The On-Going Republican and Democratic Meat Parade

And so it goes on.

Is Thomas Jefferson turning in his grave?

2012 will be upon us sooner or later. Whether you're an American citizen or not, the twelve months of boredom known as the election year will again be lumbered out into the unforgiving gaze of the public arena. Presumably to comfort the locals  in their delusion that they still are living in the greatest democracy the world has ever seen. Or is likely to see.


For outsiders like me, the entire process is of dubious value, save only for the politicians who seem to enjoy  making as much publicity and mileage for themselves out of the event as they possibly can. Recent developments, such as the sudden emergence of the Occupy movement serves to highlight the paucity of policy on both sides of the House, and how bereft America has become when, at a time of economic crisis, the same tired, old wise saws are trotted out as gospel: the country is still a great power; we can fight back our enemies; don't let the terrorists win; -- and so it goes on, ad nauseum.


As the supposed opposition to this kind of nonsense that is apparently trotted out because it's the only way  the Republicans can get re- elected, the Democrats fashion themselves as the spokespeople for the underdogs: the unemployed, working people, African Americans, minorities, trade unions, that is anyone who isn't a millionaire and cannot hope to profit from the brutal austerity measures and giant corporate funding policies of the Republican party. The Democrats remind me of a peashooter thinking he can down the elephant, and upon discovering that he can't, proceeds to join the elephant.


The Democrats are ideologically off-balance. Loathe to be murdered by the Republicans by acknowledging that American society is as riddled with class bias and inequality as any other country in the world, the Hill has the unhappy knack of stabbing its mainstream supporters in the back whenever it suits them, with the threat that if Republicans win back office, things for them will be  far worse than they are now.


We had the unedifying spectacle of that bastion of fearless journalism 'Mother Jones' not only attempting to smear Julian Assange as he was emerging as a hero for his exposure of state secrets through the Wikileaks website. Recently, (and surprisingly ) they were one of the first to put the boot into the Occupy movement in an article which was not only negative but downright hostile, from a magazine that supposedly encourages dissent and is some kind of 21st century version of the counter-culture movement magazines like 'Ramparts' and 'Rolling Stone' which genuinely encouraged free expression and political involvement of groups and individuals in such issues as Vietnam and the Watergate scandal.


To put it bluntly, 'Mother Jones' is no 'Ramparts', and is doing its readers a disservice if it thinks that it is.  Attacking movements and individuals who have a sincere agenda for change, rather than attempting to correct their own ideological pratfalls, will not win 'Mother Jones' a wider readership. If they would only stop hitting their supporters over the head with a lot of meaningless noise about how profoundly wonderful Barack Obama is, and  concentrate on  the issues without giving the opposition all  the free publicity, they would get a fairer hearing from those of us who believe in honest journalism, even if it has to come from the mainstream-liberal-establishment media.  


I guess that after all is said and done, it's going to be the public who loses out. The media of the left as well as the right, only think of the 'public' in the crudest of all possible terms, that is, how much money is to be made out of us, and how stupid they seem to think we are. In that respect, I cannot imagine the 2012 Presidential race as anything more than a protracted and corrupt piece of political theatre, merely designed for the lowest common denominator and utilised for the business of keeping the public in the dark, and severely ill-informed of any concrete or meaningful political agenda.

Some Thoughts About Capital Punishment

The moral cost of violent crime in our society is not an issue most of us like to dwell upon. It's something whose implications are so vast, they beggar the imagination. Have we become for instance, far too libertarian in our tolerance of what constitutes criminal behaviour? Or have we instead, become too religious,  quoting the New Testament to illustrate the  the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, which leaves us trapped in a strait-jacket of sanctimony?  Or are we becoming more blood thirsty, still plotting for revenge when we think we've been wronged, and how does this satisfy our  desire for justice, when  revenge is (supposedly) nothing more than a primitive urge going back to the Dark Ages? None of this sits easily with the image we have of ourselves as brain centred humans who do not let our emotions rule our decisions -- when in fact that is exactly what does happen, in defiance of  our rationalisations to the contrary.


It seems to be that the nuts and bolts of a particular crime, or the crimes of a particular criminal, is what keeps the justice system chugging along. I can't say that has ever interested me. I was going to write a post for this blog about the Shark Arm murder case, one the most famous murder cases in Australian history. But just regurgitating the whats and wherefores  of the story because I didn't know enough about it to say anything original, was boring to me so I decided to abandon the idea. God knows I've read enough about it now to take some kind of diploma about the subject. The problem was, I just didn't know what I could say about it that hasn't been said a thousand times before.


I'm leading up to something and I think that it's to do with what's been recently happening in the States. A possibly innocent man by the name of Troy Davis was executed in Georgia, and there was a lot of news about it. Many people protested and despite a stay of execution, the Supreme Court ordered Georgia to go ahead with the execution. I didn't know enough about the case to make much comment but  my heart went out to the family of the victim, as well to as the family of Mr Davis. We all know of the figures which tell us the likelihood of  African Americans becoming trapped in the web of the American criminal justice system, and I would be nothing more than an insensitive (white)  fool to dispute them. But to me, the issue of capital punishment cuts across all racial boundaries.


As far as I am concerned,  the practice of capital punishment is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder, and to take  a principled stand on the issue of capital punishment  means  that the guilt or innocence of the person sentenced to death is irrelevant. Since sentencing someone to die is a legal aberration, the relevance of the guilt or innocence of the person will be a matter for the courts and the defence lawyers who advise the person of their legal rights. Like British transportation to New South Wales  in the nineteenth century (which was a sentence of death commuted to life imprisonment to the Australian penal colony for the term of one's natural life), capital punishment is an irrational form of revenge used more as a means of social control and less as a deterrent for the lower classes it was once thought were more prone to violent crime and anti-social behaviour.


Personally, I think that if people keep up the struggle, and protest loudly and vehemently enough for the powers-that-be to take notice, capital punishment will become too unpopular, and thus a thing of the past. If you believe in progress, then the only direction we have is ahead. We'll be living in a time when we can look back and blame our precursors for visiting this wretched stain upon our social fabric, and praising ourselves on our intelligence and bravery for having done away with it altogether.

Kept under the thumb by another second son?

Bashar al-Assad. How long can he last?

Events in the Middle East have carried on at a breakneck pace. It’s difficult to keep abreast of every single country that finds itself undergoing the upheaval of change from autocratic rule to hopefully something akin to democracy.  I’m not writing this to offer an analysis of events. There are enough knowledgeable people on the net able to provide that  for those of us who agree with their viewpoint and trust their judgment. I knew I wanted to write a post about what’s going on in Syria, and I discovered amongst other things, the country’s official web page here, and also consulted Bashar al-Assad’s profile on Wikipedia here. I’d just like to share some thoughts about what I like to call the ‘second son syndrome’, which I believe al-Assad is the product of, and note a few other second sons in history who have, for better or worse,  overcompensated for what they feel is a lack of approval from their father. This is particularly relevant  when second sons consider themselves inferior to either siblings who have died, or were born before they were, or simply received more attention  than they felt they did themselves.

I discovered upon reading the Wiki article that President Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and son of Hafez al-Assad, the previous President who ruled the country for 29 years, had in early life nursed no political aspirations. He  had an older brother named Basil, whom the family was grooming to take over from the father. The family’s hopes for Basil’s ascendancy to his father’s position were shattered when Basil was killed in a car accident in 1994.¹ Bashar al-Assad was therefore forced by circumstance to take his brother’s place as their father’s heir apparent.  Recalled from London where he was studying ophthalmology, al-Assad joined the military academy at Homs and emerged as a colonel in 1999. He was thus baptised as next in line to the Presidency.  Assad the elder died in 2000 and his second son was voted unopposed as the next Syrian President.² In 2007 his leadership was approved for another seven year term by a referendum in which there was no other candidate.³

 After reading this, I was immediately  reminded of the psychological profile of President George W Bush. This may not  seem so obvious and I realise that the reader deserves an  explanation. However the following is on the public record and is no secret. As a young man, George W  Bush struggled to prove himself to his father by appearing to be  a serious political player,  despite  what he viewed as discouragement from his parents, and unfavourable comparisons with his  brother Jeb. In researching this article I was surprised to discover that George is actually Jeb’s older brother. George suffered from the ‘second son’ syndrome to the extent that he acted as if he was younger than Jeb or in any case, inferior to him.⁴   I’m going to propose in this article that second sons, or boys who perceive themselves to be in the shadow of another sibling, appear  to be insecure.  Their authoritarianism and their quest to be thought of as great achievers, at least in the political sphere, can be a dangerous reflection of that insecurity. In nations without a tradition of democratic decision-making, this is pertinent  for those who are meant to live under their rule, take their orders or merely acknowledge them as their leader. 

I then got to thinking of the famous second sons I was aware of in history, and could come up with  a number of them. But because I am not aware of the lineage of every politician in the history of western civilisation, I’m sure there are many more that fit the description. Being an Australian of the old school, I was taught about Engish royalty and am most familiar with second sons because of the care lavished upon the lineage of the British Royal family. These came immediately to mind. Firstly, the current Queen Elizabeth’s II’s father George VI, was a second son. (Incidentally, his father George V was also a second son but for reasons of space he is beyond the scope of my discussion at the moment).

Duke of York in his WWI regalia. The future King George VI.

 It goes like this:  Edward VIII,  George VI’s older brother was the eldest son and originally  groomed to take the position of King as the official heir of his father (King George V). Unfortunately he fell in love with Wallis Simpson, and abdicated because she was an American as well as a divorcee and the public in Britain it was said,  would never accept her as  queen. The abdication of Edward VIII in December 1936 was in fact one of the most pivotal events of the twentieth century.⁵ 

George VI, the second son,  previously the Duke of York, or Bertie as he was known,  was totally unprepared for the responsibility of being handed the position of King because of  his brother’s abdication. He had a stutter, a weak voice, and felt overwhelmed by a role he was never trained for and was  reluctant to perform. Although liked and admired by the public, older  brother Edward had a number of personal problems including his deteriorating relationship with father  George V who had not wished to see him ascend to the throne.⁶  When Edward  took over from his father who died in January 1936, it was clear he refused to be a mere figure-head and his independence spelled trouble.⁷ With powerful enemies arrayed against him after only eleven months on the throne, Edward formally abdicated on 10^th December 1936. The throne was passed to the Duke of York, who was thought to be weak-willed and easily influenced.⁸ Whilst rumours of previous king Edward VIII’s Nazi sympathies abounded, the new King and his queen (the current Queen’s parents) were also desperate to avoid war with Germany in order that the monarchy survive events that were out of its control in Europe, even if it meant existing under Nazi occupation.⁹ The new king ie second son George VI, was receiving  a baptism of fire in the world of realpolitic, where it was necessary to maintain the authority of the monarchy at  a time of uncertainty at home as well as abroad. The approach of the Second Word War transformed Bertie Duke of York from a weak and ill-advised also-ran who paled in comparison to his dashing brother, into at least, a passable leader.¹⁰  But after the War it was clear that the British Empire was crumbling. The first Labour government was voted into office, and the creation of the welfare state did not bode well for the survival of British royalty.¹¹ 

George VI, despite his weak personality, was still a member of a powerful family that had no intention of getting sidelined by history. They have in fact continued to this day, propelled by a careful mixture of public relations and careful strategies to ensure their money, wealth and influence  remain intact.. I don’t know of a volume ever published which could tell  us the real story of these particular pair of siblings who had such an influence on the history of the 20th century because of the obvious rivalry and perhaps bitterness that may have existed between them. I do think however, that King George VI, despite his unsuitability for the position, suffered in the shadow of his older brother and was thus prepared for a life of defending British royalty, as well as the possibility of England being invaded by the Nazis.

Of course this is all just supposition on my part. But the patterns exist and should be discerned if they throw light on the motivations of individuals who exercise power over the rest of us, by virtue of us giving  our power away to them. The tenous political situation in Syria cannot be easily explained away I know and I’m not attempting to do that. I’m only attempting to understand what drives a leader to such lengths that he will turn on his own people  in such an inexcusable way. Perhaps it is fear that the implementation of democracy  would strip him of his authority as well as the identity he has forged for himself as President, in the shadow of a powerful and mourned figure in the shape of his late brother.

NOTES:
1. Wikipedia article; 2. ibid; 3. ibid; 4. The last sentence is my own. 5. 'War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy; by Lyn Picknett, Clive Prince, Stephen Prior and Robert Brydon, South Yarra, Hardie Grant, 2002. 6. ibid. p. 106; 7. ibid. p. 132; 8. ibid. p. 174; 9. ibid. pp. 192-93; 10. ibid. pp. 195-198; 11. ibid. p. 250.

How The Emperor of Ice Cream reflects my feelings on the debt ceiling debacle

The Emperor of Ice-Cream

Call the roller of big cigars,
The muscular one, and bid him whip
In kitchen cups concupiscent curds.
Let the wenches dawdle in such dress
As they are used to wear, and let the boys
Bring flowers in last month's newspapers.
Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.

Take from the dresser of deal,
Lacking the three glass knobs, that sheet
On which she embroidered fantails once
And spread it so as to cover her face.
If her horny feet protrude, they come
To show how cold she is, and dumb.
Let the lamp affix its beam.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.

It became official last week that a solution on the debt ceiling had been reached. We all heaved a sigh of relief but the worst was yet to come. Standard & Poors have reduced the credit rating of the United States from triple A to double A. What this means to ordinary folk like myself is that there never really was a recovery  from the last recession, or at least not one of note and we remain in the same hole that we were in before.

 Without giving away too much personal information, I have to say that I am old enough to remember previous recessions - don’t let my avatar kid you.  Without deliberately poking fun at the statisticians that come out of the woodwork with their pie charts explaining  how bad things are presently, and how much worse  they’re going to get, I believe from experience in times like these, there are two avenues left for the hardy of soul to venture. Either you let yourself be  chastised by the economic experts who just know that we aren’t working  hard enough and have obviously done something wrong which is undoable and as a result we don’t deserve to live. Or, you can find meaning for such catastrophic world events   through imaginative dissonances, allegorical conceits, or perhaps even, metaphoric meanderings. These attack you in the middle of the night, or when you are otherwise not occupied;  when your guard is down. Personally,  I find the latter a far better idea   and a good of use of the literature I was taught in English class at school and University. I ’ll give you an example. I never did understand what The Second Coming by W.B Yeats  was about when I first read it as a bright- eyed- and –bushy- tailed Arts student. With some years of living under my belt (as well as watching the movie version of Stephen King’s ‘The Stand’,) I can understand that poem now,  in ways  not known to me as a student with her entirely dinky, but wholesome  life ahead of her.

Which brings me to the point of this post. ‘The Emperor of Ice Cream’ is a pivotal work of poetry in the 20^th century. Written by an insurance executive who could be accused of dabbling with poetry in his spare time, Wallace Stevens has been widely anthologised and stands in the august company of Auden, Eliot and Pound. I was taught this poem as an Arts student, but didn’t understand it much. Or maybe I had a crush on someone who didn’t even know I was alive and I  wasn’t taking any notice. But the title is catchy and I remembered it. Stephen King uses some lines of the poem on the title pages of a number of chapters in Salem’s Lot, his second novel about a small American town taken over by a coven of vampires.(I can’t remember which ones they are and would have to look it up.) And for film buffs, in Sweet Smell of Success Tony Curtis is referred to by another character as being the ‘boy with the ice cream face’ ( whether it’s by Hunsecker’s secretary or the fat policeman, I’m not sure and would have to watch the movie again.)

The poem is most conveniently interpreted as the description of the wake of an old lady and the mourners who attend her  funeral . Let me put it this way. Shouldn’t we be lined up as  mourners just waiting to be invited to the wake of civilisation as we know it today? Even before the Bush debacle, America has been an easy country to dislike, but never has the most powerful country in the world’s credit rating been tampered with and reduced in such a humiliating fashion . Even rabid anti-capitalists and anti-war sympathisers such as I are wondering what the world is coming to. If this is an overly literal interpretation of the poem then I apologise. I am hardly an expert on Stevens.  I do find it interesting  though,  how something like the title of a poem,   can come into my mind at the provocation of something as ephemeral and fanciful, as the end of the world.  After me not thinking about it for years and  I then proceed to  attach to it some meaning I would never have had the werewithal  to originally contemplate.

 I’m going to post the poem as well as these ruminations,  and just hope you get something out of it the same way I have, after years of not taking notice.