26 March 2007
Tamil terrorists have attacked Colombo’s airport. What does this mean for tourism to the island once called ‘Serendip’? Over the past decade and more, virtually regardless of how vicious the Sri Lankan civil war has turned, tourists, particularly Europeans, Brits and Germans mainly, have continued to visit the island, staying away from Tamil Eelam territories but otherwise seemingly oblivious to the deadly war that has continued in the rebel areas, lying there on the white sand, sipping tropical things with those tiny paper umbrellas or, more sophisticated, little straws. The cease fire is honoured only in the breach.
And, meanwhile, in Iraq, four more American soldiers were killed today by a roadside bomb, one of the infamous IEDs. The number of innocent Iraqis who have been killed over the past 24 hours beggars the imagination. We have committed a crime in that country. The answer is not withdrawal -- at least not now. The only honourable way forward is a troop surge, a serious one. John McCain is the only candidate who has taken a morally defensible stance on the issue. Obama and Clinton are hypocrites who are led by the polls, they do not have the guts to lead themselves. By inclination I am a democrat, a left-wing one, but in this case I am with McCain. I may end up entirely in his camp, particularly if his environmental policies are anywhere near as courageous as his stance on Iraq.
Fifteen British sailors and marines, one a woman, are in Iranian custody. British diplomats and politicians are all scurrying around wringing their hands and demanding that the ‘hostages’ be released. ‘Hostages’ is what they are. The Iranians are throwing sand into diplomatic eyes, trying to mask their nuclear activities. Ahmedinejad got his visa to visit the UN in New York but some of his travelling party were denied permission or didn’t get cleared in time. Somehow it all seems connected.
There’s been another earthquake in Japan, only 1 dead at last count. Earthquake design really does help. At least, as far as I can tell, this disaster is not related to climate change.
God knows what disasters have befallen Africa over the past 24 hours. The absence of coverage in the media only means that the outrages have not been of sufficient magnitude to merit any substantial attention. You see, crimes against humanity in Africa must be much larger and bloodier than those on other continents to be worthy of attention. Even now, on the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the British Empire, black people are still not equal to whites. I don’t even know if it’s race or economic value, maybe a combination of the two, but genocide, starvation, disease and even simple war in Africa generally don’t get the attention that their equivalents do in the West. These horrors must be an order of magnitude worse than anything Europe can serve up before we hear much about it here on planet Indifferent.
And out here in rural Worcestershire the sun is rising and you can hear the sheep vocalising, their morning bleats telling us they’ve started another day of feasting in the rich, green fields. It always amazes me how we lead out our lives in parallel, each one pursuing atomistic objectives, only intersecting with others at random points. Weird world, no? Terry Wogan is droning in the background. I prefer Radio 4 most of the time but I don’t think I could stand John Humphrys trying to start a fight with anyone this morning.
And so it goes …
26 March 2007
25 March 2007
What I've been reading ... a few minutes in the library
I’ve just started Fred Pearce’s, ‘The Last Generation’. Climate change, dramatic, horrific, abrupt and cataclysmic, is Pearce’s focus. He’s a respected journalist, someone who has been chronicling the environment and what we’re doing to it for about 20 years. Frightening stuff.
George Monbiot wrote ‘Heat’ intending, firstly, to frighten us and then suggest a carbon diet that would be palatable to our modern, industrial society. What he offers would have a palliative effect and there’s even a chance that we might even be able to make things some better. Monbiot is a terrific writer and his argument is balanced which makes it all the scarier. I’ve got an alternative thought about flying, which he rightly condemns and for which he can find no alternative – I think our world desperately needs continued face-to-face contact, even at some cost to the environment, if we’re to avoid another potential disaster: blowing each other up. More about this one later.
Meantime, I’ve been reading a new translation of the ‘Quixote’, by Edith Grossman. It’s hugely compelling, as would be expected from one of the great books in our Western canon. Obviously we’ve come a long way since Cervantes wrote the book, not as human beings, for there are no characters one half as human and attractive as the Knight of the Sorrowful Countenance and Sancho, but as writers, tellers of tales, we have learned to entertain, matching our product, in this day of the internet and television, to an audience that demands instant gratification; you have to be in a mood, willing to contemplate the world, not just be impacted by it, to read a work like this with any profit. This time through – always before I’ve simply picked at the work – the themes that stand out most for me are the notion of battling hopelessly, with scant or no chance of success and a prevailing sense of sadness. ‘Quixote’ is a tragedy; it is farce only insofar as Don Quixote crafts his life into a mockery of mankind’s foibles.
And now for something completely different: Carl Hiassen’s ‘Nature Girl’. He is an engaging, broad, comic writer. The plots are predictable and only the bad guys – always exceedingly ugly – get done in. The heroes and the heroines are all quirky with slightly tainted pasts but they are all decent, attractive folk. Hiassen’s writing has an offended, environmental undertone – he is worried about what has been done to Florida. Rightly so! ‘Nature Girl’ is pablum with a conscience, a sit-com you read. There is no conflict between his values and those things an adult might pray about on going to bed at night.
And then there was William Boyd’s ‘A Good Man in Africa’: a modern picaresque novel set in a fictional West African country where the very flawed hero’s most important and enduring relationship is with a rapidly rotting corpse. It’s funny in a slightly nauseous way. Somehow I think Boyd got started with this one and then lost his way but the irony of the ending is enough to provide me a good week’s worth of that value.
Inspiration -- how my foot reflects my changed life!
This is me, working on my blog. I'm in a contemplative mood. The inspiration for this work of art was Current TV. Terrific fun, I'm learning a lot of new stuff, much of it useless but, equally, most of it fascinating! The young: Keep your mind open to them, try new things. You may be embarassed and you certainly will lose your dignity but you might, just might, learn something about yourself.
Don't expect to keep your gravitas intact.
I recently went through what was, for me, a life-changing experience. I'm not going to write about it without more reflection but this silly little posting is one consequence: go in new directions, try new things. If something comes out that has even the smallest positive impact, the effort will have been worthwhile; the algorithm works because it's also fun for the writer and the algebraic relationship between fun and effort has never been equal. If the output is positive, the input is justified. There's even a universal balancing mechanism. If the effort begins to make the fun problematic, there's generally an automatic break mechanism and you point the energy in another direction.
24 March 2007
This one is serious -- racism!
My wife and I recently underwent an episode of attempted bullying, driven by racism. For her it must be more aggravating and aggrieving than for me, she’s Asian and the perpetrators share my race (sadly).
What is so wrong about the whole thing is that it began over almost nothing (well, a seven pound Shih-tsu who doesn’t bark and for whom we were seeking to find a home). Pets are now allowed in the 'court' where we live without permission. When we returned from America last summer, we wrote a very polite letter to our neighbours requesting that our dog be allowed to live with us on a probationary basis, if he did anything unacceptable, out he'd go. Two neighbours in particular were vehemently against the idea and rude in expressing their opposition. Rather than take the matter to the directors (of which I am one) and risk an unpleasant outcome (whichever way it went there would be bad feelings), my wife and I elected to give the dog away. We then transgressed because the first volunteer to adopt the animal was, in the end, unable to take him and so we had to have him resident for a few days until we found him a second home. It was against the covenants, we knew, but we were actively and energetically seeking to reverse the situation.
The depth and harshness of the feelings against us from two of our seven neighbours were puzzling at first. I could not understand why something that rational people would simply resolve with a few quiet words had prompted such strong and unreasonable reaction. After all, we live in England, a place renowned for both tolerance and civility. Those two values are to be cherished and the way to do that is to treat the expressions of tolerance and civility that you do encounter with great respect, particularly when they may also be the vehicle for a difference of opinion. By this mutuality is a great nation judged.
We did encounter great tolerance and civility and, more, genuine sympathy, from several true friends. For this we are and will remain grateful. From these quiet heroes we also felt something even more important than understanding for our position; they recognised in a civilised and just Britain that the feelings and motivations behind the behaviour of the ringleaders against us were intolerable and unacceptable; they were contrary to the fundamental values that inform this modern, liberal and tolerant society. These friends saw that they had to make a choice. I applaud their wisdom, their humanity and, more, their moral courage.
From the people who were at the epicentre of feelings against us, we expect nothing more than what we encountered. When I understood that the expressions of opposition were being couched in terms of ‘cultural differences’, I recognised the supposedly modern and acceptable face of racism. In fact, what was behind the vehemence of feelings against us over a minor matter was born of immaturity and ignorance. On both counts I’m sad but resigned – those people have to live with that evil in their souls.
There were other ‘friends’ about whom I’m more ambivalent. Although they formed part of the silent majority of people on this island who would be tolerant and civil and patient whilst, in good faith, my wife and I worked to resolve the matter, their failure to actively condemn the means and form of opposition to our behaviour worries me. In a minor way it’s a form of collaborationism or appeasement which is morally weak.
I’m reminded that in New York the twenty year trend of crime to increase was finally reversed – and dramatically so – by the imposition of a zero tolerance policy. New York police, encouraged by the government and supported by the courts, inaugurated a policy of fines, arrests and prosecution for even petty crimes, public urination, defacement of private property, petty theft and so on. The turn-around was dramatic. Within a year or two, reports of all types of crime, minor and major, were falling. New York rapidly became a safer, more civil, more tolerant and, above all, happier place.
The parallel I’m trying to draw here is fairly obvious – when the sort of bullying, racist behaviour that my wife and I just encountered from ignorant and immature people is not immediately challenged, by everyone, the bullies and the racists will simply be encouraged to do it again.
My own dilemma is how to deliver this message to those friends who have failed us in the matter. As a member of a civil, liberal society, it’s incumbent on me to make the point but I want to do it in such a way that I prevent further division and, instead, promote the solidarity, tolerance and, ultimately, the happiness that I’m so anxious to foster.
We've sold our home. In normal circumstances we would be sad to leave such a beautiful home but not this time, we're relieved. We're leaving two racist couples behind who have to live with themselves. Sadly, at least two other neighbours are seriously thinking of leaving as well because of the poisoned atmosphere. Who wants to live around the sort of creepy, ill-mannered bigotry that has surfaced here in idyllic rural Worcestershire?
By the way, we kept the dog. When things got ugly, we boarded him in a nearby kennel where he slept each night. My wife picked him up each morning. He spent the day with her, staying in the car in the garage when my wife wasn't outside with him; we never allowed him in the house (heavens knows what would have happened had we brought him in!). Needless to say, our new home welcomes dogs!
What is so wrong about the whole thing is that it began over almost nothing (well, a seven pound Shih-tsu who doesn’t bark and for whom we were seeking to find a home). Pets are now allowed in the 'court' where we live without permission. When we returned from America last summer, we wrote a very polite letter to our neighbours requesting that our dog be allowed to live with us on a probationary basis, if he did anything unacceptable, out he'd go. Two neighbours in particular were vehemently against the idea and rude in expressing their opposition. Rather than take the matter to the directors (of which I am one) and risk an unpleasant outcome (whichever way it went there would be bad feelings), my wife and I elected to give the dog away. We then transgressed because the first volunteer to adopt the animal was, in the end, unable to take him and so we had to have him resident for a few days until we found him a second home. It was against the covenants, we knew, but we were actively and energetically seeking to reverse the situation.
The depth and harshness of the feelings against us from two of our seven neighbours were puzzling at first. I could not understand why something that rational people would simply resolve with a few quiet words had prompted such strong and unreasonable reaction. After all, we live in England, a place renowned for both tolerance and civility. Those two values are to be cherished and the way to do that is to treat the expressions of tolerance and civility that you do encounter with great respect, particularly when they may also be the vehicle for a difference of opinion. By this mutuality is a great nation judged.
We did encounter great tolerance and civility and, more, genuine sympathy, from several true friends. For this we are and will remain grateful. From these quiet heroes we also felt something even more important than understanding for our position; they recognised in a civilised and just Britain that the feelings and motivations behind the behaviour of the ringleaders against us were intolerable and unacceptable; they were contrary to the fundamental values that inform this modern, liberal and tolerant society. These friends saw that they had to make a choice. I applaud their wisdom, their humanity and, more, their moral courage.
From the people who were at the epicentre of feelings against us, we expect nothing more than what we encountered. When I understood that the expressions of opposition were being couched in terms of ‘cultural differences’, I recognised the supposedly modern and acceptable face of racism. In fact, what was behind the vehemence of feelings against us over a minor matter was born of immaturity and ignorance. On both counts I’m sad but resigned – those people have to live with that evil in their souls.
There were other ‘friends’ about whom I’m more ambivalent. Although they formed part of the silent majority of people on this island who would be tolerant and civil and patient whilst, in good faith, my wife and I worked to resolve the matter, their failure to actively condemn the means and form of opposition to our behaviour worries me. In a minor way it’s a form of collaborationism or appeasement which is morally weak.
I’m reminded that in New York the twenty year trend of crime to increase was finally reversed – and dramatically so – by the imposition of a zero tolerance policy. New York police, encouraged by the government and supported by the courts, inaugurated a policy of fines, arrests and prosecution for even petty crimes, public urination, defacement of private property, petty theft and so on. The turn-around was dramatic. Within a year or two, reports of all types of crime, minor and major, were falling. New York rapidly became a safer, more civil, more tolerant and, above all, happier place.
The parallel I’m trying to draw here is fairly obvious – when the sort of bullying, racist behaviour that my wife and I just encountered from ignorant and immature people is not immediately challenged, by everyone, the bullies and the racists will simply be encouraged to do it again.
My own dilemma is how to deliver this message to those friends who have failed us in the matter. As a member of a civil, liberal society, it’s incumbent on me to make the point but I want to do it in such a way that I prevent further division and, instead, promote the solidarity, tolerance and, ultimately, the happiness that I’m so anxious to foster.
We've sold our home. In normal circumstances we would be sad to leave such a beautiful home but not this time, we're relieved. We're leaving two racist couples behind who have to live with themselves. Sadly, at least two other neighbours are seriously thinking of leaving as well because of the poisoned atmosphere. Who wants to live around the sort of creepy, ill-mannered bigotry that has surfaced here in idyllic rural Worcestershire?
By the way, we kept the dog. When things got ugly, we boarded him in a nearby kennel where he slept each night. My wife picked him up each morning. He spent the day with her, staying in the car in the garage when my wife wasn't outside with him; we never allowed him in the house (heavens knows what would have happened had we brought him in!). Needless to say, our new home welcomes dogs!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)