Cartoon time.

Just Finished Reading: Spirituality for the Skeptic – The Thoughtful Love of Life by Robert C Solomon

I’m still not sure what to make of this book - which probably explains why I had to have two attempts at it. For months it has languished by the side of my bed half read and largely ignored. Only recently did I pick it up again to give it a second chance driven, largely, by the idea that I should really finish some of the books I’ve already started before embarking on any more.

I’ve read some of Robert Solomon’s scribblings before which prompted me to investigate this book. It probably helped that it had the word skeptic in the title – which actually is one of the things that confused me. The author, contrary to my previous readings and the title of the book didn’t seem all that sceptical about spirituality. Indeed it seemed to me that Solomon wanted his cake and then proceeded to eat it. It appeared, at least to me, that the author wanted the advantages of secular scepticism with all of the trappings of religion without the inconvenience of worship. In his attempted reconciliation of the philosophical with the religious (why I wonder would you want to do that?) he proceeded to not only bend over backwards to accommodate a type of spirituality in a seemingly (to my way of reading him) grey and lifeless universe but to tie himself in knots to reconcile the two. In his attempt to produce a sceptical spirituality he instead produced a meaningless mis-mash and mismatch of ideas that I frankly found largely incomprehensible.

What I think he was attempting to do, and singularly failed to do in my case, was to imbue various aspects of life with a spiritual essence in such a way that they would by-pass any of our normal sceptical guardians. In this attempt he cited passion, ‘cosmic trust’ and even rationality as spiritual aspects of life. In the synopsis on the back of the book it proposes that it “answers the need for a non-institutional, non-dogmatic spirituality that leads to personal fulfilment and satisfaction”. My question to this would be “”What need?” But beyond that I don’t think that Solomon answers his own question. By using (what I would consider) non-spiritual aspects of life or by extending them beyond their normal range of applicability he, in my mind, showed himself to be simply a drowning man in search of any non-religious lifebelts in a harshly secular ocean. He is a man desperately clutching at straws, a man who apparently sees his own secular beliefs as deeply lacking in some manner but one unwilling to abandon them completely forcing him to ‘bolt on’ aspects of spirituality that he finds acceptable. Although I don’t believe that his approach is dishonest I do think that his sceptical response (what I saw of it) was far too weak. From the way I read this book it seemed that Solomon was trying less to convince other sceptics of his case than his was trying to convince himself. Read as an exploration of one man’s need to square a particular circle it is an interesting case study. Read as a manifesto for spiritual scepticism it is, I’m afraid, an epic fail.

Cartoon Time.

Have a Nice World War, Folks

by John Pilger for Common Dreams

Published on Sunday, March 28, 2010

Here is news of the Third World War. The United States has invaded Africa. US troops have entered Somalia, extending their war front from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Yemen and now the Horn of Africa. In preparation for an attack on Iran, American missiles have been placed in four Persian Gulf states, and "bunker-buster" bombs are said to be arriving at the US base on the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. In Gaza, the sick and abandoned population, mostly children, is being entombed behind underground American-supplied walls in order to reinforce a criminal siege. In Latin America, the Obama administration has secured seven bases in Colombia, from which to wage a war of attrition against the popular democracies in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay. Meanwhile, the secretary of "defence" Robert Gates complains that "the general [European] public and the political class" are so opposed to war they are an "impediment" to peace. Remember this is the month of the March Hare.

According to an American general, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is not so much a real war as a "war of perception". Thus, the recent "liberation of the city of Marja" from the Taliban's "command and control structure" was pure Hollywood. Marja is not a city; there was no Taliban command and control. The heroic liberators killed the usual civilians, poorest of the poor. Otherwise, it was fake. A war of perception is meant to provide fake news for the folks back home, to make a failed colonial adventure seem worthwhile and patriotic, as if The Hurt Locker were real and parades of flag-wrapped coffins through the Wiltshire town of Wooten Basset were not a cynical propaganda exercise. "War is fun", the helmets in Vietnam used to say with bleakest irony, meaning that if a war is revealed as having no purpose other than to justify voracious power in the cause of lucrative fanaticisms such as the weapons industry, the danger of truth beckons. This danger can be illustrated by the liberal perception of Tony Blair in 1997 as one "who wants to create a world [where] ideology has surrendered entirely to values" (Hugo Young, the Guardian) compared with today's public reckoning of a liar and war criminal. Western war-states such as the US and Britain are not threatened by the Taliban or any other introverted tribesmen in faraway places, but by the antiwar instincts of their own citizens. Consider the draconian sentences handed down in London to scores of young people who protested Israel's assault on Gaza in January last year. Following demonstrations in which paramilitary police "kettled" (corralled) thousands, first-offenders have received two and a half years in prison for minor offences that would not normally carry custodial sentences. On both sides of the Atlantic, serious dissent exposing illegal war has become a serious crime.

Silence in other high places allows this moral travesty. Across the arts, literature, journalism and the law, liberal elites, having hurried away from the debris of Blair and now Obama, continue to fudge their indifference to the barbarism and aims of western state crimes by promoting retrospectively the evils of their convenient demons, like Saddam Hussein. With Harold Pinter gone, try compiling a list of famous writers, artists and advocates whose principles are not consumed by the "market" or neutered by their celebrity. Who among them have spoken out about the holocaust in Iraq during almost 20 years of lethal blockade and assault? And all of it has been deliberate. On 22 January 1991, the US Defence Intelligence Agency predicted in impressive detail how a blockade would systematically destroy Iraq's clean water system and lead to "increased incidences, if not epidemics of disease". So the US set about eliminating clean water for the Iraqi population: one of the causes, noted Unicef, of the deaths of half a million Iraqi infants under the age of five. But this extremism apparently has no name. Norman Mailer once said he believed the United States, in its endless pursuit of war and domination, had entered a "pre-fascist era". Mailer seemed tentative, as if trying to warn about something even he could not quite define. "Fascism" is not right, for it invokes lazy historical precedents, conjuring yet again the iconography of German and Italian repression. On the other hand, American authoritarianism, as the cultural critic Henry Giroux pointed out recently, is "more nuance, less theatrical, more cunning, less concerned with repressive modes of control than with manipulative modes of consent."

This is Americanism, the only predatory ideology to deny that it is an ideology. The rise of tentacular corporations that are dictatorships in their own right and of a military that is now a state with the state, set behind the façade of the best democracy 35,000 Washington lobbyists can buy, and a popular culture programmed to divert and stultify, is without precedent. More nuanced perhaps, but the results are both unambiguous and familiar. Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, the senior United Nations officials in Iraq during the American and British-led blockade, are in no doubt they witnessed genocide. They saw no gas chambers. Insidious, undeclared, even presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, the Third World War and its genocide proceeded, human being by human being. In the coming election campaign in Britain, the candidates will refer to this war only to laud "our boys". The candidates are almost identical political mummies shrouded in the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes. As Blair demonstrated a mite too eagerly, the British elite loves America because America allows it to barrack and bomb the natives and call itself a "partner". We should interrupt their fun.

[In a world where war is peace is ignorance then strength? Since when is being opposed to war an impediment to peace? Are we that far gone that the only answer, the only response, is the cruise missile and the armed UAV? I am, as you may have noticed, more than a little disgusted and more than a little saddened with the state of the world. Is this the best we can be? Is this the way we’re always going to treat each other? If this is indeed the best of all possible worlds I shudder to think of what the others must be like.]

Just Finished Reading: A Madness of Angels by Kate Griffin

After an absence of two years, urban sorcerer Matthew Swift is back in London and back from the dead. His revenge against those who killed him will not be easy, however, as he quickly discovers the powerful forces ranged against him. His mentor and teacher has built a supernatural organisation known as The Tower and is using his dark talents to crush all opposition, amassing both wealth and magical artefacts in the process. Matthew was his greatest hope and greatest disappointment in the quest for immortality – for Matthew has a special relationship with the Blue Angels who live in the telephone lines in the gaps between conversations. Now Matthew and the Angels are one, melding into each other to produce a new type of being. A being who is at once a real danger to The Tower’s existence and an embodiment of its leaders hopes to transcend the mortal realm. Using and being used by the remnants of magical opposition to The Tower, Matthew Swift plans to bring down the organisation and finally face the man who taught him how to use his powers as a child.

This is a very different type of urban fantasy novel. Normally the city is used as a backdrop to the goings on of magical creatures – usually vampires and werewolves with the odd witch or demon thrown in for good measure. They are standard fantasy stories modernised for a more urban readership that have grown up on Buffy and her acolytes. Kate Griffin’s novel uses the idea of urban magic that places the city centre stage. In a very real sense the city is a magical environment for those who have eyes to see it – from the protective sigils in the graffiti to the handy magical directories deposited on the tops of bus shelters. The city in her book is a magical resource and technology, rather than being the antithesis of magic, actually generates a different type of magical power available to anyone who can see it and use it. Magic, as Swift says on more than one occasion, is simply a point of view.

This is a wonderfully rich and adult read. The author has obviously done her research to bring alive modern urban magic in a truly believable sense. With minimal effort suspension of belief is more than possible. The reader, after what I think is a deliberate disorientating introduction, cannot help but be drawn into Swift’s life and believe that magic is all around us, even in the most technologically advanced cities, for those with the eyes and the attitude to see it, to feel it. Life is, as Swift is fond of saying, magic and there is nowhere as alive as a city. Griffin has created a great character in the reincarnated Swift and we cannot help but empathise with him as he comes to terms with his new life and his now intimate relationship with the Blue Angels who cohabit in his body. Swift also finds himself surrounded by a whole host of magical, semi-magical and mundane characters each with their own agendas, strengths and all too human weaknesses. This was by far one of the best fantasy books I can remember reading as well as one of the best books I’ve read in years. I was delighted to discover, half way through this book, that the sequel had just been published. Needless to say I have already bought it! I shall saviour the idea of reading more about magical London before actually reading it – maybe over Christmas….. [muses]. As you can probably imagine I highly recommend this book to anyone jaded by the present poor state of modern urban fantasy or to anyone who wants a damned good off-the-wall read.

Happy Birthday to Me....... 50 today!

Cartoon Time.

Thinking About: Thinking

It should not come as any surprise to my regular readers that I think about things a lot. Indeed it has been said more than once that I think far too much. Not surprisingly I have always been rather mystified by this comment. How, I thought, is it even possible to think too much? Part of the implied criticism is that I think about things other people – arguably normal people – do not think about at all (or only fleetingly). Most people I come into regular contact with consider that I’m a little odd when I talk about the things that interest me or articulate some of the thought processes that regularly pass through my mind. Of course, over the years, I’ve learnt to moderate my outbursts or wild speculations not wanting to alienate or ‘creep out’ those around me. But sometimes I just can’t help myself. I actually enjoy thinking about things very much. Though from time to time, especially when I’m snuggling into my bed, after a long day I do wish that my mind would “shut the fuck up” so that I can get some much needed sleep.

Whilst rejecting the idea that I think too much about things, I can understand another aspect of what people mean. I have a very annoying tendency to over analyse things – to the extent that it can stop me doing anything at all. This is especially pronounced when I’m thinking about relationships or potential relationships. If I’m uncertain about things I try to look at them from as many angles as I can before making a decision. Unfortunately I find that I’m often working with inadequate information and feel that I don’t have enough grounds to jump one way or the other – so I hesitate…. And then hesitate some more until the person I’m either in a relationship with (on those rare occasions) or hoping to be in a relationship with gives up in exasperation and moves on to someone who can actually make an apparently simple decision. I think that it’s largely based on fear. The more I’m emotionally invested in a decision the more difficult I find choosing a course of action which, because of inadequate information (or bad thinking), may be the wrong one. In these circumstances rather than potentially making the wrong decision I default to making no decision which, rather ironically, is normally the wrong decision. If, however, my emotion commitment is low or absent (or my confidence levels are high enough) I can make apparently important decisions instantly even in the absence of sufficient information. Go figure.

Generally speaking I don’t believe that people think about things enough. They fail to look ahead and consider the consequences of their actions, they go on gut-instinct or emotional response which, more often than not, gets them into a whole heap of trouble they try to instinct their way out of or just attempt to deal with. I’ve seen this happen so often that it’s just not funny any more. Although I’m not beyond a bit of instinctive behaviour from time to time and I probably have similar emotional responses to other people, the thinking part of my mind has a tendency to jump in at that point, wave its metaphorical arms in front of me, and caution me to think before I do anything rash. I have probably avoided a good many mistakes in that way though I’ve probably missed out on a fair share of opportunities too. On balance though I consider that thinking about things – even too much – is better than not thinking about things. People’s lives and the world in general would, I think, be better if we all gave things a bit more thought rather than doing the first thing that comes into our heads and living with the consequences afterwards. I shall, then, be continuing to think about things for the rest of my life and some of them I shall continue to share with you here.

Cartoon Time. (Click to enlarge for ease of reading)

US Troop Deaths Double in Afghanistan

by Sebastian Abbot for The Associated Press

Sunday, March 28, 2010

KABUL - The number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan has roughly doubled in the first three months of 2010 compared with the same period last year as the United States has added tens of thousands of additional troops. Those deaths have been accompanied by a spike in the number of wounded, with injuries more than tripling in the first two months of the year and heading in the same direction based on the latest available data for this month. U.S. officials warned that casualties are likely to rise as the Pentagon completes its deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and sets its sights on the Taliban's home base of Kandahar province, where a major operation is expected in coming months. "We must steel ourselves, no matter how successful we are on any given day, for harder days yet to come," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month. In total, 57 U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan in the first two months of 2010 compared with 28 in January and February of last year, an increase of more than 100 percent, according to Pentagon figures compiled by The Associated Press. At least 20 U.S. service members have been killed this month, compared with 13 a year ago.

The steady rise in combat deaths has generated less public reaction in the United States than the spike in casualties last summer and fall, which undermined public support in the U.S. for the American-led mission. After a summer marked by the highest monthly death rates of the war, President Obama faced serious domestic opposition over his decision in December to increase troops in Afghanistan, with only about half the U.S. people supporting the move. But support for his handling of the war has improved since then, despite increased casualties. The latest Associated Press-GfK poll at the beginning of this month found that 57 percent of those surveyed approved his handling of the war in Afghanistan, compared with 49 percent two months earlier. The poll surveyed 1,002 adults nationwide and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points. Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign-policy expert at the Brookings Institution, said the poll results could partly be a reaction to last month's offensive against the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in Helmand province, which the Obama administration painted as the first test of its revamped counterinsurgency strategy. Some 10,000 U.S., NATO and Afghan forces seized control of the farming community of about 80,000 people while suffering relatively few deaths. But the Taliban continue to intimidate the locals, and the hardest part of the operation is to come: building an effective local government that can win over the loyalty of the people. "My main thesis ... is that Americans can brace themselves for casualties in war if they consider the stakes high enough and the strategy being followed promising enough," O'Hanlon said. "But such progress in public opinion is perishable, if not right away then over a period of months, if we don't sustain the new momentum."

The rise in the number of wounded, a figure that draws less attention than deaths, shows that the Taliban remain a formidable opponent. The number of U.S. troops wounded in Afghanistan and three smaller theaters where there isn't much battlefield activity rose from 85 in the first two months of 2009 to 381 this year, an increase of almost 350 percent. Fifty U.S. troops were wounded last March; in comparison, 44 were injured during the first six days of March this year. The increase in casualties was partly driven by the higher number of troops in Afghanistan in 2010. U.S. troops rose from 32,000 at the beginning of last year to 68,000 at the end of the year. "We've got a massive influx of troops, we have troops going into areas where they have not previously been, and you have a reaction by an enemy to a new force presence," said NATO spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale. The troop numbers have continued to rise in 2010 in line with the recent build-up. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that one-third of the additional forces, or 10,000 troops, are already in Afghanistan. They plan to have all 30,000 troops in the country before the end of the year. U.S. officials have said they plan to use many of the additional forces to reassert control in Kandahar province, where the insurgents have slowly taken territory over the past few years in an effort to boost their influence over Kandahar city, the largest metropolis in the south and the Taliban's former capital.

Many analysts think the Kandahar operation will be much more difficult than the Marjah offensive because of the greater dispersion of Taliban forces, the urban environment in Kandahar city and the complex political and tribal forces in the province. The goal of both operations is to put enough pressure on the Taliban to force them to the negotiating table to work out a political settlement to end the war.

[It’s the last sentence of this article that got me: forcing the Taliban to the negotiating table to work on a political settlement….. Erm, if my country was invaded and was presently being occupied I think that the only politically acceptable solution would be for the foreigners to get the hell out of my country and go back to theirs! I shouldn’t think that any pressure would be sufficient to make me negotiate with invaders for my own country. Ending the war is very, very simple: We pack our bags and leave. Or we could fight the various Afghan forces ranged against us for the next 10, 20 or 30 years and then leave. It seems like a fairly easy choice to me – having even a general knowledge of the failed attempts to hold that country in the past (and I don’t just mean the Russians).]

First Day of an 11 Day Easter break....... and Relax.

Just Finished Reading: Rifles – Six Years with Wellington’s Legendary Sharpshooters by Mark Urban

Part of my abiding interest in the 19th Century is that, in many ways, it’s a period of transition between a slower paced and more rigid world and something that was becoming recognisably modern. It was a time when the Industrial Revolution of the previous century was starting to have recognisable effects and when the pace of change became ever more noticeable. The military, often rightly accused of preparing for the last war, where not immune for this climate of change. The Napoleonic Wars where amongst the last to be fought by massed ranks of soldiers in bright uniforms blasting away at each other at seemingly insane close ranges. The advent of the rifle, and later the machine gun, made such tactics suicidal – though it took several wars and countless dead to convince everyone of that fact.

Accomplished historian and broadcaster Mark Urban uncovers the beginnings of this process in this remarkable tale of Wellington’s sharpshooters during the Peninsula War in Portugal and Spain as well as actions that led up to the battle of Waterloo which ended any chance of Napoleon returning successfully from exile. Tracing their exploits through a series of engagements from May 1809 to June 1815 Urban shows how the effectiveness of the rifles and the men who used them was recognised (though often reluctantly) and used with deadly effect against their French opponents who for various reasons eschewed their use. The tally of French officer dead after each battle was impressive indeed and resulted in both confusion and dismay amongst their massed ranks. Without adequate direction the regimented response to battlefield conditions – often the very bedrock of their effectiveness – crumbled under aimed fire rather than the volleys delivered by ordinary infantrymen. Everything from the darker uniforms, the use of cover and concealment and the loosening of the brutal discipline meted out for the slightest infraction of the rulebook pointed towards the armed forces of the future. In the Rifles, junior officers and even the lowest ranker were expected to show initiative and were rewarded for doing so - at least eventually. Progression up the ranks was normally based on talent – something rare indeed in a system where officers either bought their commissions or used their family’s position to influence promotion or placement in fashionable regiments.

After reading this historical page turner I certainly have a greater understanding of the background to the series of Sharpe novels by Bernard Cornwell based around the Rifle division during this period. Urban writes extremely well, peppering his sweeping narrative with seemingly trivial details that help bring the whole period alive in the readers mind. It was a brutal time and a brutal profession but it allowed at least some individuals – especially in the Rifles – to shape European history and to progress to ranks unthinkable in other regiments. This is a fascinating story of a remarkable regiment in interesting times. Highly recommended for anyone interested in military history.