EU Spectacle
The word spectacle is carefully chosen, since this is what the current drama of which Greece is the symptom, not the cause, has become. It no longer bears any relationship to coherent democratic leadership or process of governance in a workable political and currency union. The cancellation at a moment’s notice of a summit of all EU leaders is extraordinary.
There is a problem with Greece, but it is not that difficult to solve. Indeed this blog working alone would be able to negotiate a workable solution. What is proving impossible is to find an acceptable solution, because the institutions normally established to process decision making at national and international levels are not there, or there in such abundance nobody can detect who is in charge. And to make matters worse the structure of the currency itself is unsustainable as it lacks a treasury and a finance minister answering to an elected government. A committee of finance ministers at loggerheads, elected by only one member state in each case, on conflicting mandates and to differing electoral timetables will work only in the good times and becomes dysfunctional under pressure.
So all we know at this moment is that Greece may or may not go bust tomorrow, the euro looks more like an impediment to growth than an engine of it, and the reputation of the EU as a coherent political union is severely damaged. Beneath that a big gap is developing between the north and the south of Europe, between the politicians and their electors everywhere and between those in the eurozone who want to stand firm to high principle even if it brings the whole thing down, led by the Germans, and by those who feel pragmatic reality demands compromise, led by France and Italy.
At the heart of of this crisis now engulfing the whole EU are three violated principles. You cannot have a democratic political union without an elected forum from which all authority flows. You cannot have a currency which cannot be printed. You cannot have capitalism which does not permit debtors to go bust. The first is violated because the whole EU is wrongly configured. The last two are rescinded because Germany says No.
message 401:
by
Linda
(last edited Nov 11, 2015 10:12AM)
(new)
Nov 11, 2015 10:10AM
All this talk of Byron and his alleged autobiography reminds me of another discussion from college. Professor Jones was an expert on Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville who knew each other just as Byron and Shelley did. The story goes that Hawthorne confided a deep, dark secret about his past to Melville and made him swear to take the secret to his grave. All these literary legends!
reply
|
flag
How do you know Murray looked at Byron's manuscript? If he did inevitably rumors would fly. I gave an example about this from ancient times about the autobiography of Nero's mother. I wonder if there was a Byron autobiography at all. Byron wrote letters and journals, not autobiographies or biographies or any other long work of nonfiction. That's another objection to the story. It wasn't his genre.
When would he have had time to write it? If he wrote it, wouldn't he have referred to it in his letters and journals? If there is no written evidence in his letters and journals, how could anybody be sure that he wrote an autobiography?
I wonder if even Lady Byron, Byron's wife, would have burned his manuscripts if he had sent them to her or left them to her. She probably would have stashed them somewhere instead if she didn't approve of what they said.Also this rumor about the autobiography that went up in smoke supposes that Byron really was guilty of all sorts of horrible acts of immorality. This goes to the core of the events of his life. What did he do that was so terrible? There was the story about his half-sister, Augusta Leigh if I remember right. Then there was Lady Caroline Lamb in London. He was actually married to Lady Byron, and they had a daughter, Ada. He left England for good for a self-imposed exile in Switzerland, Italy, and Greece (mostly Italy). While in Switzerland he had an affair with Mary Shelley's relation, Claire Clairmont. He had an illegitimate daughter by her. Then when he was in northern Italy his last mistress was Teresa Guiccioli. What else did he do? And the evidence about his half-sister is rather thin. This hardly sounds like book burning material.
Linda wrote: "How do you know Murray looked at Byron's manuscript? If he did inevitably rumors would fly. I gave an example about this from ancient times about the autobiography of Nero's mother. I wonder if t..."
I just don't think that the Murrays would have any reason to invent such a story. That sort of thing is pretty unlikely and then to go on handing it down. If it was rubbish the family would have known and John Murray 2 would have quietly buried it.
To be fair I have never come across this in any references to Byron. This is part of Murray history.
Linda wrote: "I wonder if even Lady Byron, Byron's wife, would have burned his manuscripts if he had sent them to her or left them to her. She probably would have stashed them somewhere instead if she didn't app..."Well in the England of those days there was a huge difference between form and fact. The published position of marriages was very different to what was really going on and understood by the upper classes in the know. It may well have been that the very affairs you talk about may have not been regarded as suitable for publication. Vulgar would have been the word.
Did you know that in most big houses of the period bedrooms had interconnecting doors, so that guests to skip between them without being seen in the passageways by the servants. Interestingly my Murray house had that arrangement.
I have never heard of Murray history. That's a unique angle. But once again I will have to see what Leslie Marchand says. Marchand is, you know, not just another Byron biographer. He is THE biographer. When you look at his editions of Byron's letters and journals and see how much work he did, you just know that it is going to be a long, long time before another scholar puts that much effort into tracing down every reference Byron ever made to 1)another person 2)a place he visited 3)a work he wrote or planned to write 4)a turn of phrase or quote 5)a custom or holiday referred to 6)an historical event no matter how minor, etc.. If Byron was writing an autobiography you would think he would tell somebody else about it. It would be a good idea to look at the index of the journals and see if the word autobiography comes up and in what context.
Interesting about the interconnecting bedrooms. That certainly wasn't the case with Versailles in earlier centuries. Everybody had to cross through other people's actual bedrooms to get to another bedroom or room. There weren't enough hallways. If Murray's house had that arrangement, did your old house have that arrangement, too? Did you have interconnecting bedrooms?
On This Day I Complete My Thirty-Sixth Year written on January 22, 1824 from Greece by Byron. This is his poetic "good-bye". I don't know if I would call it an autobiographical poem. But it was his last.'Tis time this heart should be unmoved,
Since others it hath ceased to move:
Yet, though I cannot be beloved,
Still let me love!
My days are in the yellow leaf;
The flowers and fruits of love are gone;
The worm, the canker, and the grief,
Are mine alone!
The fire that on my bosom preys
Is lone as some volcanic isle;
No torch is kindled at its blaze -
A funeral pile!
The hope, the fear, the jealous care,
The exalted portion of the pain
And power of love, I cannot share,
But wear the chain.
But 'tis not thus -and 'tis not here -
Such thoughts should shake my soul, nor now,
Where glory decks the hero's bier,
Or binds his brow.
The sword, the banner, and the field,
Glory and Greece, around me see!
The Spartan, borne upon his shield,
Was not more free.
Awake! (not Greece -she is awake!)
Awake, my spirit! Think through whom
Thy life-blood tracks its parent lake,
And then strike home!
Tread those reviving passions down,
Unworthy manhood! -unto thee
Indifferent should the smile or frown
Of beauty be.
If thou regret'st thy youth, why live?
The land of honourable death
Is here: -up to the field, and give
Away thy breath!
Seek out -less often sought than found -
A soldier's grave, for thee the best;
Then look around, and choose thy ground,
And take thy rest.
Linda wrote: "Interesting about the interconnecting bedrooms. That certainly wasn't the case with Versailles in earlier centuries. Everybody had to cross through other people's actual bedrooms to get to another ..."I am talking about my old house which was built by John Murray IV. The head of the family and firm is always a John. Yes it had the two guest bedrooms connecting.
When your internet is fixed you will be able to view it from the air.
Linda wrote: "On This Day I Complete My Thirty-Sixth Year written on January 22, 1824 from Greece by Byron. This is his poetic "good-bye". I don't know if I would call it an autobiographical poem. But it was his..."I think I did this at school. There is an autobiographical hint to it I think.
You see, what Byron invented was himself, the Byronic hero. It wasn't a real image. It was an invented literary image. T. E Lawrence also invented himself. Lawrence of Arabia is something of a fictional creation, too. I think Bryon would have liked Lawrence if they had been of the same time period.
On another subject, talk about lack of privacy. During the past week or two Facebook has started to text me on my phone every day. They say What are you doing? Reply with a status update to post to Facebook with a link to follow. Also they are starting to link my posts with a physical location. We've been trying to figure out how to defeat that with a different location. I've started to look at books on asset protection. One of the first things they tell you to do is to stop using social media. But that's at odds with being an author. It's a paradox.
Linda wrote: "You see, what Byron invented was himself, the Byronic hero. It wasn't a real image. It was an invented literary image. T. E Lawrence also invented himself. Lawrence of Arabia is something of a fict..."Agree with that. They both had a big part in creating their image. Lawrence found he had overdone it and could not take the celebrity part of it so he disappeared into the Aircraftsman Ross persona.
Linda wrote: "On another subject, talk about lack of privacy. During the past week or two Facebook has started to text me on my phone every day. They say What are you doing? Reply with a status update to post to..."That's easy. Go into your phone settings and deny Facebook the permissions to access your data and contact details. If you cannot see how to do it, uninstall Facebook, then reinstall it from the App Store, and deny the permissions when it asks for them.
You will not be bothered again.
I have Lawrence really disappear in my novels. Churchill helps him vanish. They have a set up where when he seemed to have a fatal crash on his motorcycle really his double was shot by the Von Wessels. Churchill presides at his funeral and Lawrence goes to America to participate in the Manhattan Project. Even Edward, his best friend, doesn't find out until years later. So Lawrence vanishes for a reason, not just because he is ducking publicity.
There is much more mystery and intrigue associated with Lawrence than with Byron. I don't think of Byron as a figure of intrigue. There is no way you could imagine him as a spy. He despised the government as did Shelley and other romantic poets. You couldn't see Byron in the army. Oh yes, he was at Waterloo with the Duke of Wellington! I don't think so. The way he ended up in Greece was just some sort of romantic delusion. What he is talking about in his last poem about turning 36 is how he thinks he is going to die in battle. For a moment he romanticizes warfare and regrets his past life as a poet by comparison with such a noble calling.
Unlike Byron Lawrence certainly did write about himself in the Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Crusader Castles, various letters, etc. He had various names such as Ross and Shaw when he joined the RAF in 1922 after the Cairo Conference with Churchill. Since his disappearance into the RAF was so sudden none of his proffered reasons make any sense. He said he needed to make a living. He also said he didn't want the celebrity. But all these things don't account for the change. I think there was something secret going on. It wasn't as big as in my novel. But nevertheless he was up to something.It just occurred to me yesterday that there was a similarity between Byron and Lawrence. No wonder when I was a kid I liked Byron and now I've adopted Lawrence. It fits in a way that never occurred to me before.
Linda wrote: "Unlike Byron Lawrence certainly did write about himself in the Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Crusader Castles, various letters, etc. He had various names such as Ross and Shaw when he joined the RAF in ..."Well there you are. That 's neat you have now made the connection.
Speaking previously about Waterloo, last night before I went to bed suddenly Amazon changed its front page to a tricolor French flag and labeled it with the single word Solidarite. It usually doesn't come up with French symbols and I thought it looked very romantic. I thought it was appropriate for the time period of my latest novel about the battle in 1815.
I suppose if I were writing an intrigue novel about the early nineteenth century I would at least mention Byron. Come to think of it, I think I did mention him in my Waterloo novel. And I might mention him again as I revise it. I know I mentioned a number of other literary figures such as Jane Austen and Mrs. Radcliffe, also Monk Lewis. Then again can you think of a more romantic time period? Even the wars were thought of as romantic. How could the view of warfare change so much?
Linda wrote: "Speaking previously about Waterloo, last night before I went to bed suddenly Amazon changed its front page to a tricolor French flag and labeled it with the single word Solidarite. It usually doesn..."I don't think you are up to date with the news. Paris suffered a massive terrorist attack last night. 129 dead, 350 injured, including Americans. Public buildings around the world have been lit in the tricolour including New York and the Sydney Opera House.
Linda wrote: "I suppose if I were writing an intrigue novel about the early nineteenth century I would at least mention Byron. Come to think of it, I think I did mention him in my Waterloo novel. And I might men..."Because in those days war was based on a set piece battles and a contest of heroes. Now it involves the mass slaughter of innocent civilians. It is altogether different and a concept which is morally bankrupt.
I would like to quote Saladin who was the first sultan of Egypt and Syria and lived in the 1100's, the antagonist of Richard the Lion-Hearted on the Third Crusade. He thought that in order to control the Arab world you had to conquer the Syria/Arabia area and Egypt, of course. Then the rest would fall in line. The Sauds need to go in Saudi Arabia. They came to power with an evil alliance with the Wahhabis, who are behind all this current disorder in the Middle East. For instance, they have this crazy idea that you should knock down buildings. The only country who can really be behind it is the US right now. NATO could be involved, too. But you've really got to occupy this area and get it "civilized".
Linda I do not want to debate this with you because I am fundamentally opposed to your view.You are right about history but we are now in the Twenty First century. Modern war causes immense suffering to innocent people whose only fault is to be living there. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan are all total failures and IS is the product of all this stupidity. There is no military solution. Even the Russians accept there has to be a political solution although there want to preserve the Syrian state. The only way your plan could be carried out would be with an invading army of about 5 million. That is politically impossible.The era of force being able to deliver a clear cut outcome is over and you need to learn that. If you watched the news every night and saw the suffering and the millions tramping through the fields of Europe trying to flee from these places you would understand that. History is one thing but the here and now is quite another and you cannot hide from it forever.
I am not hiding from anything. History has not changed as much as you think. It makes the western countries of Europe look like they are being pushed around to be constantly attacked by terrorists and not to retaliate in a military fashion. There is no way you can come up with a "political solution" anymore than Britain could come up with a "political solution" to the Nazis in the 1930's. You sound like Neville Chamberlain with policies of appeasement. You can't appease men hiding behind the guise of religion to justify their ambitions or Wahhabis. You have to conquer them. They won't understand anything else or respond to anything else. What I'm suggesting about occupation is the more humane solution. In centuries past --- think of the Romans and Carthage --- they would have been annihilated to the last man, woman, and child whether they were innocent or not. The Romans didn't leave Carthage without salting the earth so that nothing would ever grow there again. Even the later Roman Empire was a more humane solution than annihilating Carthaginians during the Roman Republic. The British Empire was a better solution, too. The US has to stop being isolationistic and occupy the countries involved. Where you get a figure of 5 million I don't know. But short of total occupation for a long time you won't get a solution.
Gary says France wants to declare war anyway. So that would bring in NATO and inevitably the US. So I don't know what you are talking about by a political solution. What exactly do you mean by a "political solution"? What do you propose?
The news media always have their own agenda. In the US they are always on the liberal side and are almost always anti-war though never anti- "our troops". They like to blame all politicians who order military operations and will come up with whatever footage they can find to justify their point of view. It's called "yellow journalism" and was invented in the modern era over one hundred years ago by William Randolph Hearst. That's one reason I rarely pay attention to the news.
You should have been in the US during the autumn of 2001 right after 9/11. The news media was singing a different tune for awhile at least. Then they played images of heroic troops and freedom speeches by Bush. It just depends what they want you to see.What I think is really sad are how many more Frenchman or how many more British citizens have to be killed before everybody wakes up and realizes that they can't allow themselves to be pushed around anymore. Why is it better for Frenchmen or British citizens or citizen of Wallonia or the Netherlands or wherever to die than to take action to prevent such things in the future? To me it sounds totally illogical and crazy.
Gary found an article by an historian which goes against what almost everybody thinks nowadays about violence and warfare. He says that the 21st century and before that the twentieth are the most peaceful times mankind has ever known. Fewer people have been killed in violent episodes in proportion to the total population than ever before as far as we can statistically determine. This includes WW1 and WW2. This shows that attitudes about war have changed simply because in the past people were more accustomed to violence. Now they are not! Now they don't like it at all.
If it were possible to launch a military action which would bring about peace as in WW1 or WW11 or Waterloo, then yes. But the world has changed. Armed force no longer brings closure; it opens up new conflict. Each of the three countries, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, America and or NATO were supposed to have liberated and made democracies are now failed states engulfed in civil war. Their citizens are engaged in the greatest diaspora flight since biblical times. The numbers are now such that Europe, even Germany, can no longer cope. Ever since 9/11 there has been constant fighting and increasing chaos. It has been going on for fouteen years. A way has to be found to bring the broken bits of the Sunnis together, and then achieve some sort of peace between them and the Shia.
The problem with America is that not since the 1860's has it felt war in its homeland. If Chicago and San Francisco were piles of rubble with children starving and gunmen rampaging, maybe they would be less keen to inflict these horrors on others.
Remember if the US does go back in with NATO and now with Russia, it will not be on the battle front that the casualties will pile up. It will be in New York and Los Angeles or soft targets like Tucson that the terror attacks will occur.
I have lived through all this. America has not won a military engagement in decisive terms since 1945. Korea is still technically at war though in an armistice, Viet Nam was a failure in which America lost big time,the first Iraq war was broken off before the job was done and everything since 9/11 has been a fiasco.
Be careful what you wish for.
Linda wrote: "Gary found an article by an historian which goes against what almost everybody thinks nowadays about violence and warfare. He says that the 21st century and before that the twentieth are the most p..."Yes I agree that people are now much against violence and this is a good thing overall. Gary's research is interesting. I think I kind of knew it but the reminder is useful. Thank Gary for me.
To give the UK its due it does have a very good security network and the Government has just announced a big increase in funding. We have a lot of experience. Do you know that the Northern Ireland IRA troubles which ran from the late sixties to the late nineties killed 3500 UK citizens and injured over 40,000? The American public helped fund the terrorists and nobody in the world gave the matter much thought. We just had to get on with it on our own.
The Irish Terrorist activity I understand was one of the casualties of 9/11. When the US cracked down on terrorist funding, it all ended. Before that I wasn't even aware that Americans were funding Irish terrorist activity. I don't think most people here were.
Your insistence that the US hasn't won any wars since 1945 is true. There haven't been any real wars since 1945. From the Vietnam War we withdrew. We didn't have to. (Bush I by the way did win the Gulf War). When the US sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, they didn't stay long enough. They withdrew. You know that America almost didn't enter WW2. The America First Movement was pretty powerful. That would have changed history if we hadn't. Do you know that the North almost withdrew from the American Civil War? If the election of 1864 had gone the other way, it would all have been over before Appomattox. One of America's biggest problems is its lack of ability to stick to armed conflicts. It's a society that emphasizes business, not war. But it inherited the responsibility to manage world affairs from the British after WW2. It is the only country that can do so. If you are right and somehow the US can't manage wars at all anymore, western civilization is in big trouble.
America has to overcome its Isolationism in order to handle the Middle East. In order to make it change for the better, it has to be occupied. Do you have another solution? You said a way has to be found for the Sunnis and Shias to coexist peacefully. But what ideas do you have specifically? You should write an article about it. I'm sure everyone would prefer a peaceful solution if there were one. In other words, if you could go back to the Cairo Conference of March, 1921 with Churchill and Lawrence, how would you redraw the boundaries of the Middle Eastern countries? Or would you say that Turkey should go back to ruling them again? This, by the way, is why I say that WW1 is still going on and hasn't ended yet.
As far as lots of terrorism going on in Los Angeles or New York, I don't think that would be tolerated here. Americans wouldn't quit on that one. They would rise up to a man and prevent whatever was going on.
Linda wrote: "As far as lots of terrorism going on in Los Angeles or New York, I don't think that would be tolerated here. Americans wouldn't quit on that one. They would rise up to a man and prevent whatever wa..."I am sure they would but it is much harder to prevent than it looks. You constantly suffer from these mass shootings by a nutter with a grudge. Modern terrorism operates to the same model.
I suspect that all this terrorism and all these wars back to WW1 were caused by invisible forces such as economics. I strongly suspect that all the liberation movements and nationalistic movements that sprung up one hundred years ago in the wake of WW1 had to do with the Industrial Revolution and the spread of western ideas. That's another reason I think occupation is the solution. When I say occupation, I don't just mean armies. I mean businesses have to go over there and set up offices. Do you remember the East India Company in India? Think of the Arab states that are the most successful. The Arab Emirates come to mind. Shore excursions in Dubai and Oman take you to sky scrapers. By the way, did you know that the Arab Emirates used to trade with the ancient Romans? I think they shipped spices to Rome. It's the part of the Arab world --- in addition to Egypt --- that has been in association with the west the longest.
Linda wrote: "Your insistence that the US hasn't won any wars since 1945 is true. There haven't been any real wars since 1945. From the Vietnam War we withdrew. We didn't have to. (Bush I by the way did win the ..."I agree with a lot of what you say, but I have some new input. Just like in Roman times, the British Empire was the civilizing influence across the world. The Spanish had had their chance but they were just cruel plunderers. The Brits brought education and fair laws etc.
However now western civilisation is one of three models in play which are similar, and one which is going through a painful re-birth. The three models are Western or Christian whichever you prefer, Chinese or Eastern and Indian or Asian. All use variations of capitalism.
The re-birth is Islam. Oil has made it a rising mega power, but it is split between Sunni and Shia and spin offs of each with the ultra developed capitalist Saudi Arabia at one end of the spectrum, and the medieval martial fundamentalism of IS at the other. It is almost like the twenty-first century and the fourteenth century happening at the same time.
Whist the West is broadly sympathetic to Israel(though much more lukewarm than it used to be) it has always kept away from Israel's fights with its neighbours. Yes it supplies weapons but no more.
The way to make the middle east sort itself out and make the Arabs get a grip is to stop buying their oil and freeze all their assets world wide. An embargo on all exports and shipments from across the region. America, Russia, South America, Alaska, the North Sea etc could bridge the gap. We withdraw all our forces and let them get on with it. Believe me they would not take long first to slaughter each other then to mend their ways.
A final point worth making. In this world now Iran and Russia are allies of the West. China is a partner; a slightly different thing. America has to radically re-think its foreign policy and move away from a worn out model, in order to keep its authority from being eroded as happened to Britain. This is a Nixon moment. You sorely need that President now.
I don't know what you mean by mass shootings and having mass shootings going on in the US. Where are they going on?
There's a lot to comment on in your last essay starting with "I have some new input". I'll go issue by issue. When you say there are now three models of capitalism: Western, Chinese, and Indian or Asian, I'm not sure what you mean. First of all, capitalism was invented by the West. Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations. So any country who adopts capitalism --- which has now become universal --- is going through the Industrial Revolution which also is western and has adopted western ways. Obviously each country develops its own flavor of capitalism. That was always true. Even each of the western countries has a different take on it. Nothing proves the West is dominant more than capitalism. It's like the modern religion like medieval Christianity. No one questions it. It has become the world view.
Your view about the rebirth of Islam is totally at odds with the way I see things. I don't see it as a rebirth at all. It's almost like the death throes of Islam if they don't soon have a Reformation and modernize. Nor do I see the Saudis and Isis at opposite ends of the spectrum. Look up Ibin Saud, the founder of the dynasty. Look up Wahhabis. They came to power together. They have some nutty version of Islam about knocking down buildings, which is at odds with the development of civilization. Remember the Saudis were nomads and desert dwellers to begin with. (The Gulf State Arabs were always the more civilized ones. They traded with the Romans.)
Linda wrote: "I don't know what you mean by mass shootings and having mass shootings going on in the US. Where are they going on?"In approximately the last 1000 days there have been over 900 mass shootings in the US killing over 1300 and injuring over 3000. This is Americans killing each other because it is the only country in the world with a citizenry armed under the law, protected by the Constitution.
If you want to see the statistics here they are
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng...
Linda wrote: "There's a lot to comment on in your last essay starting with "I have some new input". I'll go issue by issue. When you say there are now three models of capitalism: Western, Chinese, and Indian or ..."You see absolutely everything through the prism of history. I see everything as it is now. Asia and the East have adopted capitalism but in a slightly different format. China is the powerhouse of the global economy. It is now the second largest after the US. In the next ten years it is predicted to become the biggest. Capitalism is here, but it is no longer exclusive to the West.
There are good examples of this in my study. My old laptop comes from Taiwan, my new one is Chinese, my smart phone is Chinese, my tablet is American.
Linda wrote: "Your view about the rebirth of Islam is totally at odds with the way I see things. I don't see it as a rebirth at all. It's almost like the death throes of Islam if they don't soon have a Reformati..."I was referring to the fact that Saudi Arabia is the largest country and the wealthiest and most highly developed, whereas Islamic State is an unrecognised area of occupation strung out like a creeper turning the clock back to the past.
Saladin was one of the greatest Islamic rulers from the 1100's. He's one of my favorites. He would roundly condemn the Islamic State. In fact,he was the one who came up with the peace agreement at the end of the Third Crusade with King Richard the Lion-Hearted. He said that each crusader would be allowed to visit the Holy Land since everybody worshipped the same god. He even struck up a trade agreement with Richard. Doesn't he sound more reasonable and modern than the Islamic state? You say Islamic state sounds like the the fourteenth century all over again. But back then the Islamic types were more rational and reasonable.
Oh yes, I forget to mention it. Saladin had two fundamentalist type weirdo religious terrorists following him around, breaking into his tent, and trying to assassinate him. I never could make sense of the situation. Neither could Saladin.
Linda wrote: "Saladin was one of the greatest Islamic rulers from the 1100's. He's one of my favorites. He would roundly condemn the Islamic State. In fact,he was the one who came up with the peace agreement at ..."Oh yes I do agree that Islam has always been a great civilisation and the vast majority of Muslims are opposed to Islamic State.
The mass shootings must not have been that sensational, or I probably would have heard about them. Or at least Gary would have heard about them. If you mean individual gun incidents that sort of thing goes on all the time I suppose. I'm not in favor of gun ownership myself. The crazy Supreme Court, which in the past few years has come down with I don't know how many weird rulings, ruled that the Second Amendment allows you the right to carry guns. Historically that can't be justified. It was originally supposed to be the right to have a militia, I think.By the way that was always the first question the police asked when we complained about the mover --- was he armed? When we said we didn't think so, they weren't as interested. They have so many complaints about armed men that if they are not armed they don't get as much attention.
China may be a growing economy, but it's the essence of what it means to be Eastern. It's about as far from being Western as you can get. So even if it gets to be the "biggest economy" however you define that, it won't be the "leading economy". Politically it's backward in Western terms. It is not a democracy. And China has never been a country that thinks beyond its sphere of influence in Asia.
On a train coming back from lunch in London. Your comment is interesting. I think your shootings get more media coverage here than maybe in the US because we find it really peculiar that everybody is allowed guns in America.,
One of the few subjects we seem to agree about when it comes to politics is Nixon. I think that he is the most influential American President of the second half of the 20th century. When you read about Watergate in books it never makes any sense. All it means is that he was politically framed and forced to resign. He opened up China for one thing. I know there were Chinese Americans in my community where I grew up who worshiped Nixon. They thought he could do no wrong. Because of him they got to make a trip to China and visit their relatives.
