WMD
So at last the Americans admitted that they have used a form of chemical weapon in the fight to free Iraq. After all the talk about the original reason for going to war, namely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could be used against not only its own people but also other foreign powers the double standards employed by the Americans is really startling.
The American view point that the use of White Phosphorus is acceptable and does not convene and code as it can be used to illuminate theatre areas during times of darkness or can be used as a screen to cover troop movements but the use to which they put it to as in firing it at insurgents in order to force them out of their holes and then to use high explosives to take out the ensuing emerged insurgents sure contravenes any code of basic human rights.
To give you some background White phosphorus has been used commonly by the military as an incendiary agent or as an ignite for munitions. It commonly is found in hand grenades, mortar and artillery rounds, and smoke bombs.
Munitions-quality white phosphorus commonly is found in solid form. When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites and is oxidised rapidly to phosphorus pentoxide. Such heat is produced by this reaction that the element bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. Phosphorus also becomes luminous in the dark, and this property is conveyed to "tracer bullets." This chemical reaction continues until either all the material is consumed or the element is deprived of oxygen.
White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish colour and characteristic garlic like odour. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small sub-segment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing.
Few studies have investigated the degree of tissue destruction associated with white phosphorus injuries. In the experimental animal model, most tissue destruction appears to be secondary to the heat generated by oxidation.
Systemic toxicity has been described extensively in the animal model. Pathological changes have been documented in the liver and kidney. These changes result in the development of progressive anuria, decreased creatinine clearance, and increased blood phosphorus levels. Oral ingestion of white phosphorus in humans has been demonstrated to result in pathological changes to the liver and kidneys. The accepted lethal dose is 1 mg/kg, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death. Individuals with a history of oral ingestion have been noted to pass phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").
So surely to use it in the way that the Americans have done in the The Fight for Fallujah contravenes any agreement on the use of White Phosphorus. An article published in the March edition of Field Artillery Magazine entitled "The Fight for Fallujah" states, "WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out." In other words the claim by the US Government that White Phosphorus was used only for illumination at Fallujah had been pre-emptively debunked by the Army. Indeed, the article goes on to make clear that soldiers would have liked to have saved more WP rounds to use for "lethal missions." But the articles fails to state that . . . there is no way you can use white phosphorus like that without forming a deadly chemical cloud that kills everything within a tenth of a mile in all directions from where it hits. So it seems clear that the effect of such deadly clouds weren't just psychological in nature.
A journalist embedded with the US troops provides further testimony to the use of White Phosphorus.
Fighting from a distance
After pounding parts of the city for days, many Marines say the recent combat escalated into more than they had planned for, but not more than they could handle.
"It's a war," said Cpl. Nicholas Bogert, 22, of Morris, N.Y.
Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.
"We had all this SASO (security and stabilisation operations) training back home," he said. "And then this turns into a real god damned war."
Just as his team started to eat a breakfast of packaged rations Saturday, Bogert got a fire mission over the radio.
"Stand by!" he yelled, sending Lance Cpls. Jonathan Alexander and Jonathan Millikin scrambling to their feet.
Shake 'n' bake
Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets, a lot was at stake.
Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."
Millikin, 21, from Reno, Nev., and Alexander, 23, from Wetumpka, Ala., quickly made the adjustments. They are good at what they do.
"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.
"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.
The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.
They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling.
So where do we go from here? Not only were we told numerous lies about the reason for war but now it transpires that the same people who went to war because of a stockpile of chemical weapons has in fact used similar tactics against the people it stated it came to protect and free. Isn't it time everyone came clean and told us what was really going on. We know whats going on but it would makes for a major change for someone to stop treating us as idiots and come out and tell us the real truth, that way we might even find it in our hearts to respect them.(Sources:- BBC News, news.bbc.co.uk ; Daily Kos, www.dailykos.com ; ATSDR - www.atsdr.cdc.gov )
Peace, what peace?
So what of the IAEA being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I am in in two minds about it, on the one hand you have the feeling that the Nobel Foundation is trying to appease the IAEA over the war in Iraq. For it was them under the guidance of Dr ElBaradei along with Dr Blix that stated there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and yet despite their assurances the Americans and the British still went in.
If you then you look at the situation in Iran you also wonder if the award is not or could not be seen as an attempt to show the legality of the position by Europe and the US against Iran. Both nations still have nuclear weapons and both show no signs cutting their nuclear arsenal in fact the British government is in the process of commissioning the replacement for the Trident system. I am not saying that Iran is right or wrong over what it is doing but this award could be taken as a sign of double standards.
On top of nuclear weapons we also have Nuclear power. We have seen over the past weeks and months that the infinite supply of oil and gas is by no means infinite and is starting to slow up. World demand for oil now outstrips supply and has lead to the high prices being paid. We have also seen the catastrophic effects of the use of fossil fuels on the global climate and as such their use needs to be reduced and eventually stopped. I have noticed in the media recently that there has been a growing call for the use of Nuclear power as an alternative. Do we all have short memories, from the tragedy's of 3 Mile Island, Sellafield and not forgetting Chernobyl . It is also worth noting that a recent report into the Chernobyl disaster, "Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts", just released by the Chernobyl Forum, came to the conclusion that the health effects have been far smaller than expected. However the sponsors of the new report include, the International Atomic Energy Agency, along with the World Health Organisation, the United Nations Development Programme and the Governments of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. The report says 4,000 cases olf thyroid cancer, mainly in children, were attributable to the accident. In 99 percent of the cases this illness has been curable. Only 50 deaths - all among the reactor staff and emergency workers - could be directly attributed to acute radiation exposure after Chernobyl's Reactor No. 4 exploded in April 1986, the panel found. The "Chernobyl Forum" considers the impacts of poverty and psychic diseases caused by the living conditions in the former Soviet Union to have much greater health effects than the radiation from Chernobyl.
Vladimir Tsalko, from the Chernobyl committee of Belarus, one of the three main countries affected by the explosion of the reactor in Ukraine, said cancer would not be the only contributor to the eventual death toll. "Our experts predict that in the nearest future alongside the growth of thyroid cancer cases, there is high probability of increased cancer diseases as well as cardiovascular and other non-cancer diseases," Tsalko said in a speech to the opening session of the Chernobyl Forum.
The new report has however been criticised as "quite inappropriate" by radiation scientists and Chernobyl relief organisations. The report is accused to be playing down the true dimension of the catastrophe. Some statements of the study are challenged as "demonstrably false". Experts are also concerned that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, may have had "too great an influence" on the study. The agency that has just been awarded the Nobel Peace prize.
How can we consider using nuclear power as an alternative. If we look at the facts, it is unsafe, stays in a toxic state for millenniums and has the danger than it can be used for any type of bomb how can we consider using it again. We should be investing in fuels that are sustainable, recyclable and above all non invasive or damaging the man and the environment.
Maybe I show make my position clear, I hate nuclear full stop. There should be no nuclear power or weapons and as such giving an award of this nature to the IAEA is nothing but a slap in the face for all protesters against them - me included.
The problem however i suspect is compounded by the fact that to the Nobel Foundation there seems to be no one else that could have received it. Who else could you give it to cause at the moment it looks as if there is no one in the world who is looking at peace only war and so it is a bit ironic to be giving a prise for peace in this year. Maybe it should go to the IRA and Gerry Adams for all the work that has been done in the decommissioning of arms in the North here and that there looks as if, if the UDP can get there act together and stop bickering then there might be peaceful solution. And you? what do you think of it?
(sources: www.chernobyl.info news.bbc.co.uk )
German Unity Day
Monday is German unity day, but will it be ? Will the two main political parties come to some form of agreement over how and who should govern one of the largest economies in Europe after the recent election. The stalemate and recent impasse by both sides has lead to confusion not only in Germany but also in the whole of Europe as well as with the leading financial institutions. Hence the value of the Euro has suffered against the other major currencies something that after the No votes the Euro and the financial planning masters in Europe could well do without.
It still seems to strange to those of us who were born in the 60's that there is no such thing as the Berlin wall any longer. I count myself as being lucky in some respects to have seen it but I also realise the huge social and political problems that the separation of Germany caused. Songs were written about it, the line from the Sex Pistols Holidays in the sun, "I don't wanna go over the Berlin wall" still abound today as people still listen to that track but the huge significance of the wall and the wall itself seem largely to have disappeared as today we are told of a new threat to world peace. The old cold war has vanished, the divisions between East and West, Russia on the one hand and the US on the other to be replaced by a new threat that of terror attacks and Al Qaeda.
PLUS Please let us stay
The UN Convention states that a refugee child has the same economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights as other children living in the same area. An unaccompanied child refugee, as a general rule, should not be returned to their country of origin after their asylum claim has been rejected, unless it is in the child’s best interests. However once these child refugees have reached the age of consent they loose the rights they had as a child, despite the fact that they may have been in the host country for a number of years.
Over the past 5 years a number of separated children have arrived in Ireland seeking asylum. All applied for asylum in Ireland because they considered that they had a well founded fear of persecution in their birth countries, as specified under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees. As separated children seeking asylum they had unique protection needs which disappeared upon their “aging-out”. They lost any benefit that they were entitled to from the health boards they were initially placed under and have now been placed under the supervision of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The majority have not yet received a decision as the whether they can stay in Ireland and face the daily threat of deportation despite the fact that some have been living in Ireland for up to 5 years. As one aged out asylum seeker states, “We have no remaining family members in our birth countries and, if returned to these Countries, we fear for our safety and our future.”
The UN convention on the Rights of the Child also states that the best interests of the child are paramount in any decision and that general migration policy should not override these best interests, for this reason none of this group were deported. However now that they have aged-out their have lost any special treatment they received and yet their situations have not changed, only that they have got older. The UN is currently working on a report that includes the care of separated children seeking asylum and aged-out minors. It seems strange that at present gender considerations apply in the asylum process but to date no age considerations exist.
Aged-Out asylum seekers warrant special consideration. Their applications for asylum were all made when the individuals were under 18. Even as recently as June 2005, the UN committee on the Rights of the Child has referred to the need for child-sensitive assessment of all protection needs, taking into account persecution of a child-specific nature. It should be remembered that there is a grim reality of childhood in developing countries. Amnesty International has documented human rights abuses against children that include: executions, disappearances, torture, trafficking and forced genital mutilation. Minors should benefit from complimentary protection, determined by their unique protection needs. Their unique needs did not disappear when they aged-out.
The total number of aged-out minors in Ireland is somewhere between 150 and 250. There are 150 who claim direct provision from the state, consisting of lodgings provided by the Department of Justice, food, and €19.10 a week to cover all living expenses and it is estimated that another 100 or so live outside this system. PLUS is seeking is that this small group be granted leave to remain on Ireland so that they can live and work legally and whilst this is under consideration all deportation orders against aged-out minors be suspended and no additional deportation orders be issued to this group until full consideration has been given to this appeal. The Irish state has invested a considerable amount of money in keeping aged-out minors over the last years; now these people could be given the chance to repay some of that investment.
The Irish government is actively seeking additional workers from other states to make up the shortfall in the labour market. Here we have a group of people who are already educated in Ireland, are eager to work, know the Irish system, the Irish way of life and also speak the language. In granting them leave to stay the Irish government would be giving them for the first time in their lives, the right to decide about their own future.
As the members of PLUS state, “We are willing and anxious to work…. We will repay the investment made in us by the Irish State and Irish People. Please Let Us Stay and build our future here.”
Acts of Terror
So Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair has decided to launch an investigation into the alleged cocaine abuse of Kate Moss after being swayed by the fear that the pictures of Ms Moss taking cocaine could have a damaging effect on "impressionable young people". So from this we can take the fact that the images of the Metropolitan police shooting an innocent Brazilian man dead on a tube in London is perfectly acceptable and will not make an impression on these "impressionable young people". Says a lot about the state of our society that a model who snorts coke and is seen in a photograph doing so is of far more importance and degrading to society than the shoot to kill policy of the police that lead to a man being chased, caught and then coolly shot in the head 8 times by a policeman whilst it appears being held by a security guard who was trying to protect Jean Charles de Menezes from being murdered.
But maybe I should delete my comments for I also read today that the Home Secretary is about to introduce a new bill on his war on terror that includes a section about the glorification of terror in history. The state would lock away for 5 years anyone who "glorifies, exalts or celebrates" a terrorist act committed in the past 20 years, even if the glorification was not meant. So what constitutes an act of terror? Would the Menezes killing constitute as an act against the state, or more to the point would the fact that one stands up against the government or the police in this regards be considered as a crime that is punishable by 5 years in prison, a crime that is only stating the truth.
It seems strange that the bill does not cover any acts of terror that include Ireland. Living in Ireland I am not sure how the indigenous Irish population would view this, one the one hand some would see it as an acknowledgement by the British government that the war staged by the IRA was a legal and just war and on the other they will see it as another colonial act by the Imperialistic British who feel that they still have a hold not just on the 6 counties but also on the whole 32 counties of Ireland. The Loyalists on the other hand will see this as a crime against them and that if the war against the IRA was a legal war then this gives gives backing to the thought that the IRA was not an illegal organisation but a legal entity and not the view held by the Loyalists that the IRA was a totally illegal force who perpetrated nothing but acts of terror and were a terrorist organisation. Surely we have short memories? or is this a case that we are all the same and that the only acts of terror can be committed by people of different skin colours not by people of the same colour for they cannot even use the adage that the new terrorists come from a different country for the bombers in London were born and brought up in England, something some of the old IRA were not who will only consider themselves Irish.
There is a good comment made in The Guardian today by Simon Jenkins that is well worth the trouble to read. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1576613,00.html
Mondays Rant
There has been a lot of talk in the English press recent;y about racial tension and the way that ethnic groups have integrated or not into English society. A lot has been written by people of all denominations about the lack of structure which has led to parts of some UK cities becoming almost no go zones or zones that are predominately comprised of one colour or another. I read this morning of the fact that over 80% of white citizens do not have friends from other ethnic groups and that 43% of white people feel that people from ethnic groups should live in their own "enclaves". This is a frightening thought, not just the living arrangements but also the fact that after the July bombings there was a huge outcry as to how could these people do such things to their own country and here we have large sections of the same community who call for racial integration but it seems so long as it is not in my back yard.
How can we get through the barriers? how can we make sure that there is true racial integration? What makes one section of society so anti another but at the same time still wonders how come the marginalised section of the community can inflict such terror against them. The white population needs to wake up to the idea that we live in a multi cultural society, that there needs to be more integration. What makes the white population think that it is so superior to the others? Is it because of some misguided feeling that we are still the colonial nation we once were and we only tolerate multi racial society because we are trying to civilise these groups to make them more like us, for we are the master race, one hopes not but one also has this feeling that subconsciously this may be the case. It's as if these people live in some land that does not exist, they have their heads in the sand and need to accept that there is now no longer any place that is totally of one creed or colour. The same does not only apply to Britain but also to other nations around the world. The time has come for all nations to realise that this is a global world devoid of national boundaries to some extent. A globe that exists as an entity and not as small separate entities. We face global challenges from climate change, nuclear weapons, natural disasters and man made disasters. Together we can fight these problems, separately we cannot.
But getting back to the single minded view that the white population has over the other racial groups that live in Britain. We made this multi racial society and now we have to live in it. We need to embrace ideas from other parts for to do so will enrich our lives. We have so much to learn from them as they do from us but this learning process cannot take place in isolation, there needs to be integration on all parts. Both sides need to work together for it is not a one way process as other groups have a lot to learn from us as well. We see the torment that different races suffer in their home countries and we feel that these atrocities need to stopped and so we like to think that we can offer people a safe haven in which to rebuild their lives. But at the moment it seems that we like to think that we are helping so long as these displaced peoples do not want to set up home in this green and pleasant land. But again this is not a one way process. We also see the death and destruction brought to members of our community not only at home but abroad as well, brought to an end. All peoples need to preach racial tolerance. I know that some might say that some of the death and destruction brought on members of our community is justified by our acts, and to some extent they are right, but what is needed is discussion and understanding. We all need to talk, we all need to realise that we have a place and a duty to ourselves. I know that we have all done some bad things, and here I am talking on a national level and not on a personal level even though i am sure that we have all done some bad things in our personal lives as well, and we need to be accountable for our actions, but to kill innocent people on either side is not in the interests of anyone.
The world is full of people, people who for the majority of the time live together in peace and harmony, or so we thought. But if the results of the recent surveys in Britain are to be believed it is not so much an integrated society but one that feels as if it has to tolerate the other a situation that is not good for the well being of the country nor the well being of man.
Asylum Seekers
A year of transition faced Asylum seekers in Irelandwith the deportation of Nigerian Student Olenkunle Eluhanla. Kunle had been in Ireland since he was 15, had made Ireland his home, been through the Irish education system but as soon as he had become an aged out-minor he was forcibly removed to his native country, Nigeria , eventually returning to Ireland after strong protests. Green Party Justice Spokesperson, Ciaran Cuffe TD said “It is a cruel punishment to allow someone to set up a new life and then take it away again.” However Kunle’s case is not an isolated incident. Residents in Athlone and Monaghan protested when women and children who had sought refuge there were told they were to be deported.
Asylum seekers in Ireland, along only with Demark in the EU, directly prevents asylum seekers from gaining paid employment. As such the long process involved with asylum applications has lead to huge costs, not only to the state but to the applicants themselves. However Minster McDowell’s recent comments concerning the alleged “cock and bull stories” attributed to applications from various asylum seekers, could have threatened the liberal stance shown by recent polls suggesting that the Irish population are not adverse to the idea of asylum seekers gaining some form of employment within the state. Add to this the fact that some of the asylum seekers abuse the system and this tarnishes the reputation of the majority of those seeking asylum and can prejudice public opinion leading to deportations of deserving cases. It is correct that politicians should show up abuses where these exist but it should not stereotype all asylum seekers because of the behaviour of the few. The challenge is to put in place a system that treats all applicants with dignity and fairness and that each case is treated on its own merits rather than the integrity of the asylum system being interpreted as a way to ensure that deportation is the only option.
The minister is also on record as saying that he would, if not prevented by the UN Convention, prefer to turn asylum seekers back on arrival in Irelandrather than let them stay. He did not however, comment on the fact that for every five people seeking asylum in Irelandanother four are turned back or refused entry.
The UN convention provides for certain standards to be met, stating that any countries reception policy should prepare the applicant simultaneously for both outcomes, either their deportation or their integration. The integration policy must include ways by which minority and majority groups can develop a new way of living, integrating both sets of values and ideas. An integrated society means that everyone finds their place and between all the constituent elements there are no fundamental divisions. Anyone applying for asylum should face no discrimination; however there may be differentiation in the services provided by the host country.
Integration and assimilations are two different concepts that require building new bridges of understanding. Strong community liaison programmes are essential. Planning should draw on the views of the asylum seekers, refugees and the local community. When these needs are satisfied a new effective and ongoing relationship with the local community is built which in turn will facilitate interrogation.
Large-scale immigration has a permanent place in Irish society. The number of migrant workers entering Ireland since May 2004 is now higher than the total number of asylum seekers entering Ireland since the foundation of the Irish state. The number seeking asylum in Ireland in 2004 was half that of Cyprus or Slovakia and of these approximately 8 out of every 10 applications in Ireland ended in the application being refused. Ireland needs to show that it is truly a multicultural country that accepts peoples from all parts of the globe, treats each and every one the same and applies the same rights to everyone of every creed. Despite the recent rise in tension and risk of terrorist attacks, we need to have an open country. The Ministers biased comments can only inflame the debate, he needs to change stance otherwise it is fair to assume that Ireland will treat with contempt and marginalisation these new communities. The Asylum process needs to be transparent, decisions made against various asylum seekers need to be made available and a Refugee Advisory board set up to insure that all cases are given a fair hearing. Asylum seekers should be able to live in dignity both whilst their application is being processed and also once a decision on their application has been made.
"Bloody well get on and do it, otherwise I'll head-butt you!"
"Bloody well get on and do it, otherwise I'll head-butt you!" overheard talking to Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams at talks running up to the Good Friday Agreement. Mo Mowlem who died 19 August 2005
So we loose another great politician of our time. One of the unsung heroes on Modern Day politics yet someone who achieved so much. She was the leading figure in the Good Friday Agreement, she stood up for what she thought and believed. She, like Robin Cook who died earlier this month, stood up against the Iraq war stating publicly that "I don't think it was right and I don't think it was legal but I don't have enough legal knowledge to be 100% sure of the latter,".
Tony Blair described her as "a natural politician, could read a situation and analyse and assess it as fast as anyone". but Mo was more than a politician, she told it how it was, whether you liked it or not. She wasn't afraid to put herself up to be shot down and not just in the political arena but also in the media. She was like able, love able and she grew into you. Despite her illness she came back, she carried on when others would have failed. She fought and seemed to be getting over things despite the years of her brain tumour, but in the end the treatment, or a reaction to the treatment causing her to loose her balance and fall never to regain consciousness lead to her end. But one thing is certain there will never be another Mo Mowlem and the world will be a sadder place for it. She wore her heart and herself on her sleeve and what you saw was what you got, something that a lot of politicians lack.
She wasn't afraid to say when something was wrong, she wasn't afraid to talk to all elements to decide the best way forward, as he visit to the Maze prison showed whilst she was Secretary for Northern Ireland. "I didn't negotiate, I didn't do a deal. If you want progress, you ain't going to get it if you don't have talks," on going inside the Maze prison to meet Loyalists in a bid to restart the peace process. She would talk to everyone to figure out the correct position and as she stated herself, "Everyone has got to give a little. No-one is going to get 100% of what they want. If everybody is willing to accept some change, we can do it," urging a spirit of compromise on the eve of the Good Friday agreement in 1998.
She will be missed.
Tomorrow
60 years ago tomorrow 100,000 people lost their lives in a second. The World entered a new phase of development and world war two was over. Was it right to drop the worlds first atomic bomb? what did this signal? As we approach the worlds first nuclear terrorist bomb, which will surely happen within the next few months or years what can we say about the decision to use nuclear weapons. Firstly did it effect the outcome, of this there can be little doubt, the war was over quicker due to the use of nuclear weapons as at the time no one else had such an arsenal and therefore with all the power and destruction that could be wreaked by using such a weapon led to a quicker ending of the war in the Pacific. But let us not forget that the war in Europe was already over, and this without the need to use nuclear weapons, although some could argue that the fire bombing of Dresden was akin to using such a device. Were lives saved, again one could argue that the indiscriminate destruction of 100,000 men, women and children, led to the saving of millions of other lives, but what a cost. It seems almost like taking a sledge hammer to open a walnut only to find the fragments all over the place and then preceding to eat them.
But what terror was put upon the world by the first use of nuclear weapons, both the West and the East in the times of the the Cold War came close to using these weapons, from the famous Bay of Pigs to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the pro nuclear people insisting that the deterrent offered by nuclear weapons had meant that the World had not returned to war in this period, and the anti nuclear people stating that the increase in tensions between nations had been made worse by having nuclear weapons. Now there are treaties in place limiting the use of nuclear weapons although it is doubtful that any side is sticking to these treaties nor will they ever do for once one has something of such power are they ever likely to relinquish that power, one feels not. Also new countries who are new to nuclear power can be seen to be developing a nuclear strategy that must surely include the development of weapons, their argument being that as their neighbours have such power why shouldn't they, these weapons being used as a deterrent rather than as a means to force, but time will tell if this is correct for to be used as a deterrent one side has to strike or attempt to strike first.
Terrorists kill, they kill innocent people as a means to an end. They see the indiscriminate killing of their brothers and want to take the war to the places from which the terror comes. They see it as a legitimate means of getting back. There is a very good article in today's Guardian that highlights this and I would encourage anyone to read it. The birth of 'mere terror' by Geoffrey Wheatcroft. My point is slightly different although I can see where Mr Wheatcroft is coming from, and therefore I think that it is only a matter of time before the terrorists start to use nuclear bombs as this is a way of causing mass panic, mass destruction and as a means to truly force governments to follow the course that the terrorists want. Nail bombs, pipe bombs, suicide bombers all instill an element of panic, they kill but imagine the panic that would ensue if a nuclear bomb was detonated in any city in the world. What would happen? one can only guess at the way the world would react. There would be a drop in the markets, places would be placed out of bounds due to contamination for years rather than weeks, panic would set in with there being a flood of people away from any built up conurbation to the remoteness of the country, there would be mass destabilisation of any power and democracy would have to change, our states of mind would have to change, the death rate would be high and well the long term implications do not bear thinking about.
So 60 years on what have we learnt about the effects of the worlds first use of nuclear weapons, well the main lesson is that they kill vast amounts of people with one strike. Something armies throughout the world have been trying to do, to kill and not be killed. Should we have nuclear weapons, no is the simple answer, but how do we get rid of something that we shouldn't have, you can't just dump them, you can't just blow them up, in fact there is not much you can do with a nuclear weapon once it has been made accept try to dismantle it and hope that the constituent parts don't fall into the wrong hands. In dropping the worlds first bomb the leaders of so called democracies could have brought about their own downfall only they didn't know it at the time, the world waits for the worlds first dirty bomb to be exploded, terror unleashing terror upon the world. I hope it doesn't happen but I have this terrible feeling inside me that it will.
MAST
In the course of my work I get to meet some truly unique people. This was certainly the case on Thursday when I went to take photographs for the MAST project on Mayfield Park. Mayfield park is a mobile home park in South Dublin near Clondalkin and is the home to around 35 families. At the moment South Dublin Council are in the process of building permanent houses for the residents to move into and to commemorate the fact various groups have been documenting the lives of the residents. There is a writers group, a video documentary and my photographic record of the site as well as archives and information that the residents themselves have collected over the course of their lives.
Some of the families have been there since the park opened over 35 years ago and some have always lived in a mobile home and so they are slightly anxious to be moving, so much so that three of the residents have decided to stay in mobiles but in the grounds of the new housing complex, which incidentally is just over the fence from the park they are in now. The majority of their backgrounds is from show business and the circuses that used to travel around Ireland up to the 1980's and some still hit the open road over the summer and still perform or take rides to various shows thereby maintaining the tradition. But all in all such an ecaletic mix of people you are unlikely to meet anywhere. The park has made its own little community where each has a role, each is unique and it appears that each is happy with the space that they have created for themselves. For instance you have Shay the writer, Christy the woodworker, Jim the motorbike man, Caroline the palm reader, Peggy the Picalo player and the new arrival Sister Kathleen from the Prospect Convent, new arrival as she has only been there since the late 1990's so she is still considered to be an outsider, but I gather, without her guts and determination to maintain the society in the Park the residents would not be looking forward to their new homes. Below are a small selection of some of the photographs that I took last week and I for one, wish them ever success. I really enjoyed my day, I met so many amazing people who all wanted to tell their stories, I faced no animosity what so ever and in the end, although an outsider I felt very much at home. They all wanted to ask questions about the cameras, they all wanted to talk, and they were all so friendly so these photos are for them, the residents of Mayfield Park. Thank you.
London, 07.07.05
Die you bastard scum terrorists, just fuck off and die. I know we might not be the best people in the World but we are a dam site better than you who just kill and mane for the sake of it. Do you get some perverse sense of pleasure out of killing innocent people going about their daily lives? What is it with you some kind of sick joke that you get off on, well just fuck off and leave the fucking planet behind as you are nothing but a bunch of fucking idiots.
OK so we supported the War, or at least the government of the country did, if you had bothered to look at what the people thought, the million who marched through London in 2003 for the sake of people like you, and this is how you repay them, by blowing their fucking brains out. And you expect sympathy? well just fuck off to another planet. You don't really want the war to end do you otherwise you would have no reason to come over and pick a nice soft target where you knew that you would cause the maximum damage to the greatest number of people, those on undergrounds, those on buses, the majority of whom travel that way, especially by bus, as they cannot afford another way, and what do you do, you just stand there and laugh and pull the fucking trigger then i guess you get so high that you orgasm and well, lets hope they cut you into pieces and you die a horrible death the same as the innocent people you deemed was their day to die today.
And you also know that at this time the G8 summit would be going on so that London was not so well protected as she might have been, you also knew that to get near to any leaders, those with whom you have the real gripe was to be impossible, so you picked on some ordinary people who have families, lives, even people who might support you, did you stop to think of that when you pulled the trigger, the release mechanism on the bombs that you made, no I guess not, you looked at London as being all white, all conservative, all supporting the war, all supporting the inhumane way that people are treated throughout the world, and you thought lets blow the fuckers up. Well now you have, are you satisfied? no I thought not, you want more, well the more you throw the harder we will become. You are not the first to bomb London and I am sure you wont be the last, and like all the rest who have tried you will fail, we as a population will see to that. All you have done is to bring the people closer together, to bring out a spirit of we will survive, so dream on, if you think that you can win this way, others as I said have tried over the past 60 years, from the World War to the IRA, and well, we are still here, still continuing in our daily lives, whereas you, well who really gives a fuck about you, I don't.
(I apolisige for the language in this, but its 13.07 on the day that some people decided to bomb London. London's Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair tells the BBC he knows of "about six explosions", one on a bus and the others related to Underground stations. He says he believes the six affected areas are Edgware Road, King's Cross, Liverpool Street, Russell Square, Aldgate East and Moorgate, but says it is "still a confusing situation". He advises Londoners to "stay where you are - all of London's transport is currently disabled" So my mind wanted to vent its true feelings on the events of this morning, so once again sorry for the language.)
Global Warming
So the President of the USA does not believe that man contributes to global warming? The facts that all the research points to the fact that greenhouse gas emissions is a major contributing factor to global warming seems to go unnoticed and the US continues to reject claims that by not having any policy in place to reduce emissions it is adding to the destruction of the planet.
It also emerges that one of this officers, Philip Cooney who is chief of staff for the White House council on environmental quality, a person who has the power to edit scientific reports without having any scientific knowledge, was a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute. Now call me a cynic, but does this not raise a few eyebrows around the world, that a man who virtually controls environmental policy in the US was the one who would be arguing for there to be no change in the US governments policy towards the use of oil as a fuel, with the use of oil being one of the major contributors towards greenhouse gases.
It also emerges that Mr Cooney also made editorial changes to major scientific documents, that were to be presented to the President, these changes cast doubt over findings that were regarded as mainstream in scientific research. In a 2002 draft report from the government office that co-ordinates research into climate change it is reported that Mr Cooney deleted a paragraph on the projected impact of global warming and altered another using his editorial process to increase the impact of one sentence that went against scientific research. All of which have been taken by the Presidents office as being well within Mr Cooney's remit.
Also we have to look at the Presidents allies on his march to power, and his background and that of his family, not only in their background with the oil industry in the US but also their close ties with the Royal Saudi family, strangely enough another major oil producing country. The picture starts to become a little clearer, does it not? Why would you bite the hand that feeds you? why would you worry about a world that will only face major problems after you have departed this mortal coil? surely one needs to look after ones self before all others? or am I just being unfair. Is it really the case that the Presidents wants more research into the research so that as he says, "My administration isn't waiting around to deal with it; we're acting. We want to know more about it. Easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it." As I say call me cynical, but rather than alter the facts or try to research more research I'll let you make up your own mind.
Labour
So they made it, just but they made it. A significantly reduced majority and hopefully a wake up call to the heads of the party that they cannot treat the public as they have done over the past 5 years, and I say just the past 5 years for these seem to stick in the mind more than any other.
I don't think that Howard ever really got to grips with what we were thinking or that Kennedy has the power to become premier. The only leader with some kind of public face that we can relate to was Blair but still it was difficult to vote for someone who, and I would love to say lied, but I will say miss led the public over a number of issues. not just the war in Iraq but also over education, the health service, basic services et al. It seemed that all Blair wanted to do was to further his position on the global stage, to be seen to be part of the great empire of democracy which was all well and good but he wanted it so much that he forgot one thing, he was always going to be seen as a puppet of the United states and that it was really the President of the US and not the Prime Minister of the UK that pulled the strings. George sent Tony off to do his dirty work and Tony lapped it up thinking of the rewards when it was all over, the place he would hold in history whereas the country fell apart around him but did he care, no.
This election was never really in doubt as there was no alternative, but this election has shown, certainly to the Lib De ms that if they have the right leader or rather the right faced leader for I am sure the Charles Kennedy is as convinced of his cause as anyone but his public face is just not good enough, he needs a public face like that of Blair and if the Lib De ms get someone like that then they will be a force in the next election for I feel that unless Labour do something spectacular this is the last election that they will win for a while.
Another thing that the election has shown us is that the UK needs a system of proportional representation, how come the third largest party with less that 10% fewer votes than the main party has only 10% of the seats and yet they have around 25% of the vote, it might actually work in Labours favour if they introduce PR now before the next election as it might just secure them a victory, otherwise I feel that the new party in charge will be the Lib De ms, it is there's to win in 5 years time, if they follow the signs.
Another thing that has stood out is the way that the UK elections have turned out to be based on personalities and not policy, all about showing the right face to the media and not to the general public, to be seen on the right shows, the right magazines, the face that sells will win.
So to sum up I am happy that Labour won this time, I am happy that the Lib De ms did so well and I hope that they look forward and not back, that they appoint a new leader in the next 2 years, a leader who will lead them forward and take the amazing work of Kennedy forward. Labour need to have a look at the lies they told and to admit them, this would be a huge step in the right direction, as for the tories, well they need to get real, welcome to the real world. So Tony you've been warned, lie again or forget the real issues and that's it, we've given you a chance to put things right, now is the time to do it.
Oxford United
I give up.... Just when things seemed to be going the right way for once, just when we were starting to think that we could get somewhere its all gone. We might as well reappoint Rix, drop to the conference and get it all over and done with. We are just a joke. I had a lot of time for Kassam for all he did for the club but the time has come when he has to get real. We had a manager who could take us places, a team behind him that brought a professional approach to football, you have to invest to succeed.
Kassam states that he wants a manager with experience in this division, well he had one in Atkins and we all know what happened there. If Kassam loves his football so much he has to step back and let people run the football side of his business but people with professional experience, would he want to be the head chef in a top restaurant that he owned, on the way he runs the club one would assume so. I'm so fed up with all this that my spirit for a club I love is almost gone, its hard enough to support a club from another country and now, well, I give up. I used to go to every game until I moved to Ireland 8 years ago, I listen every week to Yellow world (when it works) I struggle to support the club, I try to get back home to co-inside with a home games, I don't think that at the moment I will be bothering again. as I say I was a Kassam fan for the simple reason that without him there would have been no Oxford United, I know it seems harsh but now I wish we had folded and that Kassam had not stepped in.
One sad day for United. One sad day for me as all I can say at the moment is goodbye Oxford United.
UEFA
A Rant
What if that had been an English club? who I hear you ask,Inter Milan is the reply. The punishment that has been handed out by UEFA is a disgrace. A six match ban on spectators, of which 2 are on probation, I ask you, and that is all they get for hitting a player with a flare and getting a game abandoned. Now I ask you what if that had been an English club? we already had a five year ban on English clubs playing in Europe, a ban that was harsh in the extreme and after the recent ban on spectators handed out to inter looks even more harsh. Why do the Italians get a slap on the wrist for their disgraceful behaviour and nothing else. Why not a ban on either them playing in Europe or as should have been the case all Italian clubs playing in Europe. A total ban would seem to be the only way forward to stop all the hooligan element and to send a Sharpe reminder that UEFA still run the game and not the media or the clubs themselves. I mean Mouriniho got a two game touchline ban for raising his finger to his lips and also for reporting an actual, as it turned out, illegal meeting between a referee and the manager of another club, somewhere things don't just add up.
Also this is not the first time that there has been a problem in a European match and an Italian club, or even Inter for that matter. Earlier fans hit the referee with a missile that was thrown from the crowd making it impossible for the referee to continue in the game, the same referee it turns out that Mourinhio saw talking to the opposing manager during the half time interval, the referee who stated publicly that the verbal outburst from Mourniho made him give up refereeing, no mention of the missile that hit him and could have seriously injured him, no that didn't make him give up but words did. Something strange is afoot in the corridors of power.
But going back to the ban handed out by UEFA, its a shame that they missed a chance to be strong, like they were with the English back in the 1980's, and I think that they were right to ban English clubs at that stage, just as I think that they should have at least banned Inter from playing in any European competition for 5 years as well, and maybe all Italian clubs. So when UEFA start complaining about a manager and his comments, let them eat a bit of humble pie, let them not be dis swayed from handing out a major punishment rather than a token gesture, the ban they imposed, and I know I am repeating myself, is a total disgrace.
Bullying
No matter how much you yet to wipe it out, certainly in the united kingdom, bullying is going to happen. It is a fine line between who is the perpetrator and the abused, and it is an abuse, make no mistake about it, it is one of the worst experiences that one can go through, and trust me I know I was. Now people might look at me and think him but he is huge how could someone like that get bullied but trust me they do. In my case, like that of patch, my son, it was exactly because we were bigger than most of the kids of our class and also because we didn't want to fight back, it had been installed in both of is from an early she that to hit someone was wrong and something that one didn't do no matter how much we were provoked. How I now realise that this was the wrong course of action and if I had smacked someone as hard as I could then it would have stopped, a lesson I am not ashamed I tried to install in patch at the weekend. I can are you all raise your hands in horror at the suggestion but to me it is the only way.
From both mine and patches experiences, all be them 30 years apart, are still the same. Forget all the school heads saying that they want to get rid of bullying, it won't happen, for a start they do not have the power to do so, as in the physical power over the children. They are scarred to believe 100% the child who says he is being bullied I can are their reason but quite frankly until they do it will never stop as kids such as Patch and I will stop reporting the incidents.
On top of this is the culture, something that the heads do not have control over. There is in schools the culture that it is cool to do nothing, to not achieve is to be king, to do nothing and get away with it. The ones who do work are cursed and ridiculed beyond comprehension and so the school billy wins. They will always disrupt and destroy and until this culture is taken out of society and role models are there of people who had to work at school this will continue. Now I have nothing against the god like status to which we place some but we need to temper the types and to mix cultures, unfortunately those whom are idolised specialise in activities that did not or do not require an educational background. How we change it I am not sure but until we do kids will feel that if they do nothing they could still become one of the chosen few, for they forget that those who are idolised put in a tremendous amount of work on their speciality, something the majority seem to forget and feel that it is handed to them on a plate and can be in turn handed onto them in such a way.
Bullying has to stop. When was it right for one kid to determine the fate of another through violence? To destroy all hope and to render one person a failure when in fact that person should be considered the winner for the bullied is normally the person who wants to achieve. Its not so much the schools that have to change, although they do need to, it is society in general. We need to use our brains in schools not our fists, we need to educate but also to advise, our teachers to teach but also for them to be taught. The education system in the UK has to be one of the worst in Europe and unfortunately it is fast becoming a role model for others, other countries who produce far better thinkers and experts that the UK ever will. Long gone are the times of Victorian values where children should be seen and not heard, certainly in the classroom they should be taught to question, to debate and to open their minds rather than the abject opinion on the teacher, dictated to from on high via the national curriculum that what the teacher says is right for to follow them will get you through the exams. When one leaves school one does not have the ability to question but again is blindly lead, we need to question, we need to feel that it is our right to question but we need society to allow us to question and this must come from the kids.
Jose
Jose Mourinho was hailed as the savour of English football when he arrived from European Champions Porto back in the summer, his style was a breath of fresh air and he was hailed by all, including the media who treated him as a God. But how things have changed, he has brought or should that be bought, Chelsea's first silver-wear, he is on top of the English Premiership, in the last eight of the European Cup and has a team of professional players who play for him. Now one would see this as testament to his managerial skills, but oh no, he has been successful and so the English press have gone into full reverse, now Mourinho is the devil incarnate.
Now, forgive me if I am wrong but didn't Sir Alex make the same comments during his time at Manchester? Of course he did, when did you ever find anyone who was at the top of his profession be a kind hearted and friendly to all man type of human, the two don't go hand in hand. One has to be ruthless to reach the top, one has to be not afraid to walk all over everyone else to get to the top, to offend is part and parcel to get there and this is what Mourniho has done, he is a perfectionist, he wants and demands the best and I guess he sometimes oversteps the mark. SO why then do the media virafile him so much more than Ferguson? Well we all like the Scots, don't we, they are part of our isle, sorry to all our Scottish friends yes you are part of the the United Kingdom, don't worry we feel the same, but anyhow he is Scottish, he won the European Cup for a so called English club and so he must be a saint, dream on, as I mentioned before anyone who reaches the top of anything is certainly not a saint. And so to poor old Jose, why do they not like him, well he's not Scottish, he's Portuguese, and well they don't speak English, and they must be near France, give or take a few thousand miles, and if they are not near France then they are Europeans, and we all know what we think of Europeans at the moment don't we, they are French, aren't they? He speaks his mind, he is convinced that he is the best and that the Chelsea side he has put together is the best in the World, and at the moment who would argue with him, yes even you Manchester and Arsenal supporters would have to agree that Chelsea are far and away the best team in England and certainly the United Kingdom, if not after their demolition of Barcelona one of the best in Europe so surely that gives Mourinho the right to be slightly arrogant, of course it does, don't we all when we see a job well done? The main problem at the moment is that we are trying to steal the game back from the money grabbers to whom we gave it a number of years ago when it seemed like a great idea to sell the rights to Sky and the media empire of football rolled into town. Anyone who controls the media has control over its destination and so our football became like the American version, dictated to by money. Now we are trying to reclaim the beautiful game this arrogance cannot be tolerated, or so the media say for it takes away from what they can write. For years now journalists could hook up their season tickets to Old Trafford, sit in lavish executive seats and know that they would be at the centre of the attention for any comments would come from Sir Alex, and here they were ready and waiting. Then along came the French invasion of North London and so it worked that they could work closer from home every other week and Manchester the other but now, oh no they have to be near the river, North London and Manchester all at the same time and poor lads, how can they do it, ah by knocking one so hard that he is either forced out or leaves, and as he is not French, but Portuguese, and we have nothing against the Portuguese, he became an easy target but one feels the media might just have bitten off more than it can chew with Mourinho. So is he really Darth Vader in disguise or just someone who is at the top of his profession? well we all know the answer to that, and as for Sir Alex criticising referees, no never, least not for the last 10 minutes. And as is typical with the British Media, after they have built someone up to be a superstar once they are sucessful then lets see how quickly we can knock him down. Think of how many times this has happened in the past and I am sure will happen again in the future, so come on, don;t tell me you guys in the media wouldn't sell your granny for that scoop of the season for we all know you would, making you no more of a saint or devil than Jose Mourinho.
The Dream
The dream is over, the fame and the glory that was to be theirs is no longer. The dream has been. Torn up and the directions burnt any left to smolder in the grate. Its not often that the north and south suffer such events in common, but after this weekend the dram of the grab d slam lies thee destroyed as much as sunn feins hopes of a good patricks day in their usual hunting grounds across the pond. In some rearcys the welcome that they will receive will be as welcome as that of a leader from the so called axis of evil.
The statement by the ira last week has left plenty of red faces both north and south of the border, the once usual bounce on republican sides has gone along with the herb and white football shirts, these are now well hidden under sweaters and jackets, thee is an embarressed silence and this is paddys week, of all weeks.
It will be interesting to are how the events in the north impact on the week ahead, how much out flowing of national joy might be slightly tapered as its not so par say amongst the normal people any more. Most bornal people feel that no matter how much of a good cause republicism us, one cannot just go around not just dispemaing justice for we all know that they have been dispensing their own brand of justice ufor years, but to openly sendc a press realiase staybh that there had been an offer to shoot those involved, still it beggers belief, still it makes you think that some one made a mistake surly this was t what they meant to say, but it seems it was, they did offer to shoot those involved, and on too of this thee was a air afterwards from them that they could not are what was wrong with the statement, that's the way it is. So the whole situation has placed all is pro one nation supporters in a difficult position for although we want a united Ireland, we must question all the ethics that have brought us to this point and how can we trust those who state they want the same aims, if this is how they state it, America has already given me Adams a bloody nose, maybe they should be dispensed the same sort of justice as propsed before, I guess not.
Ireland Today...
Ireland it seems could descend into chaos, the IRA last night all but suspended the peace process after comments by the Irish and British governments blaming them for the bank raid in the North late last year along with other comments calling into question their decommissioning acts and the need for photographic evidence as requested by the loyalists. This might be a good time to leave this island for pastures new, if the peace process ends as things could get a whole lot worse before they get better both here in the South and also in the UK. I have to sympathise with the IRA's position and also that of Sin Fein. Both governments and also the PSNI need to produce evidence to show that the IRA was or was not involved in the raid. Under UK law you are innocent until proved guilty and as there has to date been no evidence brought to the public domain except the declarations by both governments to the effect that they know the IRA was involved, so please come out and prove it before it's too late. It seems too easy to blame a paramilitary organisation, and due to the British stance there was no chance that the British would blame the loyalists for the raid at the risk of upsetting Dr Paisley and co.
At this rate there could well be a return to the bad old days where death and destruction reigned down not only on the streets of Northern Ireland but in the UK and to some extent in the South as well. If there is a return to the hostilities that once occurred I have this fear that it will be a lot lot worse. Both paramilitary organisations could open an open war With each other with anyone or any place considered as a legitimate target. The spread of Terrorism and terrorist tactics over the past few years has shown how little human life is respected and that the more destruction is caused the more media coverage it gets and so the more likely it is to occur again.
It is strange to be in Ireland and watch the Northern Irish news at the moment. I haven't seen the news from the North today but almost everyday there is some instance of paramilitary style shootings, security alerts, riots, all related to the troubles and all delivered by the various news stations in such a manner that it shows you that these events are everyday occurrences and this is all with the backdrop of a ceasefire and the Good Friday agreement, imagine if you can what it would be like without it? it does not bare thinking about.
Where do we go from here, there needs to be a cessation of all blame on the IRA until evidence can be produced. We have seen over the past few years where certain governments have tried to influence their respective populations over intended action by saying that they have evidence proving that certain things occurred. As Tony Blair once stated, "if you knew what I know" well we did, we knew there was nothing and here we are once again being asked to trust not just one but two governments on what they know without telling us what they know, well Mr Blair and Mr Ahern we don't believe you unless you show us what you know. The whole situation is far too serious to just throw around allegations against one side because it looks politically sound to. Don't forget that Mr Ahern represents the so called Republican party in the South, however, Sin Fein have made huge in-roads into the political system in not only the UK but in the South of Ireland and now are if not the second party in the South they are certainly the third largest and so Mr Ahern with his comments was not so much denouncing the IRA but trying to score points against another large party in the South by trying to discredit them. Well it looks as if it has backfired, so show us the evidence, show us what you know and we and Sin Fein might just believe you. Until that time please shut up.
Elections..
There is to be a general election in Saudi Arabia in the near future. Nothing surprising there you might think, one of the dominant states in the middle east holding an election. I mean we have just had the mother of all elections in Iraq where anyone who was old enough to vote was eligible to vote to as to produce an elected government that could take Iraq forward to the next level of democracy. So why should elections in Saudi Arabia be any different? well only around a quarter of the population are eligible to vote, men. Women do not have the vote in Saudi elections. Will America call into question the ethics of such an election? will there be outcry from the President at this in that shouldn't everyone have the right to vote, will these elections be considered free and democratic, of course they will, this is Saudi Arabia we are talking about, not that I have anything against Saudi Arabia not at all, but standards Mr President are standards and what you consider should be imposed in one country surely you should make sure are followed through in others, oh whoops I forgot, oil. The fact that Saudi Arabia has Trillions of dollars invested in US companies, and UK companies for that matter just so that I cannot be labelled with being biased, the fact that it holds some of the largest oil fields in the world, the fact that Mr Bush senior and a lot of business associates of the US administration have business relationships with Saudi Companies has nothing to do with the silence that will come from Washington, oh no whats good enough for one needn't necessarily good for the other, especially when they are our friends.
Image...
Has the world gone image mad? Labour have withdrawn their posters of the Tory leadership, firstly portrayed as flying pigs because it was deemed to be anti-Semitic, which i guess on reflection it might be although I am sure that the old adage was not considered so at the time. So we have to be careful when we are thinking in the future when someone says that they can move the world for us that the sky will turn pink and we run for out ponchos to keep off the huge amounts of brown stuff that might fall from the sky that the person we are thinking this about might take offence to it. It seems that today free speech is anything but free. We appear to be even more restricted in what we can say for to offend anyone is the greatest sin on the planet at the moment. The more that we feel we cannot offend the more we will restrict what we can say. To challenge anyone or any ones comments is strictly taboo. We are all allowed our own thoughts so long as we don't actually say them, just ask Rod Marsh who was sacked by Sky last week for a comment he made about the Tsunami, a comment that was in bad taste, but a comment that if it had been made by a comedian on stage would have been passed over and no comment would have been made, not so much because it was in bad taste but because it was far from funny. Now I am not standing up for the labour party or Mr Marsh but just using these to highlight how far we are being censored in our democratic country of free speech. But this is not just a British disease, this is something that effects a majority of the western world, the President of Ireland, Mary McAleese was last week condemned for her remarks over the teaching methods applied in the North, comments that she obviously thought needed to be said, OK she could have picked a better analogy than she did, but none the less the point she wanted to make was lost not because her thoughts were wrong but because she offended. Now isn't she allowed to speak her mind, she was a world leader who made a comment, a comment that to her was valid, something she won't do again. I wonder what would be said about Bob Geldoff if he was to come out with his famous 1985 comment at Live aid on BBC TV of give us your fucking money? the headlines I guess today would read "Geldoff in horrific 4 letter outburst" with a whole article about expletives on TV rather than the bigger issue of poverty in Africa. Has the world lost sight of its values?
I think a fitting foot note to this would be the article that I have just written for a Dublin magazine, "Inside Business", just god forbid that anyone takes offence to it as its my censored version on free speech. How good is your image? Lets just hope we don't offend anyone with one of our images.
Today, more so than ever before, your business depends on its image. We are bombarded with images everyday, through television. the computer and advertising. It is these images that you are competing against. You might feel that you cannot put the resources that a large multinational company can invest in its corporate image and to an extent this is true, but in order to make a good first impression you need to invest in good corporate imagery.
Despite what you might have heard in the corporate sector, image is everything. In the past, what might have seemed like a saving in using a self prepared document to distribute amongst your clients will today not suffice. Now you need to show your company in the best possible light and failure to do this will only be false economy.
The next time you are looking through a sales catalogue, a magazine or a newspaper, pay attention. What is the first thing that springs to mind? Which images strike you? Which adverts prick your attention? Not so much because you are interested in that product or service but because it is aesthetically pleasing. If you remember an image then the designer has succeeded in their remit. Good design is the key, the use of strategically placed text and images that capture the imagination of the target audience.
Each company has different requirements as each one has a specific and unique selling point. Therefore, the same principles have to be applied to your corporate image. Make sure that your corporate image is consistent and not disjointed, make sure the design company you use makes good use of space, as white space is as important as any text. The photographs or illustrations that you use should not crowd the page, but let the design flow. Recommendations vary from the use of stock images or illustrations but the most important factor to keep in mind is: do you want to take the risk of seeing the images you have used on your design used in your competitors design? In some instances, such as a generic service like travel or freight, mobile phones and televisions, this might not be a cause for concern, but if you have your own product then one would recommend that you utilise good commercial product shots taken by a professional photographer rather than generic stock images.
To produce the right design for your company it is important to utilise the services of a professional team. Using a professional company is a major cost consideration, but like all business decisions if you want something that will promote your business, gain you a competitive advantage then you will need to invest in it. The level of investment and the professionals you employ is up to you, but remember your corporate Image is the public face of your company, it is as important as your sales force. So invest wisely on your corporate image don't leave it to chance.
by Ian Oliver - Letcombe (2005)
The shooting has to stop.
Will the violence really stop? Now the Iraqi people have voted in a an election so contrived by the United States and we wait for the result will the shooting stop, will the suicide bombers stop, the hostage taking, the beheading of foreign nationals. Now come on what do you think. One side has to win, no matter how Democratic the result might be one side will always assume that it has had a raw deal and will seek vengeance against the imperialist armies massed inside its country. So the fighting will never stop. The longer this war goes on the more it is like Vietnam only this time there will be no saving of face my the American government. This time there has been so much negative feeling before the war started and such a further proving that the so called reasons for going to war were false in the first place that when the pull out comes, not because of any predetermined timetable but because after a number of years the body count has lead to the US people demanding a withdrawal of their troops, the American government will have no where to hide. Although I suspect the perpetrators of the war in Iraqi will be long gone it will be their successors who have to pick up the pieces left for them.
To use an analogy look at the situation in Northern Ireland, after over 30 years the British Army is still based in the province, despite there having been democratic elections, the signing of a peace process and the awarding of Nobel Peace prizes, the army are still there and, I guess, according to some factions, the war still goes on. The same I think will happen in Iraq. But what of those who have tried to make sure that there is true peace in Iraq, those who work of the aid agencies, those who are looking not so much at profit but human concern, those that have given their lives to help the people that the US and UK displaced whit the war, they shall not grow old like we that are left go old, age will not weary them nor the years condem, at the going down of the sun and in the morning, I am sure, that no one will remember them.
A Series of unfortunate events - Friday Morning Ramblings...
Two things today stand out from the paper. The first that there is to be a musical being made about the life and times of David Blunkett the ex home secretary of the United Kingdom, The producers of the show stated that following Mr Blunkett's rise and fall, no doubt similar to that of the infamous Reginald Perrin, would provide "huge entertainment potential" (Daily Telegraph - Friday 28 January 2005) and why not? I mean the catalogue of events that led up to the former home Secretaries resignation would fill the pages of a novel that no one would buy least of all for entertainment value as no one would believe the plot and how a man in his position could hope to get away with it whiteout the facts coming to light.
On another matter, but one that might be connected, one never knows and judging by the pending musical about a certain Mr Blunkett maybe this should be added as a sub plot. What it is it I hear you cry? well its a report in the paper about prisoners from an open prison in West Sussex who pop out to pick up their drink and food from the local Tescos. Now we are not talking about coke or crisps, oh no, we are talking about Larger, whiskey, Southern Comfort to wash down the smoked Salmon that they purchased at the same time. The report also goes on to say that prisoners are trying to escape not to get away from the enforced incarceration that they have been sentenced to, oh no, but at the rate of about 11 per month they are trying to escape to get away from the drink culture that prevails inside the prison itself. Now this obviously has a funny side to it, but lets for one second consider the unfunny part, the more serious side, surely, and correct me if I am wrong a prison is a place for correction, to teach these unruly elements of society the values of right and wrong and not to allow them to wander the streets causing more annoyance and destruction? or have I got this totally wrong? Am I living in a minority of one when I feel that if someone is sent to prison then in prison they should stay in prison until the time of their parole or the end of their sentence? How can one learn the errors of their ways if one is allowed to go out and purchase home comforts from the local supermarket, to imbibe, to eat fine foods, and all at Her Majesty's pleasure. I sure she is delighted that her fellow citizens are having such a wonderful time of it for her pleasure. And one final comment on this, who is paying for it? The prisoner? You? Me? And does this form of correction work, if so can I sign up, what crime do I have to commit to be allowed to enter such an establishment for I would prefer this form of detention rather than being subjected to David Blunkett - the musical, now there's a thought, prisoners running scared from the theatre into the nearest Tescos, and in this instance I think I would certainly not blame them.
Lest we forget.....
Tonight there is a concert in the Convento do Bom Sucesso in Lisbon. How do I know this, well two weeks ago I finished the invites for it here in Dublin. The concert is by Anuna an Irish group who specialise in traditional Irish music. They were part of the Riverdane revolution that swept the world back in the late 1990's and to some extent still exists today. Not that I was ever a great fan of Riverdance, I never saw it nor the whole traditional music scene but i do feel that it is important for traditional cultural activities to exist in today's world so that people can at least sample some of the examples that one particular country has to offer rather than the total domination by man made groups and singers that seem to predominate certainly the music scene at the moment.
As for other traditional values, well here I am not quite so certain that they should survive. Here I am the attitudes of people to events and times that have long since past and in some cases although they should not be forgotten we should at least learn from these experiences and move on. Certain values can still be found in a majority of places, taking Ireland for example where there is still a large anti-British feeling despite the fact that Southern Ireland has been an independent country for well over 80 years now, surely its time to move on. I've lived in Ireland for over 8 years now, nearly a quarter of my life and certainly well over a third of my working life and during this time I have personally faced insults about "my" past, the fact that I am English and what the English did to communities over here. Now I am not for one second saying that these atrocities did not happen, they did, and for the people concerned it was a terrible tragedy and should be remember in a way that both educates and also remembers those people who suffered or gave their lives under the persecution from colonisers. But to be insulted for something that neither you nor any of your relations were involved with and only because you come from a certain country over events that happened over 80 years ago is ridiculous. I mean how can I have any bearing on UK foreign policy at time, I wasn't born till 40 years after they gained independance. So we need to educate people. both the persecuted and the persecutors so that each can live together.
Cricket to a foreign visitor.
Cricket is a strange game. I have played it for years since I was a young lad and still I find it hard to explain the game to anyone who has never seen it. I mean how can you describe a game that goes on for days, days in which there is the possibility of the game ending with no result and yet it is still as enthralling on day 5 as it was on day 1. A game that lasts for 90 overs per day in test cricket and yet somehow the one day game manages 100 overs per day and you at least get a result. A team game and yet at the same time a game where only 2 or 3 people take part at any one time and a game where it is the individual skill of one player can determine the result beyond any shadow of a doubt and yet it is still the team that is celebrated. Add to this the fact that the weather still in 2005 plays such an important part in the outcome. Not just the rain but the light and this in an age when every test ground has floodlights. How can the situation occur when with exactly the same team of players that it is fine to play under floodlights with a white ball well into the night and yet at the same time it is against regulations to play under floodlights in test cricket and so bad light stops play, surely the rules need to be changed.
These are not the only problems that I face when I try to describe the game to someone who doesn't understand it but only go to show the problems that one is faced with, if we get deeper into the rules the situation gets even worse. You try explaining the LBW rule, and I've tried over a number of years to totally comprehend the absurdity of the LBW rule. Lets look at it from my point of view. I used to bowl medium pace with the new ball, never did much with it, I mean it was only village cricket Saturday league style for my local village team so we are not talking about test standard cricket. Still my main problem is that I am left handed and bowl left arm over the wicket. Now to the average person that may not sound like a huge problem but I can assure you it is. It takes away one of the methods of taking a wicket which right arm bowlers do not appreciate, nor it seems does the rule makers. How I hear you ask, well it is almost impossible to get anyone out LBW. The law clearly states that the ball has to pitch in line with the stumps and not outside the line of leg stump for the batsman to be out. Now for a left arm over bowler this is almost impossible unless you can move the ball by some considerable distance, a case that would instill doubt in the mind of the umpire and so the batsman needs to be given the benefit of any doubt, something we would all agree with. Bowling at such an angle means that any ball on a length on the stumps will miss off stump by a large margin, yet if you bowl on the same angle from right arm over the wicket it seems as if it is totally acceptable for the umpire to give the batsman out LBW, so why not for left arm over bowlers? well to do so would mean to pitch the ball outside leg stump and as any delivery outside leg stump means the batsman cannot be given out LBW then this can not happen but why is this? The rule makers argue that it would encourage negative bowling, but surely if used correctly it would improve the game, encourage better batsmen to play shots and give left handed people more of a chance in the game. We have seen how difficult it is for right arm bowlers to bowl at left handed people and how left handed batsmen have come to dominate world cricket, is this because of this rule, they feel safer due to the fact that the ball, if pitched up and to hit the stumps has to be pitched outside their leg stump and so they have less chance of being given out LBW? So surely this rule needs to be addressed, the rule makers have made it so that a certain number of overs must be bowled in a day to encourage positive results, the players themselves have responded to this and now we see test matches where to not get a result, which used to be the norm, replaced by games where one or the other side wins, and so there must be a way to ensure that negativity comes into play. I am sure it would enhance the game and even improve batting and bowling skills, whilst I agree, placing a greater strain on the umpires but with the advances in technology then this can be overcome.
I started this by asking how you explain the game of cricket to someone who has never seen it, and here i end up by looking for a rule change, a change I feel is for the better, so how does one explain cricket? Is it just a game to be understood by a few or is it a game for the masses? I hope the latter as cricket is one of the most impressive spectator sports I know.
Women in the history of art
Throughout art history there has been the idea of “feminine stereotype” of decorative arts and crafts and a “masculine stereotype” of high art. This idea was steeped in the ideals of European academic theory and helped to undermine the status of decorative arts and crafts in relation to high art. Chicago has addressed this idea of separation in the “Dinner Party” with the inclusion of ceramic painting and the use of decorative design as a central part of the work. But how should we value decorative arts and crafts, in relation to art as a whole. Feminist theory has struggled to agree on how arts and crafts “should be reconceptualized” raising the question whether decorative arts and crafts deserve to be included in the canon of art and of what values should be used to define the status of objects of art and who should decide whether or not they should be included in the canon.
What or who defines greatness was the criteria set by Rozsika Parker and Griselda Pollock in their 1981 book Old Mistresses: women, Art and Ideology. They look at the current criteria on which we judge good or bad, arguing that they were set and are still being set on values that could no longer be applied. These values are severely detrimental to women and women artists, thus the status of the female artist throughout twentieth century was not being judged fairly in relation to their male counterparts.
Art history is male dominated. The cultural and political environment in which art was produced had a distinct impression on the status of women artists and the type of work they could produce. The concept and status of women was firmly in-trenched in societies values and what a woman could and couldn’t do and what they could study were all dictated by society. The academies merely served to carry on the tradition of male dominance that existed in society. After the Renaissance there was a limited status professionally and academically available to women artists. In France, after the revolution, women were not admitted to the Ecole des Beaux, this continued until 1897. Women were members of the academies, four being allowed at one time at L’academie in France and two women artists in England were founder members of the Royal Academy, but in both instances they had very limited rights and the subjects that were able to study were restricted. The Academies’ obsession with the separation of 'high art' from guilds not only created a hierarchy within male society but further weakened the position of women who, already excluded from guilds unless a male relative was a member, were predominantly involved in decorative arts and crafts.
Exclusion from the Academies meant that the work of women artists was not taken seriously except some rare exceptions. Art was considered as a predominantly masculine trait. The concepts and brushwork involved, as well the cultural understanding of the historical settings illustrated, could only be interpreted by a male artist. Art that women produced was expected to be of a set style, such as portraiture, still-life or decorative arts and crafts. The structure of the academies went well beyond the nature of what women could do, as they formed the basis for the canon of art. If women were excluded from the academies it therefore followed that they were excluded from the canon of art.
Some women did manage to make an impact in the academies, Artemisia Gentileschi (c. 1597-1651/3) was the first woman admitted to the Florentine Academy, Elisabeth-Louise Vigee-Lebrun (1755-1842) was admitted to the Academy in Paris and Angelica Kauffman (1741 – 1807) was one of the founder members of the Royal Academy. Generally though these examples are very rare. However there is evidence that more women artists exhibited in the exhibitions of the Royal Academy, thereby showing that despite the restriction placed upon them they were still able to produce work that was considered of a suitable standard to be displayed.
In art the portrayal of the female form was usually associated as an item of beauty, certainly from a male perspective. The female form was used as an allegory to suggest associations with and to display symbols and events associated with non-female depictions, such as justice, freedom, loyalty. But could it not be considered that male artists also used the male form, and the idea of classical arts to perfect male form in a similar way? The history paintings that were considered to be such high art by the academies contain numerous examples of the perfect male form, so could it not be argued that male artists not only used the female form to personify beauty but also the male form in an attempt to portray the perfect human form.
It has been argued that women artists depict women in a different way to male artists, that the female perception is different to a male perception. Male perception is normally more concentrated on sexuality whereas a woman’s perspective is more akin to normality, to portray women as not just an object of desire but also as a person. Of course the type of depiction also depends on the type of painting, whether it was for public or private consumption; whether to advertise a painter’s skills, where her beauty could be admired over her skill (women still had to appear feminine and virtuous whilst doing this); or whether the painting was being produced to show female beauty.
With regards to the different techniques employed by women and male artists I would like to quickly consider two examples. The first is Joshua Reynolds’ portrait of “The Temple Family” 1780-82 and Angelica Kauffman’s portrait of “The Ely Family” 1711. The groupings in the two paintings are of particular interest, in Reynolds’ painting the father holding the child dominates the main body of the picture, the father is standing and his son is also standing on a chair which makes his height just below that of his father but above the height of his mother