Blair On Trial

Last night I steered me little vessel as close as I could get to England, so I could pick up a bit of their telly. My reason was to see the much plugged TV drama "The Trial of Tony Blair." It portrayed the dismal experience of post-Prime Minister Blair. Nobody wants to know him, his memoirs are recognised as the grandiose meanderings of a fantasist and he is in danger of being extradited for war crimes, as a result of his illegal actions during the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It made for compelling, if uncomfortable, viewing. I actually began to feel quite sorry for the man as his world collapsed around him. The magnificent actor, Robert Lindsey, played Blair with an unworldly pathos - his grandiosity and helplessness dragging him further and further down. In one scene a policeman makes a remark about the suffering of the Iraqi people - Blair responds "Oh, great - a politically motivated policeman." The copper answered, "No sir, just a human being."

Now, I have no intention of spoiling this excellent drama by saying any more about the plot, but it was an interesting excerise, exploring the possible (if not very likely) scenario whereby Blair is called to account for his involvement in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis. Certainly, the plot was a bit far-fetched and the characterisations a little melodramatic - but for all that it was compelling viewing.

And it addressed the barren landscape of Blair's post-PM life. This brings to mind the question of his life after Downing street. What will he do, I wonder? I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually went to live in America - at least there some people like him.

Legacy Of Lies

Poor old Tony Blair is showing the strain of his distasterous and shabby policy of supporting Bush in the effort to conquer the middle east. His famous grin seems increasingly threadbare and his face has become drawn and haggard - he is a man who has aged terribly and does not bear it well.

His efforts to be remembered for something, anything, other than the mess he has created in Iraq appear ever more desperate. For several days his tetchy response to a reporter who pressd him to condemn the disgraceful way in which Saddam's execution was managed was shown and reshown on european TV news. Meanwhile his party look forward to his departure so that they can replace him with someone less unpopular. The worst kind of abandonment for a politician is when the nay-saying voices are coming from behind him on the parliamentary benches.

But behind all the one-liners and false smiles, I am beginning to detect a note of sadness in him. Perhaps this is to do with guilt, or shame maybe. Or, of course, it could be my imagination. But he has begun to look uncomfortable. I wonder whether the facade has become more difficult for him as Iraq has become an ever greater disaster. "Brains" in Washington is clearly untroubled by such things - but Blair certainly has more humanity and intelligence than Bush.

Could we be witnessing the beginning of a change in Tony Blair? If he is as moral as he likes to pretend, then he must think about what he has done from a moral perspective. It is difficult to imagine such thoughts resulting in anything other than guilt and shame.

Hearing Voices...

I was forced to reacquaint myself with dry land yesterday, so that me old radio could get the once-over from a repair man. It hasn't been itself since I accidentally poured some coffee on it a month or two ago. Glad to say, she's righter than rain now, having had a small surgery and a bit of TLC.

While all of this was happening, I took a jaunt into the city (no names, no pack-drill) to see what was what. To my delight, I ran into an old friend - a lady from the US, who I last spoke to three years ago. We went for a jar and a bite to eat and talked about old times for a bit. Eventually (inevitably) the conversation got around to current affairs and, more precisely, the occupation of Iraq. Although I am usually quite fast to criticise the chump with his oily finger on the button, I was a little more reserved than usual - seeing as how my pal is an American an' all. So when I mentioned Bush, I did so in a questioning way rather than with my usual barrage of invective. Her response was interesting - and it is something I have noticed before in my American friends. Quiet embarrassment. She, sort of, shook her head grimly and expressed her utter bewilderment at the situation her country has gotten itself into.

Like most outside observers, she says that she was worried about Bush from the outset, and she said that even people she knows who initially liked him are now appalled by his ridiculous antics. What stunned her (and, I must say, this is something I hear a lot) was that he won the second term so convincingly. She finds it hard to believe that millions of her fellow citizens looked at what he had done during the first four years, said "we need some more of this" and voted for him.

It has often seemed to me that most Americans were stunned by the 9/11 atrocity - it had never occurred to them that they were so hated. Likewise, Bush's re-election was a shock - it had never occurred to them that he was so liked.

She also noted that although the war is very unpopular, not so many folk are out protesting against it (although, of course, some brave souls do). What might this mean, I wonder? Could it be that Americans have given-up on social activism? Or have they, on some level, adopted a 'patriotic' stance, where it might be viewed as unseemly for them to protest while "the boys and girls in uniform" are at risk? I really don't know.

What I do know for sure - and meeting my friend reaffirmed this - is that there are millions of Americans who oppose Bush and his shabby crusade. How or whether that will translate into anything which might give hope to those under occupation remains to be seen. But it is clear that this anti-war sentiment is in no way a cohesive force, in the way that "the movement" was in the Vietnam era. Only time will tell, I suppose - but the voices of the American dissenters can be heard if you listen, though sometimes you have to ask.

The Villagers Storm The Castle...

Once in a while, when I'm not far off land, I yoke me old portable TV up to the generator and give the airwaves a spin, to see what's to be had for a night's entertainment. Tonight I gave this a try and managed to tune-in to a station showing Boris Karloff's Frankenstien. To celebrate such a rare and wonderful find I broke open the good biscuits and allowed meself two of the decent cigars I keep safe in the bottom of me old map box, in a little metal tin with a drawing of a panther on it. I added a generous jug of rum to the mix and snuggled in close to the stove. What a great film it is! And how timely, in these terrible moments, to remember the nature of monsters. Y'see monsters sometimes arrive fully formed, ready for awfulness from their first breath. But more usually they are made. Created. Sure, the raw materials have to be there - an inclination, a potential. But it requires circumstance, or experience or a deliberate effort - sometimes a mix of these - to truly create a monster. And when, in the film, the villagers arrive at the castle with flaming torches, full of fury, I often find myself feeling sorry for the monster, the creation. I reason that he is what he was made. The real monster is the one who made him, the one who gave him life.

As I said, a timely lesson on the nature of monsters.

Now it seems like time for me to stub out the last of this stogie and get me head on the pillow, for the clouds look stormy and the seas are choppy. I'll get me sleep while I can.

The Shadow Of The Gallows

So, they finally got around to condemning Saddam to death. After months of wrangling and shouting, the much anticipated death sentence has been handed down, despite serious questions about the legitimacy of the court which tried him.

Now, don't get me wrong - I have no time for this numbskull, and I will shed not a tear for him when he hangs. Indeed, I was protesting against Saddam twenty years ago, at a time when the US was supporting and arming him.

However, it is interesting to reflect that a lot of what he says is perfectly correct: this is a kangaroo court with no real legitimacy, he remains the president of Iraq - despite the illegal occupation of his country and the verdict was such a forgone conclusion that it is hard to imagine him getting a fair trial. To be tried by your peers is bad enough, but to be tried by your enemies is a very bad thing indeed. And probably not the best way to ensure that due process is observed.

Again - to be clear - I abhor Saddam, and will shed not a single tear when he dies. But if the occupiers want to string him up they should just do so. What sickens me is the shabby facsimile of a court hearing that we have (sort of) witnessed. I think the US administration has reached a point where it no longer matters how wafer thin the pretence is, they know that they are playing only to their supporters. Those who oppose them will oppose them in any case.

I suppose that this bogus trial will go down as just another footnote in the history, that will one day be written, of this awful and stupid middle-east adventure.

Methinks that 100 years from now, sooner probably, Bush will be looked upon as a turning-point president. The one who turned the world against America. And turned America's back on the world.

A Bit Too Close To Home

I was looking at me hull earlier tonight, as the old girl bobbed and lurched with the motion of the briney. I thought I spied something amiss with her, but it was only a patch where the water left an unusual mark last time I was in port. Over the years I have had all manner of things bump and bang into the side of my little boat - they rarely do any harm, and if they do it is easy to put right.

Y'see, the sea isn't the natural enemy of the boat or the sailor. She is our friend, our protector, our reason for being. And although many's the man and boy that has lost his life to her, sailors are generally very affectionate towards "the big pond." And, although she sometimes carries things which harm, she carries us too. After a few years at sea, a man gets kinda used to her sweet embrace and cannot feel utterly calm anywhere else. I, for one, never get a solid eight hours minus the sway of the ocean.

Sailors have good hearts, by and large, and this leads them to love and respect the potentially lethal waters on which they sail. But we are a superstitious lot too - always fretting over inauspicious omens like dreading the appearance of a black cat on the dock afore we ship out. But in reality we generally don't have much to fear and are a hopeful lot.

How unlike America, and its current head-in-the-sand approach to the world. It has become so insular and fearful of its own people that it seeks to keep them in a constant state of fear. Why else would it behave as it does? Remember, all of the nonsense spouted by "Brains" in Washington and his band of merry men is targeted at America and Americans -- he is long past caring what the world thinks of him. The rationale seems to be that the population must be kept compliant and obedient. So, America must always have big, scary enemies.

If America doesn't have an enemy, it creates one! The policy seems to be that there must be a Bogey Man to fear at all times.

Though in some cases America's enemies are more than illusory spectres. Take Osama - created by the US and supported by the US when his particular brand of evil was of use. Now the US terror-training has been utilised to destroy American lives, rather than the Soviet and Afghan lives at which it was aimed.

And before guys like him, it was Gadaffi - another pawn in the US's game-plan. And before him it was "the communists" and God knows who else. And as a side-show we get characters like Saddam - also a product of American meddling. He only ever wanted to be America's friend, and this was the case until the the US attacked him, not the other way around.

Years and years of this have had an impact on the popular consciousness. America has become fearful - because the powers that be want it to be fearful.

Fearful people are compliant and allow you to enslave them - and you get legislation like the Patriot Act, which probably would not have passed parliament anywhere else on earth.

Americans seem remarkably unruffled about their recent loss of freedoms, suggesting that they are either on-side with Bush and his corhort -- or that they are ignorant of the changes. Either is very worrying.

The Moral High Ground

The international community has reacted with predictable ire at the recent nuclear test in North Korea. The prospect of this pariah state "tooled-up" and capable of inflicting serious damage on her neighbours is seemingly too much for the international community to bear. Even China seems to consider this a step too far, and America will doubtless push hard at the UN for a serious response.

The outrage at North Korea's nuclear ambition is perfectly understandable, as the last thing we need is a seemingly deranged dictator with such weapons. However, one cannot help but marvel at the astonishing arrogance of America, which is currently investing millions in the next generation of nuclear weapons. To be clear, they seem to think that nukes are fine as long as they are the only ones allowed to have them. Now, at one time, most westerners would have been happy enough to accept America's claim to the moral high ground, but in light of recent events this pill is a little bit hard to swallow. And, after all, the US is the only country with a history of actually using these terrible weapons.

It would be a little more paletable if the countries shouting loudest in response to this nuclear test were moving towards eradication of their own nuclear arsenals. In fact, the opposite is the case. And if the reaction to these events were consonant with responses to other countries engaging in similar behaviour, then the current cry for blood might be easier to support. But when France did exactly the same thing some years ago, there was a little bit of shouting, but no real action.

It seems that different standards apply to predominantly white western nations than the rest of the world. Unless, that is, the country in question is more difficult to bully. Take China, for example. America knows well that the Chinese would brook little interference in its affairs, and is very capable of defending itself. So it leaves well enough alone. The chances of the US intervening in China to bring "freedom" or "democracy" are about a million to one. So they support the Chinese regime by trading with them and allowing American companies to make huge investments in the Chinese ecomony.

America picks on the weak and cosies-up to the strong. It has become a bully.

And all bullies face the same end - they eventually come up against someone bigger than themselves, and usually find that they have no friends left to help them.

In the meantime, while idiots like Bush posture and justify themselves and their violence with the language of peace, thousands of nuclear weapons still sit in silos around the world, waiting for someone stupid enough to push the button. How ironic if the man who starts World War III cannot pronounce 'nuclear.'

The End Of Days

Being a man of the sea, I have often noticed how affecting it is to lose sight of land - to be able to see only water on all sides. One feels utterly detached and disconnected from humanity. After a while I usually puts on me little wireless, just to hear the voice of another. I was doing just this today, and I began to ponder what it would be like to remain in that state of disconnection for any length of time. It occured to me that this is what life must be like for Bush - all of the lies and false expectations of his grubby little adventure in Iraq have been exposed, the inhumane treatment of US detainees has been revealed and the fraudulent underbelly of the "War on Terror" has been bared. Even the American people are increasingly seeing Bush as a liability. In order to maintain his sense that he is a good man doing the Lord's work, it is important that he shut himself off from the reality of his situation and convince himself that he is a just and decent person. Imagine the consequences of any failure on his part to do this - he might actually see himself as the world sees him, as a mean and vindictive tyrant who cares little for freedom or justice. A man of no decency.

I wonder what will happen when his presidency comes to an end, and some time passes and he has less and less to occupy him. Will he begin to allow his thoughts to drift towards the reality of what he has done? Will he allow himself to consider all of the children who have died so that his rich friends can become richer? Will he think about the ruined lives, the dead and mained American servicemen and women? Might he consider the long-term consequences of his self-righteous crusade? If so, what effect would this have?

I suppose it depends on whether he really is just a stupid dupe, pandering to the twisted demands of the neo-cons. If that is the case, then maybe he will sleep easy. But if he actually knows what he is doing - if he really understands what is being done in his name, then I suspect that he will have some terrible times ahead. And this might come sooner rather than later, because I think he will be dropped like a hot brick as soon as his time in the White House ends - nobody will want to be associated with him once his power is gone. And he probably wont get much of an airing during the next election campaign - I reckon candidates from all sides will be trying to emphasise how different they are from "W".

So, it seems he will have the one thing which might be intolerable to him: time to think.

---

In some respects this shabby presidency may end up being of benefit to mankind - when all of the dirt finally floats to the surface, the backlash may result in a move towards greater tranparency and honesty in public life. Of course, "W" doesn't have much of a legacy to leave behind, apart from the deaths of many thousands and the stench of greed. Not to mention, turning America into a pariah state and throwing the world into chaos. Not bad for a guy who wouldn't get a job in McDonald's in europe.

Friendship

When I was very little my mother spoke to me about the importance of friendship. “After your mammy and daddy are gone,” she would say, “your friends will mind you and help you to be good and keep out of trouble.” Taking her at her word, I put a lot of effort into my friendships, and probably thought more about these relationships than most small boys growing up in the suburbs of 1970’s and 1980’s Dublin (for 1980’s Dublin, read: no jobs, no money, little hope). And over the years, I have had many wonderful friendships, some enduring, some passing and some cut short by a foolish row or other abbreviating event. Now, as a man, I am blessed with wonderful friends – decent, caring people who I know are there when I need them. Whether my good fortune in this regard is due to careful cultivation, arising from my mother’s advice, or sheer good luck, I don’t know. But I do know that when my parents are no more, my friends will mind me and keep me out of trouble.

Thoughts of this recently brought to mind America’s current standing in the world – and the actions of the present administration. This country has been abandoning its friends as if there was an infinite supply. Relationships nurtured over generations have been cast aside in the race to war, in the race to occupation and in the race to demonise the innocent (France, for example). Friendships forged in the heat of America’s gallantry in WWII have been swept aside in a heart-beat. Millions, raised on the history of Nazism’s failure, and the realpolitic of the cold war, are starting to think the previously unthinkable: Could it be that America is actually the bad guy?

All around the world, people had happily appropriated the American Dream as their dream – freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This meant something to them, something to hope for and believe in.

A lot of them have stopped believing.

And as the US has stopped listening to its friends, they have stopped listening to the US – statements from the White House are now received with little more than derision. Bush has become a figure of fun. But, deep down, no one is truly laughing – they are afraid. Afraid of what is happening in the world, afraid of what is to come.

Put simply, they are afraid of America.

Equally worrying for the millions who deplore US actions are the new friendships America has been forming. Pakistan, for example – yet another dictatorship which suits America’s current purpose.

In the past, US support for terrible men (Pol Pot, et al) was generally brushed-over with phrases like “cold-war politics” or “the fight against communism.” But now this history is being re-examined, in the light of current events.

I doubt that ordinary Americans have any idea of how much anger there is towards them globally and, frankly, I think they would be shocked. Americans are, by and large, hard-working, decent people. But they seem totally unaware of the consequences of their voting decisions – US television news certainly wont enlighten them, or even inform them. It has become part of the plan, part of the “war on terror.”

When Bush says “freedom is on the march” they report this, but for millions it is not on the march – and US support for the regimes standing between those millions and their liberty is rarely portrayed as such.

In Europe, people want Americans to take charge and hold their officials vigorously to account. Their failure in this respect shocks and disturbs. People of the world know that millions of Americans support what is happening, but that millions are disgusted by it. Those that see the badness in current US foreign policy either have no voice, or will not speak.

For very many years, America has been an aspirational culture for people everywhere. As a boy, I wanted to be an American kid with all of the privilege that suggests. As a younger man, I held a fascination for the “American Project” of liberty and freedom. Now, like many, I am disillusioned. Like many, I now question the truth of that project. Like many, I now no longer consider America a friend.

For millions of people across the globe, this is now the case – they no longer care for America, no longer believe in America and no longer aspire to what they view as America’s corrupted ideals. Even in Britain, the partner in “the war on terror,” the vast majority of people are appalled by what Bush and Blair have done and are sickened by the consequences.

It is a tragedy that in a few short years President Bush has turned a friend of nations into a friendless nation. And he does so without an appreciation of history or even, seemingly, current events.

Perhaps the truest definition of unilateral is, simply, friendless.

Say a little prayer...

As I type this the wind howls outside me little window and the briney makes the old girl lurch a little too severely for comfort. But I'll be all right - been here before y'see, been in worse seas on lesser boats. So, I reckon me old girl will see me through, God bless her hull. I've always had a good relationship with the sea, and with the wind. I respect them, y'see - you gotta respect them what can kill you.

Still, I always say a little prayer before I lay down my weary head.

I say two prayers, in fact - one for me, asking the Lord to watch over me and keep me from harm. And an extra one for all the other boys and men at sea.

With all that's happening in the world, with Bush and his eternal state of war, I think tonight I will pray for peace above all else. Perhaps you might like to join me?

Wouldn't it be great if we could all join together and pray for an end to the violence?

True Freedom Of Expression

Hello all -- hope you're all wrapped-up nice an' cosy like me on this cold, rainy night. Me little stove is struggling against the cold and the blankets are a bit threadbare, but I think we'll do all right. I'm listening to BBC Radio 4 on me little wireless while I type this. They're discussing attitudes of Muslims in Britain towards the London terror attacks. What strikes me most is the freedom of expression and the fact that this show is live and wide-ranging. Also, it hits quite an intellectual tone, without attempting to simplify or 'dumb-down' the topic under discussion.

How very unlike the American mainstream media, which seems to consider the viewer/listener as moronic. I was particularly shocked by the tone of a US news show I saw recently, which was simplistic and jingoistic in the extreme. I am by no means the first old salt to comment on the shortcomings of American journalism, but I have noticed recently an interesting development. Thousands of Americans are taking to the intenet to express their views and to discuss world events. Very often the tone is quite sophisticated and intellectual, so unlike the mainstrean media outlets.

There are many blogs, discussion groups and fora in existence now - perhaps suggesting that many americans are simply leaving the nonsensical TV news behind them. This gives me a great hope for the future, as - even if I disagree with what many of them are saying - they are discussing and sharing ideas.

True, a lot of these sites are pro-war, but most of them will allow dissenting comments if presented politely and with a good heart. This is a great opportunity for all of us who are against this vile war and think that Bush is an idiot. Go to the right-wing sites and discussion boards, tell them what you think, begin discussions. By exposing these people to a different perspective, we might even manage to convince some of them that they are supporting an immoral crusade.

Or, even better - start your own blog! Its free and fun and you can say whatever you like (more or less).

Now, its time for me to fill the old briar pipe and snuggle down for the night. Take care, and watch out for ice-bergs. Aaar.

Been a while...

...but I guess I should do some sort of an update.

I'm not sure why I haven't posted in ages, but I guess I got sorta down about the whole thing. In my innocence, my belief was that once the lies and corruption surrounding the invasion and occupation of Iraq became clear, only idiots and corrupt morons could continue to support this vile undertaking. How wrong I was. The village idiot in the White House seems to be utterly shameless, and no revelation can knock the self-righteous neo-cons off the greasy pole of wealth and opportunity.

There is little argument now that many untruths were peddled as 'intelligence' before the bombers were unleashed and American kids were shipped-in to kill other kids (and be killed in droves themselves). This is nothing new - remember Colin Powell and the '2500 tanks' at the Saudi border prior to Gulf War One? Remember the girl from Kuwait who testafied of the atrocities committed by marauding Iraqi soldiers, also prior to Gulf War One? Well, there were no tanks, and the girl was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, coached by a US public relations firm.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, as the French say.

The problem here is that in the US establishment, even the people don't change! In 1968, Colin Powell - then a young staff army Major - played a direct role in covering-up the Mai Lai Massacre in Vietnam. Is there a special 'fast-track' career path in the American defence establishment for those who will happily lie to protect the shabby ambitions of US foreign policy? Seems like it.

Perhaps the White House is protected by some sort of shame and irony proof force-field which allows the incumbant to reist the forces of truth, ridicule and incredulity. The rest of the world has been laughing at the transparent tissue of lies which overlays the grubby quest for oil in Iraq for a number of years now. And, it seems, an increasing number of Americans are now in on the joke.

So - why does nothing change?

My guess is that it has a lot to do with mainstream media - basically, American TV news. These guys couldn't find their backsides with both hands, never mind the holes in the crappy canvas of untruth held up by the administration to obscure the view of the coffins of servicemen and the convoy of American corporations, lining up to join the gravy-train.

One example -- how can a news service which has a 'Saluting Fallen Heroes' slot during the news aggressively question the morality of the occupation? I mean, if they shouldn't be there then they are not fighting for 'freedom' - they are occupiers. Therefore, by no means heroes. In fact, as the Secretary General of the UN has declared the invasion to be illegal, then they are criminals - or, at least, taking their orders from criminals. I cannot imagine that many Americans would wish to be confronted with questions of this nature, and they can rest easy. The media is so partisan now that you can select which news source you will watch and pretty much guarentee that you need not worry about troubling questions. Now, that's real freedom!

So, what can be done? It seems that few American heads have been turned by the emerging facts about Iraq, as few heads turned when Pol Pot (supportd by America) was widely revealed to be a mass murderer. As few heads turned when the atrocities committed by Saddam (while America held his jacket) were publicised, prior to Gulf War One. The fact that the lies told prior to this invasion can now be clearly seen as part of a greater web of untruths, spun by various American governments during the past fifty years seems to impact lightly upon the mass of Americans. In any european country the media would simply not tolerate such behaviour, let alone actively work to aid the fibbers!

I think the anti-war forces must go back to basics. It is time to thoroughly examine the events of 9/11. There are so many unanswered questions and suspicious events surrounding the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon that I cannot possibly summarise them here. But if the American people could be shown that these attacks were (at least) allowed to happen by their government, perhaps that might spark some serious questions in the mainstream media. How this can be done, I am not sure - many thoughtful and intelligent people have tried to highlight the 'holes' in the official story. Perhaps if someone with the stature of, say, Michael Moore took up this subject or made a short movie on this theme it would shake things up a bit.

Been out and about...

Well, this old sea-dog has been roaming and resting...on dry land! And now that I'm back on board the old clinker, I feel much the better for it.

Anyway - what do you think of the weasel goings-on at the White House? Those sly foxes have redefined the definition of torture, so that they can now say that they don't torture prisoners! Is it just me, or is this so transparently awful that even die-hard Bush fans will be disgusted?

'Tis terrible to see a once great nation sliding down the hill of defeat and into isolation. America has long been the western world's friend and has been an aspirational ideal for much of the developing world - now, it is becoming a hated terror state. And a great disappointment to all of us who dream of building a world of peace and liberty.

Bush Whacked

It seems that things are beginning to unravel at the Bush Whitehouse.

This administration's cack-handed misadventures and ridiculous lies have disgusted the world and shamed America. As their stupidity and untruths have grown ever clearer, the level of domestic support for their aggression in the middle east has nosedived.

Yet, through it all, Bush has never once admitted to a single mistake. Never once did he say 'oops, sorry.' He has twisted in the wind like Nero fiddling whilst Rome burned. And all the while he wore a smug look of mock sincerity that would awe even the most perma-tanned game show host.

US mainstream media has failed, I think, to effectively inform the people of the true horrors unfolding on the ground in Iraq. Whether this is due to some perverse loyalty on their part, or simply part of the way the media censors its coverage for the great unwashed, I don't know - but I suspect many journalists are just itching to have a go at Bush, but have been prevented from doing so by their corporate controllers. It seems that they may get their opportunity soon enough. Bush might just be approaching the tipping point - the moment when it is easier to push him further down than to continue to support him and his crazy take on the world.

When the tide turns against him, I predict that Bush will grow ever more insular in his thinking and behaviour. By the time of the next election, my guess is that even most Republicans will be glad that he is gone -- but in the truly irony-free style of American politics, he will be praised and lauded by all and sundry in his party, even as they breathe a sigh of relief.

However things turn out, it is certain that this man has left his mark on history - in the blood of the innocent.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Tee-hee...I couldn't resist sharing this with you. I stopped-off at Portsmouth the other day and bought a few items (i.e. more blankets - its been so very cold these past few nights). Also, I treated myself to Private Eye, the British satirical magazine. The cover photo was so good, I felt compelled to reproduce it here for your pleasure.

The steady march of the nanny (state)

As Britain prepares to introduce ID cards, with biometric data used to verify the identity of the individual subject (Britain doesn't have citizens, they are 'subjects' of a monarch), it may be timely to ponder on the steady erosion of our liberties. Increasingly, we are handing over more and more of our freedoms to the ruling political classes. In a post-9/11 world, we seem to be willing to do away with cherished values and liberties.

When these shabby measures are introduced, it is typically done with the 'innocent people have nothing to fear' mantra. This is false. Undoubtedly, the criminal classes will find a way around the new technology rapidly - possibly (probably, in fact) by creating an industry in ID card pirating!! And if international criminals and terrorists can fake passports, etc., I'm sure they will quickly overcome whatever obstacles are presented by ID cards.

Of course, the recent experiences of terrorism in the UK have involved British citizens who did not mind their identities being known after the fact. So, who will these cards impede?

Ordinary people, of course! They will be subject to new laws making it illegal for them to be out and about with no ID card (otherwise, how could the scheme work?). I have always thought that it is a terrible mistake to unnecessarily criminalise people. And it is a terrible slap in the face for hundreds of years of human progress, when we find our rulers taking our freedoms and converting them to criminal acts.

Go East, Young Man...

As I pass another dark night of the soul with only my little wireless for company and the dying embers of my stove for warmth, thoughts arise of spending some time ashore. Its been a while since I enjoyed the company of others (apart from the welcome hails from passing boats), and I'm a bit unsure of my ability to truly immerse myself once again in the society of man.

In recent weeks, as the horizon shows yet more water and little else, I have taken great comfort from this web log. Thank God in His mercy for satellite communications, allowing me to fire off these little missives - a sort of 21st century message in a bottle!

Anyway, I've been weighing up whether I should pass some months (a year, even) amongst my fellows. My fear, I suppose, is that I will not be able for it - too used to solitude, you see. And my greater fear is that I will like it too much and not want to set sail again. That, for me, is captivity and death.

As I consider these things, the only place which appeals is Japan - Tokyo, to be specific. I've never been to this exciting and mysterious place - though I've heard much about it over the years, of course.

In Tokyo, the old and new stand side-by-side, with huge office buildings dwarfing tiny zen temples. I think I would like that. Of course, I will have to learn the language. Can't get away with the usual trick of using english, but raising my voice and gesturing.

And culturally, Japan is very different from western countries - quite a challenge, I imagine.

Anyway, I will continue to mull it over. If any of you can advise me, I'd be delighted to read your comments. You can mail me at: egbertblah@gmail.com or just post a comment here.

The question is, I think, do I want change for change's sake - or do I truly need the company of my fellow men to survive, to prove to myself that I exist as more than these thoughts. More than this message in a bottle.

They're Not All Locked Up

A little speck on this morning's horizon turned out to be a sizable vessel, bursting at the seams with marine biologists and environmental scientists. A nice bunch, they drew up close and invited me on-board for some food and a few glasses of rum. Before I departed we said a little prayer together, to the Gods of the sea, asking for a safe return to dry land and clement weather (I put in my usual unvoiced request for a nice cabin-girl also). The captain - a solid Norwegian fellow named Kanute - gave me a little bundle of goodies to take back with me. When I unwrapped the kind offering I gasped with delight. Some rare treats there were indeed - two pouches of Captain Black (an exquisite pipe tobacco), a little box of Belgian chocolates, a sturdy pen-knife with their company logo on it and (joy of joys) several newspapers. 'Tis rare for me to get a newspaper on the day of publication.

As is often the case, one news story stood out and played on my mind for the remainder of the day. I felt compelled to write this post and share it with you.

I don't imagine that I have very many readers - I mean, who cares what an old salt thinks, right? But I have a sense that there are one or two who glance at this an odd time. So to you, my friends, I direct a gaze of bewilderment. The story which fills me with such confusion and awe is on the front page of The (London) Independent newspaper. The headline reads Bush: God told me to invade Iraq. According to a soon-to-be-aired BBC documentary, Bush told Palestinian leaders in 2003 that he was acting in accordance with the word of God. Now - to be clear - there is nothing wrong with a fella reading the bible and taking it seriously. And there is nothing wrong with a fella living his life in a way that he thinks accords with the wishes of the almighty. But Bush (apparently) thinks that God is talking to him. He is quoted as saying that God told him: 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.' Seriously. Of course, the fact that he subsequently brought tyranny to Iraq doesn't factor in this man's thinking.

Now, as we all know, many people have felt the hand of God upon them and this has spurred them on to accomplish feats of magnificence and enormous good. And I don't mean to be disrespectful to anyone's faith -- BUT, it seems to me to be unlikely that God wanted tens of thousands of innocent people to be destroyed by American weapons of mass destruction and an entire country to be thrown into poverty, social unrest and chaos. It seems to me to be equally unlikely that, if God did want to do this, he would a) entrust the task to someone so inept; and, b) need any help. As recent weather phenomena in the US have illustrated, God has a lot of ways and means to do damage without needing to call up the village idiot in Washington.

I suppose I would say that every man's thoughts are his own, and it is not a crime to hear God talking to you, even if he is saying brutal and terrible things. However, when you start to kill people, based on the suggestions of voices in your noggin, we have a problem. And when you are the most powerful man on earth, who presides over a fearsome war-machine, and answers to no-one (except, presumably, to God in his head) and you start to attack other nations, based on these voices, then the world has a problem. And not for the first time, I am glad to be at sea - far, far away from Bush and his voice-of-God.

Something interesting & lovely

Shiver (what's left of) me timbers! Its been a cold, long day and its becoming an even colder, longer night. So, imagine my delight when I stumbled across something interesting and well produced on the 'net. I saw a blog by a lovely girl called Amanda. She is involved with a project called Rocketboom - I suggest you go and take a look: www.rocketboom.com

It really cheered me up!

Time

Time has a different meaning for the lone sailor. Without the bustle of the other and his busy business, the clock can become another ornament on the desk, rather than ones keeper. When one has been days alone, what are hours? And when one has been months alone, what are days?

Isn't it strange how the texture of time and our temporal reality is influenced by our state of mind. A tedious, boring task can take 'forever' - whereas, 'time flies when you're having fun.' In reality, of course, in hard physical reality (i.e. the earth's passage around the sun) neither of the foregoing statements are correct. However, from the subjective point of our personal reality, both statements are abundantly true. After all, life for each of us will only ever be as it seems to us.

Many philosophers suppose that time is a strictly physical property, having no meaning for the spirit - many psychoanalysts believe that this is true of the unconscious as well. So, might the differences in our perceived relationship with time be a function of our spiritual selves as much as our cognitive selves? Of course many cognitive psychologists will talk about perception of time as a combination of 'state' and 'thought operations.' But let's not go there - I have long since grown bored with arguing the toss with our cognitive behavioural brethren. And besides, they seem to do quite a good job of this among themselves.

I have always been drawn to the zen notion that time does not actually exist - just the present moment. And, of course, the experience of zen practice for each person is an entirely subjective thing, but many have mentioned to me their profound sense that the moment is not just one of many moments - rather, it is a thing by itself, moving with them, sort of. I too have experienced this sense, and it is difficult to place into language. However, if my sense of the moment is anywhere near correct, that would mean that time does not truly exist. And the zen notion of being in the moment is a matter of present awareness (as they often call it) rather than focusing ones attention on a specific point along a continuum (of moments).

I do not claim to be a zen teacher or anything of the sort, just a traveler on the seas, like many others. But, for me, and for each one of us, it seems a pity not to strive for a state of present awareness -- the moment, the now, is all we can ever have. It is our only true possession.

And in it we may find the wisdom to answer all of our questions.