, and there is only one God   2) He is not really human and   3) He is a person not to be trusted.

You may think I am overreacting, and I may well be. However, the conservative base of the Republican party is wanting the party to move further to the right, as being a ‘centrist’ party has failed. So the call is made for all those who wish to save their nation to rise up and make their voices heard. They want momentum to build to a point that Obama’s government and it’s agenda for the future will fail. It could be suggested that they are gradually building up to the point of toppling the government. In  old fashioned terms, the right wing media could be seen as inciting treason. Too strong? Well, let’s take a look at the definition of treason:

Oran’s Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: “…[a]…citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].” In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

The right wing media want us to watch what this President is really trying to do to the United States. Let us then, as liberals, do the same. This is not innocent banter. These are not light hearted digs. This is not intelligent difference of opinion. These are dangerous, baseless assertions designed to anger their base to the point where they will see President Barack Obama as someone that should be removed. What scares me even more is what method they will use to remove him.

If anything bad happens to President Obama, and the right wing media is blamed for encouraging anti-government unrest, the right wing media would not feel bad and would take no blame for what happened. This is where they are a shallow, empty group who are demonstrating negligent behaviour. Many of the most emotionally needy, God fearing christian people believe what the right wing media say, some hang off every word and see certain members such as US ’shock jock’ Rush Limbaugh as heroes. The old saying goes, ‘a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing’, and most of the time, the right wing media give their listeners a ‘little bit of knowledge’. When one does not get the full picture, they rely on what they have been given. This is very dangerous indeed if not substantiated or put into context.

But Barack Obama is a product of the Chicago political meat mincer. If you can come through that system and surivive, you can survive anywhere. All the stuff he has had thrown at him so far is small fry.

Enjoy your day

 

Forgive and forget or just forgive?

Last Tuesday evening, Melbourne billionaire businessman Richard Pratt died of prostate cancer. There has been a mixed reaction to his death and his achievements. Some have applauded all the philanthropic work that he has done and how he was the ‘migrant success story’ ,whilst others have been more realistic and stated his major downfalls, some of a moral nature. The question is, what negative parts of a person’s character do we forgive in order to recognise the positive parts? Should they be forever tarnished for ‘crossing the line’ ethically, professionally and morally, or is there a point where their indiscretions are put to one side and their significant contribution is celebrated?

Richard Pratt was fined $AUD35 million a few years back for price fixing. Until last Monday, he still had a perjury charge against his name. One charge was proven, one wasn’t. It does however cast a cloud over how Mr. Pratt did business. The corporate world is a dirty one, and some would argue that Richard Pratt was one of the dirtier players in the world of business. He also had a string of mistresses that made themselves known along the way, much to the embarrasment of his long suffering wife Jeanne.

But Richard Pratt is being remembered for the charitable works that he did, and for his endless energy in helping those who needed it. He is seen as a role model for other migrants who are wondering whether one can make it in Australia with nothing but the clothes on one’s back.

Wayne Cary was an Australian Rules Football player. He has been up on charges of violent behaviour and has brought himself, his family, and his former football club into disrepute. He has caused incidences not only in Australia, but also in the United States. He is a loose cannon. He gave what was seen as a ‘heartfelt apology’ recently for all the trouble he has caused and they say he is ‘trying’ to make amends. The debate is now on as to whether Carey should be inducted into the Australian Football League Hall of Fame for his outstanding contribution to the game of Aussie Rules. The question again rears its head: Should his personal transgressions cancel out his right to be recognised as a great within his sport, when the award is not about morality, but about his ability as a football player.

Finally there is Australian cricketer Shane Warne. This is yet another case of someone who was creating scandal off the cricket pitch through inappropriate text messaging to a woman who was not his wife. A very public infidelity was being watched by those countries that enjoy cricket as one of their national sports. But Shane Warne continues to contribute to the cricket world and very little was made of it. There is even a musical named after him; ‘Shane Warne The Musical!’ Not only has he been forgiven, but the whole sorry tale is being laughed at and treated like a joke.

I remember teaching with a colleague who had an uncanny knack of separating behaviour from ability when teaching the children in her care. Some of those kids drove her nuts, but she could still acknowledge their talents and their strengths academically. She did not judge them purely on their behaviour. That is a skill in itself.

Is that what we should do with these three individuals? I am sure no matter where in the world you come from, you could name people who fit into the same category. Should their ability be recognised and not their behaviour? Many argued when former President Bill Clinton admitted that he did cheat on Hillary that he should: 1) not be able to continue as President and 2) be seen as a bad President, along the lines of Richard Nixon. There were others who believed that the cheating was between him and Hillary and we had no right to judge his ability to lead a country on a purely personal physical issue. However, the umbrella over this issue was the fact that he didn’t just lie to Hillary and to his daughter Chelsea, but also to the American people. If your leader lies to you, how can you trust him or her to lead you?

This is an issue that is like all other types of moral issues that end in a ‘nil all draw’ such as abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. But this issue keeps coming up and we are faced with the fact that we are all human and none of us are perfect. Both sides have valid arguments, and both sides are right in some way.

I suppose it gets down to the question of, ‘How do we want to be remembered? For our ability or our behaviour?’

Enjoy your day

 

Be wary of the over zealous Christian.

“You should have seen her breasts, Jesus, they were amazing!”

It continues to astound me that those who claim to be holier-than-though, or have that direct hotline to Jesus are the ones who are the furthest away from what they claim to be. Mel Gibson’s latest over the top drama is testament to that, but is is by far not the most hypocritical that I have seen over the years.

Before I launch into Mr. Gibson and his penchant for Russian girls named Oksana, let’s take a trip down evangelical memory lane and see just how faithful to ‘the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ these people actually are. Our first stop, if you’d care to look out the left side of the tour bus, is the home of none other than Jimmy Swaggart, American TV evangelist, liar and cheat.

1988: TV evangelist quits over sex scandal

Jimmy Swaggart, America’s leading television evangelist, has resigned from his ministry after it was revealed he had been consorting with a prostitute.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/21/newsid_2565000/2565197.stm

We all have our times of weakness, that is true enough, No one is perfect, but Mr. Swaggart hailed down all sorts of foul accusations on fellow evangelist, Jim Bakker, who was shagging his secretary. Low and behold, Swaggart is found shagging outside his marriage too, but Swaggart stayed away from the predictable secretary sex, and went straight to the bottom of the barrel and shagged a cheap whore. Oh, what class!

So now we have our own modern day scandal. Mel Gibson’s latest woes wouldn’t be an issue if he were anyone else in Hollywood. Marriages fail. A new woman comes along. They turn up together at a movie premiere. Sounds pretty much standard Hollywood to me. However, there is one really contradictory part to this story. Mel Gibson proclaims to be a devout Catholic. Not just born a Catholic and then forgot about it. Not a lapsed Catholic. A devout Catholic. You know, Church EVERY Sunday, Rosary beads, the whole shabang. But it doesn’t stop there. He has built his own church on his property in California and he practises a form of Catholicism that went out of style in around 1962. He is a traditional Catholic, which means that he goes to Mass that is said in Latin, which has very old fashioned and outdated values attached to it as well.

Obviously, being Catholic means that one does not believe in divorce, and infidelity is simply out of the question. Not to mention if his new girlfriend is pregnant, there is the dilemma of whether abortion will be considered(definite no no) or will it be born out of wedlock and brought up a Catholic (an even bigger no no).

Throughout his career, Mel Gibson has made no secret of his staunch Catholicism. Several years ago, he told the press: ”I go to an all-pre-Vatican II Latin mass. There was a lot of talk, particularly in the ’60s, of ‘Wow, we’ve got to change with the times.’ But the Creator instituted something very specific, and we can’t just go change it.”

http://ask.yahoo.com/20040405.html

So here is Gibson, being Captain Catholic, and making sure the world knows it. The right wing love him because of his staunch traditional views. Now we see him cavorting with young hotties on the beach. It would make things look a bit better for him if this was a mature woman, and the relationship ‘developed’ after the divorce, say a couple of years down the track. It would still go totally against what he preaches, but at least people would go a little easier on him.

When will these people learn to keep their high and mighty self righteous views to themselves, so one day it doesn’t come back to bite them on the arse? None of us are perfect, but at least most of us have the guts to say it. I once worked with a woman who was a devout Christian. The way she treated the people around her was appalling. She was vindictive, nasty, not to mention incompetent. But it was us who were blamed for her incompetence. She would humiliate staff and then go off to teach God songs to the children. But hey, she went to church on Sunday, so that’s alright.

 I have no issue with people being devout in their religion. It’s the hypocrisy that stuns me. Plus the fact that they persecute others for not believing what they believe. I have always said that if Jesus himself came back to earth, these two bit holier-than-though types would be the ones Jesus would least likely want in his close circle. They are just so dillusional, that they believe they would be the ones who would elbow everyone else out in order to get a private audience. Sad, really.

I think atheist Christopher Hitchens got it right when he named his book ‘God is Not Great – How Religion Poisons Everything’. Unfortunately for the right wing, they forgive their own a little too easily. Pity they don’t have that compassion for every other member of the world community.

Enjoy your day

 

Bea Arthur 1922-2009

                  

One of the greats is gone. Actress Bea Arthur died today at the age of 86. Like other greats before her, she put her stamp both on the stage and the small screen in a fashion that was as unique as it was memorable.

Born a plain New York girl by the name of Bernice Frankel, she spent her younger years coping with extra inches in height and a voice so deep that made people wonder whether she was feminine at all. But she used that loud, deep, raucous voice as many others of her ilk would use it; on the stage. She had a successful stage career before venturing into television. She was convinced by Writer/Producer Norman Lear to do just one episode of  ‘All In The Family’, but after that one appearance, they wanted her to do her own show. The producers even asked, “Where has that girl been?” That girl was fifty years old!

The characters she played in Maude and in The Golden Girls were strong, no nonsense, ascerbic women who did more for feminism than the entire women’s liberation movement combined. She was unique. She caught your eye. You knew Bea Arthur was in the room. You knew Bea Arthur was on your screen. Not everyone gets the attention of television producers from the first scene they ever do on television. Well, they may get the attention, but their own show? Not a chance. When they made Bea Arthur they destroyed the mould. An old cliche I know, but you try and think of a better one.

I remember the TV show ‘All In The Family’ and I remember ‘Maude’. This masculine deep voiced woman made us all wonder whether she had been a man and…’had the chop.’ My parents were huge fans of both shows and I think that both shows were popular because of what they could get away with at the time. The lines in both those shows were iconic and without such a stellar cast, with Bea Arthur front and centre most times, those shows would not be a part of television folklore now.

I remember ‘The Golden Girls’ much more, but apart from the brilliant interplay between the four women, I remember looking at the clothes Bea Arthur wore. She was a tall woman, like my own mother, and watching her dressed so elegantly, gave me ideas to throw at my own mother, as my mother has always hated being tall. Bea Arthur showed the world that you could be tall, mature and downright elegant. I always admired her for that. ‘The Golden Girls’ was an ensemble cast that was in itself unique. Four retired women sharing a house in Florida. It was destined not to work, but it did. When Bea Arthur left the series in 1992, the remaining three women tried to carry on with another series called ‘The Golden Palace’ but it was a dismal failure. It didn’t have Bea Arthur.

So here’s to you Bea. The stage will miss you, the small screen will miss you and thousands of fans will miss you. Your uniqueness made you special.Here’s a little something I found. It’s a nice interview with Rosie O’Donnell. Talk about two loud broads together!

Enjoy your day

 

The point of war

                             

I remember an American friend saying to me a few years back that Australians could not possibly appreciate their freedom, as they have not fought for it like other countries. Fighting for one’s freedom supposedly makes one appreciate it more. According to my friend, Australia needs either a full on civil war, or needs to militarily defend its territory from an invader in order for patriotism to truly stick.

Today Australia and New Zealand commemorate ANZAC Day. On this day, brave young Australian and New Zealand men fought side by side against Turkish troops at Gallipoli in Turkey. The ANZACS  lost dismally, but the spirit of the friendship formed has only grown stronger these last 94 years.

If you were to ask any soldier what makes them emotional on this day, it is not the battles they fought. Those who have seen armed combat are the soldiers who don’t want to talk about it. Only the ones who had a nominal military role are the ones full of hot air about fighting for one’s country. The emotional moments are always about friensdhips formed, and more importantly than friendships, emotional and almost spiritual bonds that happened out of what is always an horrific example of humanity at its worst; war.

War should always be the absolute last option, and it disgusted me more than anything, to see former President George W Bush go to war on a whim. How does one answer a terrorist attack on US soil that killed 3,000 citizens? Send at least 3,000 more to their deaths so one man can settle a score his father failed to do. Will the war in Iraq make us a proud world? Did it do anything to truly advance freedom?

When we see the Taliban rearing its ugly head in Afghanistan and Pakistan, this is a time when we need the spirit of the ANZACS. This is a regime that is the worst kind of scenario for any country. I see no point in the war in Iraq, but I do see a point in the war in Afghanistan. The common theme that is spoken when discussing war, and probably what my American friend illuded too, is that war needs to occur in order for true freedom to be protected. If the Taliban get hold of Afghanistan and Pakistan, it will create a massive problem in the Middle East, much more of a threat than Saddam Hussein ever was or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ever will be. The Taliban are a nightmare, and a dangerous nightmare. If you have ever read the book ‘The Kite Runner’, you will know that this is not just a regime that has no respect for women. This is a regime hellbent on vicious, violent control, and they will stop at nothing to get it. It is up to us to band together, like soldiers before us, and rid the world of this true threat to humanity.

In my last post I argued that the politics of fear that the right wing wax lyrical about, has to stop. Their aim is to destroy everyone who does not see eye to eye with their ultra conservative, evangelical Christian views. They are a danger in themselves. We may very well need another civil war in order to rid the world of them. When I refer to the Taliban, I am pointing out to the world what is a real threat, not an imagined one, that is on the move into countries beyond Afghanistan. Adolf Hitler was not a perceived threat who we thought might do something. He was on the move, and his practical efforts at poltical domination were very evident. Ahmadinejad talks a lot, but if he was ever going to be a realistic threat, he would have made his move by now. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, but apart from a half cocked attempt to control neighbouring Kuwait back in the 1990’s, he was easily ‘contained in a box’ as former President Bill Clinton once said.

If we ever have to send out soldiers into harm’s way, let it not be a repeat of what those that landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula suffered in 1915. An ill prepared battle resulted in one of the most disastrous military failures of all time, and an enormous loss of life. Iraq is America’s Gallipoli, but Afghanistan need not be. It has the backing of the world community. We see a real threat to the security of our world, not just the Middle East. Most importantly, we see what true freedom will be like for both Afghanistan and Pakistan at the end. That is something we still do not see in Iraq after all these years.

On this ANZAC Day, my thoughts are with all service men and women, regardless of nationality, and the service they give to their country. But most importantly, let us all remember those who have laid down their lives for their country in any of history’s conflicts.

“…at the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them.”

Lest We Forget.

Enjoy your day

 

Right wing fear

It has been absolutely astounding to watch and listen to the right wing media in the US  since the election of Barack Obama. It’s also been amusing to watch my own country’s conservatives, called the Liberal Party oddly enough.The right wing have failed to do anything of any substance in regard to improving the lot for their citizens when they are in power, but they are the quickest to jump to their feet with a waving finger and a ‘tut, tut, tut’ whenever their left wing opponent so much as looks a different way.

President Barack Obama, and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia are never going to be all things to their country; no leader ever is. They will both make mistakes and make a judgement calls that they shouldn’t have. To say they won’t is ignorant and downright silly. Obama can trumpet ‘Yes We Can’ all he likes, but he has to make that powerful call to arms happen. So too with Kevin Rudd. He likes to travel overseas a lot, and does a lot of talking. But he is very slow to get things really happening. One theory behind this ’slow pace’ is because he does not want to be seen by the electorate as ‘going too fast’ and changing everything at once. When he has secured a second term in office, sometime after late 2010, which is highly likely, he will then start on a more bold agenda, having gained more trust and respect from a supsicious electorate.

President Barack Obama is taking the economic downturn by the horns. Is he doing the right thing? He is taking a huge gamble, but then again, so is every government around the world. As I have said in a previous post, no one has any real clue how the world can get back on its feet and different governments are trying different things. Australia and the US are sepnding their way out of the downturn, whereas Europe sees spending as dangerous. Who is right? In the end, they all could be. It could end up that a mix of a number if ideas could be the golden solution.

But instead of being helpul, the right wing media are not just saying that President Obama’s plan is bad and will make the economy worse, they have to go a ludicrous step forward and say that Obama is putting us ‘on the road to socialism.’ The politics of fear just will not die. The right wing love it and they can’t let it go. The right wing are loud, confident and full of puff and bluster, but unfortunately they have very little substance. Some widely respected political commentators are even thinking FOX News has delved into the world of fairytale and farce. Facts are becoming hard to come by.

I don’t see it as fairytale and farce. That would mean it is harmless. I find it dangerous and reckless. President Obama is being criticised for shaking hands with Hugo Chavez of Venezuala, bowing to the Saudi King, and wanting to meet with Ahmadinejad of Iran. The most hypocritical criticism was of President Obama bowing to the Saudi King. There are two glaring issues that I wish to address here. One, President Obama is doing what all of us should do when we meet a reigning monarch, bow or curtsey. It is proper protocol and even the royal families around the world demonstrate that protocol to each other. I witnessed the Princesses of Thailand bow to the Sultan of Brunei on one ocassion. He is a king, he is superior. Whether we believe it or respect it is immaterial. That is proper protocol and President Obama was only doing what was expected of him.

Secondly, I find it rich that FOX News is questioning why President Obama is bowing to the king of a nation that harbours terrorists. Need I remind FOX News of the very cosy relationship that the Bush family, not to mention Dick Cheney, had with the Saudi Royal family?

 Clearly, the finances and fortunes of the Saudi oligarchs and the Bush family have been intertwined for many years, and oil has been the lubricant of choice, even non-existent oil.

 

… the Gulf Oil Drilling Supply, of New York, Miami, and Bahrain, was Jeb Bush’s favorite artifice for oil and gas frauds:

“The fraud was rather simple. Richard Secord arranged through then Vice President George Bush Sr.’s old friend, Ghaith Pharaon, the then retired head of Saudi intelligence, for Gulf Oil and Drilling to purchase from the Saudi government oil and gas leases in the Gulf which were effectively worthless.”

http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm

And again:

For his part, President Bush has been consistently unabashed and unapologetic about his “good relationship” with Crown Prince Abdullah, telling Barbara Walters on “20/20” recently:

“I’ve got a very good relationship with the Crown Prince Abdullah. … I believe he is … as we say, ‘the genuine article.’ He is a good, honest man. And, and in my discussions with the crown prince, he has assured me that the Saudi government will do everything they can to disrupt finances headed toward terrorists. I explained to the crown prince that obviously there is an issue in America when, you know, 16, I guess, of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, and therefore the American people are skeptical.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/17/215142.shtml

It is very clear that right wing commentators have conveniently developed a short term memory.  Right wing commentator Sean Hannity was almost disgusted seeing a picture of President Obama bowing to the Saudi King, but remained silent years ago when this picture was made public.

                    

Looks similar to this really, doesn’t it?

                    

Just like the right wing are gaining power, it is time that those of us who believe in a fair decent society, say enough is enough to these ignorant excuses for human beings. No wonder President Ortega of Nicaragua spent an hour cursing the United States at the latest Summit of The Americas. No wonder Hugo Chavez of Venezuala has done the same thing over the years. America was hated because of its treatment of others.

I don’t care if waterboarding and other interrogation techniques worked and gained information. Torture is WRONG, and we as a civilised people should not accept it under any circumstances. We criticise the arab for their brutal punishments, but we are no better. Don’t we say to our children to not lower themselves to the level of the bully or the cheat? We teach our kids to show a good example.

The next time on of our own is tortured for ‘information’ by brutal thugs in far distant lands, we should applaud them, as they are doing what they need to do to gain ‘vital information’. Does the right wing agree with that?

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Enjoy your day