The Media reflects but also modifies the society it mirrors. The Media can only survive and prosper if it hits the funny bone every time. So it always has concentrated on permutations of the gory, the tragic, the spectacular, the shameful, the lusting and the voyeuristic. It is just that nowadays the media has so refined its targets, honed in on our subconscious trigger, it can hit the G-spot of sensitivity each and every time. This is distorting our perception of what we are, how we respond and is leading us to adopt new attitudes that are not reflective us as people or a society. The media distortion of us and our view of our reflections is channelling our future reactions, the role model we hold and use to navigate life by.
When our favourite soap 'deals' with a difficult issue, what ever it is this time round, child abuse, family rape, racial hatred, partner beating, gang banging, let us just stop and pause for thought. They are not 'dealing with it' they are cashing in on horrendous social issues, using those issues to pull in viewers and push up their ratings. We must learn to rush to our social networks, by twitter or facebook or what ever and challenge all those simplistic, one dimensional characters and situations and scream out loud, this is not true. Life is much more complicated and convoluted. Life is not simple black and white with a single start and stop point. Protest out load that their representation is selling us and all victims, so so short. The emotional nightmare of love in jeopardy, distrust and hate cannot be conveyed by one line put downs.There is no one person walking off into the sunset or taken off to jail, or some such simple resolution. Everyone that comes into contact with the events is tainted and carry the corruption onwards about their person for years into the future and on into all their furture relationships. Get that across and then you are 'dealing with it' and doing us all a service by sharing the visceral agonies of life when it goes off the rails.
The next time we surrender to a fantasy world, to escape the gritty realities, let us hang on to some semblance of logic, connection, plausibility, some portrayal of life as all of us do experience it. As we lose ourselves in impossible relationships, gut wrenching bodies torn asunder and mechanical Armageddon, just pause and reflect you are a member of the human race that has to negioate, deal and some how live in a kind of harmony with all other humans. This is not the way life is. Again use your networks and protest out loud at all improbable, implausible plots characters and situations. Beyond your experience sure but not beyond any imagaineable reality. Escape yes but keep some semblance of realism. Keep it possible to translate back to a life we actually have to live. Ridicule plots that jump from one imponderable to another and another without any rythme or reason ever offered. Suspense, oh yes but not adondonment of all logic.
Time for us shape the media we use to reflect the society we aspire to be. Do not accept being pandered to, do not accept pap, stand up and demand to be treated as an adult going about in a adult world. Challenge all that offer anything other, use your voice.
Monday, 29 October 2012
Sunday, 28 October 2012
Keeping to Rules
Some rules such as we shall not kill one another, we shall not take what does not belong to us, we shall drive on the left and give way to the right are plain simple ways of organising ourselves so we can live together with the minimum of friction. We regard these self-imposed rules as universal, cast in stone, everyone in our society subscribes to them without question. Some where in the layers apon layers of these rules we adopt to guide our path through life we reach rules which are clearly old-fashioned and not to be followed any more, like chew each mouthful thirty times, like never go out unless properly dressed in coat or jacket and hat, like never to jump a queue or always make way for those weaker than you.
Then there are those other rules and regulations imposed on you by authority. You shall pay your TV licence, you will not drop litter, you cannot enter private property, if your tyre treads are less than that specified you will replace or risk a penalty imposed you. All sensible elaborations of our self-imposed rules which help keep the wheels we rely on turning with the minimum of friction. Even though we might chafe at the detail the general principles seems loud and clear.
To live within the protection of our society we all accept we have to surrender to authority. Go along with decisions from others on how or what we may or must do. It is accepted that we abdicate any right to decide the reasonableness, or appropriateness for ourselves. We will do as we are told, without question, without challenge. This is the proper price to be paid for living within a community that shields, protects and nurtures us all on a broadly equitable level.
We expect our leaders, those in authority over us, to be decisive even proactive, to stop wrongs and injustices occurring and to make restitution to those that have been transgressed against. Now that our leaders are chosen and require a minimal mandate from us, from time to time, they need to be seen to be effective. They need to flex their use of the powers granted them to do things, make things happen. What we end up with is a culture of knee jerk responses. Every incident that claims some notoriety must result in a counter reaction. Some new law, some new regulation has to be passed to demonstrate to all that our leaders are effective and in control.
So we live drowned in a plethora of control, rules, restrictions and sanctions, some good but by far away most, with the benefit of time, too hasty and failing to deal decisively with the issue. A deluge of rules often inconsequential, contradictory, irrational and almost all failing to connect with any universal sense of pragmatic fairness and propriety. A deluge precipitated by and drowned out by the media whipped chorus clamouring for our leaders to do some thing about some incident or other.
We humans are complex social animals. We each have our own individual take on the world. No one person sees the colour red the same as another. Enough of us can compare and agree that what we are looking at is red but the red as sensed by each of us might well be different. If we cannot have something as basic as seeing the colour red in common, what chance is there for any of us to agree on a rules which are fair and right for all of us. Society, life and us as a social organism are so complex that no sets of rules, no matter how voluminous, can ever even nearly prescribe our behaviour. Calling on our leaders to fix it is the ultimate cop out and doomed to failure.
As I have explored before in Saunter to Totalitarianism there is no substitute for each of us taking responsibility for what is going on around us. Not our current leader, not our government, not the local councillors, but us, the me. What am I going to do. If something is going on I do not like, it is for me individually or collectively with my neighbours or my community to sort it out. Not someone else, me. Not defer to some remote agency, but to get stuck in and decide an effective way to resolve the mutually agreed nuisance. Woe betide if you agree to restraints that come back to bite you. This is not a charter for vigilantes, after all a child of yours might be a culprit or victim. No just people using common sense and pragmatism to resolve issues that are pertinent to them. Learn from their mistakes and refine their conclusions next time round. So what if our nation becomes diffuse with different codes of conduct, dependant on where you are. So what if you feel out of place moving around within an new strange community. Perhaps this is right and proper that you pay attention to wishes of the community you now find yourself within. Maybe there really should be several speeds in our nation between city to town to village. Perhaps differentiation is actually the missing ingredient of what makes a community and in the end ties us together as a homogeneous society.
Then there are those other rules and regulations imposed on you by authority. You shall pay your TV licence, you will not drop litter, you cannot enter private property, if your tyre treads are less than that specified you will replace or risk a penalty imposed you. All sensible elaborations of our self-imposed rules which help keep the wheels we rely on turning with the minimum of friction. Even though we might chafe at the detail the general principles seems loud and clear.
To live within the protection of our society we all accept we have to surrender to authority. Go along with decisions from others on how or what we may or must do. It is accepted that we abdicate any right to decide the reasonableness, or appropriateness for ourselves. We will do as we are told, without question, without challenge. This is the proper price to be paid for living within a community that shields, protects and nurtures us all on a broadly equitable level.
We expect our leaders, those in authority over us, to be decisive even proactive, to stop wrongs and injustices occurring and to make restitution to those that have been transgressed against. Now that our leaders are chosen and require a minimal mandate from us, from time to time, they need to be seen to be effective. They need to flex their use of the powers granted them to do things, make things happen. What we end up with is a culture of knee jerk responses. Every incident that claims some notoriety must result in a counter reaction. Some new law, some new regulation has to be passed to demonstrate to all that our leaders are effective and in control.
So we live drowned in a plethora of control, rules, restrictions and sanctions, some good but by far away most, with the benefit of time, too hasty and failing to deal decisively with the issue. A deluge of rules often inconsequential, contradictory, irrational and almost all failing to connect with any universal sense of pragmatic fairness and propriety. A deluge precipitated by and drowned out by the media whipped chorus clamouring for our leaders to do some thing about some incident or other.
We humans are complex social animals. We each have our own individual take on the world. No one person sees the colour red the same as another. Enough of us can compare and agree that what we are looking at is red but the red as sensed by each of us might well be different. If we cannot have something as basic as seeing the colour red in common, what chance is there for any of us to agree on a rules which are fair and right for all of us. Society, life and us as a social organism are so complex that no sets of rules, no matter how voluminous, can ever even nearly prescribe our behaviour. Calling on our leaders to fix it is the ultimate cop out and doomed to failure.
As I have explored before in Saunter to Totalitarianism there is no substitute for each of us taking responsibility for what is going on around us. Not our current leader, not our government, not the local councillors, but us, the me. What am I going to do. If something is going on I do not like, it is for me individually or collectively with my neighbours or my community to sort it out. Not someone else, me. Not defer to some remote agency, but to get stuck in and decide an effective way to resolve the mutually agreed nuisance. Woe betide if you agree to restraints that come back to bite you. This is not a charter for vigilantes, after all a child of yours might be a culprit or victim. No just people using common sense and pragmatism to resolve issues that are pertinent to them. Learn from their mistakes and refine their conclusions next time round. So what if our nation becomes diffuse with different codes of conduct, dependant on where you are. So what if you feel out of place moving around within an new strange community. Perhaps this is right and proper that you pay attention to wishes of the community you now find yourself within. Maybe there really should be several speeds in our nation between city to town to village. Perhaps differentiation is actually the missing ingredient of what makes a community and in the end ties us together as a homogeneous society.
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
Hysteria
How many accusation's does it take to prove guilt, ten, or hundreds or thousands? Point is an accusation is just that, an accusation. Sure a hundred tend to indicate that something was not right and thousands mean that there is certainly something wrong that has taken place. So the media storm surrounding the Jimmy Saville exposure sounds as if all the accusations have been proven. He is guilty as charged, a pervert, a child abuser. It is unfortunate that he is not now with us to defend his name.
To date the accusations are just that and have yet to be examined as to their reasonableness. Before jumping in on the witch-hunt let us all just pause for a moment. Accusations come in all shades from the spurious, to the 'me to', to retrospective remorse, to the full on corroborated, clear, without a shade of doubt. Before vilifying a reputations of many decades standing it is worth pausing to check how the accusations stand up by applying all the usual standards we use when considering any serious accusation. Is there corroboration, is there a sequence and patten, what degree of abuse from the inappropriate, to the over familiar to the outright violation, was it consensual (at the time) and how plausible are the claims in all the circumstances?
What I think of the man, Jimmy Saville, does not come into it but neither do I hold a candle for Saint Jimmy. I certainly do not want to minimise the distress and years of guilt that lay behind these accusations. What we do all need and want is the full extent of the truth to come out, as best it can, after all these years. Was Saville a solo operator or did he work within a circle of similar predators? Did his fame endorse an over-familiar attitude to the young people his work put him into close contact with? Were (and are) the codes of conduct for 'famous' TV personalities robust enough to deal with the mania of groupies throwing themselves at or worse making themselves available to their target idol? How can a solo operator, or a small close knit group, operate with immunity for such a long period in such a large organisation that I suspect is riddled with gossip and innuendo. Who else knew and were complicit in his exploitation over so many years?
There is a lot more behind this story than just the vilification of a once idol to millions. Let us avoid the trap of using hindsight judgements of our sophisticated age with regard to minors, sexuality and abuse and not use them in place of the mores of twenty, thirty or even forty years ago. Be sure, place guilt where it is found, but first let us be a little circumspect with all these accusations until we better understand their strength and where they lead us.
To date the accusations are just that and have yet to be examined as to their reasonableness. Before jumping in on the witch-hunt let us all just pause for a moment. Accusations come in all shades from the spurious, to the 'me to', to retrospective remorse, to the full on corroborated, clear, without a shade of doubt. Before vilifying a reputations of many decades standing it is worth pausing to check how the accusations stand up by applying all the usual standards we use when considering any serious accusation. Is there corroboration, is there a sequence and patten, what degree of abuse from the inappropriate, to the over familiar to the outright violation, was it consensual (at the time) and how plausible are the claims in all the circumstances?
What I think of the man, Jimmy Saville, does not come into it but neither do I hold a candle for Saint Jimmy. I certainly do not want to minimise the distress and years of guilt that lay behind these accusations. What we do all need and want is the full extent of the truth to come out, as best it can, after all these years. Was Saville a solo operator or did he work within a circle of similar predators? Did his fame endorse an over-familiar attitude to the young people his work put him into close contact with? Were (and are) the codes of conduct for 'famous' TV personalities robust enough to deal with the mania of groupies throwing themselves at or worse making themselves available to their target idol? How can a solo operator, or a small close knit group, operate with immunity for such a long period in such a large organisation that I suspect is riddled with gossip and innuendo. Who else knew and were complicit in his exploitation over so many years?
There is a lot more behind this story than just the vilification of a once idol to millions. Let us avoid the trap of using hindsight judgements of our sophisticated age with regard to minors, sexuality and abuse and not use them in place of the mores of twenty, thirty or even forty years ago. Be sure, place guilt where it is found, but first let us be a little circumspect with all these accusations until we better understand their strength and where they lead us.
Monday, 17 September 2012
Safety Insanity
There is a prevailing obsession about speed and how speed kills. So obsessed are we that the plans to make a 20mph speed limit widespread across Towns are being welcomed as enlightened, a worthy regard for the sanctity of life. These plans are just bonkers, pure lunacy out of disconnected thoughts. Speed cannot kill. I have sped on many legal occasions and I have never ever killed. Policemen are authorised to speed excessively but their extreme speed kills no one. No it is driving errors, inattention, poor judgement, misunderstanding of reactions times, road dynamics and even pure mischance that kills. Sure speed does aggravate any outcome but is not the cause.
None of us want to endorse behaviour that might result in the death of a innocent bystander. Being born, getting out of bed each day and going about the world is high risk behaviour that might result in your death. We know life is risky. We take a calm and measured view of the risks. What are the chances of misadventure today? Negligible. Will the bolt come out of the blue? Probably not. We weigh the chances of risk against our need to get on with life whilst taking sensible precautions to minimise the inherent risk out there.
The society we live in depends on our means to get about quickly and efficiently from one part to another. We live in cosy suburbs, away from the bustle of the city centre, because we can travel easily. We live out in the countryside away from the smells and sounds of the busy towns because we enjoy the peace and quiet yet can just as easily pop into town to go to school, or shop or work. The convenience of our world is based on being able to smoothly, easily and tirelessly move about with tolerable time expenditure. We choose not to spend hours on the business of moving from one part to another at the costs of work or family life.
In an ideal world, the world dreamed of by the planners way back in the 1960's, it was simple, traffic separation was the solution. Keep cars and people apart and problem solved. Except of course life was not that simple and has only got worse since those heady days of idealism. Just consider the range of legitimate road users that must be allowed for, mobility scooters, pedestrians ranging from the fit to the slow, roller blades, racing bikes, mountain bikes, buggies, motor bikes, horses with or without carts, cars, stretched limos, buses, trams, van lorries and transporters in all shape and sizes. Each of these legitimate forms of travelling on our roads has it own unique, widely different speed, manoeuvrability, reaction time and ability to read other users intentions. The simplistic vision just does not work, we cannot possibly separate out all those disparate road users. We have to accept they are all mixed together.
So the solution then is a 20mph widespread speed limit. Slow everything and everyone down to the slowest common denominator. In a crowded city with congested roads, crowded pavements and a 24/7 society it is just reflecting reality, that is as high as the hopes go. This nation does not comprise wall to wall cities. It has regions of great density and still has areas of very low density with the bulk of the land with a rich mixture inbetween. Many many town and villages have uncongested roads and pavements that scarcely ever see a pedestrian and a night time where the roads are deserted. So the odd road user on such roads as these should be restricted to just 20mph! This is tunnel thinking just as blinkered as the simplistic vision of traffic segregation. Our society and our lives are structured around being able to move easily and swiftly between locations.
Once apon a time, pedestrians hovered at the edge of the road calculating when there was a sufficient gap between moving cars to make it safely across the road. How times have changed. Nowadays pedestrian walk out as it pleased them across the road in the expectation that all vehicles will fully anticipate their intentions and make passage for them. Neither of course of behaviour is appropriate. What is relevant is that each and every road user has to have regard for the needs of any other road user and to be patient and considerate to those other users. In a mixed society we have to allow for and cut slack for all those others we must by necessity jostle with.
If only 20mph speed limits were definitive. Rearrange society and life based on 20mph and there would be no road casualties, ever. Would not happen, in congested streets, in adverse weather conditions or the unexpected bolt of of the blue, life would still be lost. And we as a society would have sacrificed all the benefits of being able to move about freely, for nothing. The viable speed is totally dependant of the conditions at that time, not some generalised norm. No, lives are lost by errors made by road users. We each have to take responsibility for our own decisions. There can be no hiding behind rules and regulations. We each must judge the time, the place and the conditions as and when we make those judgements. It is our decision alone, each and every time. Failing to anticipate an erratic driver as equally as failing to see a juvenile about to make a rash choice. We each have to assess all the variables like time, weather, visibility, congestion, probable movements as we make our navigational judgements. Information about other users and their limitations, information about causes of accidents, information about black spots that have above average accidents, information fed to a society that fully accepts it is each persons own responsibility for the safety of all other members of their society, that would all help. Coupled with a mature acceptance of the inherent risks in life with an acceptance of their probabilities. Each road user has to be aware and take responsibility for their actions and the affect on all other road users. No blanket traffic restriction is going to better that.
Sunday, 5 August 2012
There is Another Way
Just read an article that has given me hope, great hope, 'Evolution of Inequality, New Scientist, 28.07.2012'. I am no longer that nutter aspiring to impossible dreams. There are alternatives, so they are achievable if only we want them enough. Our capitalist based society of the winner grabs the lions share and gets to dictate has only been around for some 5,000 years. Whether or not you accept the premise that prior to that our hunt gatherers ancestors lived an egalitarian lifestyle matters not. What does count is that there is an alternative to grab first and hoard. He with the biggest hoard gets to take his pick of what is available, grab more and then use his hoard to buy fealty. The rich just get richer and richer off the backs of the poor, too poor and weak to resist.
The alternative is an egalitarian society where we look out for each other and make sure that what we have is no more than what anyone else has. No one is left in need or want, the group looks after it kin, as the weakest bring them all down, but together they have strength beyond the sum of their parts.
Just the required fresh new way of looking at our world as we have passed beyond the tipping point, where our plunder of its resources exceeds its capacity to replace or regenerate. We have to get back to a more frugal way of life. We have to stop putting our own little clique first and start to ensure all people born on this planet have some hope of a life not too disparate from our own expectations. A way to minimise our use and waste of scarce earth resources. A chance to rein in the incomprehensibly wild extravagances of the few and to look carefully at what the earth is able to offer so that we can all have a comparable share in it. Not equality. Not match for match, but comparable, not so disparate as to give rise to resentment, but a rough and ready fairness dependant on global position, climate and ease of access to resources.
Of course the bully boys and their cohort thugs have ruled the roost for millennia. Each generation is born with them as their only their role model of, take what you want and answer to nobody, as the possible viable route to follow. They are not going to give up their inherited accustomed rights and privileges. Yet their excesses can only be fuelled by the acquiescence of the masses that go without. So it is mutable, but whether peacefully or their rush to force can only be countered by a matching force, is the question to be addressed.
There are prospects, not everything we value in life is based on what can be obtained by force. Appreciation, respect, attention, these give an inkling of an Achilles heel that could bring the capitalist tyrants to book, maybe. Assuming, as a daydream, we overthrow our capitalist society and replace it with a society founded on egalitarianism, the battle is not over. There is always, in every society, it is in our human nature, the small percentage of cheaters, who claim full shares but hold back and conceal their gains. Or even worse steal or take by force when no one is looking. Nothing new here I guess. Like our hunter gatherer ancestors before us, the consequences of becoming a social pariah has to outway any advantage gained by stealing a march. When we all share in the same comparable distribution of resources, when we all know what we are entitled to, it does take the heat out of the need to go one better.
The longer you contemplate an egalitarian society the more it reveals in it a new calmness, the need to work together rather than to complete. How the world could begin to start out afresh in a new dimension. Inspirational but not beyond realisable.
The alternative is an egalitarian society where we look out for each other and make sure that what we have is no more than what anyone else has. No one is left in need or want, the group looks after it kin, as the weakest bring them all down, but together they have strength beyond the sum of their parts.
Just the required fresh new way of looking at our world as we have passed beyond the tipping point, where our plunder of its resources exceeds its capacity to replace or regenerate. We have to get back to a more frugal way of life. We have to stop putting our own little clique first and start to ensure all people born on this planet have some hope of a life not too disparate from our own expectations. A way to minimise our use and waste of scarce earth resources. A chance to rein in the incomprehensibly wild extravagances of the few and to look carefully at what the earth is able to offer so that we can all have a comparable share in it. Not equality. Not match for match, but comparable, not so disparate as to give rise to resentment, but a rough and ready fairness dependant on global position, climate and ease of access to resources.
Of course the bully boys and their cohort thugs have ruled the roost for millennia. Each generation is born with them as their only their role model of, take what you want and answer to nobody, as the possible viable route to follow. They are not going to give up their inherited accustomed rights and privileges. Yet their excesses can only be fuelled by the acquiescence of the masses that go without. So it is mutable, but whether peacefully or their rush to force can only be countered by a matching force, is the question to be addressed.
There are prospects, not everything we value in life is based on what can be obtained by force. Appreciation, respect, attention, these give an inkling of an Achilles heel that could bring the capitalist tyrants to book, maybe. Assuming, as a daydream, we overthrow our capitalist society and replace it with a society founded on egalitarianism, the battle is not over. There is always, in every society, it is in our human nature, the small percentage of cheaters, who claim full shares but hold back and conceal their gains. Or even worse steal or take by force when no one is looking. Nothing new here I guess. Like our hunter gatherer ancestors before us, the consequences of becoming a social pariah has to outway any advantage gained by stealing a march. When we all share in the same comparable distribution of resources, when we all know what we are entitled to, it does take the heat out of the need to go one better.
The longer you contemplate an egalitarian society the more it reveals in it a new calmness, the need to work together rather than to complete. How the world could begin to start out afresh in a new dimension. Inspirational but not beyond realisable.
Monday, 30 July 2012
Hiding behind words
It is so disengaged, remote, coldly clinical, the descriptions 'surgical strike', 'precision targeting', 'terrorist threat', 'neutralising a real risk', but setting aside the contrived and deliberate detachment of the words, the end result is still the same, a person, a human being, is to be killed. A person with parents, relatives, maybe a spouse probably with their own children has been selected to be killed.
Man facing man with comparable weapons it could be seen as, almost, a glorious and honourable trial of strength, both with an opportunity to overcome the other and to be the victor. But we have moved a long way from man against man. The weapons have led to increasing distance between the men confronting each other. Now the opposing men do not even see it other and it has been, for a long time, not a matter of one man skills pitted against another, but simply who has the best weaponry and tactical support.
Now a man sitting in a room three thousand miles away, in front of a bank of screens can control a drone that picks out it target and then kills it. No chance to retaliate, the target probably even unaware of their imminent death. Back across the world the man goes home to hugs with family, settles infront of TV with a cold beer and life is very normal. Selective targets with known terrorists links, only picked out for death after the most serious of cross checks and only after Presidential authorisation. This not a casual killing campaign but very carefully premeditated and double checked. Sure there is the odd co-lateral damage. That is to say unintended bystanders, men or women or children also are killed but that is their risk for associating with known terrorists. It is essential for the security of the USofA that these people are killed without further risk to American personnel. Except there is a higher overriding concern. Justice.
Our system of Justice, flawed and rough edged that it is, has evolved over centuries to balance all the complexities of human actions with that need, by us all, that the guilty should be exposed and shown for what they are. The Justice system recognises that you cannot not simply take one side of the argument. It has to be challenged by the opposing version. It is not even simply totting up all the incontrovertible evidence on one side as against the other. Even evidence can be skewed, depending on your point of view. It is not even who is the most believable and presents the most likely account of events. It is all that plus the intangibles, of people, how we as an individual perceive and have a sense of their trust and worthiness. That is why in the more complex cases we bring in twelve decent men off the street and leave the outcome for them to decide. Flawed because even unimpeachable evidence can turn out to be just wrong and seemingly good decision can be eventually shown to be wrong. The wrong person judged to be guilty. There simply are no absolutes, guilty or not entirely depends on your point of view, where you choose to place the emphasis, where you decide credence of truth best fits. At least, with the abolition of the death sentence, it is possible to make retribution for those persons who suffer the rough edges of our Justice System.
The Terrorist is our later day Witch where the ducking stool has been replaced with a death drone and all the hi-tech mumbo jumbo wrap arounds to reassure any waverers that this is all clinical, precise, beyond doubt or question. Except it is still based on 'Prove you are not a Witch/Terrorist' on pain of death. Except the selected target is not give any chance to protest their innocence. At least when the executioner looked the condemned in the eyes he was able to reassure himself, by the demeanour of the condemned, that they accepted their fate and guilt. Not with the remote controlled drones. The victim is killed without any chance to protest, to set out an alternate chain of events to the ones assembled by his judge, jury and executioner. All is fair in the cause of a 'War on Terrorism'. As if that expression defined a tangible cohesive body of people who were united, armed and seeking confrontation. Just as in the War of Witchcraft, it justifies all means and ends. History tells us otherwise. For all the hundreds of witches slain for failing to prove they were not witches, witchcraft was not eradicated. Instead their pursuers were besmirched by their abandonment of all basic rights and restraints. Evil continues on as ever but just pops up under another label with other objectives.
When Mr President of USofA next reviews the daily list of people to be killed by the death drone, he would do best to pause for thought. Is this justice I am administering here or just sanctioned slaughter?
Man facing man with comparable weapons it could be seen as, almost, a glorious and honourable trial of strength, both with an opportunity to overcome the other and to be the victor. But we have moved a long way from man against man. The weapons have led to increasing distance between the men confronting each other. Now the opposing men do not even see it other and it has been, for a long time, not a matter of one man skills pitted against another, but simply who has the best weaponry and tactical support.
Now a man sitting in a room three thousand miles away, in front of a bank of screens can control a drone that picks out it target and then kills it. No chance to retaliate, the target probably even unaware of their imminent death. Back across the world the man goes home to hugs with family, settles infront of TV with a cold beer and life is very normal. Selective targets with known terrorists links, only picked out for death after the most serious of cross checks and only after Presidential authorisation. This not a casual killing campaign but very carefully premeditated and double checked. Sure there is the odd co-lateral damage. That is to say unintended bystanders, men or women or children also are killed but that is their risk for associating with known terrorists. It is essential for the security of the USofA that these people are killed without further risk to American personnel. Except there is a higher overriding concern. Justice.
Our system of Justice, flawed and rough edged that it is, has evolved over centuries to balance all the complexities of human actions with that need, by us all, that the guilty should be exposed and shown for what they are. The Justice system recognises that you cannot not simply take one side of the argument. It has to be challenged by the opposing version. It is not even simply totting up all the incontrovertible evidence on one side as against the other. Even evidence can be skewed, depending on your point of view. It is not even who is the most believable and presents the most likely account of events. It is all that plus the intangibles, of people, how we as an individual perceive and have a sense of their trust and worthiness. That is why in the more complex cases we bring in twelve decent men off the street and leave the outcome for them to decide. Flawed because even unimpeachable evidence can turn out to be just wrong and seemingly good decision can be eventually shown to be wrong. The wrong person judged to be guilty. There simply are no absolutes, guilty or not entirely depends on your point of view, where you choose to place the emphasis, where you decide credence of truth best fits. At least, with the abolition of the death sentence, it is possible to make retribution for those persons who suffer the rough edges of our Justice System.
The Terrorist is our later day Witch where the ducking stool has been replaced with a death drone and all the hi-tech mumbo jumbo wrap arounds to reassure any waverers that this is all clinical, precise, beyond doubt or question. Except it is still based on 'Prove you are not a Witch/Terrorist' on pain of death. Except the selected target is not give any chance to protest their innocence. At least when the executioner looked the condemned in the eyes he was able to reassure himself, by the demeanour of the condemned, that they accepted their fate and guilt. Not with the remote controlled drones. The victim is killed without any chance to protest, to set out an alternate chain of events to the ones assembled by his judge, jury and executioner. All is fair in the cause of a 'War on Terrorism'. As if that expression defined a tangible cohesive body of people who were united, armed and seeking confrontation. Just as in the War of Witchcraft, it justifies all means and ends. History tells us otherwise. For all the hundreds of witches slain for failing to prove they were not witches, witchcraft was not eradicated. Instead their pursuers were besmirched by their abandonment of all basic rights and restraints. Evil continues on as ever but just pops up under another label with other objectives.
When Mr President of USofA next reviews the daily list of people to be killed by the death drone, he would do best to pause for thought. Is this justice I am administering here or just sanctioned slaughter?
Friday, 27 July 2012
Rip off GB style
I have this very nasty taste in my mouth, been with me for several weeks, try as I can to rinse it out, the bile keeps coming back. Something just is not right. The idea of people at the peak of their physical achievement contesting with others to see who is best is inspirational. So gladiatorial a match needs to be restricted to just once every five years. To host such a contest for the world should be an honour, a celebration of your Nations stature and achievements. So far all so good.
The cost of providing state of the art facilities, accommodating all the athletes with attendant followers, the media and not forgetting all the officials on their jollies is eye-wateringly huge. Just a pared down version let alone a full on lets swank and show the world what we can do version. The returns are proportionate, many immediate in increased traffic, visitors and all those logistics of making a large event happen. Some less tangible and down stream, the shadow of prestige, a heighten world wide awareness of the image put out there and the after effect of gung-ho we can that we can do anything.
Contrary to all the nay sayers, GB Ltd won the rights, has built on time to a budget that retains some allusion of credibility, without the hostage strikes of past decades, a worthy venue. Brilliant. National pride should be soaring. Instead I have this bile in my mouth. Quite rightly the government has chosen not to fund it all out of the public purse and has invited sponsors, large sponsors so inevitably commercial sponsors wanting to make a buck on the back of the biggest circus in town. No problem here either. For all its flaws the commercial world helps keep this world spinning and giving people what they think they need.
My problems stems from that having invited in sponsors it was not then necessary to roll over and grant them cart-blanc, a licience to riff off all and sundry as their prize for being a sponsor. No, their reward is supposed to just come from being intimately associated with a winning event. Instead we have restrictions, no liquid to be brought in, no food to be brought in, no alter logos to be worn, only the sponsors and their products are to be allowed once inside. I have good memories of families with a packed lunch for all going to a national event and having a great family time. Sorry but MacDonalds or coca-cola are not my idea of healthy wholesome food fit to feed my family on. This is a celebration of commercial greed and a total disdain for freedom, liberties and an empowered citizenry.
It does not stop there. These games were supposed to be for all the people, to enjoy and to have lasting benefit from. The host cities were expected to make sacrifices for the greater good. Putting up with rushed through building sites, giving up transport access and accepting disruption to the norm chaos. Who would be so mean as to put at risk a great celebratory national event just for a few days of inconveniences. Surely everyone would squeeze up a little tighter to ensure the athletes, and the marshals, got to the event in time to perform at their best? Except of course all things are not equal. Who signed up to and agreed that the sponsors clients could also join in on the Olympic Expressway. Who thought it fair and equitable that there very best seats, up close to the favourite finishing lines should be set aside for sponsors clients? These best seats that were never offered to Joe Public. Joe Public never got even a look in. That Joe Public, who in their own small ways, made and are making, bigger contributions to the success of the games than the commercial sponsors who merely sliced off a piece of an already planned advertising budget, which was probably tax deductible in any event. A large cheque for sure, but minuscule and insignificant in corporate operating costs. What puffed up buffoon thought it necessary to seek legal sanctions against anyone with the temerity to refer to or incorporate a reference to the London 2012 Olympic Games, unless of course they were already on the sponsor list. This is not an individuals, a collection of individuals or even an London Games delivery committees, preserve. These games can only happen with the good will, support and acceptance of all the inconveniences of all of the people living in the host cities and of the Nation as a whole. It is a National event. We should all be joining in and sharing to all the tumultitude of excite and references to these, once in our life times, games. Not to be harangued by a jobsworth commissar for daring to make a reference to 'our' event.
Obviously these are not the result of actions of a sole individual or even a small clique, this is a tier apon tier of decision makers and decision ratifiers. What astounds me is that no one has stood back and said hey this is out of hand, this is commercialisation gone crazy. Clearly there was not amongst all those tiers a person with any sense of social propriety, with a sense of fairness and, rough, equity. The blanket assumption seems to be that milking the market for all it is worth and to hell with ethics is perfectly proper, even natural.
Let us hope and even pray that the London Games 2012 will be remembered for superb outstanding athletic achievements and not the crass, rampant, unchecked blatant squalid commercialisation at every single opportunity. A mood so far away from the soaring aspirations driving the Olympic movement (outside of GB Ltd). Not a reflection on GB Ltd I would wish our visitors to take away. I would rather hang on to the old fashioned, fair, generous, inclusive and welcoming GB Ltd that I used to know.
P.S. Just watched the opening ceremony. A complex story told with style, pace, humour, energy and panache. The flame cauldron will take some beating and the river of gold will last as a visual image. So almost embarrassed to be carping on but this grand opening still does not excuse or make acceptable the tacky squalid profit before people approach behind the organisation. Even heightens it, the GB Ltd image of the Opening was so right in so many ways whilst the elevating of sponsors over the people is just so wrong an image of GB Ltd.
The cost of providing state of the art facilities, accommodating all the athletes with attendant followers, the media and not forgetting all the officials on their jollies is eye-wateringly huge. Just a pared down version let alone a full on lets swank and show the world what we can do version. The returns are proportionate, many immediate in increased traffic, visitors and all those logistics of making a large event happen. Some less tangible and down stream, the shadow of prestige, a heighten world wide awareness of the image put out there and the after effect of gung-ho we can that we can do anything.
Contrary to all the nay sayers, GB Ltd won the rights, has built on time to a budget that retains some allusion of credibility, without the hostage strikes of past decades, a worthy venue. Brilliant. National pride should be soaring. Instead I have this bile in my mouth. Quite rightly the government has chosen not to fund it all out of the public purse and has invited sponsors, large sponsors so inevitably commercial sponsors wanting to make a buck on the back of the biggest circus in town. No problem here either. For all its flaws the commercial world helps keep this world spinning and giving people what they think they need.
My problems stems from that having invited in sponsors it was not then necessary to roll over and grant them cart-blanc, a licience to riff off all and sundry as their prize for being a sponsor. No, their reward is supposed to just come from being intimately associated with a winning event. Instead we have restrictions, no liquid to be brought in, no food to be brought in, no alter logos to be worn, only the sponsors and their products are to be allowed once inside. I have good memories of families with a packed lunch for all going to a national event and having a great family time. Sorry but MacDonalds or coca-cola are not my idea of healthy wholesome food fit to feed my family on. This is a celebration of commercial greed and a total disdain for freedom, liberties and an empowered citizenry.
It does not stop there. These games were supposed to be for all the people, to enjoy and to have lasting benefit from. The host cities were expected to make sacrifices for the greater good. Putting up with rushed through building sites, giving up transport access and accepting disruption to the norm chaos. Who would be so mean as to put at risk a great celebratory national event just for a few days of inconveniences. Surely everyone would squeeze up a little tighter to ensure the athletes, and the marshals, got to the event in time to perform at their best? Except of course all things are not equal. Who signed up to and agreed that the sponsors clients could also join in on the Olympic Expressway. Who thought it fair and equitable that there very best seats, up close to the favourite finishing lines should be set aside for sponsors clients? These best seats that were never offered to Joe Public. Joe Public never got even a look in. That Joe Public, who in their own small ways, made and are making, bigger contributions to the success of the games than the commercial sponsors who merely sliced off a piece of an already planned advertising budget, which was probably tax deductible in any event. A large cheque for sure, but minuscule and insignificant in corporate operating costs. What puffed up buffoon thought it necessary to seek legal sanctions against anyone with the temerity to refer to or incorporate a reference to the London 2012 Olympic Games, unless of course they were already on the sponsor list. This is not an individuals, a collection of individuals or even an London Games delivery committees, preserve. These games can only happen with the good will, support and acceptance of all the inconveniences of all of the people living in the host cities and of the Nation as a whole. It is a National event. We should all be joining in and sharing to all the tumultitude of excite and references to these, once in our life times, games. Not to be harangued by a jobsworth commissar for daring to make a reference to 'our' event.
Obviously these are not the result of actions of a sole individual or even a small clique, this is a tier apon tier of decision makers and decision ratifiers. What astounds me is that no one has stood back and said hey this is out of hand, this is commercialisation gone crazy. Clearly there was not amongst all those tiers a person with any sense of social propriety, with a sense of fairness and, rough, equity. The blanket assumption seems to be that milking the market for all it is worth and to hell with ethics is perfectly proper, even natural.
Let us hope and even pray that the London Games 2012 will be remembered for superb outstanding athletic achievements and not the crass, rampant, unchecked blatant squalid commercialisation at every single opportunity. A mood so far away from the soaring aspirations driving the Olympic movement (outside of GB Ltd). Not a reflection on GB Ltd I would wish our visitors to take away. I would rather hang on to the old fashioned, fair, generous, inclusive and welcoming GB Ltd that I used to know.
P.S. Just watched the opening ceremony. A complex story told with style, pace, humour, energy and panache. The flame cauldron will take some beating and the river of gold will last as a visual image. So almost embarrassed to be carping on but this grand opening still does not excuse or make acceptable the tacky squalid profit before people approach behind the organisation. Even heightens it, the GB Ltd image of the Opening was so right in so many ways whilst the elevating of sponsors over the people is just so wrong an image of GB Ltd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)