 |
| Blog |
 |
| Archive |
|
|
|
|
| Blog |
| To find an archived article, simply click on Index and scroll the subject titles, or do a Ctrl-F search |
TALLRITE BLOG
You can write to me at blog2-at-tallrite-dot-com |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| December 2004 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ISSUE #90 - 12th December 2004 [245+350=595]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How much further must the United Nations slide before people start calling a halt ? Created in 1945 in the ashes of World War 2 to stop all future wars, it is today an organization of 191 states, of which 10% are almost invisible dots (eg Andorra). Of the remainder,
Other than the five permanent members of the Security Council (being the victors of the Second World War, America, Russia and Britain, plus China and France who were liberated by the victors), all members have equal voting weight, without regard to size, population, economic or military strength, political legitimacy or contribution to the UN coffers. It was designed as a talking shop so would-be belligerents could argue out their differences, with help from the international community if necessary, instead of going to war, and where necessary the UN would lay down the law. It served this purpose for a long time, but it no longer does. It has been internally corrupted to the extent that its main function seems to be to provide cover for thugogracies to do what they like; no longer part of the solution, it has become part of the problem. Thus, among other things,
Most of this happened on Koffi Anan's watch, which, together with his curious declaration that the Iraq war was “illegal”, is why a number of US Senators have been calling for his head. But, in the UN world of thugocracies, he managed to receive a well-choreographed standing ovation from the General Assembly last week, specifically supported by those renowned havens of democracy Algeria, Russia, Cuba and Gabon. Mind you, liberal Senator Edward Kennedy was quick to support him as well. I guess it's a question of rogues hanging together. Actually, demands for Mr Annan's resignation are wrong-footed, despite his accountability for the UN's repeated misbehaviour and incompetence in recent years. The whole UN as currently structured is past its sell-by date, and with the large thugocratic clique in its membership, no amount of reform is going to change it significantly. Not even those suggested in his recent 99-page report by a High-Level Panel of prominent big-shots, with the catchy title, “A more secure world: our shared responsibility - Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change”, available as a 341kb pdf file here. Just as the League of Nations collapsed when it no longer became able to prevent a catastrophe such as World War 2, so the impotence of the UN means it too has run its course. It is time to move on, and a solution is very simple. Mark Humphrys repeatedly points out that there is already a proven, known solution to ALL of the world's problems - and it's not religion, World government or the UN. It is called democracy, the only thing that will ever end war on earth. The entire world becoming democratic will mean the end of war and famine, forever. To bring this moment closer, the current 72 proper democracies should without delay form their own club, the United Democracies, and make a graceful exit from the UN. This is easy to do, it's just a question of phasing up their subscription to the UD while simultaneously phasing down their payments to the UN (America alone pays 22%). Within a short time, the UN edifice will come crashing to the ground, since the remaining thuggish members are certainly not going to fund it in the lavish style to which they are accustomed. Other UN agencies, such as the WHO and the UNICEF could move across to the UD, but only on the UD's own stringent terms which, inter alia, would involve radical restructuring. Where the UN's charter opens by calling for “international peace and security” without saying how, the UD would have as its unapologetic purpose the spread of Western-style democracy across the rest of the world, in the sure knowledge
UN's Declaration of Human Rights gives everyone, in theory, the right to
But whereas the UN largely pays but lip-service to all this, the UD would be prepared to defend it, using its standing army if necessary. It would, for example, be disposed to intervene where a state (eg Sudan) attacks its own citizens or fails to protect them from attack, since such a state would be deemed to have forfeited the right to national sovereignty. Itself governed under democratic principles, the UD would be a wealthy and desirable club to join. Even without direct intervention in external affairs, its very example and success would act as a beacon to others to join it, much as the EU today is a beacon to people like the orange democratic revolutionaries in the Ukraine. And unlike trading blocs, the UD's doors would be permanently open to new members, who would only have to demonstrate to the UD's satisfaction their bona fide democratic credentials. And the downside of creating the UD and allowing the UN to wither? Unless you're a member of the thugocracy, it's hard to see one. Note : The Freedom Institute
kindly
Ian Paisley Rescues the IRA - As Usual For some four decades, the Reverend Ian Paisley, founder and head of the Democratic Unionist Party, has been the bogeyman of Republicans and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and a stirrer of souls among the Loyalist and Protestant communities. A wonderful orator (whether you like what he says or or not) with boundless energy, his two favourite words have been “No” and “Never” in relation to anything pertaining to co-operation
Nevertheless, though he might be a thoroughly unpleasant individual, his own democratic credentials have been admirable and he has never advocated violence, even if his rhetoric probably incited quite a lot of it in his followers. He himself has only once been known personally to be connected with violence, when guns were found in the car of a group he was associated with, but he immediately parted company with it. Republicans have heartily hated and derided Mr Paisley throughout this period, and indeed to this day. Since the recent “Troubles” began around 1969, 5,214 people have been killed, of whom only 31% could be called “combatants” (Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries, Army, Police), the remaining 3,622 souls being civilians (including politicians) who were killed by the “combatants”. (These figures and those in my chart below are from David McKittrick's authoritative book, “Lost Lives: The Stories of the Men, Women and Children Who Died Through the Northern Ireland Troubles”.)
Since as you can see above the paramilitaries, when compared with the authorities, were so adept at killing others (as shown in green) and not getting themselves killed (blue), the wonder is, therefore, why Republicans never murdered him. The answer is that he was one of their most valuable assets. His behaviour probably recruited more Republicans into the IRA than any other single cause. Killing him would have created a martyr for the Loyalists and stemmed the flow of young recruits to the IRA. And even today, with the DUP now the biggest political party in Northern Ireland, Mr Paisley is still doing the Republicans' work for them. Last week, an historic and extraordinary deal that would have seen the DUP running Northern Ireland in partnership with Sinn Fein, the IRA's political wing, fell at the final hurdle. It required
so enthusiasm was muted to say the least, even though parties were itching to embrace the trappings of ministerial power. As part of the deal, the DUP wanted photos of the decommissioning as a confidence-building measure and Sinn Fein did not publicly demur. Given all the doubt about previous decommissionings, photos were not unreasonable. But
then it was time for Mr Paisley to save the IRA's bacon. In a
trademark fiery speech to adoring fans in his Ballymena heartland, he
declared (see last week's Quotes
of the Week) that, “the IRA needs to be
humiliated ... they need to wear their sackcloth and ashes”
and so on in similar vein. With enormous relief, Sinn Fein then declared that this meant the photos were “humiliating”, and therefore off-side.
but taking photos was. Because Ian Paisley says so. Well, he didn't say this, but it's good enough to pretend he did. So Sinn Fein, to the doubtless relief of the IRA (if not itself) called the deal off. For how long more will the IRA continue to rely for its welfare on the malign offices of Dr Paisley?
Nicknamed Georgeous George for his natty dress sense and bon-viveur outlook on life, Geoge Galloway is the ex-Labour MP for Glasgow-Kelvin in Scotland. But he was kicked out of the Labour Party in October 2003 after the Daily Telegraph newspaper found papers seemingly demonstrating that he had been in the pay of Saddam Hussein, to the tune of £375,000. He certainly was an
Already a successful serial litigant, he sued the Telegraph for the story claiming the papers were forgeries. He recently won his case, including £150,000 in damages and a further £1.25 million in costs, and maintains that the documents are “bunkum, bogus or doctored”. So game, set and match to Gorgeous. Not quite. For the judgement does not clear him of the central charge that he was taking bungs from Saddam, nor does it rule that the documents were bogus. The essence of his victory is that
I think (b) is a perfectly reasonable expectation and certainly the Telegraph were sneaky in their dealings with him. It certainly wasn't playing cricket. But (a) raises a more fundamental issue. Should newspapers, under pain of libel, be expected to authenticate all documents that they publish? If so to what depth?
If this is the case as the Galloway judgement seems to imply, it means that Britain's libel laws have become extraordinarily draconian to the extent of truly curtailing legitimate freedom of the press. Meantime, though, keep a weather eye out for this story, because it's not over. I can't believe the Telegraph will not pull out every stop to demonstrate that the documents - and thus their allegation about taking money from Saddam's regime - are in fact genuine. They consider George has a “thundering case to answer”, and they're not going to let him get away with his Gorgeous Libel.
In Defence of Religious Offence The British Government wants to protect faith groups by creating a new offence, punishable with seven year in prison, of incitement to religious hatred through threatening, abusive, or insulting behaviour or perhaps insulting words. It is aimed at protecting faith groups and in particular Muslims - which is a bit rich since theirs is the only mainstream religion that calls for all other faith groups to be killed “wherever ye shall find them”. Moreover, such legislation will only encourage trouble since an offensive billboard, for example, will only fall under the purview of the new law if it is “likely to lead to disorder”, a self-fulfilling condition. Thus under this circular reasoning, Dutchman Theo van Gogh if he weren't dead would be prosecutable for his film, “Submission”, about the abuse of women under Islam, because it prompted “disorder” in the form of his own brutal murder and the mayhem that erupted throughout Holland in disgust at this vile deed. Comedian Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean) is outraged from a different perspective. He reckons that the right to offend someone's beliefs and ideas is a fundamental freedom of expression, that “there should be no subject about which you cannot make jokes”. Atlantic Blog also has some worthwhile excerpts and comments. I agree with Mr Bean's sentiments, even though I personally hate to see jokes about my own religious beliefs, of which the West abounds. But my dislike does not mean I think they should be banned. And I don't think the sensibilities of Muslims (or for that matter of Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, atheists etc) should be protected any more than my own. Recent
examples of how I have been offended include the following
Judge for yourself.
This week we mourn the passing of a beloved friend by the name of Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such value lessons as
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not kids, are in charge). His health began rapidly to deteriorate when well intentioned, but overbearing regulations were set in place ... Reports of
only worsened his condition. It declined even further when
Finally, Common Sense lost the will to live as
Common Sense finally gave up the ghost after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a bit in her lap, and was awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death by
He is survived by a stepbrother, My Rights and a Stepsister, Ima Whiner. Not many attended his funeral, because so few were aware he was gone. If you still know him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing. Thanks, Jack
Alabama,
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, North and
Thanks, Eileen
Quote : “This is no longer a question for discussion. We are now sure that we can confirm which substance caused this illness. He received this substance from other people who had a specific aim [which was] of course [to kill him] ... Maybe it was administered through injection, maybe in water, maybe through eating, but the way to give it to him is very simple. This substance can be given very precisely — to only one person.” On 8th December, Dr Nikolai Korpan John Henry, a prominent British toxicologist, On 12 December, the dioxin diagnosis was confirmed. Dioxin is an industrial agent used as a
solvent.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| See the Archive and Blogroll at top left and right, for your convenience | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ISSUE #89 - 5th December 2004 [305]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One of the reasons I started blogging over two years ago was my frustration at failing to get letters published in newspapers. My early posts were nearly all drawn from failed attempts. Though I do in fact get a respectable number published, mainly in the (subscription-only) Irish Times, for example 17 in 2003 (out of 56 submissions), 20 so far this year (out of 37), I still get annoyed when so many fail to make it, even if some deserve to be unsuccessful. One which recently failed to make the grade was in response to a proposal that Margaret Hassan, the murdered head of Care International in Iraq, should be elevated to (Catholic) sainthood by the Pope. The justification of David Grant of Waterford for saying she was “suitable for canonisation” was that she was
This was of course all true (provided you accept his definition of “martyr”). Moreover, Mrs Hassan was born and raised a Catholic in Ireland, but after marrying her Iraqi husband adopted his Muslim faith. This detail would apparently make her canonisation by the Pope pleasing to Islam. I find the canonisation proposal outrageous and preposterous. In fact, were the Pope to follow Mr Grant's advice it would certainly prompt me, for one, to leave the Catholic church. Let me explain my churlishness. Mrs Hassan's virtues and good works are not in doubt, nor are the savagery, pointlessness and wickedness of her slaughter. The example she gave others through her good works and the legacy she leaves behind are beyond reproach.
The letter I wrote to this effect was medicine apparently too strong for the gentle readers of Ireland's left-leaning newspaper of record. But people in the West need to know more about Islam if they are to understand the dynamics that we see unfolding around us. There is a widespread perception that Islam is somehow on a moral par with the other two great monotheistic religions, Christianity and Judaism, that it is equally “valid”. It is not, because its essence is perpetual jihad against all unbelievers, either converting or killing them. It is true that the vast majority of Muslims are intrinsically good, honest, humane people, as indeed was Mrs Hassan. But making this observation gives a completely misleading picture of the underlying tenets. For the faith they adhere to exhorts, as indicated, very different behaviour, and it is those who
that today we call fundamentalists. Make no mistake, these followers are indeed out to slay the unbelievers (ie non-Muslims) wherever they can find them. And what a successful day they had on September 11th, 2001. The good behaviour of the many should not blind us to the evil of the ideology. We need to keep up our guard. It is one thing to be borne into a particular faith, such as Islam. But it is extraordinary that good-thinking Christians and Jews should ever convert to Islam. Yet some still do.
At the height of the liberal West pre-Iraq-war, anti-war, pro-Saddam hysteria, a woman called Mary Kelly, 51, broke into Shannon Airport in January 2003 and took an axe to a US Navy aircraft parked there and hacked it thirty times. The jet was part of the American war machine. Ireland's miniscule, though valuable, contribution to the enforcement of UN Resolution 1441 and the conversion of Iraq from tyranny to democracy was to allow US planes to refuel in Shannon and overfly Ireland. This has caused more outrage in Ireland than the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses, and Ms Kelly was one of several unwashed demonstrators at “Shannon Peace Camp” outside the airport as part of their protest. She was eventually convicted of criminal damage to the tune of US $1½ million, despite her defence that she was helping prevent the wanton killing of innocent Iraqis (such as Saddam). The judge ruled that the connection between her actions and the Iraqis was so remote as to be irrelevant. Like a naughty schoolgirl, last week the mother-of-four -
Walking free from the courthouse, she emerged in triumphant mood to a large group of applauding supporters. And who can blame her for her smiles? Such incidents notwithstanding, Ms Kelly is in principle a law-abiding person, and the idea that in the next four years she is going to be hauled in to serve her sentence because she has been caught in another misdemeanor such as a drunken brawl or peddling heroin, is ridiculous. So, to all intents and purposes, the court has let her off without a care in the world. However, this offends natural justice, and the affair should not end there. There is also the small matter of the American taxpayers' US$1½ million. I would hope that the US Navy will now be hardnosed enough to press for full damages, since the conviction tells them unequivocally who caused them. Of course, as a nurse, she is never going to be able to cough up the money. But a lifetime under the burden of a huge debt, with liens on her property and income, will in itself be a fitting punishment as well as a warning to others. People should not get off scot-free for their wanton behaviour.
Dublin Climbing Skyward - At Last Dublin has a terrible traffic problem, which is steadily heading towards the airless gridlock of many Asian cities such as Bangkok, Manila, Jakarta. People spend two-to-four hours in their cars commuting daily to work in the city. These commutes are due to a combination of
Parking is either a nightmare (no places) or a fortune (parking meters charge over €2 per hour). The root of the problem is the high price of urban land which, with Ireland's boom of the last ten years, has led to a house-price explosion. Unless you can raise half-a-million €uro-or-so, you are forced to buy further and further out of town. Of course, the Irish love affair with purchasing homes rather than renting them is another issue, which further inflates prices while depressing rents to uneconomic levels. Indeed, no sane person would dream of buying when rents are so cheap (disclosure - I am one of the insane majority.) I have therefore long argued that what is needed is to despoil the skyline with high rise apartment blocks. There are plenty of existing apartment blocks, but due to planning restrictions they rarely exceed about six storeys, which means the exorbitant land price is shared by only six flat-owners. To keep costs down, they are often small and cheaply-made in order to offset the high land price. A city-centre high rise, on the other hand, will make the land-cost per apartment trivial, as well as minimising the construction and maintenance cost. It will thus allow for proper, roomy, well appointed, efficiently sound-proofed units to be built. Moreover, the reduced costs are also likely to drag down the price of other properties in the city to more sensible levels. So, at a stroke,
And the beauty is that it can all be accomplished entirely through
private enterprise. So I was very pleased to see that Dublin's (and Ireland's) first high-rise worthy of the name was given planning permission last week, for a location just a mile from the city centre with lovely views across the River Liffey and Phoenix Park. It'll be 32 storeys and 117 metres high, with 96 apartments. Not a record-breaker, but a good start. There is a fine example of high-rise lifestyle which is familiar to all of us. For if living in an apartment close to the stars is good enough for New York millionaires (few of whom are in houses), it should certainly be good enough for Dubliners.
The story that has been dominating the British press for the past couple of weeks, with the Daily Mirror as cheerleader, concerns
|
