His friends are not very amused...
Friday, April 27, 2007
President Bush Dances
One can be quite opposed to US politics and the current US administration - but President Bush showed some real class yesterday when he joined the Kankouran West African Dance Company at a support event for the Malaria-day. Such actions make him actually sympathetically human - quite in contrast to the agonised morons among his staff / cronies.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Events at Virginia Tech
What a horrible story. My condolences go out to all who lost someone in that event. There are no words which can describe this appropriately.
A deranged individual can do so much damage with a gun... when I lived in the US, I strongly opposed the liberal laws on gun ownership, which make it so easy to get a gun. However, now I come to think: wouldn't it be better if one of the other students would have had a gun, to put an earlier end to this, before 32 had to die?
I myself would now want to have a gun, to defend myself and others against any maniac in such a situation. No good will or nice words help here, unfortunately it is only a matter of who shoots first. And I want to be the one who shoots first. Such stories make me angry. To talk about this as a "tragedy" misses the point... a tragedy is something that cannot be avoided. But such a massacre can be avoided - in principle at least. It is man-made, carried out by one human, with tools created by humans, in circumstances determined by humans. Just to label the deaths reasons as "someone being at the wrong place at the wrong time" as I hear it often, is not correct and is a fatalistic surrender.
Here in the UK the gun laws are extremely strict: the wish to self-defense is not accepted as a valid reason for applying for a gun license, and owning an unlicensed gun will be punished with a mandatory sentence of 5 years in prison. (So no gun for me...)
A campus like Virginia Tech cannot be made safe. Adding access control and weapons detectors will make the daily life unbearable, and still someone could slip through and cause havoc anyway.
One need to think about how to avoid that assassins become assassins. How do they get their idea of causing a killing spree? Where in their brain does the snap happen?
A deranged individual can do so much damage with a gun... when I lived in the US, I strongly opposed the liberal laws on gun ownership, which make it so easy to get a gun. However, now I come to think: wouldn't it be better if one of the other students would have had a gun, to put an earlier end to this, before 32 had to die?
I myself would now want to have a gun, to defend myself and others against any maniac in such a situation. No good will or nice words help here, unfortunately it is only a matter of who shoots first. And I want to be the one who shoots first. Such stories make me angry. To talk about this as a "tragedy" misses the point... a tragedy is something that cannot be avoided. But such a massacre can be avoided - in principle at least. It is man-made, carried out by one human, with tools created by humans, in circumstances determined by humans. Just to label the deaths reasons as "someone being at the wrong place at the wrong time" as I hear it often, is not correct and is a fatalistic surrender.
Here in the UK the gun laws are extremely strict: the wish to self-defense is not accepted as a valid reason for applying for a gun license, and owning an unlicensed gun will be punished with a mandatory sentence of 5 years in prison. (So no gun for me...)
A campus like Virginia Tech cannot be made safe. Adding access control and weapons detectors will make the daily life unbearable, and still someone could slip through and cause havoc anyway.
One need to think about how to avoid that assassins become assassins. How do they get their idea of causing a killing spree? Where in their brain does the snap happen?
Monday, April 09, 2007
Hypocracy
15 British soldiers had been captured by Iran, then they were released. I have not commented on the whole story yet, although there would be a lot to say. I do not know who was right, as I have not yet informed myself what the specific situation was: was the location of the soldiers within Iranian waters, or was it not? What is exactly the legal situation there? Who claims what, and what is the international law exactly there?
There were lots of words, lots of talk, discussions, statements, threats. UK diplomacy kept a low profile, in contrast what the US would have done. Eventually that allowed Ahmadinejad to show off his grandeous gesture of good will, without loosing too much face.
Now the soldiers are back in the UK, and now the media circus begins. They had been allowed to tell - and sell - their story to the media. But today in the afternoon this was forbidden to them. And here is where the hypocracy reaches a level which makes me want to voice my opinion. The soldiers should be allowed to tell - and, yes, sell their story. The media wants it, they are willing to pay, so why not? It is their story, and if someone is willing to pay, then there should be nobody forbidding them to take the money. Here is the hypocracy of the British ruling establishment clearly visible: on one side, the government prevented the investigation into the corruption allegations related to the Saudi arms deal, in which UK companies were involved. "Security interest" was at stake... And now on the other hand, the poor "little guy", the soldiers, are not allowed to take any money. Although in their case, they did not accept bribes, no corruption was here involved.
The arms lobby can quietly continue their "business", with the usual corruption methods. That is ok, is legal, will not be prosecuted. But the soldiers shall tell their story for free... what a hypocracy!
There were lots of words, lots of talk, discussions, statements, threats. UK diplomacy kept a low profile, in contrast what the US would have done. Eventually that allowed Ahmadinejad to show off his grandeous gesture of good will, without loosing too much face.
Now the soldiers are back in the UK, and now the media circus begins. They had been allowed to tell - and sell - their story to the media. But today in the afternoon this was forbidden to them. And here is where the hypocracy reaches a level which makes me want to voice my opinion. The soldiers should be allowed to tell - and, yes, sell their story. The media wants it, they are willing to pay, so why not? It is their story, and if someone is willing to pay, then there should be nobody forbidding them to take the money. Here is the hypocracy of the British ruling establishment clearly visible: on one side, the government prevented the investigation into the corruption allegations related to the Saudi arms deal, in which UK companies were involved. "Security interest" was at stake... And now on the other hand, the poor "little guy", the soldiers, are not allowed to take any money. Although in their case, they did not accept bribes, no corruption was here involved.
The arms lobby can quietly continue their "business", with the usual corruption methods. That is ok, is legal, will not be prosecuted. But the soldiers shall tell their story for free... what a hypocracy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)