Fair Is Fair...

Well, yesterday's debate between Obama and McCain provided one or two surprises. Although neither candidate seemed comfortable with the moderator's attempts to encourage them to speak directly to each other, both carried themselves well and spoke convincingly of their beliefs and policies. McCain did far better than I had expected, in fact I think that he may have slightly outperformed Obama on a number of occasions.

My impression was that this event showed McCain at his best and Obama at not quite his most persuasive and articulate. He will need to up his game if McCain continues to do as well as this.

The big question is how Sarah Palin will fare in the Veep debate. If she reveals herself as the shallow and shrill conservative gun nut that many think her to be, then she could lose the election for them. It will be problematic for McCain if she fails to charm the undecided, and maybe seduce a few Dems. It will be fatal if she fails to impress Republicans. It seems that her approval among even GOP loyalists has been on a downhill slope since she was introduced to the country during convention week.

Thursday night's debate should make for compelling viewing, whatever happens.

Bad Choices and Too Much Make-Up...

As the world money markets have descended into turmoil and politicians of every hue have busied themselves with the task of appearing to be doing something, it has been a period of great calm out here on the briney. Tonight the seas are calm and the wind is balmy and easy on the rigging. The old tug is as close to shore as needs be, just near enough to pick up some of the news channels on me old telly. The wireless usually does me well enough, but tonight is the first of the U.S. Presidential debates -- and it is better to be able to see as well as hear when trying to get a man's measure. Poor old McCain tried to back out of the debate, citing the financial crisis, but now seems to be back in the game. This mis-step is just the latest mistake in a long sequence of errors, methinks. Politicians in America generally don't face much in the way of scrutiny, for the press fear that too aggressive a stance might lose them their access, and the public don't get anywhere near those who presume to lead them. I get a sense that McCain fears the debate as he knows that he will appear slow and inarticulate next to Obama - but even more than this, the GOP know that Sarah Palin is unlikely to stand-up well to a debate with a seasoned campaigner like Joe Biden.

Which brings me to a question that has perplexed me for a number of weeks: What were they thinking when the Republicans selected Sarah Palin as McCain's running-mate? I recall her speech at the recent party conference. She seemed shallow, inexperienced and quite shrill. My guess is that the GOP reckoned that a lot of pro-Hillery Dems would vote for the McCain/Palin ticket as they feel cheated by Obama's victory (all a part of Clinton's campaigm for a McCain Presidency!) and another woman will capture their votes. However, I suspect that she has won over only seasoned Republicans. She is not impressive at the podium, she seems to have a limited grasp of the broader political spectrum, and I doubt if she will attract many Dems.

As I conclude this post the debate is beginning -- so, let's see what's what. And who's what too, perhaps.

U.S.S.A.

After decades of aggression towards the old communist bloc countries and relentless preaching about the joys of the free market, it seems that the Comrades in Washington have turned tail and appropriated the ways of the much maligned centrally-planned economic models they used to poo-poo.

Although pretty much everyone on Earth knew (apart from the highly-paid financial money-managers of course) that the residential property market was going to go into freefall and that a deep recession loomed, the financial institutions failed to take steps to prepare for what was to come.

In a truly free market they would be forced to accept the consequences of their ineptitude. But not to worry - they don't need to face-up to the stresses of the market, as they operate in the USSA (Union of Soviet Socialist America), and the government will intervene and save them.

Power to the people!

One wonders whether they will replace the Stars and Stripes with the old Soviet red flag? But the Hammer and Sickle would not really be an appropriate emblem. Hmm...hey, how about using the Red Flag, but replacing the Hammer and Sickle with the image of a dead Iraqi child? They have tens of thousands to choose from, and it would play very well in the Bible Belt, where Bush is very popular and their Christian principles extend to genocide and racial hatred.

Again, power to the people!

As America slides into a Soviet-style police-state, it is interesting to see the Comrades in Washington taking more and more control of the "free" market and intervening to save some companies. But while they act to place the financial institutions under state control, they are simultaneously attempting to privatise America's armed-forces.

One more time, power to the people!

A thought strikes me. I wonder if the Comrades on Wall Street who are benefiting from state intervention are in any way related to the Comrades who earn millions from private security work for the US military (i.e. mercenaries)? Wouldn't it be a magnificent gesture to the hard-working tax-payer if it turned out that they are all supporters of The Great Brain in the White House? Just think how reassuring that would be to a hard-working family who have lost their home.

On reflection, it seems that America really is appropriating the old Soviet approach: All men are equal. But some are more equal than others!

Last time, Power to the people!

President Obama, I presume(d)...

It seems that Hillary Clinton will fight to the bitter end in her battle against Barak Obama for the Democratic candidacy. It appears certain that Obama will get the nod, prompting one to ask why she refuses to step-back and give the Illinois Senator a decent run at the prize. At this stage all she can do is harm his chances, and feed ammunition to the GOP. Indeed, it may be the case that McCain will claim the Presidency simply by keeping his head down and letting the two Democrats tear each other to shreds - whichever one becomes the official Democrat candidate, they will be so badly damaged that he might just have an easy win.

The problem for Democrats is that supporters of Clinton and Obama will be disinclined to vote for "the other guy" - indeed, many may vote for McCain or just stay home on election day. Things have gotten so nasty (largely due to Hillary's dirty campaigning) that a joint ticket seems highly improbable. So, the Republicans face an already split opposition and a pre-weakened candidate. Not good. Unless you're John McCain.

But back to the whys. Why has Hillary not stepped-out of the race? Why has she resorted to such dirty campaigning, fueled by character-assassination and with unmistakable racial overtones?

Could it be that La Clinton would rather see McCain claim victory and have another run at it in 2012? Certainly, she wont have much currency if she tries to usurp a popular President Obama.

The tragedy for Democrats is that, after eight years of Brains in the White House, America is primed for a Democrat incumbent - but they are doing themselves out of the prize.

I suppose there is still time for one or two surprises - as Margaret Thatcher discovered, a week is a long time in politics.

Time to Boycott the Great Revolution

China seems set on its dastardly course of repression and violence in Tibet. Worse than the Chinese hard line is the Chinese hard neck - for they are blaming the Dalai Lama for the violence! Not only are they visiting terrible violence on protestors, they are blaming the victims for the aggression. This underscores the point that so many seem to miss: China does not care a whit what you or I think of their policies, nor do they fear the opprobrium of world leaders. They are exclusively concerned with the way these events are portrayed to their own people. Recent history has shown that no other nation has the stomach to challenge them in any meaningful way - even that great friend of freedom, George W. Bush seems unconcerned about freedom or democracy for the Chinese people. The west has adopted a policy of engagement (i.e. trade) with this enormous and powerful nation, confining any expression of disapproval to mutters and weak statements. The sad truth is that China has won the (not especially) cold war - it thrives whilst the west wrings its hands.

Isn't it time that the people of the world stood up for the oppressed citizens of China? If we demanded that our leaders boycott the Olympic Games, and if we stay away in our thousands, we will give the Chinese authorities a story that they cannot reasonably "spin" to their people. And such an expression of people power could only be viewed with alarm by those who preach the beneifts of revolution whilst imprisoning people for having the temerity to speak their mind!

People Who Live In Glass Houses...

And so the Bush administration coasts along on fumes as the US turns its thoughts to who will next occupy the White House. It was fascinating to see the recent meeting between the Republican candidate, John McCain, and Deep Thought. McCain kept the great man waiting and seemed at pains not to appear too friendly. It may be that he wanted the endorsement and the votes of the numbskulls who thought Bush was doing a great job and re-elected him, but didn't want to alienate those voters who are likely to vote GOP but don't like "W". I suspect that the car which drove McCain away from the White House had no rear-view mirror. I further suspect that one of the most entertaining side-shows next November will be the efforts of the Republican Party to keep "Brains" as far away from the candidate as possible. He long ago shifted from being an embarrasment to being a liability.

Meanwhile the Democrats are trying in vain to keep the Obama/Hillery contest polite. Despite calls for a debate on the issues, free from personal rancour, matters such as race and record are continually floating to the surface. Much of the trouble has been caused by supporters and campaign staffers - the two candidates regularly find themselves in the difficult position of having to distance themselves from long-time associates. This week, Obama had to cut his ties with his pastor, a man with whom he had a twenty-year assocation - the man who had married the Senator and baptised his children. Ouch.

Hillery, looking more desperate by the day, continues to suggest that Obama just isn't ready for the responsibilities of the Presidency. And she seems likely to fight to the bitter end. Even if she fails to win the majority of delegates, it is still possible for her to get the nod, for tactical reasons. Were this to happen, we could see war within Democrat ranks, with Obama supporters crying foul. The question on everybody's mind is whether the party will be able to heal the scars of this contest and consolidate support for the eventual victor? As the battle between Hillery and Obama gets nasty and mired in personal ire, it seems less likely that the final round of this game will be Happy Families!

Ironic Brilliance...

What do you do with a drunken sailor? Always a difficult one. Y'see if you put him back on board, he's liable to fall off. If you let him stay in the pub, he'll start a fight. And if you throw him out onto the streets, he'll find a way to cause enough mischief to bring the blue-meanies into the picture - and there's nothing worse for a man of the sea than being banged-up in pokey, miles from the ocean's sweet embrace.

I have always answered the above question with "Spend some time with him, telling stories of the sea." Y'see, sailors are a sentimental, dreamy bunch - a few tales of a life lived on the briney and he'll be snoozing like a baby. Guaranteed.

Recently a similar question faced the British: What do you do with a discredited Blair? They could have sent him to the upper house, the Lords, but that would have been like throwing petrol on a bonfire. They'd have grilled him alive...and that's just the Labour peers! They couldn't keep him in government - he would have been forever like a grinning ghost of times past. And it would have been too awkward when Brown decided to pull the troops out of Iraq. Even more problematic to turn him loose - God alone knows what mischief he'd cause if left to his own devices. So instead they all strapped on their irony-proof breastplates and appointed him as Special Envoy to the Middle East. I'll say that again: Special Envoy to the Middle East! Can you imagine anyone on earth with less credibility among the Arab peoples, aside from the Great Brain in Washington? Making Blair Special Envoy to the Middle East (sorry, I find it hard to stop repeating it) is a bit like asking Freddy Kruger to run a creche: in both instances credibility would be a serious issue, in the case of Blair more so.

The Shame-Proof Vest...

I was reflecting today on how nobody in politics has gravity any more. The cartoon-style drawings presented here seem to me to accurately reflect the public perception of those depicted. It seems that we no longer respect those who presume to represent us. Our expectations of the political classes have reached bargain basement levels. And they rarely disappoint. Don't get me wrong - there was always, of course, misbehaviour in politics. But in the good old days they at least resigned when caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Or down somebody's blouse. Nowadays they cling to power with mortifying desperation. Virtually nothing can penetrate the shame-proof bubble which seems to surround them. Of course, there are very few conviction politicians these days - unless you count an unshakable belief that they somehow deserve high office!

Any port in a storm...

Just spent a couple of days in port, stocking-up on supplies and having me anchor-chain fixed. Although every port has a similar feeling and texture, they are all different and each has its own little delights for the sailing man - some more salacious than others.

Nothing blue on offer at my port of choice apart from the cheese in one of the many delicatessans and cafes, for I rested-up at the ancient Irish town of Howth. Howth is a delight and, these days, a very multicultural delight. There were people from every corner of the globe, mostly fishermen - and great fun, all of them. I played cards, drank rum and told some very tall tales of the sea. Heard a few good ones too. One Spanish trawlerman told me of a night ten years ago when a huge sea-monster sank a vessel by yanking its chain. He says he witnessed this from a ship not half a mile away. I asked him if it might have been a submarine, caught in a fishing net - he swears no! I must say, I don't really believe in sea-monsters, but a life on the briney does leave one with a deep sense that anything is possible where the sea is concerned. So, who knows?

Anyway, I took a couple of pictures, so you can see how lovely a place Howth is.

Didn't catch any monsters on film - but if I do, you'll see it here first. What I hope I did capture is the spirit of adventure and excitement of being on boats - the vast expanse of clouds, the deep blue sea, the crisp sea air. When you're out there, away from everything, with just the sky and the sea for company there is a tremendous sense of calm and peace. Also, though there is a deep-rooted longing for land somewhere in the bottom of every sailor's heart, there is a palpable dread of the return journey. For the sea has a way of making life seem somehow unreal and magical - as though you are in a place out of time. And, although she can be cruel, every man and boy who makes a life at sea trusts the ocean, for we sailors make friends with her and don't like to stray too far from her lilting waters.

Photograph from the past and, perhaps, the future

I came across this photograph while looking at some military history websites. It shows the humiliating evacuation of the US embassy after the fall of Saigon. It is one of the defining images of 1975, and of America's botched overseas adventures.

Why do I get a strong feeling that we will witness something similar when the great "liberators" depart from Baghdad? No doubt, when they finally do evacuate the (ahem) free Iraq, Bush & Co will interpret the gunfire which accompanies the departure as "celebratory".

Where American foreign policy is concerned, "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

Some Thoughts...

I haven't posted in a bit -- got tired of singing the same old song, and couldn't find the heart to write about other things while the world is in such a mess and so many innocent people continue to die for the shabby cause of American "National Security". Also, I have a profound sense that the facts about what's been going on are clear to all. Even the neo-conservatives have run out of saleable lies - only the absolutely moronic could buy their line. Unfortunately there are enough morons in the world to keep the pot boiling for a little while yet. But not for long, I think. The poor of the USA have figured out that Bush & Co. have decieved them, largely because it is their children arriving home from the middle east in body-bags, or horribly maimed.

Oh, and because Iraqis still live amid chaos, and under occupation.

The tame (read: lame) mainstream US media have run out of positive stories to "spin" events in the middle east and the ordinary American can see the mess they have become mired in. Of course, Bush has no interest in any of this - he will retire soon and concentrate on his Presidential library. I wonder if he will decorate the foyer with photographs of dead Iraqi children? Bottom line - that is his legacy, whatever nonsense he tries to peddle. He can mutter and stumble through as many "freedom is on the march!" speeches as he likes, but the reality is that Americans will have to live with the terrible consequences of his actions for generations to come.

Who could blame the father of an Iraqi child, murdered by US bombs, if he vowed to take revenge? And there are thousands of such people - fathers, brothers, uncles, mothers and sisters. The US propaganda machine can talk about "foreign combatants" until they are blue in the face, but the reality is that many, many thousands of innocent Iraqis who have held the broken bodies of their dead children hate America and Americans more than they ever hated Saddam. And they really hated him.

The hatred of these people is very real and very justified, and they will continue to extract revenge on American and British soldiers until they leave Iraq. And then? Then they will pursue the enemy to its lair: the USA. The terrible truth is that most American people are kind, decent and reasonable. They are the ones who will bear the brunt of any future terrorist activity - not those who visited such violence on the people of the middle east.

The American people may be uneducated and unquestioning, but they were convinced that their elected representatives were acting in their interest. Why? Because they were told terrible and scary things, as were the people of europe - the difference is that the people of europe have a better attitude towards their politicians: they trust them about as far as they could throw them.
This is why even Blair's own party didn't really believe him, never mind the public. And again, the poor, those who join the army, died for Blair and his dodgey dossier.

The reality of all this is terrible, crushing. Yet, the world goes on.

I have been doing a lot of web-surfing lately and there is a lot of wild and wonderful stuff out there. Many people are convinced that there is a world-wide conspiracy involving ancient families and bloodlines. They might be right. Others are convinced that Bush, the Queen and others "at the top" are, in fact reptiles - alien creatures that control the world by "shape-shifting" into human form. I suppose nothing can be ruled out - but I suspect that the truth is far worse: those who have inflicted this terror on us are very human. They just don't act like it.

Truth & Lies

I have been following the ongoing struggle to convince Iran to release the 15 British Naval personnel from captivity. As I mentioned in my last entry, I pray that they are returned to their shipmates as soon as possible.

Every time this middle eastern disaster takes another bizarre turn, I find myself less and less inclined to believe what our leaders tell us. I have no idea whether the British vessel was in Iraqi or Iranian waters but I know that I am no longer willing to accept anything Blair says at face value. He has twisted the truth so many times now that his words have no value. I suspect that I am by no means alone in this. And, of course, Bush would say anything - he has so little credibility now that he is playing to his supporters only. And they will clearly swallow quite a bit.

So, how are we to discern the truth when foreign crack-pot leaders speak with as much authority as the US President and the British PM? I think we have have reached a situation where trust has become virtually impossible, where the statements of our leaders must be scrutinised as we would examine a complex legal argument. I firmly believe this to be a result of the "swing to the middle" - the move towards politicians who functionally believe in nothing, who have no ideological or moral conviction. Thus you get people like Bush in the US, Blair in the UK, and smaller fry like Bertie Ahern in Ireland - falling over himself to support American aggression despite Ireland's (supposed) neutrality. These people have no moral back-bone and little dignity - just a hugely inflated sense of their own importance. And no qualms about giving their own people a kicking to advance their own shabby interests.

Ahern is a good case-in-point. He invited Bush to visit Ireland, much to the disgust of the Irish people - and used the security forces to keep protesters far away from him. He didn't want the great man to hear a single "boo" during his visit. In the same way, Irish military and police resources were employed to guard US war-planes and soldiers at Shannon airport, during frequent stop-overs. One letter-writer to The Irish Times correctly noted the common belief that the Irish military existed to protect Irish people from foreign armies, not to protect foreign armies from Irish people! Ahern respects nothing - least of all the will of his own people. He should face a war-crimes prosecution for allowing 'planes to refuel while on the way to bomb civilians in Iraq. But he wont, will he? The war-crimes tribunal is a servant of the western political machine, and exists (seemingly) to punish those who "we" don't like.

Is this the world we want? A place where might is right, where truth is a function of the speaker's desire, rather than a reflection of fact? A world where justice is governed solely by economic considerations rather than personal freedom or liberty? Is that what we want?
Of course, many will say that it has always been thus - and perhaps they are correct. But, have you ever known a time when injustice and untruth have been so apparent and visible? Truly, only the shameless can thrive in such circumstances.

Hostages to fortune...

As a man of the sea, I was particularly sad to see the Iranian abduction of British naval personnel. Along with most decent people I hope very much that these poor souls will soon be reunited with their families and ship-mates. This is a terrible situation, particularly so, when you observe the manner in which the female sailor is being treated - by both the British and Iranian media. What sort of people would use a woman in such a way? Of course, the British are bleating about how unjust the whole thing is - forgetting the manner in which Iraqi captives were filmed by the occupation forces and their image broadcast for the world. Not to mention the American treatment of untried detainees, and rendition flights. There are no good guys here, and this sort of crisis would not arise if Britain and America stopped behaving like colonial powers and throwing their weight around. Just because they have more weapons and a militaristic culture doesn't make them right or moral.

Perhaps the most embarrassing element of the disaster in the middle east is the fact that (a-la Vietnam) the US/British invaders have signally failed to effectively take control of Iraq, and it is routine for amateur arab resistance fighters to defeat both the alleged professionalism and planning of the most advanced armies in the world.

And all the while, while Iraq descends into crisis, Bush and Blair try to tell us how well it is all going. These people are idiots - and we are all hostages to their idiocy and ineptitude.

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.'