Injustice incorporated

Shocking - that is the first incredulous conclusion after reading the article in the NY Times of today on American justice courts. As it turns out, justice court is a misnomer for a large number of these institutions that often occupy premises more reminiscent of a farm barn or a workshop.

"Some of the courtrooms are not even courtrooms: tiny offices or basement rooms without a judge'’s bench or jury box. "

These courts are supposed to bring affordable justice to common people in small towns in backyard districts. Instead, according to a NY Times report following a year long investigation, dependents are often denied proper recourse to law, unfairly judged, unduly sentenced and obstructed from an appeal through utterly incompetent court transcriptions, if any.

"People have been sent to jail without a guilty plea or a trial, or tossed from their homes without a proper proceeding. In violation of the law, defendants have been refused lawyers, or sentenced to weeks in jail because they cannot pay a fine."

The judges are often incompetent.

"Some 1,140 justices have received some sort of reprimand over the last three decades - an average of about 40 a year, either privately warned, publicly rebuked or removed. They are seriously disciplined at a steeper rate than their higher-court colleagues."

"For the nearly 75 percent of justices who are not lawyers, the only initial training is six days of state-administered classes, followed by a true-or-false test so rudimentary that the official who runs it said only one candidate since 1999 had failed."

There is little control over these courts and the judges that run these institutions.

"State court officials know little about the justices, and cannot reliably say how many cases they handle or how many are appealed. Even the agency charged with disciplining them, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, is not equipped to fully police their vast numbers."

These courts are prevalent in a majority of states in the USA.

"New York is one of about 30 states that still rely on these kinds of local judges, descendants of the justices who kept the peace in Colonial days, when lawyers were scarce."

These courts handle not just trivial cases such as speeding offences either.

"It is tempting to view the justice courts as weak and inconsequential because the bulk of their business is traffic violations. Yet among their 2.2 million cases, the courts handle more than 300,000 criminal matters a year."

Small wonder that this travesty of law and justice is the order of day: A judge of a justice court can be appointed willy-nilly - as long as the person is elected!

"The reason is plain: Many do not know or seem to care what the law is. Justices are not screened for competence, temperament or even reading ability. The only requirement is that they be elected. But voters often have little inkling of the justicesÂ’ power or their sometimes tainted records."

The article in the NY Times continues to cite examples of abuse and incompetence by these justice court judges.

In defense of the system of justice courts, it is argued that the benefits to people outweigh the rotten spots. However, in reality this system is the remnants of a thirteen century English system of layman law for lowly cases. Unfortunately, modern times have left this system behind and exposed it for the folly it is today: a band of cavalier henchmen who reign supreme over their little local fiefdoms, often providing anchor points for wholesale nepotism and prejudice on a local scale.

Not in Britain, the Netherlands, both ex-colonial powers; or South Africa, an ex-colony of both forementioned countries, is there today any such aberration of justice as the justice courts of the USA, a country that prides itself on being a land of laws. Perhaps it would be better served by setting its own house in order rather than preaching to other countries about justice.

Not by the sword

Pope Benedict XVI has put his foot squarely in it during last Tuesday with his speech at the University of Regensburg, Germany. And he is still attempting to extract it so he can carry on with his tour to Turkey.

Once again Muslims are up in arms, some taking the opportunity to go on a rampage and in doing so, ironically affirm the view expressed in the unfortunate quote by the Pope from Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The Pope continued along the lines of faith and reason: "[N]ot to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."

His lecture contrasted the Hellenistic foundations of Catholicism in which a rational God is the premise, with religions such as Islam where God is supreme above all reason including His own dictates. He could not let slip the opportunity to gaff at the Reformation by noting that dehellenisation of the Christian religion started with the Reformation.

Science was not spared and the Pope took a firm swing at the scientific foundations of Platonic/Cartesian formulation and empirical verification. Accusing science thus defined of leaving no room for God and thus limiting faith in God to subjective conjecture or experience, Benedict was clearly on a gallop.

The target now loomed large as his argument converged on science and religion, both of which must be obedient to the truth and are founded in reason. Therefore, by implication science is challenged to leave scope for the metaphysical of religion. A reason that does not accommodate the possibility of the divine reduces religion to a subculture and therefore exclude cultures. A faith that does not allow reason is bound to be relegated to the realm of the subjective, where ethics and conscience are purely personal choices.

His discourse screeched to a halt with the final stroke: A call to the worlds of reason and faith to reunite, for a new enquiry into the rationality of faith and ultimately, for dialogue of reason amongst cultures and religions.

To which one question stands up with quiet resolve: Where do the Crusades and Inquisition fit into this logos?

The day after

Yesterday was 11 September. On that pivotal day five years ago, darkness fell upon the world. Brewing discontent spewed raw hatred into the capital of capitalism, New York. The serpent struck at the ankle of the colossus. The Twin Towers fell. In total 2,973 people were killed, including 246 on the four aeroplanes, 2,602 in New York City in the Towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. A nation recoiled in horror and grieve. The world stood aghast.

Soon, vengeance followed shock and bewilderment, spreading with the poison from that venomous bite. The world moved one step closer to global confrontation. Chasms sprang open, gasping divides between cultures, religions and, more importantly, global economic interests.

Afghanistan was invaded, it's Taliban government deposed; replaced by a moderate, elected government. Importantly, the new government had the approval of US, UK and EU leadership, which also served to prop up security. Also noteworthy were the rich oil fields of neighbouring Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, with the prospects of an oil pipe line through Afghanistan, breaking the Russian influence over oil distribution from these regions [Guardian 2001]. The human death toll was hard to calculate. Some estimated the civilian death toll at over 3000 by the year 2002 [BBC].

Iraq was next, after spin doctors on both sides of the Atlantic did their part in whipping up support for an invasion. Saddam Hussein was toppled and his government replaced by an elected government. Amid rising sectarian violence, the new government carried the support of the US, UK and EU, to whose forces it owed it's continued existence. Interestingly, Iraq had the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, as reported in Global Policy. The cat was certainly out amongst the pigeons as far as gaining control over oil exploration in Iraq. The human cost was enormous - more than 100000 according to some studies.

So here we are today, the day after 11 September. Yesterday, we commemorated that dreadful day in 2001. Today, the US Embassy in Damascus has been attacked by terrorists, fortunately intercepted by Syrian security personnel. One security person lost his live. The irony of that incident is not lost upon the audience.

Today, the Taliban is resurging. Afghanistan is an imploding dust bowl, in the words of Peter Preston of The Guardian.

Today, the tensions over Iran is racing towards critical mass over that country's defiant stance on its nuclear research programme. Some reports indicate that Iran is bound to deploy dual-purpose installations [Global Security]. Yet, no conclusive evidence has been found to proof military intentions for the nuclear programme [Spacewar]. Meanwhile, Iran has the world's second largest natural gas reserves and fifth largest oil reserves, according to Global Security.

Today, the war on terror is raging unabated. Security is the name of the game, democracy the new gospel, pre-emptive strike the method of choice. In Lebanon they are still counting the bomblets from cluster bombing of civilian areas. Civilians casualties are stated at 1230 [Wikipedia]. Yet, the faceless enemy is still spinning on its evil axis. Coalitions of the willing are stretched to exhaustion. Officials and leaders are forever mincing words in search of more spin, votes and money for more wars.

Today, quietly in their back offices, the corporate leaders are counting their returns from the new empire of the wealthy. As with the British Empire of old, the public hunger for commodities and energy are fueling the endeavours of those who are willing, ambitious and greedy. As before, it is the common treadmill peddlers who pay the dearest price for these endeavours, the day after.

Minority report

Since the notorious Kinsey Report of the 1950's, it has been accepted that roughly 5% to 7% of humans are homosexual. Further, the report suggested that up to 37% of males have homo-erotic experiences. The question immediately arises: How is homosexuality observed in the animal kingdom, with which humans share a significant section of our genome?

Observation of homosexuality in animals was recorded as far back as 200 years ago. However, because of the controversy, the social order of the day enforced censorship on these findings. In a word, the topic became the science that dares not speak its name.

Today, some enlightenment is dawning upon Mankind in the area of sexuality and sexual behaviour. Consequently, the study of animal homosexual behaviour has again been rekindled and the results are quite staggering to say the least.

In short, it would appear from scientific observations that homosexual behaviour is highly prevalent in the animal kingdom. Far from being a minority phenomenon as accepted amongst humans, homosexuality can be the norm - together with heterosexual behaviour. Finding an explanation within the framework set by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is another matter altogether. Beyond any doubt, homosexuality is somehow sustained in the animal kingdom and therefore must play a beneficial role to have survived the process of natural selection.

Since humans share at least 98% of our genome with other mammals and sexuality is a rather primary function in all species, one could conjecture that the sexual trends of mammals may also be present in humans in one form or another. Conversely, according to Wikipedia, "[r]esearchers have observed monogamy, promiscuity, sex between species, sexual arousal from objects or places, rape, necrophilia, and a range of other practices among animals. Observers have documented behavior analogous to sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and situational sexual behaviour) in humans."

In light of the above, the moral arguments against homosexuality that often support the bigotry against homosexual and bisexual people have little ground beyond religious considerations. Certainly normality cannot be the premise. Subjective and perilous at the best of times, the concept of normality would rather seem to be supported in favour of homosexual behaviour by the above research findings of sexual behaviour in animals closely related to humans.

A brief glance at human history and culture shows how at different times and in different cultures the free expression of homosexuality was more or less prevalent. Most famous for the free expression of homosexuality and homo-eroticism were the ancient Greek and Roman cultures. If homosexuality was not a feature of the inherent human sexual behaviour then a more liberal culture would hardly have evoked such behaviour on such a broad scale. Moreover, the persistence of homosexuality under duress of persecution is a stronger argument for the inherent inclination to some degree of homosexuality in humans.

At the very least the truth about human sexuality is likely that sexual orientation is variable in the same individual according to circumstance. There may even be evidence to suggest that it is quite natural and advantageous also to form strong, enduring same-sex bonds and partnerships as opposed to exclusively heterosexual partnerships. And to take this argument to its extreme, the institution of marriage - that holy cow of the major religions - suddenly seems not so fundamental and solidly founded as we have been indoctrinated to believe.

In the end we still do not understand the evolutionary role of homosexuality, yet we cannot refute the prevalence of homosexuality in several species, including ourselves. Chances are that monogamy and marginalizing of homosexual tendencies are rather unnatural behaviour for the human species.

It remains to be seen whether scientific and therefore biological honesty will translate into human cultures open to bisexual as well as homosexual behaviour in the sexually active population.

[Detailed discussions follow in comments to this post.]

Further reference:
Bruce Bagemihl. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, ISBN: 0312192398, St. Martin's Press, 1999.
To reproduce or not to reproduce, that is the question!

Ms Beetroot and the salid stand

The government of South Africa has moved from denial to betrayal regarding their handling of the AIDS epidemic in the country. Gregg Gonsalves of the AIDS Rights Alliance of Southern Africa slammed the government's lack of leadership in this tragic epidemic, according to Allafrica.com.

The Minister of Health, Ms Tshabalala-Msimang, also known in media circles as Ms Beetroot, appears unperturbed and defiant at the strong condemnation of her handling of the AIDS epidemic. Ms Tshabalala-Msimang reckons the country is doing well, reports News24. Indeed.

With 5.5 million people HIV positive and about 1000 dying per day of AIDS, South Africa is doing very well, isn't it? The report on AIDS in SA by Avert.org makes for chilling reading. From 1994 when the ANC came to power until today, the prevalence of HIV in pregnant women has increased from 4.3% to 30.2%. During the same time, the government has gone through several phases of denial.

First, the president, Mr Thabo Mbeki, demonstrated immense difficulty in accepting established medical evidence that the HI virus is the cause of AIDS. Instead, the president flirted with rogue medical reports that other factors such as poverty and malnutrition are causes of AIDS. In doing so, Mr Mbeki demonstrated the common statistical confusion of false correlation.

While conducive conditions will correlate with a certain outcome, such conditions are not synonymous with causality. While poverty is often conducive to contracting the HIV virus and in turn poverty as well as malnutrition are conducive to developing AIDS from the HIV virus, it does not follow that poverty and malnutrition cause AIDS. Apparently, this train of logic has proven beyond the capacity of the president.

Second, the current Minister of Health, Ms Beetroot, to use her common media-title, has embarked upon a crusade to bolster agriculture by propagating a policy of traditional African remedies, such as olive oil, garlic and beetroot to address the AIDS condition. Perhaps the president should offer Ms Beetroot a post in the Department of Agriculture.

At the Conference on AIDS held in Toronto last week, the South African stand at the exhibition comprised of some posters and a display of wilted agricultural products, resembling a salad stand according to IOL. The condemnation from both South African NGO's such as Treatment Action Campaign and international figures like UN special AIDS envoy Stephen Lewis, was venomous.

It would appear as if the South African government has entrenched itself in an African vs. Western war of ideas. With a stubbornness that defies common sense the government peddles on while the grim realities of AIDS marches on relentlessly through the South African society and economy.

As the Minister defends her position with the smugness of a cat on a sofa, the victims of AIDS wilt with the beetroot on the salad stand.

Soldiers

They were bold and buoyant on their return from southern Lebanon. Some sang the songs that soldiers sing. They appeared victorious, weary and relieved but when asked about the actual achievement of the war, some were despondent and not at all exuberant.

Everywhere there was utter destruction in Lebanese cities, towns and villages. Contrary, no Israeli cities or towns have been demolished or damaged to the extend that Lebanon has suffered. The infrastructure in Israel has been left mostly intact. In Lebanon, a power plant, an oil depo, an airport, multiple bridges and roads have either been damaged or destroyed.

Lebanon deaths:
About 1,000 - mostly civilians
No precise data on Hezbollah dead
Israeli deaths:
Soldiers: 114 (IDF)
Civilians: 43 (IDF)
Lebanon displaced:
700,000 - 900,000 (UNHCR; Lebanese govt)
Israeli displaced:
500,000 (Human Rights Watch)
Lebanon damage:
$2.5bn (Lebanese govt)
Israel damage:
$1.1bn (Israeli govt)

[Source: BBC]

Much gloating and bellowing followed today from Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. If anything, they seemed to have been handed an unintended windfall: The mood in Lebanon now seems firmly towards Hezbollah. The two captured Israeli soldiers that triggered the war, are still captive. Hezbollah, the proclaimed target of the destruction, seems to be rather well and alive, if somewhat diminished. Meanwhile, the sickening reality for the Lebanese seems to be lost on these leaders.

Last night, the Israeli Prime Minister made an hour long speech of belligerent spin in the Knesset, rationalising and justifying the futile escapades of the Israeli Defense Force in Lebanon. Between the Israeli prime minister and the president of the USA, there were a common factor of unconvincing posturing over the whole sad affair.

To all but the US White House and the Israeli majority, the war was senseless, unnecessary and a total disaster for the region. There are no winners and 1.5 million losers. In the mean time, the UN is struggling to bring aid to the desparate refugees who are streaming back to their devastated homes. The country is in need of serious restoration. The schisms of old seem deeper than ever.

In 1981, a song was released that today reflects grimly upon the situation:

Soldiers write the songs
that soldiers sing
the songs that you and I don‚’t sing
they blow their horns
and march along
they drum their drums
and look so strong
you‚’d think that nothing
in the world was wrong
soldiers write the songs
that soldiers sing
the songs that you and I won‚’t sing
let‚’s not look the other way
taking a chance
‚’cause if the bugler starts to play
we too must dance
[ABBA]

The question is: How will you dance?

Brother, where art thou?

Brother, can you hear me?
Brother, do you hate me?
Brother, will you kill me?
Why are we fighting?

Brother, can we make up?
Brother, have I hurt you?
Brother, may I hold you?
Why am I dying?

Brother, where art thou?

On and on and on

It has to stop now. Those were the words of Jan Egeland, the Under-Secretary-General of the UN for Humanitarian Affairs. In an interview with BBC World today, Jan Egeland expressed his dismay and exasperation with the current spiral of violence in Lebanon.

A million Lebanese have been displaced within a month. More than 100 000 Lebanese are in desperate need for humanitarian assistance but are out of reach due to collapse in logistic infrastructure after Israeli bombing raids. Ongoing bombing and threats of bombing obstruct UN aid workers from reaching these Lebanese. A thousand Lebanese civilians have been killed so far - 30% are under the age of 13. Israel has lost 122 people, mostly soldiers, to this war. Each party is able to stop the carnage, at the drop of a hat. Yet it goes on.

Mr Egeland summarised the dire situation as no-win for either party. Every day prolonged fighting means more deaths on each side, more civilians killed. If it has to come to blows, each side should think first and then bomb - not vice versa as it appears to happen.

Wholesale destruction of houses and domestic infrastructure together with many civilians is brutal, according to Mr Egeland. In the same breath, indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities are similarly deplorable. For armed militia to hind amongst the public is appalling. For the UN Security Council to churn on the details for so long while these atrocities continue, is a disgrace. Therefore, the fighting should stop and it should stop now. The only solution is a political solution, addressing the fundamental issues. [Israel has created a generation of hatred]

The UN Human Rights Commission has voted today to investigate alleged Israeli human rights abuses in Lebanon. In a counter move, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre appealed to the same body to investigate Lebanon for complacency in allowing Hezbollah to rearm with rockets.

On and on and on it goes. Tit for tat. Accusation is met with counter accusation. Each side turns the facts to suit it own agenda and narrative.

"On and on an on, keep on rocking baby, 'till the night is gone..." [ABBA]

A momentary lapse of reason

How short is the memory of mankind. Whatever the cost of our mistakes, we do not seem to learn from history. Today, the death toll in Lebanon stands at 925 civilians, one quarter children. In Israel, 58 soldiers and 36 civilians have been lost to the conflict, which also illustrates the stark asymmetry of the current tit for tat. [1]

Bombs are never smart, whatever the military would like us to believe. Whatever Israel claims or aims to achieve, the facts on the ground grimly expose as folly. Similarly, the Hezbollah adventure has reached unbearable levels of insanity. For those of a cynical disposition, perhaps it is a classic if highly ironic case of David vs Goliath. Yet, peppering civilians in Israel with crude, unguided rockets that fall and maim at random cannot be judged a valid military assault or defense by any civilised measure. [2,3,4]

Nothing of lasting value for peace and justice is gained by any side in this conflict. If anything, the forces of extreme militancy on all sides and therefore the hopes of further hell in the Holy Land, which stretches beyond the borders of Israel, have everything to gain from this conflict.

The 1967 war, the 1973 Yom Kipur war, the Lebanese occupations of 1978 and 1980, have not achieved any lasting peace or created an improvement in the relations amongst the conflicting parties in the Middle East. Instead, tensions have increased, distrust has become entrenched, mutual fear ingrained and ultimately, hatred has snuffed out any flicker of understanding and tolerance. More wounds, bigger pain, greater losses are the fruits of this folly.

"An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind", said Ghandi. Yes, but even worse is the blindness of those who still have eyes but refuse to see. A momentary lapse of reason has brought us to the edge of a perilous precipice. Who will have the courage to open our eyes and lead us away from disaster?

The value of a life

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Article 1 of the UN Charter of Human Rights.

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Article 3 of the UN Charter of Human Rights.

In the current war of attrition that is being fought in southern Lebanon, the UN official count of dead Lebanese civilians stands at 548 confirmed deaths. On the other side of the Lebanese border, 19 Israeli civilians have been killed in rocket strikes by Hezbollah. The stark difference in civilian deaths on each side of the border brings into question who poses the biggest threat in this conflict: Israel or Hezbollah. These numbers also cast a dark veil of suspicion over the tactics of Israel and the mentality that underlies these tactics.

The Israeli strategy in southern Lebanon has so far been similar to the US tactics during the second invasion of Iraq: Maximum force through air strikes. This strategy is fraught with gross misjudgement and consequent heavy civilian loss. It reeks with blatant hypocrisy that borders on reckless. Why hypocrisy? Because Israel, a member of the UN and by implication a consignee of the UN Charter of Human Rights, makes a farce of Articles 1 and 3.

As stated at start of this post, all humans are regarded equal and therefore have equal right to life and dignity. Lebanese civilians are as rightfully deserving of dignity and life as Israeli civilians. Yet, it would seem a moot point lost on the Israeli military and political leadership. Apparently regarding their own civilians of more than equal in their rights, this leadership chooses to send in air strikes with devastating yet indiscriminate results. In most cases so far, Lebanese civilians paid with their lives.

Instead of sending in ground troops that can confirm where Hezhollah fighters really are located before engaging the target, Israel opts for armchair warfare. This strategy is therefore not only hypocritical, but also reckless. The political leadership of Israel, lacking the necessary integrity, is not willing to respect Lebanese civilians by sending in ground troops in the first place. The risk for the political fall-out over undeniably higher death toll amongst Israeli soldiers seems to outweigh the obligations of Israel under the UN Charter of Human Rights.

But herein lies the folly of war of any kind. One side will always minimise the risks of war to its own and in doing so invariably leave the bill for that choice to the other side.

In a guerrilla war, which in reality this war is, one may not escape engaging the enemy any other manner than on foot. When the enemy has embedded itself into the civilian population, there is no other responsible option but to risk ground troops in order to avoid civilian casualties. Area bombing against suspected guerrilla strongholds is both reckless and in violation of the Geneva Convention.

But such a view assumes an inherent respect for all life, including the other side.

Lebanese conflict sources: ABC, BBC, Google

Mincing words

The most difficult word to pronounce for the leaders of the West seems to be "immediate". Undoubtedly, the English vocabulary of at least some Western leaders stretches to include this word. Yet, in recent days, it proved quite beyond these leaders to put that rather necessary adjective to proper practice in the following direly needed phrase: immediate ceasefire.

The diplomatic wrangling continues as the Lebanese death toll reaches 800, of which 30% are children, not Hezbollah militants. On the Israeli side, about 50 people have died since the madness erupted 2 weeks ago, including a number of soldiers. The best the EU could muster was a call for an immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire. This call was bluntly dismissed by Israel who immediately intensified the assault on southern Lebanon by sending in more troops and tanks. One may rightly ask: Has international law lost its voice?

In its narrowest context, the current conflict between Israel and Lebanon can be exposed by at least three narratives. The first narrative is from the original inhabitants of the Middle-East, specifically Lebanon and Palestine. The second narrative is from the Israeli side. The third narrative is that of the international community as represented by the UN. Depending on the chosen narrative, international law can deliver quite different verdicts over the conflict and the participants. These narratives run parallel without much hope to intersect at any point soon, unless decisive international mediation intervenes.

Article 51, as contained in the UN Charter, provides for the right of a country to defend itself when there is a clear demonstration of a threat or an actual attack against it from another country, or a faction harboured by another country. Israel resorts to Article 51 as justification for its devastating incursions into Lebanon over the past two weeks. Such defensive action may continue until the UN Security Council steps in to take command of the situation. No threat there to Israeli plans - very conveniently, the US will most likely stand ready with its veto power to ensure Israel all the room it needs to cause as much devastation as it pleases.

The capture of two Israeli soldiers and killing of three more by Hezbollah were audacious and provocative, but also in violation of the UN imposed Blue Line that separate Lebanon and Israel, not to be crossed by either party. Yet, the disproportionate Israeli response amounts to carpet bombing or area bombing, quite clearly demonstrated by the high number of civilian casualties as well as wholesale destruction of public and domestic infrastructure in southern Lebanon over the past two weeks. Carpet bombing is explicitly prohibited under the Geneva Convention, 1977 Additional Protocol 1.

Hezbollah rockets fired at more than a hundred a day into Israel is a similar violation of the Geneva Convention, for such firing also amounts to a form of area bombing.

Neither side is on the right side of international law. Neither narrative has the full perspective or absolute claim over the historic truth of the matter at hand. Neither party seems capable of initiating reconcilliation by itself. Decisive international intervention is needed - immediately.

The urgency for intervention is necessitated by further narratives, far more ominous and powerful in their content and extent, that threaten to play into this conflict. One such narrative is the current US world view and another is the simmering Shia-Sunni confrontation that is building up steam in the Middle-East.

The world is facing a historic pivotal point. History will not judge kindly over indecision at this point in time.

Bloody Sunday: Carnage at Qana

They were hiding for their lives from the bombs. In a basement of a multistory house, several displaced families were asleep in the desperately naive believe that they were save there. But they were not. During the early hours of this Sunday an Israeli bunker buster bomb destroyed the house on top of these poor souls. Their shelter were shattered with their bodies and their lives.

According to ABC (US) and BBC reports, at least 54 civilians died - of which 37 were children. The outrage that is unfolding in Lebanon is a travesty, destroying in two weeks what has been built painstakingly since 2002. It is not the vestibules of Hezbollah that are being destroyed. Rather it is the infrastructure, the nationhood, the very fabric of the Lebanese society that are being pummelled into submission. In one fell swoop, Israel has blown to shards the last remnants of goodwill and whatever respectable reputation might have remained amongst the Arab nations and many Western nations for itself.

For all the sweet talk over how civilians are warned of imminent attacks and how precision strikes are aimed at Hezbollah targets only, the carnage amongst the civilian Lebanese has reached over 400 dead and more than 600 000 displaced, refugees in their own country.

All the ostentatious harangue about eternal Jewish morals and humanism, the bombastic pounding of southern Lebanon turns into a cynical farce in the pantomime of Zionism. The outcry of an unjustly punished society is met by the tentative and bewildered indecision of the West.

Images of the broken Kosova of the 1990's jump to mind. Where is the international leadership to put an immediate end to this futile destruction? Once the emotions have settled for a brief moment before the next scene of devastation, one may contemplate just what the basis for such leadership might be.

Richard Calland of the Mail & Guardian argues that merely learning from examples of successful resolutions to deep-rooted conflict presents no evidence of any progress in those unresolved conflicts such as the Middle East. Rather, the pivotal question is whether the historic tide has changed against the status quo of injustice in the Israel-Palestine affair. More practical, moral weight should be gathered against the injustice and brought to bear upon the protagonists of injustice through sanctions and firm diplomatic pressure.

Tony Leon, leader of the Democratic Alliance of South Africa, is reported in a later addition of the Mail & Guardian, to have said that the best approach to the Israel-Lebanon conflict would be "rights-based". He warns against a simplistic, Manichean world view of good versus bad in which one is forced to align with one of the two poles - good or evil. The Middle Eastern conflict is complex far beyond such naive classification, according to Mr Leon. On that point, Mr Bush might take note. His axis of evil approach has not reaped him any good of lately and brought immense destruction to Iraq. One inevitably wonders who's next to go on his proclaimed axis.

The impunity with which Israel misbehaves in Lebanon is evidence of the lack of real influence that Europe, Russia and Asia have in one of the most acute ongoing international crises of all time. If the US is for us, who can be against us? That seems to be the mentality of the Israeli government and large sections of its political support base.

The lack of real influence also demonstrates how perilous the current international situation has become what with only one real superpower that can do as it pleases. What leadership exists at the head of this muscle-toned crusader leaves the world even more gasping with bated breath. But as history has shown us, the wheel always keeps turning.

As energy and commodities continue to increase in importance, the rise of new superpowers on the international block, such as China, Russia and India, are waiting in the wings. It is only a matter of time before the gauntlet is flaunted for a re-balancing of international power. The change of leadership will come with a change in the status quo at the UN Security Council.

Perhaps the massacre of 54 Lebanese civilians may still lead to more radical changes in the international power play. Perhaps the rest of the world can be shocked out of its indecision. Perhaps real leadership will arise to take us on a road of rights-based international justice. As Bloody Sunday of 30 January 1972 was in a sense a pivotal point for the Northern Ireland conflict, so the carnage in Qana may still prove similarly decisive.

"Jaw-jaw" is better than "war-war"

This posting is entirely inspired by and dedicated to Matt Frei of the BBC, author of Washington Diary. His latest posting on the recent G8 meeting is simply brilliant. No further musings from Anduril is required. Over to Matt... The Big Brother G8

"Stop this shit"

The casual tone of Bush caught by an open microphone at the G8 meeting belies the gravity of the unfolding tragedy in Lebanon [1]. His careless remark to Tony Blair smacks of his simplistic and superficial attitude towards sensitive and complex international conflicts. His high school-boyish attitude leaves one shuddering in dismay. This man is the leader of the primary superpower in the world. He displays all the flair of a rodeo horse in full rambunctious bucking.

While these leaders are relaxing over a sandwich, 230 Lebanese, of which 200 civilians, suffer death at the hands of brutal Israeli retaliation for a Hezbollah incursion into northern Israel to snatch two Israeli soldiers. Since Wednesday, Israel claims, 700 Hezbollah missiles have landed in Israel. This missile bombardment is given as further motivation for the ongoing destruction by Israeli forces of southern Lebanon. Yet, for all these missiles fired onto Israel, only 25 Israeli people have died - of which 13 are civilians. Such figures show that the missile attack is of low affectivity. By comparison, Israeli attacks are viciously effective, but seem to strike vastly more civilians than Hezbollah militants [2], the alleged target of these attacks.

Israel is flatly ignoring calls for proportionate and restrained response to the kidnapping of its soldiers and the threat from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Instead the Israeli government and its army are destructing southern Lebanon with impunity. All the while, the world stands by with barely a voice of opposition. Mild, half-hearted expressions of concern over the situation are issued where instead the world should be putting an ultimatum to both parties, Israel and Hezbollah: Stop this shit right here, right now, or the UN will send an international army to enforce a seize-fire at once. Only France and Russia have had the nerve thus far to express firm opposition to Israel’s reckless retaliation in southern Lebanon.

It would appear as if the misguided snatching of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah has been seized by Israel as a golden opportunity to provoke the direct involvement of Iran and Syria, long-time supporters of Hezbollah, thereby handing on a silver platter to the US the excuse militarily to engage both those countries. The escalating situation is super-nutritious fodder to the extremists in the Middle East.

The world has not been this close to World War III since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. If anyone should stop this shit, to use Bush’s words, it is he, his megalomaniac clique and his cocky little brother-in-arms, Israel. Ghandi once said: "An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind". We seem set to find out very soon just how blind.

Of the elite, for the elite

So direct democracy is a system of the people for the people. That is what we of the free world would like to believe. That is what we preach to the despots and the autocrats - and those whose resources we would like to control. Yet, closer to home, who really rules in this country of the brave and the free? Is it the people or the new elite - the wealthy and their lackeys, the lobbyists? Is it a democracy of the people for the people or is it a new system of elitism - of the elite for the elite?

Within a weekend, two major papers - The New York Times and the Boston Globe - have published columns on the nature of the ruling classes in the USA. The Sunday Globe ran a major piece, called 51 Angry Plebes, while the NY Times of today presented an article, called Lobbyist, Yes, the People, Maybe.

The Sunday Globe connected the influence of wealthy elites with the constitutional theories of Machiavelli, which set out to oppose such influences. It would seem, according to the Globe, that the Founding Fathers were more concerned about reigning in the masses and mobs than the wealthy. Today, the wealthy seem to rule the running of affairs in the USA. The NY Times reported that lobbyists are extending their activities even into local governments, collecting vast sums for earmarked projects that were successfully allotted to their masters. Notwithstanding ongoing criminal investigations into unlawful lobbying tactics, this form of graft seems to be rife in the US establishment.

Anduril is of the opinion that far from the wealthy having hijacked the US constitution, the Founding Fathers deliberately played into the hands of the wealthy. Powerful financial players existed in the forming days of the USA. It is not implausible that these players exerted their substantial influence upon the setting of the political foundations of the USA. The royal elite of Britain made way for the local establishment of wealth and power - even before the advent of the American Revolution.

Today, the American public may live the illusion of being in power, having full suffrage and democratic rule, but who are the demos that exert the real power? If middleclass America believes it is them who calls the tune, then they have to check again who pays the piper, for votes can be bought with glamour and glitter, the razzmatazz of political pageantry. And once voted into power, politicians dance obediently to the beat of good old graft.

While Mr and Mrs Smith celebrate their freedom, the wealthy individuals, corporations, industries pull the strings in Washington DC. You cannot vote them in or, more importantly, vote them out. And rather do not put your faith in your congressional representative and senator to stand in the cross-fire for you either. Meanwhile we all merrily tread the mill that line their pockets. Afterall, we need our defence, medicine, and let's not forget to fill that tank on the SUV.

However, while realising the dilemma is lofty, changing it is quite another matter. Those in power are not going to relinquish their grip to the plebes that churn their treadmills. Middleclass suburbia is too comfortable with their self-sufficient lifestyle to make the effort that will lift the wealthy from their plush cushions. These sorts of fundamental changes rarely happen without an endemic and enduring crisis, such as brought about the English revolution, the French Revolution, the South African revolution.

But the wheel goes round and round. Real political change starts in the minds of the middleclass. It is when they start writing about these ideas that the wheel gets rolling.

1st of July

On the 1st of July, Europe commemorated the 90’Th anniversary of the first day in hell: The battle of the Somme. Whole villages from Northern England lost bands of young men - the Pal Brigades, mates in life and death, who had conscripted from factory lines to stand and fall together. How did they not fell? On that fateful day, Britain alone suffered 19,240 killed, 2,152 missing and 36,058 injured men [1,2].

All sides lost a million soldiers over the four months of blood, gore and incomparable courage. For once mankind was shocked at its insatiable appetite to destroy and maim its own kind. What passion drives Man to such depths of destruction and despair?

Perhaps it is the same passion that is driving the World Cup this year, as every four years. Watch them as the ball enters play. See the complete and utter involvement, the fire that lights in a striker's eyes when his strike hits the goal, his posture one of defiance. Hear the battle cries in the chanting of the crowds. Feel the anguish of humiliation at defeat as much as the glowing glory over victory with team and supporters alike.

Ours is a species of war. Our history is painted in the blood of our heroes and our villains. Sometimes we are fortunate to choose the football field as our battleground. But in our core we are still at war and perhaps would be until the end.

And yet, all is not lost. On 1 July, during the aftermath of the England-Portugal game, while despair and despondency reigned amongst devastated English players, one player from Portugal walked over to console a rather broken-hearted English player. It was tender, touching and humane. It gave hope for Mankind as much as it restored hope to one man.

USS New York

In a shipyard in Louisiana, USA, an amphibious assault ship is being built. Its bow section will contain salvaged steel from the New York Twin Towers that were destroyed in the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. The ship will be called the USS New York [1,2,3].

The wounds from treachery and deceit, callousness and savagery, have now given rise to a spirit of vengeance and war. In a culture of frequently over-hyped symbolic extravaganzas, simultaneously fed by and feeding the Hollywood industry, the advertising industry, the political stage dramas and the various lobbying enterprises, comes another symbolic gesture, laden with emotion that borders on the sentimental. In a time when the world could do with restraint and sobriety, the US authorities choose to fuel the flames of destruction. The spirit of the reborn Christian is glaringly absent in this symbolism.

Instead, the hurt and loss of many are being manipulated to feed a war mentality and, more importantly, lucrative defence industry. The very first and primitives reactions to hurt and loss are being nurtured to the peril of all, while the more mature response of stoic suffering and measured recovery are being cast out the window.

A more fitting symbol would have been to use the salvaged steel from the Twin Towers to contract another building on the original site. It would have sent the message that for the country once hurt, recovery will follow, externally as well as internally.

Yet, the opportunity has passed. The path has been chosen. The world is one step closer to meltdown.

Scare mongering

The psychology of politics should get more attention in the media than it does. It is with a grave sense of déjà vu that one notices the political psychology of the Republican interest groups when they argue in Congress. War mongering and scare mongering are close allies in the game of manipulation of public opinion. The South African Nationalist Government used the same tactics to win votes from 1948 until 1991 in elections. Hitler did likewise.

When democratic voices gathered strength against the minority rule in South Africa, the National Party of South Africa would always pull the terror card from their collective pocket. At the time, South Africa was engaged in border wars against Soviet supported insurgents from neighbouring states. Internal terrorism from resistance movements such as the ANC and PAC was on the increase. All these factors were utterly useful components in an overall policy of fear and rescue. The National Party had the guts and the will and ultimately the ability to allay the fears and come to the rescue of the beseeched country. On the other hand, the progressive voices could not be trusted with your safety. Trust the National Party, fighting a just cause, to ensure your safety against this ongoing, prevalent evil. And so it seems, does the Republican Party in the USA. Only, for South Africa the cause turned out not to be just at all.

The NY Times has reported recent partisan clashes in both Senate and Congress on the issue of security and the wars that the USA is fighting [1]. How convenient, if unfortunate, that this new war remains rather indefinite: A war on terror – no specific enemy, no specific goals, and no exit strategy. It is this singular, perpetual monster in the closet. Convenient indeed, if one has to keep the votes going the right way – that is, if one assumes Republican and all it represents to be the right way.

Such a strategy for lobbying support has marvellous advantages: Not much opposition to enormous spending on endless wars; a paranoid and neurotic support base that tremble at the very mention of the faceless evil that waits to descend upon local shores to maim and destroy the good people of the USA. And all that is standing between all these good, innocent people and the wicked, faceless evil snarling at the gates are of course the Republicans with their interest groups from corporate America.

In fact, the above scenario is sickening in its repeatability. It is also chilling in its destructive regularity. The South African Nationalist programs of war and self-righteous crusades wrecked the economy of South Africa such that ten years on the country is still recovering. The USA is heading the same direction with a national debt that hits all records, foreign lenders getting nervous and the budget deficit knowing no end. All the while, the international community is getting increasingly fed-up with jock-boy playing Superman.

It is time for a wake-up call. As the so-called threat on South Africa was mostly caused by the unjust policies of the South African nationalist government, so the current alleged threat on the US has a lot of ground in the unjust international policies of the US government. Unfortunately, a democracy is of the people and therefore the wows of this country are of the people – a serious change of heart might be needed before the politics with change. But then, why should the nation calling itself the greatest need change? It took an economic, policical and international crisis to convince the ruling South Africans to change heart. And so it goes and so its goes.

Shut up and eat your meat

The sheer audacity of the Minister of Safety and Security of South Africa, Mr Charles Nqakula, was the topic of much criticism in the weekend’s press. The honourable gentleman, though some would contend that phrase in this case, made the rather dishonourable statement that those who “whinges”, as he rather insensitively referred to complaints, should shut up or leave the country [1].

The tone of the Minister smacks of those fat cats in ministerial seats, north of the South African borders. His kind has come from nowhere in terms of safety and security suddenly to find himself plush in the cushions of power, with ministerial security and comfy facilities. Quaint how suddenly he seems to be out of touch with the latest police statistics. Speaking to my mother today, she had a tone of some disquiet when she told me that in the past week three elderly persons, mostly women, were killed by burglars in and around the Cape Peninsula. In fact, one was brutally bludgeoned to death with a hammer.

According to the official South African Police website, the following crime statistics were recorded for 2004/2005 [2]:

Murder	18,793
Rape	55,114
Attempted murder	24,516
Assault with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm	249,369
Robbery with aggravating circumstances	126,789
Burglary at residential premises	276,164

The total population of South Africa is about 45 million. It is a constitutional right of South Africans to live in safety and security, hence the portfolio of Safety and Security in the Cabinet. It is not for a minister to take an arrogant stance towards citizens, who pays his salary, when criticised over the state of affairs over which he presides.

The future of South Africa depends upon facing up to the truth of the realities and dealing with these realities, rather than scoffing at well-founded criticism and pretending all is hunky-dory when the truth says differently.

Of little consequence

Not since the inconsequential presidential debates have words of so little consequence been spoken by a person of such international power: "My attitude is I want him to be here so long as I'm the president.''

These were the words of Mr Bush today [1] and of little consequence indeed. One small detail that Mr Bush is missing is this: Mr Bush does not vote in Britain. His preferences are of little consequence in the minds of the British voters. And the British voters are quite fed-up with Mr Blair as it were. His standings in the polls are the lowest ever. There are calls circulating even within Labour for Mr Blair to pack it and move out and on. Yet, Mr Bush thought it diplomatically and politically wise to utter such futile words - smacking of arrogance one may add.

There seems to be no end to this man's delusions of grandeur. Nowhere in the annals of modern history has a leader got it in his mind to express such a misplaced notion in such a public arena. Mr Churchill did not call on the USA to keep President Roosevelt in office for a fourth term, or Mr George H. Bush on the British to keep Mrs Thatcher.

The line of blunders from this president of the USA leaves one wondering if it can get any worse. But then, one should be careful with such thoughts, as history has shown us.

Apartheid: Deja vu

On 2 November 1917, Lord Balfour wrote a letter to Lord Rothschild in which he conveyed the decision by the British government to support the formation of a Jewish homeland in the British mandate of Palestine [1].

An important sentence read as follows: "...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,"

In 2002, Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary, had this to say about the British handling of Palestine in the first half of the 20th century: "The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis — again, an interesting history for us, but not an honourable one". Indeed.

Today, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert addressed the US Congress, with a certain confidence that could only be found in the surprising support from the US for a state that is blatantly practising Apartheid. It has been repeatedly expressed by Israeli leaders that the aim of drawing the borders of Israel - unilaterally if needed – is to ensure a Jewish majority. It is building a wall - called a security fence - between itself and Palestinian areas. From 1948 until 1994, the South African Nationalist government attempted to form a country with borders that would ensure a white majority. The world condemned it and pressured it into submission.

Such double standards leave one dumbstruck. Today, institutionalised discrimination against Arab people living in Israel is documented [2] by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International [3]. Endless hardship is visited upon thousands of Palestinian people having to live under occupation since 1967.

The very formation of the State of Israel is fraught with mishandling and blatant land grab. Invoking visions of mystical proportions, such as “this is our promised land given to us by God”, Europeans of Jewish culture suddenly stepped forward as a Jewish “nation” and migrated into Palestine at a tremendous rate between 1917 and 1948 [4].

The conflict that ensued is understandable if regrettable. Wherever there is unfair treatment and competition for land, there is potential for conflict. The pandering of the West to Israeli sentiments and whims only fuels the arrogance with which the current Israeli government approaches the situation. The shadow of the Holocaust is ever ready to be let out of the bottle whenever the Zionist lobby groups detect any sign of opposition. It is shameful how the tragic lot of millions of Europeans can be abused for the socio-political goals of the modern Jewish culture. Even worse is the blatant neglect regarding consistency in the opposition to Apartheid schemes across the board when it comes to Israel.

Deja vu: One would have thought that those who suffered discrimination of the worse kind would know better not to inflict discrimination and cruelty onto the indigenous on their doorsteps.

The Zuma in the bonnet

The current affairs of South Africa can hardly get more loaded with anticipation than this weekend. The bee in the bonnet is Jacob Zuma [1,2], until recently the Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa (SA) and likely candidate for the next presidency of SA. However, President Mbeki dismissed Mr Zuma from his post last year on allegations of fraud while Minister of Defence. Mr Zuma is also standing trial on rape charges of which the verdict is expected this coming week [3].

One could argue that lifting the bonnet would reveal a beehive rather than a bee: The ANC is in turmoil. The ruling party had always been heralded as the leading resistance movement against Apartheid in SA and turned itself into a political party shortly before the 1994 elections that changed the system in SA. Its success was clear in 1994 and its future, undoubted. Today, the ANC is still basking in the glory of the earlier resistance, expecting loyalty of traditional supporters and riding a rather tired horse towards the horizon. What lies ahead is less clear today than in 1994.

However, Mr Zuma represents a much older strive than the one between blacks and whites in SA. Mr Zuma is of the Zulu nation, a proud and historically successful black nation of Nguni ethnic origin. About the time of the first conflict between white Europeans and black Bantu tribes along the southeast coast of southern Africa, there was regional conflict between Zulu and Xhosa, another nation of Nguni origin. Historically, during the 19^th century, the Zulu nation had the upper hand in battles with surrounding nations, including the Xhosa. All of that changed with the intervention of white people in southern Africa.

The white-black conflict of the 19th century, which ended in white domination and suppression of traditional, black political strategies, suspended much of the traditional Zulu-Xhosa conflicts [4,5]. Some argue that white rulers exploited these conflicts to their advantage. The British annexed Natal as a colony in the 19th century and imposed their rule . During the 1970's and 1980's, the government of SA contrived homelands for black people and created separate homelands for Xhosa people and Zulu people, which kept the peace for most of it and served mostly white political goals.

During the final years of Apartheid in SA, the conflicts re-emerged along modern, current political lines with regional violence amongst supporters of the ANC, dominated by Xhosa members and the IFP, a majority Zulu party, transformed from another former resistance movement. The ANC had been banned until shortly before 1994 and turned into a political party once legalised. The IFP, which in the 70's distanced itself from the ANC after an initial alliance, had been tolerated by the political system of Apartheid, as a black party allowed under the system of homelands contrived by the National Party of SA in the 1970's. Then came the build-up to the 1994 milestone and the spears were out.

Prior to 1994, the manoeuvring of black political and ethnic groupings in SA had been focussed upon overthrowing the old system in SA. Closing in on 1994, the stakes changed and were also raised: Who would ultimately govern the new South Africa, if indeed one would arise. One cannot fail to catch a whiff of a certain ethnic undercurrent in the ANC with a Xhosa, Nelson Mandela, as leader in a predominantly Xhosa top-structure. In his book, The Long Road to Freedom, Mr Mandela denied that the ANC was a Xhosa organisation. Yet, it strikes one as odd that he once had to face a question from a black man as to why he only spoke to Xhosa? Consequently, Mr Mandela saw it fit to make changes to the top structure of the ANC so as to incorporate a non-Xhosa person.

Onto this stage wafted Mr Zuma, a Zulu, with strong support from the black youth and the Zulu contingent of the ANC. The undercurrent came out in the rape trial of Mr Zuma, in which some supporters chanted pro-Zulu racist remarks outside the courthouse.

There has been constant rumour over tensions between Mr Mbeki and Mr Zuma, vehemently denied by the ANC leadership [6]. There has been even mention of a possible plot against Mr Zuma, a point raised in his defence by his lawyer in the rape trial. But on the other hand, Mr Zuma seems to have become his own demise. His statements during his rape trial smacked of a person with a outdated, sexist view, ill-informed on simple facts about HIV even though he was once leading the government HIV commission. More seriously, there is the upcoming fraud trial against Mr Zuma in three month's time. Yet, Mr Zuma has impressive curriculum vitae [7].

The courts will decide. Is Mr Zuma innocent or is he a mere criminal? Has Mr Zuma been framed or has he become a victim of his own devices. More importantly, will SA reach another milestone by displaying proper separation between government and the judiciary?

But letting that bee out of the bonnet will not remove the beehive. The ANC is under pressure from within [8]. It is accused of not delivering services to the poor in SA. It is said to be turning into a club for elitist black power wielders. It is facing an ethnic upsurge from Zulu members. When that beehive erupts, there will be a rather bigger buzz than the current zoom. For the sake of democracy in SA, it might be good to have a split in a party that has completely dominated the political scene since 1994 and now sits with 66% of the seats in the lower house of Parliament. But how we manage that split will be our next major milestone.

Skeletons and witch hunts

Last Thursday, 27 April, South Africa commemorated the change in 1994 to a new constitution, new government and general suffrage for all South Africans. Lofty speeches and all those proper things and then came this one from Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: White people often do not appreciate the extent of the grace and forgiveness shown to them by the black people of South Africa [BBC News]. The implication was that white people somehow keep things business as usual while the black community has to make do with what they have.

Some white people took offence to his remarks. One of them, the last white president and Nobel laureate, FW de Klerk, spoke out stating that black people should more appreciate the fact that white people surrendered power and continued enormously to contribute to the wealth of South Africa. In an article published in a South African Sunday newspaper, Mr de Klerk defended the last white government against some of the latest allegations. Earlier in an article published in the Wall Street Journal, Mr de Klerk had remarked that many white South African were feeling increasingly alienated [FW Foundation] in their own country by some actions of the government.

All the above posturing has to do with some stormy clouds of an impending witch hunt that have raised their ominous heads over the plains of South Africa. There have been calls to investigate previous presidents, including Mr de Klerk and Mr P.W. Botha and their members of government for corruption. In stark contrast, Mr Nelson Mandela lauded Mr de Klerk this past weekend for his courage in leading white South Africa towards change. Still, somewhere in some closets there are a few skeletons that may just come out clattering upon opening.

The true destiny and prospects of South Africa are as ever still in the balance. There are strong undercurrents of potentially devastating turmoil under the surface of apparent growth and stability. The spectre of a meltdown is much less than 10 years ago. However, there are signs of building unrest and pressure from within the black community for a lack of real improvement in their daily living conditions. And there is still some resentment over the past that had not been buried, only postponed - mostly because of Mr Mandela's calming influence. But his time is in its twilight and after him, who knows?

The incipient rot

The gradual abuse of power is an incipient rot that often pre-empts the inevitable demise of a corrupt establishment. The current US Administration has shown clear symptoms of this rot over the past two terms of parliament. But the onset of the rot seems to go back further still and as often the case elsewhere in history, the intelligence agencies seem to be hand in glove, in this case the CIA.

At least since the start of the Cold War era, the USA Government has followed a principle of "own interest first" in any foreign or domestic involvement. On the foreign side, the scene is rather grim. Korea, Vietnam, Colombia, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Iraq I and II - its reads like a terror tale from medieval days. Then there is the neglect - if we could believe the overt motives of humanitarian concerns for involvement elsewhere - Rwanda, Zaire (now ironically called the Democratic Republic of Congo), Angola [1,2], Mozambique, Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka. And there is the grossly misguided partisanship of modern international politics - Israel.

Domestically, things are taking on a rather gloomy tint as well. We had McCarthy and his witch-hunt in the 1950's; more recently the ongoing Republican collusion to stay in power and undermine rule of the country by the Democrats; the dilution of civil liberties by virtue of the Patriot act; the information scandal over Lewis Libby and CIA agents Joseph Wilson, which went over motivation for the Iraq war II; the newest CIA dismissal over the revelations of secret foreign detention camps.

The domestic rumblings in the CIA, if common opinion hold true, is a rather somber reminder how an intelligence agency becomes an instrument in service of a powerful few instead of the nation that pays its budget. This tendency can be noted elsewhere in history where the rot reached the core of the governing class. South Africa in the Apartheid days comes to mind. The KGB of the Soviet Union is another chilling example.

What scares me more than collusion of state power is the rot that seems to infest the recreational toys of the modern young American: War games; games of delinquency; games of pretence called roll playing. The ancient Romans on the way to the top and the fall that followed, entertained themselves on the brutality of gladiator fights at the Colosseum. There is an uncanny parallel with today in all this. The top rot starts quite at the bottom, as most rot do.

I stand aghast at the number of movies on a typical Blockbuster DVD shelf that deals in the topic of self-righteous violence as a means to an end. And this hogwash is rented as entertainment. There is enough of a market for such dribble to support hundreds such exemplars on the shelves. I should count them next time. All these movies were made in the USA. Look for the foreign movies and see what is on the shelf: Everything but violence and self-righteousness.

The inherent fallacy that one is right when one believes one is right as long as one has the biggest club in the club to enforce that believe goes hand in hand with the empty promise that all is fine as long as one is in fashion and cool. It would appear that too many US children grow up with a false sense of invincibility and an intellect fed upon instant gratification and violent games, believing as long as they are cool they are on top. What one ends up with is a crowd of self-serving manikins with overfed ego's that make it for either Congress or CEO so as to tell the rest of the world how it should be run and behave.

On the way up a wannabee member of this clan of sorts connects, pampers a few other egos, and collectively spends enough on an army and intelligence network to ensure that whatever they choose to believe will be enforced.

But the rot does catch up in the end. For Rome it was overextending itself logistically and leadership falling out of touch with the citizens. For the USA, it is not much different. The national debt is truly threatening to collapse the dollar. The military and political involvement outside its borders is threatening to outspend the economic generator of the country. There is a growing domestic outcry about the US leadership and ruling cliques that seem to exist.

Believing one is the cat's whisker should only be indulged in for a brief moment for therein lies an implied risk: That cat may just die one day - of natural causes, of course. That is the way of Nature, regardless of what one chooses to believe.

Unhealthy imbalance

The BBC has commented some time ago on a health report released from Geneva. The summary was grim and the details even worse. This report deals with health on a world scale. In the summary it is mentioned that while North and South America suffers only 10% of the world's diseases, it has 50% of the world's health budget and 30% of the health workers. On the other hand, Africa suffers 24% of the world's diseases and has only 1% of the world's health budget and 3% of the world's health workers.

Worldwide, there is an estimated shortage of 4.3 million doctors, midwives, nurses and support workers, according to the WHO.

For some years now South African doctors have been leaving the country for greener pastures in Canada and the UK. This drain on much needed medical experts is hurting the country. Part of the cause are the conditions in state hospitals that have deteriorated since the change in the political system in 1994. The Minister of Health has introduced a compulsory three year service in state hospitals for medical graduates. Such draconic measures are much despised by especially white graduates. In response, many have left the country and are still oversees.

Organisations such as MSF from France, do a great deal to address the health situation in elsewhere in Africa. But MSF cannot make too much of a dent in the problem, due to the sheer size of the problem. It is a moral dilemma that stands and begs at the door of mankind.

Time to go

In the words of Pink Floyd: "Time to go!" Mr Blair, it is time to go now isn't it. You and your party has become rotten to the core. All that remains is the smooth varnish that you have in such copious amounts. And even that is showing the strain of time and abuse with cracks all over the surface.

The Peerage for Money scandal has become the latest nail in your coffin and I dearly hope, with many British and other people, that it would be the final nail. What leaves me staggering are the claims from both the deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott and the treasurer of the party, Jack Dromey, now suddenly quite unfamiliar with the loans from wealthy benefactors to fund the last election. Let us just get a sense of perspective here: These loans under discussion were not small loans. These were loans to the amount of 14 million British pounds - more than half the budget of the Labour election campaign.

If the treasurer of the party did not know of the source of this money, where did he think this huge sum of money had come from? He must have known these amounts were loans - because he had to show that in the party's financial books. He had to know from whom the funds arrived, because he was supposed to ensure the loans would be repaid. That is what treasurers do, not so? Had this man taken leave of his faculties while those inscriptions were being made in Labour's financial books?

How could the deputy Prime Ministor not have known about the sources of these loans? Did not the party meet to discuss funding before the campaign? Did Mr Blair lie to the deputy Prime Minister and treasurer? Did he launder the money? Chaps, we are older than two around here. Kindly do not insult the common sense of your audience.

Mr Blair and Co, I can suggest a few suitable retirement spots in the warmer and drier parts of the world, where you would have a splendid time indeed. There are many rotten kinds hanging out there, enjoyings their spoils. You'd be quite at home.

Just get out of 10 Downing Street, would you?

Is there absolute good and evil?

The short answer to the question "Is there absolute good or bad?" is "no". The argument why absolute good or bad are untenable concepts is rather straight-forward with a twist in the tail. It goes like this.

Absolute good or bad requires a centre of good or bad. Traditionally, cultures entertained a concept of God, which served as a centre of good. God blesses, watches over his/her creation. Likewise, the antithesis of good is a centre of evil, such as the Devil. A post-modern framework of logic, leaving God aside, leaves one in a void as to the centre of absolute good or evil. The only plausible alternative is some intrinsic sense in humans of absolute good and evil. Again, no go. Enter Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins, his protagonist.

We are governed by our genes' singular motive to propagate unchanged, if one is to believe Dawkins. This fine gentleman convincingly argues that the evolution of a species is not driven by the survival of the group, but the survival of the gene in competing over resources. The human body, as a perfectly suitable example of a species, is a mere vessel to carry genes. Each of us is programmed by our genes to be selfish.

Humans evolved an elaborate brain with extraordinary intellectual capacity. Part of this capacity is used to develop frameworks of principles to govern groups of humans. The sole purpose of such frameworks is to improve the probability of the individual to survive and thrive, thereby enhancing the chances of the genes to propagate. There is no intrinsic good or evil at hand here. We merely depict as good such behaviour as conforms to the framework and as evil such behaviour as strikes out against the framework.

Substantiated by extensive practical observation, Steven Pinker argues that humans are hardly noble and to the contrary rather selfish. There is no evidence in history of a universal sense of goodness or evil. At best one can argue that humans have displayed some notion of the sanctity of human life, although there are many exceptions to this notion. Some exceptions are somewhat frivolous. In recent France, a man could flaunt the gauntlet over rather petty grievances to fight until death in a dual, with little consequence for the winner other than some battle scars for the less nimble.

The Incas had quite dire rituals of offering humans to appease their gods. More recently, some countries have cynically construed good vs evil for own political gains by vilifying a suitable candidate and mobilise the local population to go to war against that unfortunate candidate. Iraq springs to mind. In South Africa, the once evil resistance movement, the ANC, came good and to power in 1994 in the first elections under universal suffrage.

Good and evil require a context to exist. This context is drifting with the age of Mankind. We will have to concede that we are not so wise as to know the absolute of good and evil. Rather, good and evil are the folly of Man who has dared to stand upright.

The terror of absolutism

An article in the latest New York Times online prompted this posting:
"For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats"

One of the darkest elements of the human condition is seated in the folly of absolutism. No other conceptual premise holds more ultimate fatality for humankind than absolutism. And religion has always been the cohort of choice for absolutism. We know it all too well: My God is the true God.

Religion has always been a key element of culture and ethnic identity. Religion is both a combining influence and a personal conviction. Cultural leaders can play on religion to combine individuals into a clan, exploiting religion as a strong element of group identity. Religion can also be very divisive as in the Middle East, Northern Ireland and Indonesia for example. Beyond greed, religion has been the fire that burnt many a civilization to ashes. Religion is power and power feeds greed. Why humans are so susceptible to religious manipulation is a matter for another discussion.

But a religion that is not absolutely true is open to opinion and opinion leads to dissidence and dissidence dilutes power, which alas, limits the exploits of greed. So, those most hungry for power need absolute truths more than they need air.

When the German tribes first got their eyes on a German Bible, courtesy of the brave and single-minded Martin Luther, it changed everything for them and ultimately broke the stronghold of Rome on the German society. But then, sadly, Protestantism descended into absolutism again with the Heidelberg Catechism.

It was the great Christian evangelical theologist, Karl Barth, that very clearly and eloquently explained how our insight and knowledge are only partial and only our interpretation of a deeper truth that may lie beneath our understanding. Quoting the Wikipedia, "Barth argued that the God who is revealed in the cross of Jesus challenges and overthrows any attempt to ally God with human cultures, achievements, or possessions. "

The essence of Barth's theology is in direct opposition to absolutism. Since we cannot rightfully tie God to our culture, we have to leave room for God to be also applicable in another cultural interpretation of God. No single culture can lay claim to absolute knowledge of God. Of course, the atheist might have excluded himself from this argument by virtue of the null hypothesis - there is no God.

Once absolutism has been negated, opinion becomes the basis for consensus on a believe structure. But the believe structure is only a partial understanding based upon premises that are only interpretations of a deeper conviction. We cannot sensibly prove or disprove God at this point in time, let alone go to war over our interpretation of God and God's guidance to Mankind. Who can rightfully claim that God is on "our" side. Why should he be not on the "other's" side? Because "our" interpretation of him is better?

The article referenced at the top speaks of a deep truth: We are dealing in the world today with a conflict between civilization and barbarism. But, it is not necessarily a Western civilization against a barbaric Middle East. Rather it is a civilization of universal freedoms and respect, as first demonstrated by the Greek and the Persians of 2000 years ago and affirmed in some modern democratic establishments, against a barbarism of manipulation; nepotism; lies; distortions; exploitation; corruption and oppression of opinion as demonstrated in the West; Middle East and Far East alike.

We need to seriously revisit our value systems in every culture of the world lest our homegrown versions of absolutism overcome us before daybreak.

Tony puts his foot in it

Oh dear, Mr Blair, you have truly put your foot in that smooth-talking mouth of yours, haven't you?[1,2,3,4] In a modern state in the 21st century, we tend to keep religion out of politics. In fact, in the West we have been inclined to do so for the past 230 years, although seldom with much success. And since Britain does not have a formal constitution and does pose a state church, perhaps we should have expected some mixing of religion and politics.

So, on who's side is God now, Mr Blair? And which God are we referring to here? The very white, Western God of the Church of England as represented by the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the God of Islam as represented by imams of all kinds. Quite a dilemma, I would say. So, Mr Blair, when you pray, is God more likely to listen than to the Muslim 5000 km away, where your aeroplanes and tanks and men are occupying foreign, sovereign territory on your wild goose chase after phantom weapons of mass destruction? Who makes that decision, Mr Blair? Who calls the tune; who pays the piper? You, your cabinet, your Archbishop or your Queen? Oh dear, Mr Blair, which way shall He look? Your way, or their way?

In a parliamentarian democracy, leaders are judged by the voters and the elected parliament. When a leader has run out of room to maneuver, it is all too easy to fall back on absolutisms such as God shall be my judge. I am afraid, here on earth, the courts, the parliament and the electorate shall have first call. And after all, according to Christian believe, these powers are there by the power of God, Mr Blair.

After the last election in Britain, last year, when Labour was beaten back decisively to win by a much reduced majority, Mr Blair declared that he had listened; learned and thought people wanted to "move on" with regard to the Iraq war. Well, not quite so fast, Mr Blair.

There have been calls for impeachment and a parliamentary inquiry into the case made by the Prime Minister for commiting Britain to war in Iraq.

Shortly before the outbreak of war in Iraq, a top British weapons advisor, Dr David Kelly, died in an apparant suicide following pressure on him for disclosing inside information on the Iraq weapons dosier to the BBC. Dr Kelly alleged in the interview with the BBC that the potential threat to the world posed by Iraq had been souped up by Tony Blair.

Three ministers resigned on principle before the war.

The Law Lords of Britain have heard that there should be a court decision on the legality of going to war in Iraq.

A human rights lawyer has claimed that Mr Blair and Mr Bush made a pact before the UN resolution to go to war in Iraq.

This ghost is not going away, Mr Blair. It is returning to haunt you. Sleep well, if you will, Mr Blair.