Ukraine 25th February 2022

 See my video blog -  http://www.aboyne-dinnet-cromar-churches.org.uk/index.php/home/minister-s-news

COP 26 and onwards now

 Viewed from a distance, the COP 26 Climate Event could be summarised succinctly as, on the one hand powerful people trying to do what is within the realms of what they think of as possible to avert climate catastrophe, and on the other hand climate crisis activists shouting at them telling them that they are bad, greedy, uncaring and that they are not doing nearly enough.

I understand the campaigners' anger and frustration (and believe) that not enough is being done and possibly won't be done to avert much pain and loss of life and homes for many who live at the edges - those who live at the mercy of sea levels rising, and those who live in those zones where climate change has the most profound and disturbing effects on weather and land. So the message that it is bad not to care and not to do more is important for moral and spritual reasons.

But there is another message that we need to start emphasising.

At the moment it can often seem as though we are facing a binary choice. Act or face devastation. The truth is there will not be enough action fast enough to stop some warming beyond the limits which scientists say must be met. So there has to be a message that helps us all to become more resilient. 

A time is coming when travel will have to be different. A time is coming when we may have less exotic food choices. A time is coming when our access to the internet and lighting fast communication may be limited. But here's the thing. We have lived happily and without these things in the past. It may be that we can discover that less really is more. More children playing outdoors for longer. Football and rounders could reappear as childhood games played in makeshift spaces along with hide and seek and other chase and catch games. Travelling long distances might have to happen by sailing ship and rail once again. But remember the elegance and speed of the last generations of sailing ships? The tea clippers that raced around the horn? With new technologies and lighter materials, it may yet be that a new era of sustainable travel can be born. With less screen time for gaming it may be that our youngsters will once again be found in parks and gardens playing old fashioned real games. Instead of fresh bananas we may well eat banana chips which have been created where the bananas were harvested, and can travel long distances and keep over long periods of time. And perhaps, as we face a more sustainable future with confidence, we may well begin to enjoy living in ways which settle and stall the warming process without the associated drama of "it's a crisis" dogging our attempts and clouding our actions. If we can get our heads round it and get the message out, enough, if not all, may yet be well.

COP 26 so far

Article in the Guardian 18th Oct '21 re COP 26:

Cop26 corporate sponsors condemn climate summit as ‘mismanaged’

 Well, why are we not surprised? Surely this is a trademark of all things that Boris Johnson's Government tries to manage. The Covid vaccination program suceeded because they let the management of that one go, and gave it to experienced outsider Kate Bingham, recruited admittedly by Johnson who knew he had to get this one right, so too important to let the government handle it. 

It's a different story with the arranging and managing of COP 26. It's big, it's vital, it is our last chance saloon. But it is not, despite all that, going to make any difference to the future of plan Boris. No matter what happens, he may well sail on to another term yet as PM, muddling through disaster after disaster with his big words and tattered metaphors and rumbustious style, blah blahing and bragging and touting his vanity in a "look at me" hair assemblage. If the outcome makes no difference to our headlong rush over the cliff edge of global warming, Boris will blame everything and anyone else, and the mesmerised and duped will still admire and respect him. We will be treated to news items on TV with members of the puplic in Anytown being interviewed and saying "He's doing a great job".

Perhaps Johnson is gambling on the fact that relationships with the sponsors won't impact the talks themselves, nor the decisions and the actions following them. Big people will come with their teams and get the business done. That is the style of Johnson-think. Look at the blustering confidence with which he talked up Brexit. The Northern Ireland conundrum which had sunk Theresa May was simply brushed aside by talk of oven ready deals and simple arrangements which Boris signed up to either  knowing it would all blow up later or blinded to by his own rhetoric. But given the thumping majority that Johnson enjoys, Anytown mainland UK tory voter doesn't care. What matters is steady supply of coveted goods on UK shelves, fuel in our filling stations, and prices for electricity and gas that won't cripple the best of the blue voters, even if the poorest and most vulnerable have to go to the wall. You can almost hear the riposte: there are enough well paid jobs for all. What are these so called poor people doing about it? Presumably sitting on their backsides and moaning and claiming benefits. So issues that threaten government popularity in the short term will be tackled with a vengeance, and as for the rest, well who really cares? The people whose livlihoods and homes that climate change is destroying mostly live far away, and don't get to vote in British elections. The poorest and most vulnerable Brits don't, won't or can't vote in a way which will loosen the tory grip on our land. The rest aren't convinced that Starmer will really cut it. Wise up people. Anyone else would be better.

Football and the Super League

 I first got wind of a storm brewing through hearing phrases like "it's just pure greed",  "it's all about money" "it's disgusting and selfish" made on the news in connection with the word "football", and then as I listened, I realised that these comments were being made in connection with the announcement that the top English clubs and some European ones were intending to form a new exclusive "super league". Of course my heart sank as I knew then and there that Perth St Johnstone would never be part of this exalted club. But apart from my moment of despond, as I listened, my confusion grew at the clamour of protest and indignation against this idea. You see, I thought it was always about the money. Vast sums paid to managers and players at the top of their game. Rapid sackings of managers not, and the disposal of players who were beginning to lose their edge. Moreover the fanatical, sometimes hysterical behaviour of some fans has never made sense to me, as has a fan base in places far removed from the teams' own homes. 

Having listened now for over a whole 24 hour period to this issue dominating the news I am frankly none the wiser. The proposal it seemed to me was for this "super league" to play midweek, thus not interfering with week-end fixtures. The fact that the league would be exclusive seemed no different from many institutions which we tolerate and even admire at the moment. Exclusivity is always conditional on something, whether it's money, status, celebrity, intelligence, performance, talent or cultural background. Eton may have some free places for sure, but basically it's an exclusive educational club. We've just been mourning the death of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, the late member of one of the most excusive clubs in the world, the British Monarchy, closely tied to that other exclusive club, the British aristocracy. I don't hear too many cries of condemnation for those. Even to be a republican is slightly off mainstream. You can be sure that any club facing financial disaster will quickly lose its status as a valued member of the "super league" . But everyone is jumping on the bandwagon of criticism and hostility towards this move. Apparently it's going to ruin "the pyramid system" which is how players move up the ladder, as well as clubs which aspire to joining leagues above them. I get the fact that they might not be able to aspire to the "super league" but they still could be playing against the top teams in the premiere league, since these teams had intended to stay there too. Quite frankly the whole mad scene of professional football has become a demented pack of people and institutions scrambling after hideously large amounts of money involving things as mean as changes of strips often enough to bankrupt the average fan family, never mind the ticket prices. 

Mind you, you could just call me jealous. I vividly remember becoming rapidly bored watching live football, so that my attention would wander, usually just as that goal was being scored. I used to feel like I had just wasted my 1/6d (if had paid it that is, and not wandered in through the big exit gates when they opened 20 minutes before full time!) I like the abbreviated, edited showings we get on telly. The amount of time they save by just giving you the entertaining bits suits me just fine. Perhaps there is a place for something like "Cricket 20/20" in the beautiful game......"Goals plenty plenty" or some such version of the game. Now that might get my vote.

That Interview

Before anything is said or any opinion passed, when something of impact and potentially damaging impact at that is voiced, we need to bear in mind the Biblical wisdom of Proverbs. Chapter 18.17 reminds us that the one who states their case first seems right, until another comes to cross question them. Proverbs 10.19 tells us that when many words are many, sin is not far away, and that the one who restrains their lips is wise.

 

There other obfuscating factors at work in all communication too, and these are the factors of context and fulness of truth spoken or revealed. I know that if my children had chosen to marry someone of a different race from them, I might well have expressed curiosity in a benign and wondering way about the appearance or skin colour of their children, particularly if a baby were on the way. This is neither sinister nor racist but simply human curiosity. But such curiosity could well be misunderstood and or misrepresented.

 

Sometimes it is easy to see or hear something and let it feed into one’s own prejudices or one’s own bad experience of a certain issue. My wife and I were picking up stones from the shore of the river and throwing them up the bank in order to fill a hole on the earth path which had been gouged out by flooding. A fisherman on the opposite bank who obviously was employed to keep the fishing grounds in good order called across “I just mowed that bank this morning”. He thought we were simply throwing stones into the grass. It was an easy conclusion to reach, because that is exactly what he saw when he glanced up.

 

Many of the words in the interview will be suffering from the same malaise. Too little context, too much assumed. This is often not the fault of anyone, although where this occurs in a professional interview one might not be blamed for suggesting that the interviewer could have sought clarification using better methods than Oprah did. (Yes I know she took pains to seek clarification on several contentious headline points but this was by way of repetition of the headline, not by way of digging in to it.)

 

Finally the silence or brief reply that may well follow on the part of the monarchy might be judged negatively too. But where are they to go with all this? A long-winded response interview? The public don’t like long-winded pros and cons anyway. The politics of Boris and Trump have shown this. We like headlines. We like solid statements that reek of blame, accusation or triumph. We like shockers and headlines.

 

There were some things revealed that were upsetting to hear, like Meghan’s confession of suicidal feelings. This does represent a failing somewhere of inability to hear and to act. But again it would need a careful analysis of what was available to her and what she expected by way of response in order to come to a good understanding of this. It is clear that conversations were had within the family that touched on difficult things, but again, what one person said may not have been heard in the way that they intended it to be heard. Harry talked about history repeating itself and parallels with his mother’s story. He did say that unlike her Meghan was not alone, and that she had him by her side. So not quite a parallel, but a story with one glaring similarity – that of a hounding by the press.

 

The other great controversy of these days is the Salmond-Sturgeon one. Again it will be a case of who said what and when and where, and how was it heard and why wasn’t it recorded?

 

Net result in both controversies? A lot of pain and damage.

 

Lessons from 2020

 What could we learn from 2020?

1.To act faster in the face of a pandemic. Not yet learned if you study the Govt reactions to new turns in the story.

2. To bear down harder on Israel with Barriers to Trade, Sanctions and Disinvseting. No. Too many vested interests in keeping Israel "strong" and onside.

3. Vaccines are not the way out of this Pandemic. No we haven't got that yet. The news media are so full of telling us that they are the way out that the majority will get high on it. The Corona virus is with us to stay, like the 'flu, only if you get Corona bad, you die. 'Flu tends to have a higher mortality rate only in the already very ill and or very old. Maybe total population vaccinations on an annual basis will keep more of us safe and we will be able to view it in the same way as we view the 'flu - out there but unlikely I'll get it. Maybe.

4. To plan much more meticulously for major economic events like Brexit. Ha ha. Dream on.

5. We need to be much more vigilant about the rise of right wing nationalistic movements and start to address the deep problems of poverty, unemployment and a sense of injustice that gives them their energy. If only.

6 The climate crisis can be contained with much more energetic and united global action. With the best will in the world we know this, but we can't seem to make it happen. 

7. Interfere with another country's domestic situation with violence and you open a can of worms. I doubt whether we will ever learn this, as long as we have our own selfish agendas to pursue and interests to defend. Agenda laden interference is a dead end.

The Storming of Congress - a metaphor for Donald Trump's relationship with anything he doesn't like or disagrees with.

 Did you see John Sopel's face last night as he reported on events on Capitol Hill for the BBC?  I've never seen him so filled with emotion about the subject of his report. This normally urbane objective reporter of the American Scene had his heart on his sleeve as his mouth and eyes told all. And what an "all" it was to tell. Like him I was filled with horror, dismay and anger as I watched the storming of "The Hill" and listened to Trump's petulant whining and stirring of his mob to march down there. 

Trump can't accept the result for one simple reason. He doesn't believe he could possibly have lost the election. There is no way he could not be a winner. There is no way the American electorate would have rejected him. That is truth, fact, reality for Donald Trump. Everything else follows from this. Lawsuits, claims about election rigging, ineligible votes being counted etc. Of course votes which were not for him would be ineligible. The logic is impeccable and legitimises every means used in order to subvert or overturn the result.

What I find most scary of all however is that I do not hear a roar of outrage from the USA. Sopel in his piece for the BBC displayed it visually, but there is as yet nothing much out there which seems to match my sense of outrage and fury. I know that Marina Hyde may launch an ascerbic opinion column at these events, but much as I like these opinion columns in the Guardian, I want to see a much larger, united voice of outrage expressed, because it should be! How can any reasonable American citizen of even average intelligence (not linked to Trump in some subserviant dependant way), not be outraged and angered by the events of yesterday? This horrific display should have produced a denouncement of such national proportions that removing the man from office immediately would have followed as naturally as night follows day. The fact that is does not adds huge dismay to my outrage. 

Even Jo Biden's response seemed limp by comparison to the enormity of the deed itself. And Trump's response to Biden's call to tell his mob to go home? Sure he did tell them to head home as in the same breath he claimed the high ground and told his people that they were not to be like "them", and closed by telling his mob that he loved them and they were "special". Who were "them" but the advocates of fair and free democracy and how in any sense were they the ones the mob were not to be like? It was as though thsoe who upheld the constitution and the democratic process were the ones doing the mobbing and rioting and gun slinging. These scenes do not augur well for the future of America right now. Obama must be hitting his head off the wall, Biden blinded in a mist of rage, and millions of ordinary voters dazed and confused. Reason, sense, good will, justice, please prevail!

 

Truth and Reason

 I happened to catch sight of an article on John Le Carre in the Guardian the other day, and saw that he had coined the idea of us living in an age of "mob orators who do not speak reason." He goes on to say that they use their communications to fire people up with anger and nostalgia. This gives them a popularity with the mob which they can then use to control whatever institutions pass for democratic ones in their particular country. So we see for instance the largely meek and aquiescent Tories bowing down to Boris Johnson's madnesses. This idea of truth being "whatever you can get away with", (another of Le Carre's phrases), has of course taken the reigns of power with a tight grip in the States. Joe Biden will have a hard job to get the mob to heed the voice of reason with which he will attempt to speak. There will always be the harsh background white noise of Trump's lying and offensive and provocative tweets, backed God help us by some very powerful Christian leaders.

The viscissitudes of the Pandemic, the Brexit problem back home, the Global Climate Crisis, and the Trump noise will stamp their large print on 2021 for sure, and vaccination or no vaccination 2021 will be a tough and challenging year to navigate, particularly since we all have been hoping to see the end of the tunnel in sharp focus near the beginning of the year. As the Bible says, "Hope deferred makes the heart sick".

I should have seen the rise of the mob orators coming. After all, most of the very successful preachers pitch their message to the emotions. Whether this was a pitch to the emotions of shame and fear as in our Free Presbyterian traditions in Scotland, or to legitimise the selfish material aspirations of the congregation in the prosperity Gospel messages, or any number of other angles, these churches have flourished. 

So these times need orators who can harness gentle reason to the emotions, and so bring the mob round, away from blame laying and seeing the differently coloured stranger with suspicion and fear, to an open hearted sharing and a spirit of cooperation. That is a tall order, for negativity is easier to harness than a positive attitude. Moreover, reason needs to speak with the voice of love, otherwise she falls at the first hurdle. Truth can be a harsh taskmaster and a dangerous mantra. Only love can really deal with it effectively. That's why the apostle Paul puts love ahead of the pack in his great paean of praise to love in 1 Corinthians 13. Love however seems always to prefer the low, unassuming road, the appearance of defeat, the humble stable, the oppressive Cross. 2021 will be a fascinating year to be in. 

Election USA

 At this moment the result is hanging the balance. Donald Trump has cried "foul" and "stop the counting". He has alleged electoral misconduct perpetrated by the Democrats. These allegation are as yet unfounded, unsubstantiated, lacking in any evidence. But that does not matter. Trump creates truth by stating things. Millions of Americans go along with his versions of reality, no matter what they happen to be. A quip on the BBC Comedy Quiz show, "Mock the Week", went like this: "It's not that we have underestimated Trump. We overestimated the American voters." His statements are no longer lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations, equivocations or even opinions. They are facts. This is the way the world now is. 

People want their political heroes to be like them, not above them; to be seen to be flawed because then we don't have to trust a sham, a hypocrisy, a veneer of nobility. With Trump you see it all. He is the average voter (who votes for him). If he throws a hissy fit at the prospect of losing and throws metaphorical plates against the wall, then heck, he has a right to defend himself and his hard won position. The noble gestures of the candidates for the White House who in the past resigned as they saw before the finish that the game was up are not for Trump. Those who control their emotions, their words, are doing simply that. Trump says it like everyone thinks it. That's why he is as he says, a winner.

My take? This election will go to the wire, Trump will not vacate the White House and the litigation will wear everyone out and will damage the USA in ways which it will on an optimistic reading take decades to repair. The Chinese and the Russians argue that democracy is weak and you need a strong leader to hold a country together, bring peace, and economic prosperity. Maybe they are right, But these strong leaders do not last forever, nor do their dynasties. The relatively recent history of Yugoslavia that was, and Libya now tell a story of the frailty of holding things together by ruthless despotism. Rome gave the empire a few centuries of peace and prosperity, but in the end, collapsed. However it may be that Trump has bought the strong leader argument, and we will yet see a more horrific scene play out in our time. I've said this before on this blog: please let me be wrong.

Truth and Lies

So here's the truth about what's happening to Donald Trump.

The president is not really sick. He is very sick. He is pretending. He is not pretending. That was his body double in the car. He may die. The illness is a fake to win Christian sympathy.

Or perhaps I should have said "truths". That paragraph was taken from an article by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian today. Jenkins goes on to say that "We are in a maelstrom of information, spin and lies. No wonder there are six explanations for every apparently simple development." You want to undermine the seriousness of Covid? Easy. You'll find a credible enough facebook or other media thread out there already. Just join in.

Jenkins goes on to argue: 
"No holder of liberal values – however defined – can defend the cruel anarchy of the web. We have been taken back to the time of the Salem witches, when an anonymous lie pinned to a church door was known to a whole village in minutes."

He argues that the barrage of unregulated platforms for expressing opinions, facts, "news" has deeply undermined our trust in the media. Any lie can be put out there and within seconds there are a vast array of "likes" and opinions expressed in support of the supposed fact. He ends his piece by quoting Mark Twain.
"A lie is halfway round the world when truth is still putting on its boots."

Truth has become the plaything and the servant of what I feel, what I am comfortable with, what I like and what I don't like, what I suspect and what I resent. The poor politicians who have to dish out stuff around the Covid reality are caught between many devils and many deep blue seas. Rules designed to protect become straightjackets which stress us and shouldn't be adhered to. Balancing acts between protecting the economy and the general public become evidence of indecision and dithering, inconsistancy and lack of clear guidance. In a constantly changing landscape people want black and white consistancy? Dream on. 

What is needed is trust. But in this regard the politicians have not done themselves many favours.  From waffling buffooning Boris to sleekit lying Dom, and quite a few idiots and heidbangers in between and of most political persuasions, who could blame the public for feeling suspicious? If that weren't enough there is the issue of accountabilty. It seems to be the preserve of the few. Nicola Sturgeon held the line over her SNP MP Margaret Ferrier, putting her way ahead of Boris. But will Nicola be able to keep true and accountable through the Alec Salmond charade?

Truth, trust, what's the other T? O yes, transparency. The three t's are joined at the hip though. One alone won't sort the other, and I pity the politician who attempts transparency when the situation is utterly complex. Take Covid. Economics, public health, the NHS, Care Homes, education, conflicting or at best diverging medical and scientific opinions, surges and spikes, the only tranparency that would be honest would be "help!", or, "I'm sorry I haven't a clue."

The fix if there is ever to be one, will be a long slow journey through the storms of misinformation, past the reefs of conspiracy and discontent, testing the waters of humility, collaboration, decency and integrity. God, or your higher power, help us.

 

George Floyd, racism, demonstrations and history

In the wake of the scandalous murder of George Floyd by police in the USA there has been a justifiably sorrowful and angry reaction. This tragic event has not only sparked demonstrations in its own right but has given impetus to the ongoing concerns of racism implicit in most white institutions, and anger and outrage against it. Of course these expressions of public concern have both their critics and their advocates.

It is naturally the case that any event no matter how tragic is tinged with various nuances and complexities which can be exploited by any who have an agenda one way or the other. I have heard critics comment on the less than perfect record of George Floyd as a person and complain therefore against the status of martyr to which he seems to have been raised. But that is to miss the point. The point is that what was done to him was wrong with a capital W. You cannot argue that his killing was less of a crime because of his moral status, and if you dislike his profile being raised in the way it has been, that was not of his doing but because of what was done to him.

Now that the fuse has been lit good and proper it will be interesting to see what develops. Already since the toppling of the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol a light has been directed upon our tawdry history of enslaving others to be a means of great financial profit and gain. Fresh debate has been ignited over memorials, statues, road names and other types of "honour" bestowed upon those who made fortunes from slavery. We need to tread very carefully over this ground. Some voices are calling for the eradication and removal of all these statues and memorials, and the changing of road and place names to those more edifying and worthy. This would be wrong.  I say this not because I believe that those who gained from slavery and whose memories have been cherished and whose reputations are enshrined in praise deserve to continue in that favourable light. But to eradicate all memory of them would be wrong because it would be a wiping away of a part of our past that needs to be owned and settled with properly. So instead of tearing down and removing, we should make the stories which we display alongside these memorials tell more of the truth. There should be longer explanations of how they came by their fortunes which can be factually accurate without being vituperous. Explanatory plaques or "storyboards" could be placed alongside street names and statues and other memorials. Indeed, as a youngster I would have appreciated some explanations alongside Street names in my own native town as so often the street names remain a mystery to the curious youngster.

There is an even more challenging side to this honouring of a past that may not be so honourable after all. The profiteering from slavery for instance runs very deep and benefitted many white people in the north western hemisphere. We probably continue to reap the rewards of it in many of our institutions today. Much that has been done cannot be undone. The stealing of land by conquest is another hot issue. It rages curently in Israel/Palestine but Australia, the USA and Canada come to mind as relatively recent examples. There is also the unsavoury fact of present day slavery and bonded labour,
both here in the UK and many other parts of the world used in the sex trade. in sweat shops and in agriculture. This too needs to be brought into the light and eradicated.

But to return to where we started, and the incipient racism that plagues humanity. We have a tendency to pick on and exploit the exploitable, vulnerable, different. They need to be protected by social mechanisms that have the power to protect and to change mindsets too. What is needed is the political will to do it. I hope that this latest disastrous episode will be the spur we need to make these changes, just as I hope that the current pandemic of Coronavirus will galvanise more efficient action in the race to slow or halt climate change.

Coronavirus USA rises above 100,000

Thursday 28th May and this morning's news was featuring the "staggering" and "shocking" number of casualties in the USA to Coronavirus. So here folks is another way of conveying the truth. I do wish that the broadcasters could just stop for a moment and dig a little into the "facts" so that what we get from them is less orientated to the sensational and more to the "real". For interest, Russia has about 21 road traffic deaths per 100,000, (just a little lower than Switzerland's Covid 19 count), India about 11, the USA around 10 (3rd highest world wide) and the UK has between 2 and 3 per 100,000. Density of population, amount of road traffic, are other relevant factors affecting even these stats. So let's get a little focus on our stats please before we throw a wobbly.

PPE, tests, and the hungry media.

Now I am not what you would call a politically aligned Tory. Indeed I'm very far from it. I used to think as a very young man that Christianity kind of obliged those of us who admitted to being Christians, to be socialist in outlook. Well whether it does or not, there are very many Christians who don't feel obliged. However, I digress. I was thinking that despite the fact that I am no fan of the current government, that is not because of their current Covid 19 performance. Of neither their performance in the face of, nor in anticipation of, and not even in prospect of what remains of, the Coronavirus pandemic am I a critic.. Yes they have made mistakes. If they have a fault it's that they are very reluctant to admit this. At least our Nicola has on occasion been honest enough to 'fess up to this. But to hear the journalists questions - "Does country X have less fatalities than us because they did such and such?" You can smell the scent of their appetites for blame. Of course we didn't have enough PPE and of course they chose to priorotised the NHS over Care providers. Of course we didn't have enough testing capability. Of course we brought lockdown in too late.  And of course they will put enough words around all these choices to make us think that they weren't choices at all. But they were. We are told that there were early warnings (generalised ones about pandemics) and then much later specific ones about Covid 19 and that they were ignored. Stockpiling was not done. But isn't this the case with every life ending scenario? Not every region in the UK stockpiles snow clearing equipment which will mean rapid response and lives saved when the occasional blizzards hit. Not every region that needs to will spend as much as it could to safeguard every vulnerable home from flooding. The government will never make it so expensive, our roads so watched and patrolled, so difficult to learn to drive and own a car, that the annual death toll from motor accidents will plummet. The laying out of cash versus lives saved has always been an economic equation. The very act of easing lockdown no matter how carefully will be an economic choice, until a vaccine is found. The equation is simply a matter of how many deaths are tolerable? The answer depends on who you are, what your arena of work is, and the relationship you had with the last casualty. It is precisely because of this that if you take the high moral ground of elevating every life as non negotiable, then of course you can be a righteous critic of any group, government or other public body that actually works in the real world of the economic equation. What makes me fizz is to hear the journalists doing this. I do not believe they care to that extent. They do however want belters of headlines, and big blame stories. By all means take up a postion in this debate, for that is what it is. But please do not signal your virtue by sallying at a government who have simply done what we pay them to do, and have done with the best will in the world, and that is make decisions, that for better or worse, in this tragic instance have affected thousands of lives and have cost a good few, although thankfully not all of them.

There will be a debrief in the aftermath, name calling, blame laying, a search for that illusive thing, truth. I do not think it will be worth it. What I hope for is that the lessons which have the highest value will have been learned by the ordinary public, for we are the ones upon whom the need for resilience and co-operation falls particularly when we feel especially powerless in the face of a threat as powerfully compelling as this one. I hope we will be the winners in appreciating for and caring for those around us. I hope we will be winners in appreciating and caring for the beautiful world which we longed to see more of when cooped up. I hope we will have learned that we do not need to fly to distant locations half as much as we used to in order to be happy, fulfilled, or to work even. I hope that we will have discovered much to keep us busy and happy nearer home that we ever used to and that the mileage on all our cars will drop significantly. I hope for our planet. I hope for global co-operation. I hope.

Words are not what they used to be

"Perfect" - how many of us have heard that response to some request to which we have said "yes", or to some choice we have made? Perfection used to be reserved for very rare occurences. Not any more it seems. "So" that brings us on to "so". This little word used to serve as shorthand for "therefore", but now it has come to mean, "Here's my answer to that question" or "Well...". This is not a complaint or a rant by the way, but a reflection on the way a particular use of a phrase or word if it catches on, can quickly spread through vernacular speech and become commonplace. Personally I like language to be as accurate as possible, with the exception of link words and noises obviously, so while I find the way "so" is being used as the new link word a tad irritating, I rail a bit more at the devaluing of "perfect". But that's just me. I recognise that I must accept the changing pathways of the way we speak, for after all the grammar and vocabulary that I have grown up with is simply the product of the evolution of the English language as it has been used in my little corner. My version cannot claim to be "perfect".

Language is also like photography. I can paint a true picture of a tiny bit of reality with it, but it may be that the wider context will show that the little bit that I have highlighted seeks to make you believe something that is the very opposite of the truth about the whole situation. Glance at any tabloid newspaper headline and you get the idea. Often, unfortuately, our conversation is a bit like that too. We pick up on a stray fact that outrages us, and suddenly it's the whole truth about a situation we know next to nothing about. I suppose that's the wind that fans gossip.

There's another use to which we put language  - and that is the one of using words not to refer to actual realties, but simply for effect. Swearing can render good examples of this. But when we muddy the waters and use language in this way in contexts which demand a better correlation between meaning and truth, we are lying. This I believe to be a major fault of the way Donald Trump uses language. He principally uses it for effect. He doesn't trust scientists, and uses language for effect to discredit them. He wants us to believe in his ability to govern sensible and wisely and uses language, mainly vocabulary since his grasp of grammar is not to say the least "perfect", to create this effect. This means we have to take a whole new approach to the task of reading or hearing him. To constantly accuse him of lying is not productive, nor is journalistic interrogation of his pronouncements. So we hear or read what he says or tweets, and simply recognise that he's reinforcing one of his mantras. I'm not saying this excuses what he does. Far from it. He is distorting reality on a massive scale and creating mayhem in his wake. The approach I like is the forensic analysis of his style and work. The terrifying thing is that this approach will not change the minds of many of the millions who voted him into office, but nor of course will chants of "Liar liar pants on fire".

Moving away from my bete noire, D Trump, to one of my favourite subjects, The Bible, we find the same challenges of language there. The language that served the English speaking readership for centuries, faded fast during the 20th Century. There is now a plethora of very good renderings of the original Hebrew and Greek. But those who translate and those who read must remember that cultural context and literary genre are everything. There is no (or very little) plain surface meaning to be harvested from the pages of this complex and ancient document, which contains so much wonderful narrative, wisdom and truth. That makes it ripe for exploitation by the ignorant and the fanatical. But then, nothing much worthwhile ever came without effort and thought. So we need an educated group who can help us to navigate this book, which is why I deplore the dumming down of academic rigour when it comes to awarding degrees to people who need them to enter the professions. Don't get me wrong, I approve of allowing non academic people who have shown through practise that they can handle their area of speciality with care, respect and skill, to preach and lead in church groups. This doesn't apply only to religious leadership. We have seen this in many areas of life: surgeons used to go through a practical non academic apprenticeship before becoming accredited, (hence the now promoted to status title of "Mr"), teachers and nurses too followed this pathway. Sometimes I think there was huge merit in this, because if you were useless you were quickly weeded out or sorted, whereas now, the gaining of a certificate or degree seems to confer some kind of entitlement or authorisation which practical exposure can in some cases reveal as completely unwarranted. Here again we see an evolution in our approach to the professions and trades. The late 20th century produced I hope a hiccup in our development which the light of experience will correct. Long live apprenticeships, rigorous academic standards, examination results which mean something, and to get us back where we started, words upon which we can depend.

Outings Pun by Police

We have been treated to some arial footage from Derbyshire Constabulary which has sought to shame some people who drove to beauty spots for a bit of exercise. A new pun on "outings" eh?

There has been a fair bit of debate around this behaviour on social media both of the police filming and the behaviour of the public. What are we to make of it? The government advice is plain: stay at home, exercise once a day. The implication is that we should walk from home for our exercise. I can understand though if you live in the city and it's a long way to a park or the countryside from where you live, that it will be very appealing to get in the car and drive to a beauty spot. It's easy for me, with the open country literally yards from where I live, to get into the big spaces. I do think that this matter has to be a case of balance, flexibility, understanding and conversation. Many police forces for instance are "having conversations" with people they suspect of antisocial behaviour, and trying to persuade them to change their behaviour before resorting to more draconian measures.

I know that at some beauty spots there is such a build up of visitors that the whole thing looks like contagion world, and councils are resorting to blocking access. I think sometimes we do need help like this to change our behaviour. If the car park is blocked off it sends me a very clear message. You might say that it's a shame that councils and police have to resort to this, but when you have the behaviour of millions to try and manage, that I reckon is the deal. If I know that I am not perfect, then that should be explanation enough for me of your imperfect behaviour. Our imperfections manifest themselves in very different ways. I don't feel I am qualified to judge yours. Mine are quite enough to be going on with. We pay our taxes so that the complete idiots and antisocial nuisances can be managed in a civilised way. Occasionally I have been one of those who needed managing.

How do I feel about the countryside visitors? I truly believe that for some it is an entriely reasonable and appropriate thing to do. Where the parking is not crowded and people walk keeping their distance I would want to say, "What's the problem?" I know that there are counter arguments - the increased demand this creates for fuel, for the road rescue services, and the example it gives to those of us who are more conservatively minded. It's the same with hillwalking activities. The mountain rescue services are trying to discourage long mountaineering or hillwalking trips as they regard call outs which involve them working in close proximity with one another as something to be avoided. Now for me, a walk up my local mountain is just that - a walk. But if I did trip and twist my ankle, which is possible, and I had to call them out, what a selfish prat I'd suddenly have become.

There is also that really bad entitlement behaviour. A shop assistant was interviewed a few nights ago on the news, and her stories of badly behaved customers were to say the least, horrifying. People when asked to maintain distance telling her "Don't you tell me what to do....etc". Of course there are people out there who make it worse for all of us, and whose behaviour makes us want to have tighter restricitons in place and tougher punishments for the worst offenders. May I include in this category people who hang their dog poo bags on branches and never retrieve them?

So, it is difficult. Stay at home within the guidelines does seem the best thing. However I don't think I'm going to view every driver who takes his partner and their dog or their kids to a countryside location for a longer walk as a social pariah, but there will be some among them, for sure.  But if tighter restrictions come into force I shall simply have to shrug and see it as a necessary evil forced upon us by the heedless behaviour of a very badly behaved minority, who most of the time manage to look and behave like everyone else much to the consternation of the shop assistants who suddenly discover that nice Mrs Brown isn't quite so capable of holding her alter ego in check when push comes to shove. Ah, welcome to the human race. But that's why I like the message of Christianity: "You're bad. Let God make you better." Amen.

Corona - what will it give?

This from an article by David Grossman in today's "Haaretz" newspsper. 24 March 2020. He is reflecting on some of the ways in which we might be changed by this defining moment in the history of humanity, and his thoughts include the following:

"There will also be those whose political outlooks will suddenly look mistaken to them, being based exclusively on fears or on values that disintegrated in the course of the plague. Perhaps some will suddenly cast doubt on the reasons that have made their nation fight its enemy for generations and believe that war is a divine edict. Perhaps going through such a difficult human experience will induce people to detest nationalistic views, for example, and reject attitudes that promote separation and xenophobia and self-containment. Possibly there will also be some who will for the first time wonder, for example, why Israelis and Palestinians continue to do battle against each other, afflicting their lives for more than a hundred years with a war that could have been resolved long ago."

Every cloud they say, has its silver lining. Like Grossman I cherish hopes that there will be radical reassessments in favour of what is just, wise, good. Grossman ends his article on an ambivalent note - he wonders also if any radical effects might only be temporary, and in the end, we will all go back to business as usual once the threat has subsided.

The threat will only subside of course if we have an exit strategy that is as sensibly paced and uniformly heeded as the strict instructions we Brits heard on the news yesterday will no doubt be. (I know that there will be debate about how sensible this country's pacing has been, so please put the phrase "sensibly paced" above in quotation marks if you like. I'm not really interested (in this post at any rate) about debating that.) There is another factor too that will inform our behaviour and interactions in the future, and that is whether or not an effective vaccine against the virus will be found. A continuous threat in the absence of a vaccine will result in a very different world from the one we know now, and a threat rebutted by a vaccine might well return us to "business as usual" in the long run.

One of the things the pandemic has made us do as church and community where I live, and no doubt in most parts of the world, is to get us to use our technology to work collaberatively and imaginatively, and to reach out to one another to check and reassure. (Sure, there have been other not so welcome effects too, like the panicked stripping of consumables from the supermarket shelves.)
So we are dealing with the situation as best and sometimes as worst as we can. I believe that if those of us whose instincts and whose comittments are orientated towards the good of all and not merely ourselves hold to our vision, keep our hope for a positive endgame alive, and engage responsibly with the advice or instructions we have been given, the good will win out. There will be tragic losses to come, of that I have also no doubt, and if these losses do not teach us, do not inspire us to higher better things, then we will have dismissed the losses with crocodile tears, we will not have honoured their lives, their suffering and their dying. My prayer is, "Let it all have been for something worthwhile. Help us forge from this crisis something truly better. Give us the determination to make it so."

Biden won't topple Trump but Corona might.

Until a few weeks ago Trump looked unstoppable in his bid to achieve a second term of office. The Democrats it seemed did not have a character who could really stand up to and compete with Trump. However it may be that Trump's reactions to the virus outbreak may be his undoing. He has been singularly or perhaps I should say, more noticeably in the eyes of the electorate than usual, wrong footed and misleading and not in command of his information. We'll see.

Corona may be responsible for more that just Trump's inability to win a second term. It is also making a hiccup in the process of Global Warming. Much drastic and quick response to the virus has resulted in the massive shut down of industry in China and in many other places too, along with suspension of much air travel. Now it may be that this will help many to wake up to the fact that we can do something which will have  a massive impact on that process (at massive cost), or at least help us to make more measured but effective responses which may well slow or halt the process in the nick of time. It may of course have the opposite effect. The big corporations having lost so many billions of dollars due to lack of economic and industrial activity, may well respond with a massive reaction in terms of redoubled industrial and commercial output which will only make matters worse. We have yet to hear of anyone making a link between the virus outbreak and global warming in terms of one affecting the other, and of course all the commentators and analysts are far too busy reckoning the impact in terms of human and economic cost in the here and now. But when a crisis hits, it often takes a counter crisis to help us find our way forward. Of course these crises have their cost both financially and humanly, but when did finding a way out of tough spot not carry a cost?

For the moment the arguments rage nationally and internationally about what procedures are most effective in combating the pandemic. Too much, not enough, just about right are all defended and supported by reams of experts. We just don't know. I suspect that no matter what, the thing will run its damaging course. Could a million be killed and 20 - 40 million be seriously sick or disabled permanently even? No, they reckon possibly tens of thousands killed at the end of the current outbreak. The drastic statistic above was the car accident annual statistic. Ordinary 'flu' takes out about half a million a year. The problem with Covid-19 is that it spreads easily and fast and the carriers have it before they know it. But just look up the stats for the outbreak of Spanish Flu (1918).

Meanwhile, let's take care, wash our hands as they advise, avoid too close contact with others, and watch out for and check up on the most vulnerable and at risk. We do what we can, right?

Supreme Court rules on Prorogation of Parliament

Please do not get your hopes up if you are a "Remainer" or if you dislike Boris Johnston and don't trust him as our PM. Sure the Supreme Court has ruled that what he did was illegal, but they have just  now made the law on this. It is freshly minted so to speak.  Boris was mischievous, crafty, devious. But that's him. We won't see his head roll and there will be no "punishment" to fit the crime. He has even said he'll just go back and ask for another suspension, this time presumably within the time honoured constraints of parliamentary routines for this time of year.

The judgement is good nontheless because we cannot have a situation where any PM can go and ask the Queen, without having first consulted Parliament, to suspend Parliament outwith the normal time honoured recesses for holidays and electioneering, which always follow standard timescales laid down by tradition. The PM has to be accountable for his actions, and if he has wangled the suspension of Parliament, all we have left is the law. So it wasn't a political matter - it was rightly a legal matter.

But what will happen now is anyone's guess. Who gets to recall Parliament? If it's the government, they'll drag their heels anyway. If not, then who? Has it enough will to organise itself to get it back into session? And thereafter? Who will scrutinise what Johnston might claim to be a deal, no matter how spurious it might seem? Parliament might well debate into the moments before deadline, but the deadline is law. It would need some fresh law to unmake it. I still have a feeling that the ship will slide into the waters of Brexit down the deadline slipway. The decisions of both the Labour and Liberal Parties, while I admire the Lib Dems' Jo Swinson for her bold unequivocal stance, are like bolting the stable doors after the horse has gone. Renegotiating, re-referenduming, re-anything won't be an option once we are out. Going back in will mean we go cap in hand and have to eat what we are offered. It makes all the talk and frantic voting on resolutions at the Labour Party Conference seem a bit vacuous.

So the ruling is a good one for justice, and the accountability of our highest office in the land. But it has no bearing I believe on our ultimate immediate fate with regard to Brexit.

Why Watson is right about Labour's election strategy

Tom Watson has called for Labour to back Remain unequivocally in their election campaign. I think he's right.

If Labour continue to look like the dithering party then they will simply lose more votes. I am not sure that the public want another referendum now. I think the moment has passed. A party offering a clear Remain message against a clear "Out" party would be enough of a referendum. And I suspect that many voters would respect Labour for coming out with a clear message. Sure they might lose votes in "remain" heartlands but these would be nothing to the votes they would gain from those who did not want a Johnston led government and years of wrangling about "leave" deals, which a Labour insistence on leaving with a deal would inevitably bring on. Of course it would be a risk, and if Labour didn't win the election pundits will argue for years to come about whether it was because they backed Remain or whether it was because Corbyn just didn't have what it takes to persuade the public that he'd be a good leader for the country.

I believe what will actually happen is that Labour will go into an election offering a referendum based on the choices of "Leave but only with a deal", "Leave whatever" and "Remain". I do not think this will be enough to sway the public to vote for them in large enough numbers to command a majority in the next parliament and I fear some kind of Tory hard line machine, since all the rebels look like they have been deselected and quite a few of them ain't going to stand for election again anyway.

Of course all this may well be academic if Johnston manages the sleight of hand I posited in my last blog. And whatever happens in the next short while with regard to this vexed question of Parliament sitting or not, I believe in my heart of hearts that Johnston will weasel us out. O please, let me be wrong. 

Why "No Deal" really is still on the table

Everyone thinks that Boris is snookered and that his drastic "No deal" option has been obliterated by a determined and united coalition of opposition and rebel Tory MP's. One could so wish.
I am not convinced and here's why.

Boris is far too conniving and sleekit as we would say in Scots, to be outmaneuvered by such moves. He will go in all appearance (or send his aides) to Brussels under the guise of seeking a deal or an extension, as Parliament has commanded. He will to all appearances be obeying the law. Then he will return, confirming an exit on 31st October and confirming that he has a deal!! The deal will be some absurd sleight of hand which the EU will either deny or be obscure about, and which Boris will plug with all his force of charm and limited but sometimes effective powers of oratory. The electorate will be divided as it has so consistently been since this debacle started, parliament will be furious, the law will be confused, (for who has defined "deal" legally?), and amidst the shambles we will glide out of Europe on the 31st and argue for years whether Boris actually got a deal. You read it here first. I do hope as I often have these days, that I am totally wrong, and I fear I may be right.

If this scenario does not happen though, where does that get us? I agree with Rory Stewart that there is not another deal apart from the one Theresa May brought back. So if by any chance an extension is granted and fresh discussions get underway, the outcome I believe will be substantially the same. The only thing that can give is Parliament, and it has proved remarkably intransigent on uniting over accepting the 'May" deal. So as far as that is concerned, Boris is right. This will push an increasingly fed up electorate into wanting the thing to be done and dusted at any cost. Therefore enough remain minded members of the voting public will change their minds in order to swing Boris back into power to get it over and done with when the General Election is called. The Tory Party will have sought to fill its ranks with "leave" minded MP's and will gain a majority enough to command the will of Parliament and we will then, belatedly, leave with no deal.

Of course the idea of having the thing "done and dusted" is a complete illusion. If we leave with no deal then many years will be spent in negotiation around how we trade with the EU and live alongside them. There will be years of uncertainty and resentment and anger. Watch how in the future the pound's value will slip to around being the same value or less than a euro. Meanwhile the planet will be warming away nicely and asking us how relevant all this is anyway.