Cory Booker, Mayor of "the worst city in America"

I ask him for his own assessment of his political weaknesses. He mulls it over.

"Sometimes I can be brash, and I can charge into things without thinking..." He smiles. "And I've had some incredibly good results! There's a quote from Lincoln: 'I've long since come to realise that a man with few vices has few virtues.' I think we have everything we need to be incredibly successful."

I can't help laughing at this burst of politico-speak. "Is that what you actually think?" I ask.

"Look," he says in self-justification, "when

I say 'we', I mean 'we', not 'I'."

"I'm not accusing you of arrogance," I tell him. "I'm accusing you of optimism."

"I say hope," he clarifies. "I'm a prisoner of hope. I don't see us not succeeding."

When I speak to Booker's friend Eddie Glaude, he says that "prisoner of hope" is a phrase Booker often likes to use. I tell him that's all very well, but couldn't you have the hope without the prison? "No," Glaude explains. "To say that is to say that we have the existential armour to hold off despair and doubt. You know, WEB DuBois in his 1903 classic talked about the three temptations: the temptation of hate, of despair and of doubt. Doubt is the most insidious of them all - you begin to doubt your capacity. And so to be a prisoner of hope in some ways is to secure oneself as best as one can."

Where are the doves?

Paul Kaye 'A dark fog has enveloped us'

When a rocket killed his mother-in-law in Israel, actor Paul Kaye was appalled by the celebrations in Gaza. Six months on, he feels a different kind of despair

At Shuli's funeral last May, her son Jonathon, my brother-in-law, gave a speech. "Where are the doves?" he asked. "What is this land worth without someone with a vision? Nothing. Without doves it wasn't worth the struggle." Jonny is 34. He's an army reservist who is studying to be a neurologist and has a two-year-old son called Boaz. He didn't scream for blood at his mother's graveside, he screamed for peace.

Something to be going on with

Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th US president. Here is his inauguration speech in full.

My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and co-operation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.

At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

Serious challenges
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many.

They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

Nation of 'risk-takers'
We remain a young nation, but in the words of scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labour, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and travelled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and ploughed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

'Remaking America'
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

Restoring trust

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - that a nation cannot prosper long when it favours only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

'Ready to lead'
As for our common defence, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

'Era of peace'
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

'Duties'
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honour them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths.

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

'Gift of freedom'
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have travelled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

Does anyone else suspect a long game plan?

P.S. Quick! Let's wipe 'em out before January 20th......... Over to you, Jon.

Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

I don't know when I last felt so thrilled by an election result. Thrilled!

"There will be setbacks and false starts. The government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face, and I will listen to you - especially when we disagree."

OK.

Anyone for West Wing?

In the Telegraph online: Alaska's largest newspaper has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for the White House, saying it would be too risky to put the state's Republican governor Sarah Palin just "one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world."

and in this staff blog, Iain Toomey agrees, more on grounds of character than experience:

In Christine Toomey's profile of Sarah Palin there is a short passage which gets to

the heart of the doubts so many have about the Republican Vice-Presidential
candidate.
"There is a high body count of people who have dared to disagree
with Sarah Palin, shown a reluctance to do her bidding or, in her eyes, failed
to support her wholeheartedly – among them some who say they too have been
hunted, carved up and cast aside along her path to power. These people warn, as
do even her closest friends and family, that in Palin’s eyes there are no grey
areas, no room for doubt. There is only right or wrong, black or white, “good or
evil”. Her father Chuck’s word for it is “stubborn”. One of her friends calls
her “dogged”. If Palin believes something to be true, it is – no amount of
evidence to the contrary will sway her, and everybody else had better believe it
too."

The profile makes quite extraordinary reading. All four pages of it. If Sarah Palin becomes de facto leader of the 'free world', Austin Powers and Batman movies may become key psychological profile texts for trainee diplomats.

If you've ever wondered what could possibly be worse than Dubbya & Co...............

What was McCain thinking?

'West Wing', anyone?

Peace, Poverty and the Nobel Peace Prize

Interesting 7DAYS article by Benedict Paramand on microcredit:

Mahatma Gandhi said: “Poverty is the worst form of violence.” This implies that any effort that reduces poverty could bring down violence thereby increasing the chances of peace. If this is the case then why is The Economist peeved at the idea of a banker and an economist being given this year’s Nobel Peace Prize?

In a recent article..., the magazine said: “The purpose of the prize has become muddled. There is a risk that its worth is being eroded as the Nobel Institute scrambles to find an eye-catching recipient every year.”

.....Muhammad Yunus, 66, of Bangladesh and the Grameen Bank he founded, were given the Nobel Peace Prize for 2006. Yunus pioneered the concept of lending to the poorest, who live on under a dollar a day, to make a marked difference to their livelihood. Yunus has shown that this unconventional strategy is sustainable and can be implemented on a massive scale.

... Peace is not necessarily absence of war or conflict. The tribal wars in much of Africa are more to do with the absence of economic opportunities than mutual hatred. Therefore, there is a need to widen the definition of peace. While it’s true that absence of war encourages commerce, it’s also true that vibrant communities find little reason to squabble.

... Microfinance consists of providing small loans, usually less than $200, to individuals, usually women, to establish or expand a small, self-sustaining business. For example, a woman may borrow $50 to start a small poultry business. As the chickens multiply, she will have more eggs to sell. Soon she can sell the chicks. Each expansion pulls her further from the devastation of poverty.

... Microfinance is not just lending. The providers offer business advice and counseling, while clients provide peer support for each other through solidarity circles. For example, if a client falls ill, her circle helps with her business until she is well. If a client gets discouraged, the support group pulls her through. This contributes substantially to the extremely high repayment rate of loans made to microfinance entrepreneurs.

Here's the article in full.

A bit of a rant, I suppose. (Blogging again!)

Did I ever mention that I'm a literature snob?

Well, I am.

Not that I have any grounds for supercilious glances over my prescription lorgnette. If something has won the Booker or a Pullitzer Prize, it's more than likely that I haven't read it. Mine is not a subtle mind: I can discuss theme, metaphor and analogy, but I prefer a good story with characters I can care about, and I read with my feelings as much as my intellect. Give me troubles faced, solutions found, and an ending that's a resolution and a new beginning. But don't patronise me. I may not be subtle. I may be lazy. But I'm not stupid.

From the classic cannon I love Henry Fielding, Charles Dickens, Elizabeth Gaskell. I loathe D.H. Lawrence and Thomas Hardy with a passion born of having my nose rubbed in their misery at school. Everyone told me that Tess of the D'Urbevilles dies in the end, but so transfixed was I by her character and predicament that I read on willing it to be different in my copy. Needless to say, I was disgusted with Thomas Hardy, the sanctimonious git, and have never read another of his books. Now that I'm grown up and sensible, with a handle on his purpose in writing what he did, I know I ought to set aside my seventeen-year-old self and try his other works. Jude the Obscure looks interesting. However, I can't get past his basic premise, which appears to be that life's a bitch and then you die. Is this really where I want to spend my weekend? Hardy fans, please recommend your favourite, and I'll go get myself a copy.

However, I draw the line at D.H. Bloody Lawrence. What possesses exam boards to inflict 'Sons & Lovers' on unwary yoof? Grim, grim, grindingly grim. So he had a miserable childhood: if he'd been American, he'd have got therapy, but being English he had to grim and bare it, so he wrote the book. Ok if it made him feel better. You go, David. But why put thousands of adolescent English Lit students through it? Volcanic acne, looming exam pressure, tumultous hormones, and D. H. Lawrence too? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaghghghghgh....... noooooooooooo.... please.....

I've heard the mutterings about the dumbing down of exams and courses, and the need to expose yoof to Great Literature, but for goodness sake, has it got to be miserable to be worthwhile? Welcome to adult life, boys and girls, and this term we're studying blood and circuses, or the married state; next term focuses on sexual repression and social hypocrisy; and we'll finish with existentialism, maybe even a little nihilism if you're really good. Good grief! Compassion please!

Now that I think about it, they ought to make 'It's Grim Up North' a sub-genre. Lawrence reigns supreme on the literary front, but Emily Bronte must come a close second. But what about the British films of the 90s? Raining Stones (1993) Brassed Off (1996), The Full Monty (1997), even Billy Elliott (2000). Interestingly, the late twentieth century film market being rather different from the late nineteenth/early twentieth century literary market, all of these portraits of the 80s death throes of British industry and the communities it sustained are full of humour. Funny, that.

BIG TANGENT: There are many people who hold that Margaret Thatcher's premiership (1979 to 1990) was a good thing. I believe that she started well, having the nerve to take on a network of unions which, decades after their establishment as the foundation of dignity in the workplace, were complacent, greedy, out of control. I also believe that, had she known when to stop, Margaret Thatcher might have saved Britain's industrial base, but of course that's not how things turned out.

In a 1987 interview, when England was giddy with consumerism and the cult of the designer kettle, Margaret Thatcher famously said of society, 'there's no such thing! Only individuals and families'. Having lived most of my life in the north of England, where the towns that had developed, and the cities that had flourished, around steelmaking, coalmining and related trades and commerce, were by this time on their knees, I heard this with great bitterness, as her personal legacy. I include the speech, which includes several home truths about a culture of dependence which needed to be addressed - but what I still don't see how killing the patient counts as a cure.

There, aren't we glad I got that off my chest? Better out than in, as my warty old wet nurse used to cackle, while warming my 'andful of 'ot gravel over a dung fire. Eeeh Ugly Aggie, where are ye now, ye cracked cow? Bless. (You never forget Nursie.)

End of Tangent.

Books? Some other time.

Beating (about) the Bush

Underground Dubai linked to this story in the Times Online, entitled Dubai’s building frenzy lays foundation for global power, from The Sunday Times of May 21st. I thought it was a carefully balanced story, which means that only half of it would make it into the local papers here. After I'd put in my tuppence worth on UD's blog, I sort of kept on going with some thoughts that have been building for a long time now, despite my efforts to Accentuate the Positive.

Basically, things are impressive here, but not perfect, and as I've written elsewhere, I'm nervous about the future here - not for myself, because after nearly thirteen years, it's just about time to go - but for Dubai itself. Whenever change occurs, something is gained, and something lost. Dubai's turning into a dazzling showgirl, but it also seems to be rapidly losing its humanity. That's one thing.

Secondly, although I agree with those who shake their heads at the underside of Dubai's development (See the article) this is another case of the distinctions between countries at different stages of development.

Thirdly, I think that the rhetoric coming out of the US - ok, Washington - ok, George Bush - is so counterproductive that I can't believe he gets away with it. So this is my opinion, for what it's worth, and then I'll say goodnight.

REPLY to UD's blog and reading the Sunday Times article:

Thanks for pointing this out. I was just thinking the other day about where this is supposed to be going - given that I along with nearly everyone I know find the construction, avarice, traffic, cynical exploitation of workers, shameless withdrawal of 'gifts' of land from long-established social and sporting societies, extravagant use of water, endless apartment blocks with no community facilities, etc. etc. oppressive and demoralising. And I thought to myself: it’s too ambitious to only be about being a regional hub for IT and commerce, and generating wealth for the national population; it’s got to be about becoming a beacon of Middle East success to the West and our neighbours: dynamic, safe, free of politics, corruption, etc. A sock in the eye for the detractors who stopped the Dubai Ports deal.

So it doesn't really matter what we temporary residents, transients, feel, or even what this generation of Emiratis think of it all, because we're not the target market. What we are experiencing now are growing pains as this emirate sets out to do in twenty years what other countries have taken fifty or a hundred years to achieve. No wonder individuals on the inside are disorientated, and outsiders keep talking about Disneyland. This will be a New Town, prefabricated for the next generation. It will be up to them to give it a heart to replace what's dying here.

AND the rest of it.

Then there will be leisure for a social conscience regarding the inhabitants of the place. All in good time. I don't subscribe to this. And yet, shouldn't we recognise that the First World countries critical of attitudes and practices here, built their wealth in the bad old days of slavery, colonialism and the 'renewable resource' of cheap and plentiful immigrant labour; and that their social, political and judicial structures and national consciences have evolved since then? Industrialised England, New York, the Great Wall of China, the Egyptian pyramids, and the Aztec and Inca cities were all built on the backs, blood and bones of labour deemed disposable according to the values of the time. Times change, and so do attitudes, but as we've already seen with international concerns about fuel emissions, dirty coal, nuclear energy etc. what seems only commonsense to a developed nation, sounds like economic protectionism masquerading as a global conscience to the developing nation pulling itself up through whatever resources it has. Nor does the recent record of First World countries in Third World Countries square with our educated liberal modern consciences. And what's the latest on Baghdad, Guantanamo and the Land of the Free?

Excuse the bitter little diatribe, but man's inhumanity to man, collective short-term memory and infinite capacity for claiming the moral high-ground, not to mention the almost literal reclaiming, by the dubiously elected leader of the secular United States of America, of the Divine Right of Kings, which does impart the flavour of crusade to his country's activities in the Middle East, no matter how well his speech writers try to spin it, is going to get us all killed one of these days.

Turkey, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran are at least open about the conflict between those who believe in an infallible God whose will should permeate society, and those who don’t, or who at least believe that individuals of conscience should group together to work for a just, compassionate and economically viable society. In the West there has been official separation of Church and State for generations, in some cases, centuries. Most westerners take it as fact that no individual, regime or system is perfect – or not for more than a few years, until circumstances alter cases – but everyone does their best according to their own lights, and we rely on the group - cabinet, parliament, electorate - call it what you will, to rein in the zealots, the corrupt, the megalomaniacs, the tired and disillusioned.

Part of what afflicts the world right now is the gap in understanding between the secular mindset – How can these people reject freedom of thought, speech, will, and mindlessly obey/believe/uphold that oppressive regime? And the religious mindset – How can these people disregard the laws of God, laid down for our benefit, and risk eternal damnation?

In the west, there is general mistrust of the political ambitions of ruling clerics – and not without reason, for do not these religious leaders with secular power have the usual human flaws? Europe took centuries to curb the secular power of the Papacy, and how many corrupt popes, linked by blood to various ruling families, played power games, or lived lives of debauchery before that happened? Didn’t Christianity split into Roman Catholic and Byzantine Orthodox long before the Reformation?

On the other hand, Russia and China both went down the paths of atheism – and the suppression of religious practices, groups and individuals – in pursuit of their ideal secular social model. It still goes on though the times, politics and names appear to have changed somewhat - but they don’t pretend otherwise, simply tell everyone else to mind their own business and leave their countries to them. They are open for business, not external reform, and look who's buying. So we’re all clear on Russia and China.

The one lesson that comes out of this is that ‘The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to to govern. Every class is unfit to govern...Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’

And this applies to both clerics and secular authorities. It would seem that democracy is the key to social justice and honest government. Being elected for a fixed term, with the guarantee of being booted out for incompetence or corruption, and a maximum tenure no matter how terrific you think you are, checks even the Berlusconis of this world.

Except that the other half of the equation is the electorate, which has a moral responsibility of its own: to think, to weigh the worth of the candidates and the needs of the parish/town/city/region/country; to vote according to informed conscience not out of habit or fear; to vote – not abnegate responsibility for the community; and to be patient and open, allowing representatives time to do their job, and not take up weapons and hit the streets when no magic solution is delivered within months. It’s so easy not to bother. Violent activity is such an easy vent for frustration. Responsibility isn’t as easy, or as invigorating.

So how does it come about that the citizens of what has been – at least until recently – the most powerful nation on earth, managed to elect not once, but twice, a barely competent, vain, arrogant, opinionated, blinkered, self-satisfied, isolationist, xenophobic, religious zealot to be their president? Did I miss anything?

The signs were there the first time around.

Kyoto Treaty? Handy short term domestic gains at expense of betraying international agreements and relationships? OK.

Steel tariffs? Handy short term domestic gains at expense of betraying international agreements and relationships? OK. (Easier second time around).

International War Crimes Tribunal? Nope, not for God-Bless-Americans!

9/11: Didn’t see that coming, better hit someone back. Oops, missed in Afghanistan –

OK let’s

1) whip up hysteria on the back of national grief so that I can do what the Lordy-Lordy I like,

2) deflect attention from failure – What’s happening in Eye-rack these days?

3) find a bogeyman (See 2),

4) whip up a pretext – ooh… well in the movies they always say they’re going to destroy the world……. What about……Weapons of Mass Destruction?…OK!

5) make oil reserves safe for democracy…… um…… make the world safe for democracy. OK!!!


Butbutbutbut what about diplomacy?
What – the talking and listening kind? Nah. Unamerican. And invasion plays better on Fox.
Butbutbutbut what about the peace?
What peace?
After the war……we need a plan, personnel, resources, someone who speaks Arabic.
.................Listen sonny, we’ve got to catch the morning papers and breakfast TV -
Oh......

And despite all the Not In My Name Efforts, off they went.

And despite all that followed, the fine Christian people of America, voted Dubbya in again. In response to what? Gay marriages (Find a bogeyman): the threat to Our Way of Life.

What happened to the separation of Church and State? What to make of George W. Bush’s Divine Smokescreen? God-on-our-side may have provided an unholy election miracle for the Republicans, but look at what it’s doing to the United States' international standing, and everything it touches these days! (Yes I know that there are thousands of Americans involved in relief efforts in some of the toughest places on earth, and many of them face hostility nowadays - I’m talking about this administration’s blinkered home-based electorate and self-righteous foreign policy.)

How can the people of America not see that their foreign policy has destroyed their almost mythic virtue in the eyes of their old allies? Cheat your neighbours. Betray your friends. Make scapegoats of political irritants. Destroy the old and iniquitous with no thought of how to encourage new growth, unless it means contracts for American firms. Make endless allowances for old friends steeped in blood and oppression; sign trade deals with old enemies in the hope that they’ll take you with them on their way up. Human rights abuses? No problem.

It can be argued that international diplomacy is always, ultimately about the bottom line. In fact if it weren’t for the unstoppable determination of traders and merchants to expand markets, most countries and continents would probably be at war most of the time.
Mammon the peacemaker.

To return to the beginning, and the critical stance taken by outside individuals, organisations and governments on the development of Dubai – how else will the world improve if not through the encouragement of best practice in all areas of society? It is good that First World countries wear their consciences on their sleeves, and actively seek to promote freedom and justice everywhere. And here in Dubai, there must surely be room for the personal and property rights of the individual in the brave new world rising out of the sand.

But for the identified leader of the western world (even if that perception is mistaken, and he’s just another bogeyman) to cloak the destabilisation of the Middle East through economic and political aggrandisement in the rhetoric of Christianity is not only disingenuous, but fans extremism in America’s Bible Belt as well as the Islamic world. We all know it’s about securing gasoline for American cars, and oil for American boilers: and the politicians and clerics in the Middle East all know it too. But how helpful of Mr. Bush to give them exactly what they need to inflame the hearts and minds of people already very angry about Israel, Palestine and Iraq. The worrying thing is, no-one really knows for sure whether this is political posturing, or if he really does see himself as Saint George. Either way, we’re in trouble.

If the American people as a whole (with the honourable but ignored exception of a large minority, many of whom live or have lived in the Middle East and elsewhere) are so complacent, so self-righteous and self-absorbed that the private lives of a tiny minority figure more powerfully than the lives of thousands of American service peronnel and thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, the ongoing misery and shame of Israeli state sponsored terrorism against Palestinians, (not just Palestinian terrorism against Israelis) and the USA’s descent, in the eyes of the rest of the world, from historical ally, powerhouse trading partner, and honourable – if flawed – defender of justice and democracy around the world, to duplicitous, racist, self-serving aggressor, ready to jettison constitutional human rights and ignore the sovereign rights of other nations whenever it suits, then I suppose that they have the President they deserve.

George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad certainly deserve each other, particularly as Dubbya’s foreign policy probably contributed to Ahmedinejad’s rise to power.

But do the rest of us deserve them? At the same time?

Maybe the joke’s on us. God is out there, watching the floorshow with a Deity Pack of Kleenex. Apocalypse Any Minute Now. Not delivered, as previously assumed, by God, but wilfully crafted by his ultimate creation. (No, not the dolphins, you idiot!)

Would someone like to explain the bit about God again?

Goodnight!

Israel & Palestine - my twopennyworth

Keefieboy's Democracy entry generated a very serious debate on the rights and many wrongs of the Israel/Palestinian situation. Now I’d like to add my thoughts, but Keefieboy’s had enough, so I’m putting it on my blog. I hope that's ok?

Bandicoot said: I’m a bit disheartened at how other bloggers seemingly decided to stay out of this (assuming anybody is reading our posts).... [W]ith very little chance that either one of us would experience a dramatic change in their minds and stands......... I believe we’re testing our ideas in a public forum of sorts, as we argue back and forth, forcing us and others to think and rethink this stuff. This I thought would’ve attracted few more people to participate, but unfortunately this doesn’t seem to be the case.

Bandicoot and Tim - I for one have 'stayed out of this' because I have nothing to contribute except cheers for the fact that you both speak so thoughtfully and passionately from your own knowledge and understanding of a situation which matters to me, but also baffles me.

The books you quote, Bandicoot, are not in local bookstores as far as I am aware; and to find for myself the sites you cite (!) takes me through so many hideous, heartbreaking, rage-filled propagandist sites for both sides that I quit. I have followed your debate to learn, and have not interrupted because I didn't want to distract. I suspect that there are many more like me.

Keefieboy said: maybe I don't really know anything about Hamas. I think that not many of us foreign nationals do, really, beyond the balaclavas and bombs.

For my part, I knew nothing about Hamas's grassroots community work, their hands-on support for families living for years with unimaginable, and largely unreported, deprivation, until the election campaign began, and it was mentioned in a TV report on Hamas's appeal. To me, they were desperately misguided extremists; by no means justified in their suicide bombs, but a predictable product of generations of repression, and the extinction of hope for any kind of normal life through any other means. To Palestinian voters, however, they were a group with a track record of social action, and an alternative to a regime whose complacency, croneyism and corruption had long since leeched its credibility.

Anonymous said: People are being killed daily, prohibited the right to learn, to eat well. [W]here are the human rights now?

Bandicoot referred to: Israel’s policy of demolishing the homes and bulldozing the livelihood of thousands of Palestinian families.... of detaining Palestinians indefinitely without trial, wide-spread abuse and racism... and officially-sanctioned torture and assassination, and made what to me seems the obvious point that: Decades of daily humiliation, routine violation of basic human rights, and systematic brutality will not produce a nation of Buddhas! People who knew the reality of the Occupation, including many foresighted Israelis, warned repeatedly that the gross injustice of Israel’s military rule will only degrade the humanity and morality of both occupier and occupied. Their words couldn’t have more prophetic.

Tim Newman responded with: I flatly refuse to view the deliberate mass murder of civilians by terrorist militias in any context. It is inexcusable, period. echoing Keefieboy's any 'political' organisation that uses violence as a means to an end is a terrorist organisation in my book. That includes the likes of the IRA, ETA, Tamil Tigers etc. They may have legitimate arguments and claims, but bombing innocent people is 100% not the way to pursue those arguments, as both the IRA and ETA have now conceded.

Yes, it's inexcusable, and, as everyone eventually concedes, ineffective. Except: governments which use terror often win, at least for a time.

It's a matter of resources, ruthlessness, and connections. If you've got a big 'defence' budget; a social control network in which intelligent, educated and amoral strategists work with ambitious career executives to control and direct education, the judiciary, national media, international lobbyists, and the energies of large numbers of well-armed, semi-literate, underpaid, testosterone-fuelled sociopaths whose idea of a good day's work, or a good night off, includes rocket attacks, kidnap, rape, massacre, looting and arson; coupled with the de facto support of other governments either reluctant to criticise for fear of jeopardising their own interests; or defeated by the compexity or longevity of the situation - well, you have a very strong hand against internal dissent (or should I say ‘democracy’?).

A hand like that, well-played, can keep a system, incumbent or dynasty in power for a very long time. Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Ceauşecu, Amin, Mugabe, Pinochet etc. etc. etc.

A reign of terror is generally more effective if it's managed quietly, through a system in which people are ‘re-educated’ à la USSR or China or simply 'disappear' à la Latin America. You can get away with that for decades, generations even, especially if you’re big. Blatant massacre à la Janjaweed Militia tends to stir international outrage, but if you don’t mind, then it don’t matter. Political assassination by helicopter gunship à la Israeli Army also upsets people, even your friends; but if your ‘friends’ are rather nervous of the potential political fall-out from falling out with you – you can probably get away with that sort of thing for decades too.

Amnesty International and the United Nations do their best and have their successes, but velvet and rose revolutions may only be possible when a weaker dynastic or political generation coincides with the emergence of an individual who can unite and inspire a population otherwise numbed by oppression.

Candidates for this position should offer a broad education; good health; integrity, vision and moral and physical courage; charisma; emotional stamina for the long haul through national optimism, triumph, impatience and disillusionment; a gift for detail; recognition of their personal limitations; the ability to recognise and retain honest and talented colleagues; bone-deep belief in social justice, the rights and responsibilities of the electorate; and no dynastic ambitions whatsoever. Those afflicted by inferiority, persecution or messianic complexes, or a belief that what this country needs is military discipline, need not apply.

Long term political stability and economic development, in a social and political environment which respects individual freedoms, are far more difficult to achieve if the population has been denied proper nutrition, healthcare, education and employment opportunities for more than a generation. If, in addition to this, funerals have been a regular part of their community life for as long as they can remember, in communities where everyone is related to almost everyone else by blood or marriage, the emotional under-swell is unfathomable and, it seems to me, one of the greatest obstacles to social cohesion and stability. The sad, sad, ultimately hopeless need to make sense of violent death, to believe that someone precious ‘did not die in vain’, to use a hackneyed phrase, lies weeping in the way of any peace process, but most especially after ‘civil’ war.

How does either side forgive? How can you call it ‘quits’, shake hands, and start again? Those bastards killed your husband, your wife, your mother, your cousin, your eighteen month-old grandson. Because of them your daughter does not speak anymore, your four year-old draws nothing but APVs and explosions, your eleven-year old is more interested in throwing stones at soldiers than playing football, and your sixteen year-old has a look in his eyes that makes your heart go cold.

Melodramatic? Composite. And real.

Where does forgiveness start?
What do we do with the primal need to make someone pay?
How do we trust people who would do what these people have done: these Palestinians, these Israelis, these Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, insurgents, Americans, British, Tamils, Basques, these government forces?
Why should they have their independence, their territory, their self-determination, their theocracy, their democracy, their international support, their reconstruction grants, their control of oilfields, gas reserves, water supplies, fertile land?
Why should they get what they want when we have suffered so much, and been condemned because we had to fight for our survival as human beings?

To outsiders what looks like a bloody-minded rage for revenge, an irrational, barely human, urge in those people to perpetuate a cycle of death, begins to look a little different if someone of ours comes home in a box, if at all, after a landmine, a drive-by shooting, a suicide bombing. Then, what price forgiveness, justice, a rational appraisal of the most positive way forward?

To return to Tim: I flatly refuse to view the deliberate mass murder of civilians by terrorist militias in any context. It is inexcusable, period. Putting such acts into context gives them a veneer of acceptability that I do not believe they should ever be granted.

I agree that it’s inexcusable, but I think that we do have to recognise context, not to impart any spurious respectability, but to acknowledge the agony and desperation that produce these inexcusable actions, because it seems to me that that’s part of how we can contribute to any peace process.

Part of the difficulty facing foreign diplomatic agents in the Middle East is the perception that we’re all part of the Greater United States, and Zionists to boot. Of course, this is the line that Ahmedinejad, Osama bin Laden and Al Zarqawi promote, and which is probably peddled assiduously in Islamist mosques throughout Asia, the Middle East and the parts of Europe where Muslim immigrants are evidently nursing grievances of their own.

From Anonymous: Why do you look at dead Israelis and read their stories, but not even spare a moment to learn all the stories behind Palestinian deaths?

With respect, not true, or at least not entirely.

These stories are in the papers, and on the Internet, and people read them.

International channels and newspapers do generally aim for balance. Owners’ political agendas affect the appointment of editors, which of course affects both what is reported, and how it is reported. BUT – (big but!) we have a choice of newspapers in all the major languages, and these days, a remarkable number of people are fluent in two or more languages. There are British papers I would not use to line the garbage bin with, but others I trust and greatly enjoy. I make a point of following domestic and international news stories on both British and American news channels, not just to rule out editorial bias, but also to get the mood of the society they are reporting from and to. (The US is as foreign to me as any other country.) And I’m basically quite lazy about this: many more non-Arabs and non-Muslims try very hard to get to the truth; and to be fair, the reputable western national dailies aim to provide that, along with balanced editorial comment and background information.

No, not everyone reads deeply or regularly – but many do, because we want, we need, to know, to try and figure out what’s going on. Why else would we blog about all this? Why have Tim and Bandicoot gone back and forth on this for days on end? I quoted Bandicoot on that at the outset: we’re testing our ideas in a public forum of sorts..... forcing us and others to think and rethink this stuff..

Sure, there are racist bloggers, but they tend to limit themselves to pathetic kneejerk insults in other people’s comment blogs. I think you, Tim and Bandicoot are better than that. I know I try to be.

The creation of the State of Israel through the breathtakingly arrogant meddling of the United States, Great Britain et al, was a colonialist’s solution to an ancient wrong – the deportation of the Jews and erasure of their homeland, as an entity, by the Romans; plus an ongoing injustice – the anti-semitism which has pervaded European society since the Middle Ages; and of course, a specific disaster - what we would now term a crime against humanity, i.e. Hitler’s attempts to finish what the Romans started, by erasing the entire race of Judah from his patch. Iran and the Arab nations can dispute all they wish, but the Holocaust happened, and 6,000,000 Jews were exterminated. Accepting that is not a step towards accepting that what was done to Palestine was justified.

The Holocaust did not, and does not, excuse the displacement of 300,000 Palestinians to make room for a new State of Israel. Nor the subsequent actions of the Israeli government as quoted by Bandicoot. It is bitterly ironic that Jews, Arab Muslims and Arab Christians were rubbing along quite comfortably until then. Live and let live.

I also find it ironic that, at a point when Crusades, anti-Jewish legislation, Jew-baiting, and pogroms were receding into history, (salutary examples of our inexhaustible ability to make scapegoats of others); just as America was benefiting from the culture and skills of the second-and third- generation descendants of 19th and 20th Century refugees from European anti-Semitism; and the Wandering Jew of legend was discovering that the New World, the Land of the Free, might just possibly be his Promised Land too; when Europe and America was awash with guilt about what had been allowed to happen in Germany and Poland, and Jewish stock had probably never been higher (Er, no, I don’t imagine for a second that we were all about to live happily ever after in harmonious diversity. Come on!!) – at this point, in a mess of good intentions, political expediency, moral cowardice and paternalistic WASP blindness to the reality and validity of foreign cultures, Uncle Sam and his buddies orchestrated a folly only Dubbya could surpass.

We all live with the legacy of that decision. The world hugs itself with fear. But what’s done is done, and Israel is a sovereign state. Nor is that going to change, in my estimation.

When, in 1967, Israel’s Arab neighbours surrounded her and attempted to wipe her off the map, she fought back with everything she had, beat them off, and has continued to hold them off ever since.

Throughout history, the Middle East and North Africa have seen migrations and invasions, and the rise and fall of cultures. In modern times, English is spoken widely in the Middle East; many citizens of post-colonial North Africa are bilingual in Arabic and French, Portuguese or whatever; and there is other evidence of European influence; even so, no European country has successfully conquered any of these Arab states, or displaced their culture or religion. Arab society is built on community, and a sense of community is built on generations of continued occupancy of land. People are connected through their relationships with each other and their land. From this they draw their sense of who they are. Real estate is a western capitalist concept. Land is different. People hold onto their land.

It seems to me that the insertion of Israel into Palestine is both the exception to and a confirmation of this precept, and the key to the Palestinians’, and their neighbours’, inability to oust the Israelis (disregarding US economic, technical and diplomatic support) lies partly in the fact that some of the pre-Israel population was Jewish, and this was indisputably their land.

More important though (in my opinion), is the concept of ‘The Promised Land’ among the diaspora, and the fact that, as contemporary expats and first generation immigrants do everywhere, they kept their sense of self in foreign countries by retaining their customs and culture. Had they fully integrated into European life as immigrants eventually do, embracing their new home, things might have been very different; but having lost their actual country, and finding themselves the despised ‘killers of Christ’ in Europe, perhaps the only way to hold on to their identity and self-respect was to hold on to the culture that bound them together. A defence mechanism which only further emphasised their difference in aggressively Christian Europe, both before and after the Reformation.

Emotionally, spiritually, culturally, home was Palestine. And so in 1948, having had absolute proof that anti-semitism was alive and well in the modern world, Jews did not head for Israel as invaders or colonists: they went home. Being loathed and despised by their neighbours, being legislated against, insulted and assaulted, was nothing new. The Wandering Jew had returned to the Land of Israel, promised to Moses by God, and, by God, would stay.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians.
Israel belongs to the Israelis.
Sixty years of Israeli oppression have not altered Palestinian determination to get their homeland back.
Sixty years of Palestinian resistance culminating in the Intifada have not changed Israeli determination to hold on to their homeland.

Both sides have committed disgraceful crimes for which their God will no doubt hold them to account. But if both sides are prepared to spend 60 years in a living hell of bloodshed, fear and mistrust, to bring up embittered children brutalised by modern guerrilla warfare, to face international condemnation for their actions, and can still square their consciences with their God, then it seems to me that neither is ever going to move out.

There will be no weary surrender from either side, and neither will ever – ever – know peace and freedom unless they are brave enough, strong enough, godly enough, to agree to disagree, to hammer the swords into ploughshares, and to develop as fair a division as possible of that stretch of land into two parallel states.

It is going to be very very hard. For many, compromise betrays the efforts of those now dead; but surely intransigence condemns the living to lifelong misery and fear, and betrays those not yet born.

Trying to work through the bad stuff

When a fine former colleague and mentor was killed by a suicide bomber in Qatar last year, the muslims on our faculty didn't know where to put themselves - they grieved, felt responsible, defensive, confused - didn't want to admit even to themselves that a muslim had done this because it is so contrary to what they believe in. And non-muslim staff didn't know what to say or how to say it. No-one in that staffroom had anything to do with that attack, no-one agreed with it, or blamed or suspected anyone else but such is the insidious power of terrorism to sow these terrible subversive small gaps and silences that threaten communities.

And yet this bomber failed. Terrorism failed – as it always does in the end, though at what cost. We didn’t turn on each other. We shared our grief with students who mourned their former teacher. We celebrated his life as we mourned its ending. We comforted one another. We’re still all together, still international and multi-cultural. In Doha, so many Qataris turned out in the streets to reject the actions and justification of that bomber. A year later, Doha has just hosted a conference for international schools like ours, which bring people of all races together for a good academic education, and a broader experience of life and friendship. A good man is senselessly dead, his wife a widow dealing daily with unbearable loss, but terrorism failed.

I feared for my son and my sister-in-law who routinely used the London Tube and bus routes that were attacked last July. I was so sad for the dead, the injured and the bereaved, and for the family, friends and neighbours of the bombers, who were also victims – like us. We saw the power of terrorism to undermine communities by destroying trust – except that here too that power was illusory- at worst, short-lived, except that people are dead – gone too soon. Others remember and mourn. Neighbours tried to be compassionate. Community groups held together. Londoners were brave and stoic, got back on the buses and Tubes. Terrorism blights and haunts, but it always fails in the end.

Foreign teachers from the local international school were killed in the first Bali bombings - ordinary people doing socially responsible work and sharing cultures. Another bombing. More grief and fear. We saw the cynical application of death and fear to make people stay home and give up their efforts to understand and accept other people’s ways – except that the school remains open for education, the Balinese continue to welcome foreigners, and foreigners continue to visit and work in Bali. Terrorism fails.

The Amman bombings happened just before our trip to Jordan. Bombing your own people? Slaughtering generations at a wedding? Jordanians turned out in their thousands to condemn and mourn. The families publicly repudiated those involved. The pain was immense - just as in Madrid and New York.
And Baghdad, and Basra, and Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Britain in the 70s.
Germany in the 80s.
Terrorism fails.

So no, while I wish people could see the ordinary humanity of people here, and appreciate that their culture has so much in it that is good, I'm not dewy-eyed about the way things are, or the people responsible for these and other rightly named atrocities - whatever their culture, beliefs or grand purpose

But terrorism, it seems to me, is a double-edged weapon. The terrorist eats his own children, poisons the well, destroys his and his fellow man’s path to the future, because what future can there be without peace, what peace without trust, what trust without dialogue and compromise – between everyone concerned? To promote and use terror to achieve one's ends is unnatural and ungodly, regardless of creed or flag. All those foolish, misguided young people so dedicated to their cause, so physically and mentally strong, so selfless that they would give up everything for their faith, country and culture – what is gained by sending such people to their death? Should they not be encouraged to serve, build, teach, nurture, invent, forgive, restore, marry, make babies, look to the future?

But of course, that only works if they believe that they have a future as things stand; that there will be a home to raise a family in, work to pay for it, education and healthcare, a life worth living. For all the rhetoric of the militants, this is as much about economics and quality of life as about religion. Fulfilled people with contented families and a satisfactory way of life among good neighbours rarely feel compelled to make the ultimate sacrifice.

On the other hand, people who have been denied – or are persuaded that they have been denied - education, dignity or hope in this life, along with the rest of their generation, and their parents’ generation, why would these people believe in a future? Add surging testosterone, a charismatic and ruthless manipulator, and at last, a sense of purpose, the imagined admiration of their friends and little brothers, the promise of eternal rewards, and the ultimate adrenaline rush. Away we go.

In March 2004, The Religious Policeman linked to this speech by George Carey, former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, who was part of an ecumenical group attempting to find common ground between the world’s major religions, and identify the root causes of our current difficulties, in the earnest and urgent desire to do something about them. He said at the outset,

"I am not... an expert on Islam............. [but] I have spent a great deal of time with some of the most important names in Islam – Dr Tantawi, Hassan al-Turabi, King Hussein, Prince Hassan, King Abdullah, Professor Akbar Ahmed and many other Muslim leaders and scholars – seeking to build bridges of understanding between two great faiths. In retirement I continue to engage in dialogue through the Alexander Declaration Process which attempts to bring Muslim, Jewish and Christian leaders together in Israel and Palestine..........
(There are huge gaps between all of these quotes, so please go to the original speech and form your own opinion.)
............wherever we look, Islam seems to be embroiled in conflict with other faiths and other cultures.

..............Whether religious or nominal, it is important to recognise that the vast majority of Muslims, like Christians, are honourable and good people who hate violence and are distressed to note that they are lumped together with evil and misguided people. We should never seek to demonise them or their faith. But a fight for the soul of Islam is going on.

...................... The politicisation of young Saudi Muslims was completed in our own day when the impotence of Muslim countries was compared with what they regard the decadence of the West with its materialistic power."

As a westerner living in the middle east at that time, and utterly bewildered by the swirl of global events and rhetoric, I found Lord Carey's speech honest, thought-provoking and concise (a quality I admire….) I would recommend it to everyone, at least as a basis for discussion.

I’m a gardener, in my small way, though currently defeated by mealy bugs (sob!) and the garden can be a powerful metaphor. If I’ve got strangling weeds, mould, parasites or whatever, uprooting or spraying is a brutal and effective short-term solution, but in another month, the problem’s likely to resurface, and with greater resistance. To get my garden to flourish over decades (a proper garden!) I must look to the health of the soil and a proper balance of sun, shade and moisture; take care not to overcrowd, but companion-plant complementary plants to attract pollinating insects, deter parasites, etc. etc. (OK, you see where I’m going with this! Just read the speech, willya?)

I’ve no agenda here. I’m just trying to work things through and either find a way to live with all this, or be part of something positive. History teaches that there are no permanent solutions to human conflict. Time passes, power shifts, and as one civilisation gets lazy and decadent, there’s another on the ascendant. We’re not much good at peace, at sharing, and given how difficult we sometimes find it just to live with ourselves, international relations certainly ain’t gonna be no walk in the park, baby.

(Don't believe me? OK: serious pit-stop. Have you ever done something you’re really ashamed of? How irresistible is the path of least resistance? Have you ever – in the words of my childhood catechism - sinned by thought, word, deed or omission? No-one does guilt like a Roman Catholic, except perhaps an ex-Roman Catholic…….. Check out that pit! OK back to international relations and the rise and fall of civilisations.)

History teaches, but are we willing to learn? Also –and this is always interesting - who writes the history, and what are they trying to prove? All I know is that the human race is going through one of its periodic convulsions of rage and violence, and each one brings us a little closer to bringing on the four horsemen.

(Quick exit for Terry Pratchett, the king of the outrageous sideways reference….. tumtitum… just talk amongst yourselves….. ah yes! TP, in association with Neil Gaiman, brings you ‘Good Omens’ being the nice and accurate prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch’ with an interesting cast of characters (p.13) including the Apocalyptic Horsepersons DEATH, War, Famine and Pollution. Thank you gentlemen.)

So, Death, War, Famine and – in the original – Pestilence, a wonderfully sonorous word for Plague. But we can do Pollution too, can’t we darlings? Ah the wonders of human ingenuity! Four biblical forces of annihilation are not enough: we have to come up with another one. Hurray for us! Well, come on then P2, after all, if we are indeed heading for the big A just as fast as our nuclear horsepower can get us there, the more the merrier!

We don't seem to learn, do we?

What to do? Where to start? What do you think?

I think I should probably lie down. This is what happens when I have a week off and two- oh dear no, it was three, no wonder! - three cups of filter coffee.

But I shall tack on something I was thinking about earlier, upload this, and then I’d better start thinking about tomorrow, and the return to the day job.

So, in my personal tribute to Blue Peter (obscure BBC TV reference from childhood), here is one I prepared earlier!

(Actually Habibi thinks that might have been Grahame Thingy, the Galloping Gourmet. Blue Peter was interesting craft projects involving cornflake packets, wire coathangers and sticky-back plastic, and my laptop is not quite at that stage, not yet, anyway.)

Right – Let’s change continent for the amateur historio-socio-econo-anthroposologist’s analysis of the Third World and the legacy of colonialism. I thank you!

(Good grief! You’re still here?! Excellent! I look forward to your feedback. )

There are economic reasons for the current mess, policies of ruthless self-interest. First World countries have long-established power bases, practices and relationships. However 'cut-throat' the competition, no throats are actually cut anymore because there is a shared understanding, however imperfect, of national psyches, values and priorities, the acceptance that we can do business - after all, we tried war twice in the 20th Century, and dammit - nobody won!

Third World countries aren't in the club. It could be argued that it is the legacy of colonialism as practised by the club members that there is a gap so huge that the terms First World and Third World exist. Africa. The Middle East. Areas of vast mineral and fuel resources. And political unrest. Corruption. Social unrest. War. Disease. Drought and desertification. Poverty. Starvation.

Am I being alarmist here, or is it all getting worse? (Does anyone hear hoofbeats?) If it’s all getting worse, despite the efforts of people much more educated, knowledgeable and responsible than me, what can I do? Or you? I only wonder because we seem to be in a life or death situation, largely of our own making, and I was brought up to clear up my own mess (not that I want anyone to look at the kitchen or bedroom right now.)

Here's a question: if Big Guy kidnaps Little Guy (a prosperous farmer and family man with lots of people working for him) takes him down a dark alley and removes his kidney (because Big Guy's cousin wants it) what is your response to Big Guy telling Little Guy to stop lying around and get on with his life - while introducing rules that reserve key resources for Big guys - oh - and sneering at the physical limitations and innate inferiority of Little guys stupid enough to allow the removal of their essential organs. ?

Hey! That was fun!

OK. Here's another one.

If Big Guy and his Big Buddies carry on like this for, say fifty years, while Little Guy gets weaker, and thinner, and picks up infections, and suffers organ failure and has a quality of existence so poor that one has to wonder why the poor so-and-so doesn't just lie down and die, and meanwhile Little Guy's wife, children and grandchildren starve and lose their home because of Little Guy's incapacity, and the non-availability of resources to people of their stature; and his employees also starve and lose their homes, and start fighting amongst themselves, or taking whatever gets them through the day (Jim Beam, say, or Prozac) is there a possibility - here's the question - that their kids and grandkids might start to feel a little resentful of Big Guy and the Big Buddies, and, lacking the resources to help themselves, decide to go after Big Guy, and his Big Buddies, and make them sorry?

Last questions: And if they do,

1) Whose fault is that?
and
2) Short of annihilating all the Little Guys (hmm.... now there's an option) what does Big Guy need to do to make things right? Gosh, it's a good job he's got all his Big Buddies to help him think that one through. Perhaps the Big Grandkids should help clear up after Big Grandad…. before everyone is sorry.

You have thirty seconds to complete this paper, as time is running............ Oops