sparrow chat

It’s at times like these that politicians are truly at their most amusing. Internationally, they love to squabble among themselves, hold heated debates within the safety of the United Nations, and appear to us lowly masses as important and all-powerful beings.

Suddenly, along comes a scruffy, half-beat, little nation like North Korea. It sticks its index finger skywards – roughly in the direction of Washington DC – and politicians everywhere huff and puff like old foxes attempting to blow Kim Jong-il’s house down.

The whole world knows they’re wasting their time.

Since North Korea tested another nuclear device this week, the corridors of the UN have been buzzing with little men (and a few little women) all scurrying about like frightened rabbits seeking the shelter of their burrows and not being able to find the right hole.

They’d like us to believe they’re in control. They’d have us think Kim Jong-il’s shaking in his boots at the prospect of imminent punishment, for daring to play with the oversized chemistry set his western masters had barred him ever from touching again.

The truth, as always with politicians, is somewhat different.

North Korea is pretty much impregnable. Any land invasion would result in huge western casualties, inflicted by the communist state’s million strong military ready and willing to commit mass suicide for ‘Dear Leader’. Aerial assault is unacceptable, even to the United States, due to the massive civilian casualties that would result.

So the politicians huff and puff, pretend they’re all-powerful, and hope Kim Jong-il will conveniently die before the world realizes just how efficiently he’s making them look utterly stupid.

Susan Rice, America’s Ambassador to the United Nation, told CBS that North Korea will “pay a price for their action.”

[These were ]……clearly provocative and destabilizing actions which threaten international peace and security. North Korea needs to understand that its actions have consequences. The pressure will increase on North Korea, economically and otherwise, and North Korea will realize that its actions have only left it further isolated and further debilitated.”^[1]

In response, to demonstrate how scared he was, Kim Jong-il fired two short-range missiles.

Up yours, Ambassador Rice.

The long-term problem doesn’t rest with North Korea, but with the West in general, and the US in particular. While Congress and the American media constantly blame Pyongyang for the failure of diplomatic talks, America’s high-handed, arrogant, attitude towards North Korea is undoubtedly a major part of the problem.

Kim Jong-il is a little guy with a big ego and he doesn’t like being pushed around and made to feel second-rate. It may be fine for the US to treat European politicians that way, after all, they rely on the US for their defense umbrella, but Pyongyang expects a level playing field in talks with the rest of the world, but doesn’t get it.

Until it does, international politicians will continue to have days where they rush around the UN pretending to look very fierce, while desperately seeking out a suitable rabbit hole.

^{[1] “North Korea ‘will pay’ over tests” BBC, May 26th, 2009}

Filed under: Posturing Pyongyang

Posted under Sparrow Chat

“These are bad men who would hurt America. We can’t afford to let them loose.”

I’ve been taking a break from watching the news, particularly anything to do with politics. It was quite by chance the channel tuned to the TV was showing a clip from, “Meet the Press”, or some similar program, as I turned it on.

Newt Gingrich, whose parents must have had some inkling of his future character to name him after a slimy lizard, was the one repeating for the umteenth time those words we all grew used to hearing during the reign of the pathetic Bush and his puppet master, Cheney.

Gingrich was, of course, referring to the unfortunate inmates of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, incarcerated for years without trial and subject to the type of humiliations less recently fostered by the German Gestapo and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge.

The debate on what to do with America’s captives has raised its cowardly head yet again following a speech by the current US president in which, while emphasizing repeatedly the rule of law, he announced his intention to introduce a system that would allow for the ‘prolonged detention’ of ’suspected terrorists’ with no recourse to trial, or any other aspect of the US legal system.

The video below is taken from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show, but has had the comments edited out so readers may judge for themselves the meaning behind Obama’s words:

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

The first half of the video focuses on Obama’s insistence that prolonged detention of detainees must operate within a legal framework. Yet, there can be no legal framework in place to allow for such prolonged detention. Habeus Corpus prevents any such framework.

“In our Constitution prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.”

Those words are as condemning of Barack Obama as the atrocity of Guantanamo Bay was to George W Bush.

In his closing remarks, Obama sets his seal on the fate of American freedom and democracy:

“And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime, so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.”

There is no “appropriate legal regime” that can ever be consistent with the US Constitution. As to American values, they appear to be sinking below a horizon from which the light of morality may never again dawn.

During his presidential campaign, Obama insisted that terrorism does not constitute “war”, but an illegal act. He condemned the term, “war on terror”, as coined by the Bush regime.

He has now changed his mind:

“Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States……”

The rhetoric we are hearing today from the Obama administration is no different from that of Bush and his cronies.

“These are bad men who would hurt America. We can’t afford to let them loose,” said Newt Gingrich on Meet the Press. The inference is that Gingrich, along with other Americans, are the good men.

The misguided ideal of the United States as a shining beacon on a hill, spreading love, freedom, and democracy around the world is still at the forefront of political rhetoric in this nation. Americans love to see themselves as all-embracing, all-powerful, examples of how everyone else should be. They cannot comprehend when other nations or factions rebel against this American ideal.

It is then that the only true power of America is brought to bear – military might. Unable to live up to its great ideal, America resorts to the only real power it possesses, then stands shocked when its victims retaliate.

In one speech this week, Obama has proved to the world that he is no more than a pawn in the US political process. The grand words gushing forth on the presidential campaign trail now lie strewn along the road to the White House, mildewed and rotting in the gutters of Pennsylvania Avenue.

What happened to “change”? What happened to the resurrection of American decency and honor in the world? What happened to all those campaign promises?

In his closing remarks, Obama said:

“Right now, in distant training camps and crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That’ll be the case a year from now, five years from now, and in all probability ten years from now.”

What he failed to clarify was that there were people plotting to take American lives a year ago, five years ago, and most certainly twenty and more years ago.

How many more Guantanamo Bay Detention Centers will he have to build to house them all?

^{Video courtesy of Firedoglake}

Filed under: Back to the future

Posted under Sparrow Chat

How long can democracy survive in the present world climate? Is the fusing of political parties really a positive move, of lasting benefit to those nations classified as ‘democratic’?

Today, it was announced that Jon Huntsman, the Republican governor of Utah, would be US President Obama’s new Ambassador to China. He is just another of a number of Republicans who find themselves now serving in the Obama administration.

Initially, it could be argued that politicians working together for a common purpose is a good thing. After all, the way to get things done is surely to cooperate? That’s fine, so long as the common goals are advantageous to all, and not just to those who control the politicians.

In practice, it’s not fine at all. Democratic political systems operate on the premise of two or more parties vying for the affections of the electorate. In that situation, the electorate has a large measure of control. Each party knows its time in office is limited by its ability to satisfy the electorate. Failure to do so undoubtedly results in a demise from power.

While extremists on the left or right can hold sway for short periods of time, the more moderate centrists from both left and right control the bulk of the powerbase in any political party. When moderates join forces, which can occur when a left-leaning party moves to the right, as happened to the Labour Party under Tony Blair in 1990’s Britain, the result is an electorate bereft of choice when contemplating party manifestos.

In reality, the voter is left with no choice because each political party offers similar policies. In the case of the British example, those policies are advantageous only to the politician’s corporate masters. The electorate has lost control. It matters not to the corporate overlords whether a Labour or Tory government is in office; both are servile to corporate demands, paying only lip service to those who voted them into office.

President Obama’s campaign promise to work with both parties in solving the nation’s ills may seem a good idea until the underlying consequences are examined in detail. By drawing the moderate Republican centrists into his camp he is, to all intents and purposes, isolating the extremists on both sides and creating a new Democrat/Republican coalition. Given Obama’s track record since his inauguration, any suggestion that this new centrist ‘party’ is working for the people must surely be considered ludicrous.

Under the guise of ‘repairing the economy’, he has lorded over the biggest transfer in history of monetary power from the people to the corporate powerbase. The American people are now up to their eyebrows in the greatest fiscal debt ever, while the corporates are overflowing with wealth courtesy of the US taxpayer.

Let’s not assume this is a temporary political aberration. The world is changing. Globalization is now reality, and the corporations are in control.

Democracy is destined to become no more than a joke to chuckle over, while sipping Napoleon brandy in the Aniline armchairs of exclusive executive clubs from Washington to Bruges.

Once upon a time, politicians ran nations on behalf of the people. It wasn’t a perfect system; the pendulum tended to swing from one extreme to the other, but ultimately the people maintained control of their destiny.

Today, that may still appear to be true, but behind the scenes a slow and insidious change is taking place. Politicians have altered their allegiance. No longer are the people their masters. Corporate control reigns, and the only function of the people is to ensure the continued viability of the corporations.

While actively publicizing their supposed aim to spread freedom and democracy around the globe, the politicians are working to achieve a global system that has little to do with either.

Democracy is being systematically slaughtered.

Filed under: Death of democracy

Posted under Sparrow Chat

It’s been sometime since there was a post on Sparrow Chat. As reported in the previous missive, priorities have lain elsewhere due to the season, and frankly there’s not been much on the news or political scene to wet one’s interest and inspire composition.

Nevertheless, that Sparrow Chat must remain an ongoing project was brought home by the ‘Noblesse Oblige’ award presented to the blog by my good blogging pal, WiseWebWoman, though it’s fair to suspect, as this one involves some work, that it was at least as much a prod to duty as any meritorious decoration.

It comes with strings attached:

1. Create a Post with a mention and link to the person who presented the Noblesse Oblige Award.

2. The Award Conditions must be displayed at the Post.
3. Write a short article about what the Blog has thus far achieved – preferably citing one or more older posts to support.
4. The Blogger must present the Noblesse Oblige Award in concurrence with the Award conditions.
5. Blogger must display the Award at any location at the Blog.

The first two rules have thus been simply dealt with, but as to the blog’s purpose and achievements, they are a little more difficult to define.

When Sparrow Chat hatched back in 2003, it had little idea of purpose. Anyone and everyone was beginning to blog in those days and the technology was novel and interesting. ‘Blogger’ was the emerging platform, and template tinkering sufficiently exciting as to bind one to the computer for hours at a time – usually attempting to put right some ignominious cock-up that had shoved one’s blog title down below the footer, or left the latest post hanging in the ether somewhere between Rangoon and Nor-Nor-West Bohemia.

There was some unfocused notion it might become a writer’s blog. Of course, rarely does anything turn out as expected – at least in Sparrow Chat world – and before long the subject matter veered evermore towards the political scene, ably assisted by George W Bush and his band of inept political comedians.

A measure of achievement is also the gauge of success. Some bloggers apportion their accomplishments by visitor levels or comment numbers. Were this to be the yardstick for Sparrow Chat, then its greatest success would be with a subject bearing little relation to either politics or news.

On January 27th 2008, an article appeared on the blog, entitled, “Smart Car – But No Smart Gas Mileage”. It was around the time gasoline shot to three dollars or more a gallon. As with so much that ends up in Sparrow Chat, the inspiration for the post came from a NBC Nightly News infomercial (thinly disguised as a news story) for the lately introduced ‘Smart’ car from Europe. It’s appalling gas mileage figures, when compared to its European counterpart, was the subject behind the article.

Rather surprisingly, the title landed it in the top five leaders of Google’s search engine for anyone entering “smart car” or “smart gas mileage”. At that economically difficult period, it turned out to be a popular search. Sparrow Chat’s visitor stats shot from a modest three hundred or so a week, to nearer a thousand. Over the course of time, the main article and its four updates accrued sixty-seven comments, some of them quite lengthy.

They do still arrive, though the flow has now subsided to no more than an occasional drip. The last one was only a week or so ago. Sparrow Chat can be proud of the part it played in helping destroy the sales figures of that appalling engineering disaster, the American Smart car.

One cannot, however, measure success by a single triumph. Sparrow Chat is much more than that. Over the last six years it has been how I, R J Adams, have chosen to speak to the world, or at least, the small fraction of it sufficiently interested to keep reading.

There have been factual posts and opinions, but with all that’s been written the focus has been on honesty and accuracy. Sometimes, it’s caused contention; occasionally, pain. The subject matter has not always been to everyone’s liking, but the aim of everything ever written on Sparrow Chat has been to make people think.

Therein lies the measure of its success, or otherwise.

This “Noblesse Oblige” trophy –

– is, apparently, awarded for the following:

1. The Blogger manifests exemplary attitude, respecting the nuances that pervade amongst different cultures and beliefs.

2. The Blog contents inspire; strive to encourage and offer solutions.
3. There is a clear purpose to the Blog; one that fosters a better understanding of Social, Political, Economic, Arts, Culture and Sciences and Beliefs.
4. The Blog is refreshing and creative.
5. The Blogger promotes friendship and positive thinking.

One would like to think Sparrow Chat has aimed to achieve all of the above, even if it has, on occasions, fallen short.

As to the future, blogs rise and fall dependent on the whims of their creators. Since Sparrow Chat first took wing, many have risen to prominence only to fade into obscurity for a variety of reasons; some as mundane as boredom, or changing interests; others due to ill-health, or sadly, death.

For now, there is no intention to clip this Sparrow’s wings. Life does constantly change and evolve, though, so it’s likely the frequency of posting will rise and fall in tune with the rhythms of the planet, and its effects on the writer.

Now, in keeping with the rules of “Noblesse Oblige”, it behooves me to choose three recipients (there’s no number in the rules, but ‘three’ seems to be a popular figure) on whom to bestow this grand, pixellated, medal.

It’s not an easy choice, but out of many good blogs I’ve chosen:

• “How This Old Brit Sees It …” exposes the bad guys using more than a hint of adrenalizing alliteration.
  
  

• “Learning Curve on the Ecliptic” fulfills all the requirements for this award. No knowledge of astrology is necessary to enjoy the fine articles posted by “Twilight” (though I do skip through the star charts!).
  
  

• Finally, “The Nevin Politology” is a relatively new blog written by Nevin, a Turkish woman now living in the United States. Thoroughly recommended!

And now, all that remains is to find space for this magnificent trophy in Sparrow Chat’s sidebar.

Ummmm……the right side, I think……

Filed under: Worse than the Oscars

Posted under Sparrow Chat

I apologize for the lightness of the posting of late, but this is the time of year in Central Illinois when, within in a few weeks, one has to undertake all those jobs that those who are fortunate and inhabit a ‘normal’ climate can spread over a whole summer of outdoor activity.

Already we’ve touched eighty degrees Fahrenheit on a couple of days. It won’t be long before that becomes the norm, and then the nineties will takeover, making eighty seem almost cool by comparison.

On a Mediterranean beach such temperatures can be welcome. After all, the sea is beckoning for a cool-off if the sand begins to burn. Central Illinois has more the feel of an overdone Turkish bath, than the Mistral-stroked dry heat of a Spanish resort. Around here, by mid-June the only creatures who find it tolerable outdoors are vicious mosquitoes and the occasional bad-tempered wasp.

Meanwhile, we’re forced to languish in stale, recycled, air conditioning, and long for winter.

As a consequence, I’ve been busy tidying the ‘yard’, as Americans call the patch of cultivated land around their homes that everyone else in the world refers to as a garden.

If there’s one positive aspect to the climate, it’s that everything grows at breakneck speed – especially the things you don’t want sprouting in your backyard. Five large trees have already bitten the dust this year – at least we’ll have firewood for winter – and I now spend as much on weedkiller as was once spent on summer bedding seeds back in Britain.

The weedkiller’s just to keep them in check for a while. It’s useless planting summer bedders. Once the temperature hits ninety, any work in the garden becomes impossible. The first summer in Illinois was spent watching from our air-conditioned prison as my beautiful marigolds and dahlias, grown so enthusiastically from seed, were rapidly swallowed up by a cocktail of prickly lettuce, pigweed, docks, and a host of other virulent botanical outlaws as yet unidentified.

Even the trees have had to modify their behavior. In temperate climes, fruiting and seeding takes place in early autumn – hence, “a time of mellow fruitfulness”. The summer is for growth. In Illinois, seeds appear almost before the first leaves. It’s as though the trees are desperate to do their work before the arrival of that pore-clogging, energy-sapping, humidity.

Too hot and humid through the day; too full of dangerous, biting, creatures in the early morning and evening, I soon learned ‘keeping the yard tidy’ was a chore to be rapidly completed between late April and the end of May – always assuming the violent storms, so regularly a part of Illinois spring times, allow one access to the outdoors.

Hence the recent dearth of posts.

Filed under: Frustrations

Posted under Sparrow Chat

Jon Stewart of the Daily Show recently battled verbally with Cliff May over the question of whether America’s use of waterboarding, and other interrogation techniques defined as torture under the Geneva Conventions, could or could not be excused as acceptable, given the terrorist threat to America.

Resulting from that exchange, Stewart last night apologized on the show for calling US President Harry Truman a war criminal.^[1]

It’s impossible to know the pressures exerted on Stewart to force this retraction, but one can guess they were great. Stewart was wrong to apologize.

Can any one person unleash a destructive force so great it destroys two great cities and much of the surrounding area, inflicts unimaginable suffering on the population of those cities, sow the seeds of death and destruction that continue to devastate those who lived through it, and their children, and their children’s children still born mutilated, still dying from horrible radiation diseases sixty or more years after the event – can any one person responsible for such an atrocity escape the label of ‘war criminal’?

Harry Truman did.

So did Winston Churchill after his part in sanctioning the fire-bombing of Dresden and other German cities, in the greatest act of unnecessary revenge against an innocent people that has ever been unleashed by a military power.

Both were war criminals. That neither stood trial is due solely to the fact they were the victors.

Victors never stand trial for their crimes. Only the losers are punished.

The victors are no less guilty for that.

Jon Stewart was right to label Truman a war criminal. He was wrong to apologize for doing so.

^{[1] The Daily Show Website}

Filed under: Off the hook

Posted under Sparrow Chat

Frankly, I find this video both embarrassing and disgusting. Many will have already viewed it, as it relates to Barack Obama’s visit to Britain last month.

It’s good to see a world leader so in touch with the ordinary people – even to the London bobby at his post. Unfortunately, the man accompanying the US president doesn’t possess such good manners, lacking any affinity with those he is supposed to represent.

Gordon Brown’s snub of the police officer, whose hand Barack Obama grasped seconds before, is indicative of the low standards displayed by British Labour politicians of our time. No longer are these people representatives of the population. They regard themselves as an elite of British society.

Sadly for them, their egos will cost them their jobs at the next general election.

Sadly, for the people of Britain, those who will replace them will be no better.

Filed under: Manners maketh man

Posted under Sparrow Chat