BLOG POSTS

At a press conference in the White House today, Laura Bush denounced the Burmese junta for not doing enough to help its citizens devastated by Cyclone Nargis.^[1]

With their usual simpering manners, and a fear that asking the wrong question might see them barred from future presidential events, the White House “press corps” demurred to comment on this blatant hypocrisy so readily spouted by America’s First Lady.

No-one dared so much as murmur the words, “Hurricane Katrina”.

With its usual ruthlessness, the US administration of George W Bush has continued severe sanctions imposed on Burma by Bill Clinton. As with all cases of sanctions – so obviously witnessed in Iraq in the 1990’s – the rulers don’t suffer at all. Such high-handed, moralistic, interventions by those who have plenty, and the military power to ensure they keep it, only results in the common people going without.^[2]

Sanctions are designed to topple dictatorships and juntas by imposing immense hardship on ordinary people, eventually forcing unrest and uprisings, which in theory may cause regime change.

Rarely does that occur.

Over the last few months we’ve seen the consequences of unrest in Burma; monks beaten and tortured, soldiers on the streets, a sudden increase in burials. Is this the unrest America wishes to inflict with its high-and-mighty sanctions?

US politicians are especially adept at taking such stances. One has to wonder just who they think they are, these self-appraised demi-gods anticipating a military junta halfway round the world will listen to their words and take heed. Hillary Clinton is such a one, as is Nancy Pelosi. Both were shouting their mouths off today warning Burmese leaders not to turn down international aid.

Had they bothered to watch foreign news reports they could have saved their breath. The Burmese had already agreed to international aid long before Bush, Clinton, or Pelosi opened their mouths.

The US Congress, continuing this tortuous crusade of magnanimity, has announced via its mentor George W Bush that America’s highest civilian honor, the US congressional gold medal, is to be awarded to Aung San Suu Kyi, the Democratic activist under house arrest in Burma these past ten years.

One has to wonder at the thinking of the US Congress – that is, if it thinks at all. Of course, it’s so easy to award a medal. It’s cheap, and hardly takes up any time, not enough to interfere with the claret and smoked salmon eye-balled for senatorial luncheons.

Gestures of this nature are worthless, and will probably do a disservice to Aung San Suu Kyi, who is bound to feel the repercussions from her Burmese masters, who won’t take kindly to such Western interference in their affairs.

Meanwhile, George Bush announces the suffering people of Burma will receive bounteous American Aid, in the sum of – $250,000. It’s not a fortune, but to be fair, he can hardly give more to a foreign nation than he stumped up for New Orleans, now can he?

Congress, stuffed to the gills with the soft warmth of giving, second helpings of salmon, and a glass too many of Chateau Moulin de Peyronin, can rumble, belch, and fart their way through the afternoon house session contentedly oblivious to the knowledge Suu Kyi’s golden gong will probably secure for her another ten years of lonely incarceration.

^{[1] “Laura Bush urges Burma to accept US aid”, Guardian, May 5th 2008}

^{[2] “U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST BURMA – A Failure on All Fronts”, Cato Institute, March 26th 1998}

Filed under: Burmese/US relations

NBC Nightly News ran a heartrending piece tonight on the suffering of seniors and those on fixed incomes, desperate to make ends meet as food and gas prices skyrocket. One unfortunate old Californian couple had to live in a van when the rent on their house was raised beyond their means to pay. Immediately following this woeful piece, was a segment on the luxurious lifestyle of pampered thoroughbred horses bred for the racing fraternity.

Apparently, the irony was lost on Brian Williams and his crew.

In Britain, voting has been taking place in local council elections – always a barometer of public sentiment towards the government – and Gordon Brown’s Labour Party is in deep trouble. Looked at logically, Gordon Brown has held the reigns of power for less than a year, so the tribulations that caused the British people to turn so violently from their government are actually Tony Blair’s old chickens coming home to roost. Unfortunately for poor Gordon, he’s been left desperately trying to clear the vast quantity of fermented guano from the hen house floor.

In London, England, matters have become more than dire. Ken Livingstone, a Labour mayor with a strong Socialist background, who worked hard to turn the nation’s capital into something more than the world’s greatest carpark, has lost his position to the biggest Tory buffoon ever to grace the Palace of Westminster. Boris Johnson, is an archetypical braindead Etonian who’s only claim to fame has been an endless round of quiz shows and late-night chats; his only contribution, to make other contestants look vaguely intelligent.

Even his father, in a BBC interview, could only define Johnson’s enthusiasm for the mayoral position by stating that he’d “….even stopped drinking for three months.”

In this excerpt from the UK comedy quiz show, “Have I Got News For You”, Ian Hislop, editor of the British satirical magazine Private Eye, reminds Johnson of his seedy past.

There was a time when American elections made British politics look satisfyingly sensible. The US media can be relied on to turn any political event into a fairground switchback ride, but the British media is not so easy to condemn. At the end of the day, when matters turn pear-shaped, the Brits only have themselves to blame.

Tony Blair knew full well what he was doing when he sprinted off to America and left the ruins of his policies in the hands of Gordon Brown, but the British fail to grasp such easy logic. There was even talk in some spheres recently of the ‘heady days of Blair’s premiership’.

How quickly they forget.

Such reaction may be understood in the US, where Blair could do no wrong, despite him fawning up to the most hated US president since……since……well, ever really…… but the British are usually quite good at laying blame where it’s deserved, so anyone waxing lyrical over Tony Blair surely has to be a candidate for the psyche ward.

Why this apparent breakdown of sanity across the pond?

Probably, it’s a severe case of politician disillusionment. Ever since Maggie Thatcher and her abortive poll tax, one prime minister after another has promised the earth and delivered only dung. Now, the Brits aren’t prepared to allow Gordon Brown the luxury of delivering the earth, even if he proved capable of doing so, and when the going gets tough they’ll inevitably turn to humor.

With rising prices, a National Health Service in chaos (thanks to Tony) and an unseasonably cold, wet, spring that’s sending even the illegal immigrants scampering for the Channel Tunnel and balmier climes,^[1] the British answer is to have a bloody good laugh.

Unlike NBC’s Californian seniors forced to vacate their home, live in a van, and complain bitterly about it, the British will simply titter, say “it were much worse in the Blitz, luv…” and vote Boris Johnston Mayor of London, just to enjoy the unholy mess he’ll make of the job.

Meanwhile, Gordon Brown picks up his brush and shovel and heads back to the henhouse. He may not be Tony Blair, but he knows what he wants to do if the voters will just give him a chance, and he’s maybe dogmatic enough to win out in the end.

And those high-living Kentucky racehorses are preparing for their grand Derby on Saturday. I see one of the runners is called “Big Brown”.^[2]

Maybe, I’ll risk a dollar or two on the nose.

^{[1] “‘We’re fed up with the cold weather and the NHS,’…..”, Daily Mail, May 2nd, 2008.}

^{[2] ” Big Brown favored in 134th Kentucky Derby”, Sports Network, May 2nd 2008.}

Filed under: Desperate times

Some may see little to compare between the recent launch of a violent video game and the wars in the Middle East. After all, the bloodthirsty slaying and criminal activities indulged by gaming fans around the world, as Grand Theft Auto Four hits the computer scene, are ethereal and unreal. It can surely have little to do with the real world, when blood and guts are only made of pixels.

Or, can it?

Most gamers recoil in horror at any suggestion video games can impact violent crime statistics. Just because it’s fun to kill and torture people in cyberspace doesn’t necessarily make it fun in reality, but how far does it go towards dulling the sensitivities, presenting an aura of thuggery as an okay idea?

No-one knows, because no-one’s done the research. Yet the military has been using video games as training elements for years.^[1] Presumably, they must have some effect in persuading young soldiers to kill?

It’s interesting to note how the top-rankers on Western culture’s scale of antisocial behavior – violence and sex – have evolved in America. Europe, generally, is far more tolerant of sexual activity and soft pornography than its transatlantic neighbor but considers, at least gratuitous violence, as an unacceptable symptom of a sick society. This is not to suggest that French or Italian kids don’t play violent video games, merely that society’s emphasis is different.

While the reason for strict suppression of natural sexual urges in the young is fairly easy to identify in American society (it’s way behind Europe in evolving from its strong Calvinistic indoctrinations) the almost heros-ian treatment of violence as something acceptable and to be encouraged is less easy to comprehend, until one realizes that attitudes towards both sex and violence emanate from the same religious root.

America is not enamored of violence for it’s own sake. The foundations of this love-affair began years ago, in a great American ideal: the triumph of ‘Good’ over ‘Evil’, as preached to the early settlers by fire and brimstone pastors from makeshift pulpits all across the territory, and exported to the Americas, ironically, from Europe.

This ideal helped combat the gun-toting lawlessness of the early American West, and was later oft-immortalized by Hollywood as a representation of good always conquering evil, usually after a bitter struggle. Later, as America advanced towards superpower-ship, the ideal was fermented and poured out to the masses to be drunk as a heady elixir of righteousness and power. America was not just king of the world, but a moral crusader leading the planet to a better future, overlooked and egged-on by a God that had become America’s very own.

Two savage world wars in Europe, and particularly the later one that terrorized civilians throughout the continent, helped cast the yoke of strangulating religion from the masses, most of whom questioned a God that could sit back and allow such suffering. For America, however, they were just foreign wars. It seemed God was good to America, protecting its civilians from the dastardly goings-on across the Atlantic.

Violence, in the pursuit of righteousness, was obviously acceptable to God, and America forged ahead with plans to ensure it stayed that way.

Militarism became just another part of American religion. Like its sidekick, Israel, America was prepared to use violence in almost any form, and to any degree, to further its righteous empire. The British utilized a similar policy some hundred years before, and in the name of the self-same God.

Today, God and US violence walk the same path, holding hands. America is heaven-bent on bringing its God to the Middle East, whether they want it or not, and the death toll is of no importance.

Dead soldiers are heroes; dead Iraqis are collateral damage. A plethora of violent TV shows, movies, video games, assisted by patriotic chants and indoctrinal schooling – all watched over and blessed by the great American God – will help ensure a plentiful supply of suitably programmed ‘heroes’ to swell the ranks prepared to kill, torture, and maim for the cause: the God-given ideal of American ‘Superpower’ righteousness.

Were America to lift its head, albeit briefly, and peruse the path of history, it would note a vast number of other nations gone down that road before. Most are long, long gone. Without exception, they all looked to their God.

It seems when the die are cast, and the bets are lost, the God invested in so heavily takes off to find another host.

All that’s left is a screen that reads: “GAME OVER”.

^{[1] “War games: Military training goes high-tech”, CNN, November 23rd 2001.}

Filed under: God’s video games