Prophetic Words from a Very Secular Man: Princess Diana's Larger Than Life Death Two Decades On

Part One: Setting the Scene: A Death Unlike Any Other - 'Modern', Anyhow 

As 'everyone' remembers precisely where they were, so we are told, when an assassin's bullet (or several) ripped through the frame of America's 35th president, and thus finished off 'Camelot' and with it the budding career of America's much-adulated, idolized and popstar-like President "JFK" (as he has been 'immortalized' ever since), who can possibly forget the day/eve(ning) of August 31st, 1997, when in an altogether different manner, but with the ultimate same result, 'the world' 'awoke' to the news that the youthful, famous, adulated and idolized Princess Diana met her own tragic death within a tunnel in Paris. No-one of my acquaintance, of my 'generation', anyhow. No, it was a moment in time never to be forgotten in days, weeks, months, years and decades to come.

Did that necessarily mean that each one of us then held the selfsame attitude towards or viewpoint of the cinderella swept up by a royal suitor, of the 'ugly duckling' (in the sense of 'commoner') 'plucked' from obscurity and (metaphorically) replanted in the palace of the (reigning) Queen, or, more precisely, miraculously transplanted into the (figurative) antechamber of the (putative) future king? Not necessarily, and indeed not at all from this pleb's perspective. Yet something was definitely at work.

That something - to my way of thinking (and reflecting) - was crystallized in and through a number of disparate events and occurrences that transpired over coming weeks, some seemingly utterly unrelated: the much-loved pop-song, the chart-busting hit chosen (within days) to be reworked into the funereal strains of an immemorially-beloved dirge to the Princess' memory and sung by the co-songwriter himself at her state funeral; the unforgettable speech of Diana's brother, giving the paparazzi in particular and (British) tabloid media in general a right royal serve to the proverbial, at selfsame service; the relative glare of publicity (or rather, lack thereof) given to another equally famous woman who likewise passed away, exactly one week on - in altogether different circumstances - on literally the other side of the globe; plus of course the remarkable, even extraordinary melodrama(s) subsequently played out across the Western world (especially) as crowds of adulators, well-wishers, and the deeply grieving turned out in literal hordes to give their own personal respects to the memory of a person who had - via the all-enveloping tentacles of the modern media - long since been embraced to their very 'bosoms' as their very own 'Princess Di'(ana) - as a modern-day reincarnation as it were of the goddess Diana so beloved of the Gentile masses the New Testament's preeminent Apostle Paul 'encountered' as he criss-crossed the then known (pre-European) world of his day.

Indeed as I reflect upon that time (and event) there are literally so many indelible memories surrounding those events and others in their temporal vicinity, including some intensely personal (and grief-wracking in and of themselves), as well as apparent synchronicities, 'coincidences', felicities and other such things that I not only can hardly contain myself from sharing, feeling metaphorically close to exploding therewith, but it's quite literally hard to know where to even begin; so, in an ironic twist, I'll leave off here for the present...

Many Apologies That I've Only Now Re-continued This Savagely Abridged Blogpost At the Very End of August 31st, 2017 - U.K. (i.e. Greenwich Standard Mean) Time...but such is life, as they say.

Part Two: A Prophet Without Knowing It

I'm choosing to resume here at what might appear an odd point, but it ties in with much of the rest that I'm due to share: a beloved old, classic LP, Elton John's and Bernie Taupin's much-acclaimed and well-selling 'Goodbye Yellow Brick Road'. For, one simply couldn't have written a better 'introduction' to the untimely demise of Elton's good friend Diana than appears in the first three songs on side A of that classic two-record LP. It's almost - to my way of thinking - beyond (normal) belief, in fact, so eerily and unmistakably do those three songs point not only to Lady Diana Spencer's death but to Elton John's own - and the Western world-at-large's - reaction to that tragic passing.

So, you rightly query, how so? Well, song number one is the incredibly-titled 'Funeral for a Friend', and did EJ perform a special item to the memory of his long-time friend at Diana's state funeral, or what? And sure, he was invited, or rather requested, to alter the graphic imagery of another of his songs (chronologically, #3) from that LP - his one-time chart-topping hit, 'Candle in the Wind' (about 'Norma Jean', aka the famous actress and mistress of JFK himself, Marilyn Monroe) - thus reconfiguring it as 'England's Rose', to make it acceptable to a general audience at said occasion, yet it was still effectively that classic Candle in the Wind whose memorable lyrics resounded as a background echo in the ears of many TV (and on-site) listeners/viewers, (as with myself), I've no doubt whatsoever.

And on that particular score, I find it personally equally fascinating, intriguing again beyond belief or everyday 'coincidence' that that classic song (of Elton John's and Bernie Taupin's) was the very one which came - completely unsought - to my own mind, within mere days after Diana's death and certainly prior to media report being made that EJ had been even touted as a possible special guest, let alone officially chosen to perform his unique musical item at her funeral service. (Curiously I can even remember exactly where I was when that thought first came to me, driving my Mum's (and at one time my own) 'old' Toyota Starlet just up from the Roslyn shopping centre!)

And after Funeral for a Friend Taupin/John then feature the little-known accompaniment (to Funeral for a Friend) known as 'Love Lies Bleeding'. "What?", you understandably exclaim, barely able to credit the irony yourself. I can only add: "I fully agree; with knobs on, to boot!" Need I full out the relevant detail? I mean, really?

And so side A of Elton John's (and Bernie Taupin's) undisputed greatest (as in most popular and generally-acclaimed) LP, 'Beyond Yellow Brick Road', itself contains an almost prophetic/'forth-telling' outline of the very scenario which ultimately played out on the fateful day of August 31st, 1997. Yes, at a funeral for a very close friend, the 'legendary' Princes Diana Spencer, whose own generally and much-lauded love for the world (and especially its unfortunates, whether aids' victims at home or land mine victims abroad) now both metaphorically and literally lay bleeding in a limousine within a Parisian tunnel...as it came to an untimely and tragic end not of its own making...Diana's one-time friend Elton John sang a song, 'England's Rose', *which captured the very spirit of her life and times and personality and character, to a world-at-large in equal measure of grief which could only echo within their own hearts a sense of 'Right on, buddy; right on!' You've nailed it down to a literal 't'.

*Most of whom perhaps, like myself, held within themselves the actual lyrics of the original song, Candle in the Wind, whose very words themselves so vividly and graphically and unmistakeably painted a verbal portrait of the person whose life was so abruptly cut short upon that fateful day.
 
To Be Continued...

Saturday eve (September 2nd) NZ time

Part Three: Reading the Hearts of the Self-Appointed Critics As An Open Book

Having thus dealt extensively with the main (and, it seems to me, rather unique) 'thing' that struck me at the time, let me now 'posit' some additional observations: some (involving Diana's brother Earl Spencer, as well as another famous woman on the world stage) 'hitting' me powerfully mainly 'then and there'; another (vis-a-vis the seemingly unprecedented mass outpouring of grief) both then and thereafter; and the last occurring to me the other day as I viewed (at a thankfully earlier time slot, the second occasion shown within a week or so) a special new two-hour documentary featuring some 'exclusive' reflections of sons (and princes) William and Harry in particular, alongside the likes of then famously popular new British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others in the wider royal 'entourage' and community. 

The special funeral highlight for this (free-lance) journo and longtime close media watcher and critic - though Tony Blair's rendition of the famous New Testament 'love' chapter, 1 Corinthians 13, and Elton John's 'performance' of his reworked Candle in the Wind, 'England's Rose', constitute pretty close seconds - was a brilliant, incisive and bitterly scathing speech by Diana Spencer's South African-based brother, Earl. Transitioning almost seamlessly and without further ado from a deeply moving, from the depths of the heart eulogy to his sister's character and lifework, Earl launched into a full frontal assault upon initially (and primarily) the paparazzi - who'd arguably literally chased and hounded Diana to her death in the French tunnel - through to the tabloid press who'd dogged her steps for literally decades; making her life a virtual misery, affording both her and her beloved kids no real privacy whatsoever, so constantly and incessantly and unremittingly did they bedevil her/their steps and every move. Finally, in a finishing 'flourish' perhaps more addressed to the media in general, or at least 'royal commentators', he left some of us speechless with amazement as in one pithy, poignant sentence he summed up his 'beef' in a nutshell, in the process arguably embracing modern-day journalism and media in one fell swoop (in spirit, anyhow, even if his literal words could hardly be transposed in their entirety to fit all situations without adjustment).

Earl Spencer, wielding his verbal sword, *concluded by firstly mentioning how his sister hadn't, indeed could never understand why said media always sought to put some negative connotation upon, to give some less than flattering interpretation to, the good works and deeds she habitually engaged in. But she - and he - finally were simply unable to avoid the inescapable realization and conclusion that "those [habitually] in the moral gutter were simply unable to understand those at the opposite end of the moral [continuum]". Needless to say, the service was scarcely over before selfsame media readily turned their sights upon a new-found target, Earl Spencer himself, adopting those selfsame methods and modus operandi in a newly-fashioned determined to now discredit him, sadly eventually seemingly succeeding therein as, after the soon breakup of his own marriage, they proceeded to drag his name through the mud in a wretchedly successful attempt to wreak utu (Maori for revenge or vengeance) upon the man who'd presumed, who'd had the sheer audacity to question the moral judgement, the very ethics and character, of these self-appointed 'guardians' of 'the truth'. And sadly, by their very silence on the one hand, and readiness to propagate such titillating scandal against Earl Spencer's good name and reputation on the other, the Western media-at-large subsequently joined in the hate fest at his expense, proving yet again - as if it had been necessary - the original veracity of his frankly unanswerable critique.

Some words of Scripture come uninvited now to my mind, and I'm glad they do, they sum up the aforementioned situation perfectly, in so many ways. Firstly the words of Jesus' beloved Apostle John, who after detailing Jesus' private audience with Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin, then concludes with some remarks Jesus then made:

And this is the condemnation [judgment], that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth [practiseth] evil [bad things] hateth the light, neither cometh to [unto] the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [detected]. But he that doeth [worketh] truth cometh to [unto] the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." (The Newberry Bible: John 3:19-21)

And in words that I've long since used as both the title, and indeed the entirety of my message, in another blogpost, the 'gospel prophet' of the Older Testament, Isaiah, gives a strong warning to all those, like our modern-day media, who so often venture upon such forbidden ground themselves:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; That put darkness for light, and light for darkness." (The Newberry Bible: Isaiah 5:20)

I don't believe Princess Diana's brother Earl could have put it better himself.


*My profuse apologies to Earl Spencer for of necessity paraphrasing his words somewhat liberally here, but I'm sure I've contained the great gist of his denunciatory remarks and moreover their cutting tone and spirit.

To Be Continued...

Sunday (Father's Day, NZ time) September the 3rd

Part Four: So What Made All the Difference - Between Princess Diana's Death and Some Others; In Particular, Between That of the 'Queen of Hearts' and That of the 'Missionary to the Poor'?

Perhaps I was one of the few to notice, and moreover note the fact, that the then two most well-known and respected women of that time died within a literal week of each other. *Incredibly - and perhaps the reason for my so observing this - was the fact that the death of my much-beloved Grandma two months earlier itself occurred precisely one week before the death of my then closest friend's own Mother. As I reflected upon this, and then heard almost exactly my own thoughts then echoed by a **talkback host, then a fairly rare breed (bring back the day!), a day or two later, my thoughts naturally turned to considering/assessing just what really had made all the difference. The conclusions I came to were actually pretty simple, even obvious, but nevertheless I felt and still feel worthy of note.

 I realized that Mother Teresa, whose death did actually result in a state funeral also, I believe - or at least one broadcast 'simulcast' to the world-at-large, and certainly attended by some fairly high-ranking, prestigious dignitaries (of both church and state, from both India and elsewhere) - differed majorly from Princess Diana's in just two essential but very significant respects: the relative lack of publicity and fuss 'n bother, of 'big-noting', given to the 'saint to the guttermost', alongside the comparative absence of the sort of unstinted outpouring of grief so evident (at least Western) worldwide with Diana; and the particular characteristics of the two women that evidently caused this to be.

So what really made all the difference in how media treated the two, or reacted to their deaths? Well, excuse my 'tactlessness', but whereas Diana was youthful (though rapidly aging - like all of us), rich, and possessing much (worldly) power and prestige/influence, ***plus of course glamour (that intangible element of 'charm'), Teresa lacked all of the above...to the nth degree. Yes, while I do accept and readily concede that the response could easily be explained in terms of the obvious fact that whereas Diana died awfully young, and so of course hugely prematurely, Mother Teresa had lived a very long life, and so was nearing her end anyhow. Yes, fair enough on that particular score.

But Teresa was not only getting on in years, she was poor as the proverbial church-mouse, and utterly lacking in personal or political power and prestige, not to mention superficial charm, glamour and glitter  Yes, let's just say she lacked the 'good looks' and personal 'sexiness' so extolled to the rafters these days; especially by a media totally enmeshed in and fixated upon the 'wonders' of the female physique and moreover its attractions to the other half of humanity. Quite frankly, nothing else could possibly account for the relative 'treatment' of these two female ****'icons' of recent generations, though they were both undeniably women whose lives had a tremendous impact in their relative spheres upon those of their fellow human beings in our modern (pre-'9/11') world. That much is surely incontestable.
 
*Even more incredible to me was that all four deaths - of significant women (in our various lives) - occurred, I believe, if I remember rightly, upon Saturdays and/or Sundays (depending upon one's hemispherical location).

**Perhaps it was a fellow named John McDonald, long since having moved on from his then position with Newstalk ZB to the then Radio New Zealand frequency.

***Though as I reflect in depth I cannot help but include one additional quality, one which, whether truly possessed by Diana or otherwise, was widely perceived as so being. This 'quaint' quality of 'innocence', I at least firmly believe, was undoubtedly one of the greatest secrets of her popularity and/or universal appeal.

****Perish the awful cliche-ridden term!

Monday/Tuesday September the 4th/5th

Part Five: Dianaphilia Runs Rampant: How the Phenomenon of Dianamania Became A Global Pandemic

We now approach the very heart of this blogpost, a 'thing' I've deemed dianamania - or dianaphilia; both newly-minted terms, as far as I know, anyhow...and both seeming - to my way of thinking - to accurately, even graphically, describe the phenomenon under consideration/examination...and in a way nothing else either does or even can. For within minutes, even moments after the news got out - was spread abroad - we suddenly had what can only be deemed a psychological phenomenon, whereby people throughout the world - Westerndom, anyhow - were being reduced to grief previously unknown, certainly virtually unheard of. And grief moreover for someone - however (superficially) beautiful/attractive, glamourous, charming - whose involvement in our own personal, day-to-day lives had ever been only vicarious, mediated for us through that beloved 'icon' of modernity variously known as the idiot box, the kiddie manager, or simply the television set, or TV. That is, for the great majority of onlookers, anyhow,  - i.e., all those (the vast majority of us) who'd never ever personally known Diana - beyond perhaps a cursory crowd glance or word, or at most a handshake.

People were quite literally stopped in their tracks, and within a short time became obsessed (with), even seemingly 'possessed' by this happening...as if they'd quite literally taken leave of their senses; thus suspending all normal, proper, rational judgment. That someone they'd (generally) never even met, much less personally known - except vicariously, c/o the ubiquitous 'idiot box' - should somehow have the innate/inherent power to mold and reshape their lives and emotions...and moreover cause deep-seated grief and heartfelt, incapacitating mourning -  spoke veritable volumes, if not encyclopaedia!
 
And so, when, as the very latest documentary-makers upon the death of Diana have cited, various individuals and couples were randomly approached and interviewed over days (and weeks) subsequent to the Princess' death, very strange reactions were cited, such as where one 'wag' later stumbled upon divulged he hadn't even had such intensity of grief for his very own wife when she'd died! Such types of responses were obviously far more befitting the deaths of close personal relatives and friends, and grief reactions thereto which one would certainly expect from those closest and dearest to them; but not the sort of responses one would normally have to the death of total strangers, leastwise from folk who'd never even known them to begin with!  But of course this was precisely what we saw upon Diana's death - all across the world. 

It was a phenomenon whereby the vast majority of not only ye average Jane and Joe Bloggs, but supposedly rational, serious commentators even - to virtually a man and woman - seemed completely 'taken in', 'under the spell' of intoxication, infatuation, bewitchment, hypnosis; dispossessed, however momentarily, of their own free wills; swept up in a global obsession, addiction, even dare I say it, mania. Well, I dare do so, despite myself admittedly also being carried off, carried away by this obsession, this mania, which I'd now like to term 'dianamania' or 'dianaphilia'. But I was not the first or necessarily the most insightful or perceptive, to notice let alone name or identify it; that distinction seems to have belonged to one very *courageous individual alone, even if he was perhaps accompanied, either then or subsequently - however unbeknownst to myself - by many other opinion writers and the like.

That person was well-known New York-based socio-political critic Christopher Hitchens. He was, as I say, and far as I'm aware, the first person to both identify this new concept and moreover 'call it out' for the dangerous psychological phenomenon it undoubtedly had become, and just as - in fact even more - importantly, to subject it to the sort of critique for which he is famous; and for that he deserves full credit, though much more so for being prepared to hang out on a limb with virtually the whole world against him. 

To say that with Princess Di's unexpected demise people were suddenly caught up in a chord of public sentiment previously unknown is clearly an indisputable truism. It was indeed one in which (summing up all I can still recall of Hitchens' observations and analysis) people globally, or at least 'Westernwide', for the moment took leave of their rational faculties and were swept up in pure, unadulterated emotionalism. Something Hitchens understandably considered a dangerous thing, no doubt vividly recalling how similar outbreaks of mass hysteria throughout the previous 20th-Century had seen masses of people in various places caught up in socio-political movements, and, in 'temporarily' even losing possession of their rationality and higher reasoning powers, had become a prey for tyrants and megalomaniacs alike, great oppressors who had used and exploited these folks' naivete and gullibility to further their own often diabolical ideological agendas.

Yes, such mass movements, however initially innocent-seeming, had oftentimes, even regularly morphed into something much more sinister, and, like the mass hysteria with which sports fans and fanatics at times have 'lost their senses' in utter pandemonium, 'harmless' emotion' and well-meaning sentiment have quickly, rapidly transmogrified into what can only be described as rebellious, chaotic anarchy engendered by mass brainwashing or crowd-induced hysteria; whereby died-in-the-wool loyalty to one's beloved, be it a sports team, a political party, a nation, a popstar or the like, or even a special family member or friend whom one has **put upon such a pedestal as to esteem as almost godlike, can simply do no wrong.

It is a 'condition' whereby one becomes possessed by a kind of reverse anthropomorphism, and instead of a 'conception or representation of a god as having the form, personality, or attributes of man; ascription of human characteristics to what is not human', as my ever handy Chambers Concise Dictionary defines 'anthropomorphism' itself, the definition (in Dian's unique case) here becomes reworked as follows: the conception or representation of a human being as having the form, personality, or attributes of a god/dess; ascription of god/desslike characteristics to what is not a god/dess. Need I say more?

Yes, just as Earl Spencer noted at Diana's funeral, whereby "the one (i.e. Diana) with the name representing 'the huntress' [of ancient Greek mythology] herself eventually became 'the hunted' ", people in our day [i.e. during that mysterious period of universal grief back in 1997] became - if unwillingly and unknowingly, even subconsciously - themselves wrapped up in that selfsame phenomenon; a mania, as recorded in the annals of the Book of Acts in the New Testament, which also apparently struck the crowds in an amphitheatre in the great Apostle Paul's day. No, just as 'we all' didn't do what the hateful ***paparazzi got up to, ultimately pursuing, virtually hounding and harassing Diana to her very death, the Greek multitudes at that time themselves got wrapped up in the selfsame thing we encountered back in 1997, in which, for three long hours, nothing could be heard over the ongoing shout of the spectators: "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" Her godlike status simply could not be questioned; it was a cardinal principle of that society, and anyone in any way seeming to challenge it was (literally) shut out, as if their view of matters was irrelevant; unwanted it most assuredly was!

Yes indeed, Princess Diana's death was a singular event, a psychological study in human nature, worthy of a varsity paper even - a snapshot in time, now enshrined for time immemorial in peoples' hearts. Yet what a light it cast, it shone - and continues to shine - upon modern-day (Western) humanity, a 'people' having summarily eschewed anything and everything making pretense to Godlike status while actually eagerly, desperately seeking solace in anything and everything which will effectively substitute for such in their hearts and lives; living in conscious denial of a reality they really inwardly crave and cannot live without!

The very severity/intensity of peoples' grief responses/reactions were simply out of all proportion to both the importance of the event to both life and the universe in general and to their own lives in particular. Nothing else can account for let alone explain this except to label it indeed as a singular psychological phenomenon; and one unparallelled in most of our lifetimes. It was an event whereby the mass of (at least Western) humanity was caught up in a  wave of mass hysteria more associated with extreme ideologies and sports fanaticism, and surely better befitting a ****more worthy object.

*Because to remark that Mr Hitchens was, almost from word go, subjected to intense and at times even vituperative, public criticism and moreover opprobrium as a result of his singular critique, is to considerably understate matters.

**For a singular treatment of this phenomenon, i.e. of cultish 'groupthink' - although unavoidably, inevitably that very (latter) term of course instantly 'conjures up' [conveys as if from the dead by a necromancer] George Orwell, celebrated author of not only 1984 but the equally brilliant and epochal Animal Farm, since he, by first utilizing and skillfully employing this very term - far as I know - has pretty well singlehandedly brought this phenomenon into widespread public awareness - one likewise cannot go wrong by also referring to C S Lewis' equally brilliant The Four Loves, where he unveils  all the many and various dangers inherent in it.

***According to my Chambers Concise Dictionary, the correct word is 'paparazzo': 'a photographer who specializes in harassing famous people in order to obtain photographs of them in unguarded moments.'

****By this last comment I intend no reflection upon Diana Spencer personally, only to signify that such adoration and indeed adulation has traditionally been seen as not only wholly inappropriate for mere mortals, for everyday, fallible human beings, but likewise only truly appropriate for a Being considered to be God. It was verily something Earl Spencer and other eulogizers at Diana's funeral, moreover, readily conceded about her, indeed a major part of her appeal, enabling multitudes to personally identify with her through all her very many human failings and foibles.

To Be Continued...

September 12th, 2017

Part Six: Afterthoughts on A Life Lived In The Public Spotlight: Expectations of British Royals' Attention To 'Duty' Vis-a-vis Grief

*On this other day (Northern Hemisphere Time, Anyway) upon which 'everyone' graphically remembers exactly where they were and what they were doing when another major international 'incident' occurred, i.e. '9/11' as it will ever be 'immortalized', it seems appropriate (if more by chance than intentionally) to wrap up with some curious, but significant, reflections upon the royals' own **reminiscences of that decisive day back in 1997 in which their own lives were irreversibly altered.

Essentially the dynamic of the conundrum involved, for on the one hand Queen Elizabeth herself, and on the other for the two young royal princes, William and Harry, was between their own understanding of their rights to personal grief or otherwise as opposed to public expectations of their duty (or even grief) at such a time. And thus 'Queenie' was essentially panned/pilloried 'from pillar to post' for not showing sufficient grief and/or the sort of emotions 'everyone else' was experiencing, and thus it was accordingly both expected, indeed positively demanded of the Monarch herself and British Monarchy Incorporated, that she likewise, effectively not be allowed to grieve - or not/otherwise - i.e. in  her own, private, personal, self-chosen way.

Meanwhile, in a position that can only be described as the polar opposite of the dilemma facing Elizabeth, William and Harry confessed in this latest close-up, in-depth doco that though wanting to grieve away from the public eye (as their own personal, private emotions seemed to best dictate) - indeed as any kids prematurely deprived of a very beloved mother would naturally be expected to want to do - without any recriminations whatsoever, they pretty soon realized (as with Queen Elizabeth the Second) that this would be ultimately unacceptable to the British public, and so eventually resolved to 'bite the bullet' and shun emotion in favour of duty.

And thus the two young princes' genuine, legitimate emotional responses were effectively shelved (for the time being) in favour of (their expected) public duty, whereas the Queen's right to attend to her own private duties (embracing personal grief in her own time and way out of the public eye if so be it) were required/ demanded to take second-place to the public emotions she was expected to evidence...and that no matter how personally unnatural such (grief-stricken) 'emotionalism' might well have been to the Queen irrespective of the close relative who'd died, and obviously especially so in view of her own well-documented ever-so-fraught personal relationship in times past with Princess Diana.

Yes indeed, the things we do for (and to secure) 'peace' with one and all, and so as to avoid any undue offence or upset, even thus effectively denying who we really are, of putting on a mask/public persona and pretending to be someone we're really not. The way, indeed, that sales representatives and the like are so often encouraged nowadays to 'fake it until you make it', for example acting as if one believes something until by so doing long and enthusiastically enough one ultimately comes to believe the very sort of thing/s one once did not. But just as we are told that 'all is fair in love and war', so the ever-incessant demand these days to please public sensibilities no matter how personally antithetical to one's very being and/or anathema to one means that anyone seeking 'to thine own self be true' has to either ultimately be just that or compromise with and effectively give in to the sort of persona that the public-at-large would prefer to see. And thus and so the royal family were obliged to be untrue to themselves 'in the greater public interest'.

Yet the question will ever remain - as an inescapable backdrop against that unforgettable 'scene' and snapshot in time, in vividly-remembered shared world history: is it, indeed can it ever be the right thing to put on an ever-so-accepted public persona when by so doing one thus effectively denies one's very being? For surely - no matter who is involved, for this is a far larger conundrum than one merely facing members of a quaint old institution many today regard as a relic of a bygone era - to thus act a lie is surely the first step on a very slippery slope to such evils as duplicity, deception and deceit, which as 'we all' well know, have ever led to such grave and awful consequences in world history. For, as I suggest, once one sets foot upon that sorry path there is simply no way of knowing where one - and one's fellows, loyally and dutifully following in one's stead - will ultimately end up. And history is surely littered with testaments to that... .

*As a sidenote - and in connection with Part Five (above) - it's interesting to me that upon the very day I wrote (that aforementioned section) Prince William and Kate won their lawsuit against their own present-day equivalent of those erstwhile paparazzi, for photographing a topless Kate while they were sojourning on a tropical Pacific isle. Indeed in court they cited their personal remembrance of that tragic day back in 1997, the newly-minted contemporary paparazzi's actions thus serving to resuscitate bad memories of their own mother's untimely, tragic death; something which will naturally ever remain raw in their very beings.

**As revealed in historical/archival film footage and close-up interviews in a special documentary recently released in New Zealand.

A Belated Obituary to singer extraordinaire Glen Campbell: his kind will most assuredly not pass this way again; no, not ever

How it's taken me a full two weeks (exactly, I believe) to get around to this is a sad reflection upon my state of being at present, but be that as it may...

Glen Campbell's death - though long expected, including by myself, even only a couple months if that previously, when mention of him by the esteemed Jim Mora of Radio New Zealand National immediately distressed me into thinking he'd died then - shouldn't really have taken any of us by surprise, as he'd struggled with the gruesome and progressively worsening Alzheimer's Disease for well on half a dozen years or so. Yet when it finally 'arrived' two Tuesdays ago (I think) it carried an ironic and somewhat bitter twist for me.

You see, I'd long determined...though as a chronic procrastinator, or more accurately and aptly, a lifelong over-committer, I simply hadn't *gotten around to it...to having a special gospel LP played at my own funeral (on my behalf, whenever that so happened to be/transpire), throughout the 'event'; but simply have never gotten onto adding that 'proviso' to a long-intended update in my will. Said album contains half a dozen songs per side, the timeless GC-versions of Standing on the Promises, What A Friend We Have In Jesus, Softly and Tenderly, Sweet Hour of Prayer, I Surrender All, and The Lord's Prayer upon side A, and tall Oak Tree, Sweet By And By, I See Love, Farther Along, In The Garden, and Suddenly There's A Valley, on side B (in that particular order). At least side one could be played through in its entirety from start to finish...yes, that much is this 'testator's' own wishes, let one and all be well assured!

His hits - sure, invariably (pretty much all I believe) written by others, especially the brilliant Jim Webb, became his own masterpieces, as if he'd created them entirely himself...though perhaps that's more a reflection upon how the visible one gets all the glory...and the one toiling on his or her lonesome in the background invariably gets little of the limelight, much less the deserved glory... . Our (i.e. Aotearoa-New Zealand's) Government's cheerleader-in-chief, the narcissist par excellence known as Mike Hosking of Newstalk ZB and Seven Sharp infamy and shameless self-promotion, nevertheless - though in an entirely unrelated context - tonight summed up the scenario I'm seeking to convey by stating, in a little verbal interchange with his co-host Toni Street, that "if you can't do something yourself, then get someone else to do it for you". Which of course is what the likes of Jim Webb and Bernie Taupin did with heir respective hits which Glen Campbell and Elton John respectively have carried on to heights of fame and fortune.

Yes, America's inimitable Glen Campbell sang all these (aforementioned gospel greats) with passion and commitment, with melody and harmony, with grace and poise, with style and uniqueness - a brand all his very own. And as for his myriad of celebrated hits/hit singles, it'd literally be hard, well-nigh impossible even, to list them all...were one that way so inclined...and as my readership well knows by now, on a better day (at a much earlier time of the day), I well might - I wouldn't put it past myself, anyway, let's say...

Nevertheless let's try - a little - anyhow...though upon second thoughts, with shuteye well-and-truly not only beckoning, but veritably screaming at me now, I'll forgo that little luxury, except to say that, though like many I very enjoyed the likes of Wichita Lineman, Where's the Playground, Susie, and Galveston - and even the sometimes pilloried Rhinestone Cowboy - my all-time favourites were GC's state-of-the-art versions of three songs in particular: He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother; (From) Both Sides Now; and topping even those two, or at least the former...Try A Little Kindness...which simple but profound song I recall singing loudly on various occasions as my way of 'getting my own back' upon the injustices and moreover the particular perpetrators thereof that I've occasionally found my footsteps dogged and my life bedeviled by. Preaching at such folk as if to tell them there's a way of life much better and higher and more noble and glorious way up beyond the petty, insular and self-serving spheres in which they themselves seem to continually operate.

A disclaimer I must inevitably bring myself to make here, lest I somehow thus (even seem to) align myself with a style of music that quite frankly I normally don't even have the time of day...much less night - for, is that I've never - at least consciously, let's concede (for the record) - even remotely been a fan of country music per se... . And yet for me Glen Campbell - and John Denver, for that matter - raised that particular musical genre to an art form and position of greatness only equalled (in my lowly estimate) in other musical spheres by, on the one hand, kids' songs of special memory and cherishing such as Flick the Fire-Engine, HR Puf 'n Stuff, Puff the Magic Dragon, The Magnificant Men in Their Flying Machine, and yes, even - shock, horror - Snoopy's Christmas, on another by such classic 'operatic' love songs as Oliver's I'd Do Anything and Where is Love,  the Sound of Music's Edelweis, and Mary Poppins' Feed the Birds, on another by Ed Ames' Love of The Common People, and - last but certainly not least - by that grand duo of yesteryear Art Garfunkel and Paul Simon. Oh yes, and Jules Riding, Randy Stonehill and Keith Green - and Amy Grant.

Yes, enough again already - I know. Though in concluding I really can't help myself in noting the predictable way in which Glen Campbell's passing was barely noted in the media - in comparison, that is, with such other celebrated singer-songwriters as David Bowie (and even the  insubstantial Minneapolis' 'Prince') awhile ago ...let alone such overrated singer-songwriters as the idolized-to-the-rafters Michael Jackson, who I'll concede did in his tender youth compose and make famous the beautiful 'Ben'...I used to play on the family piano. . No, as with (on a much more modest scale, please understand) the way in which Mother Teresa's death was passed over in a once over lightly fashion by Western media - but certainly not in her new-found home of India where she was given a state funeral - a week after Princess Diana's shock death brought the Western world pretty well to a standstill; so the youthful Jackson and 'Prince' - like other songsters who've died very young, 'before their time' - were doted on by media for days on end, the fourth estate verily feeding off the entrails and carrion of their lives much like the proverbial vultures devouring a carcass choice morsel by choice morsel, contrasted with the way in which GC also was treated to a once over lightly and asap by selfsame media.

No, the relative alacrity with which Glen Campbell's unique genius vanished into obscurity, the 'clean-cut conservative' of simple, old-fashioned values not really being or representing the sort of person our contemporary culture esteems as worthy of very much (remembrance let alone celebration), except for the briefest of reviews as already described, was 'el usual media' treatment eminently unbefitting of GC's special brand of greatness...which simply flowed out of the sort of decent and God-fearing human being he ever was...

But be that as it may, and indeed as Diana's brother Earl Spencer himself noted (or at least in my own paraphrase thereof) - among many other equally memorable things - in his simply unforgettable if highly controversial obituary speech at her funeral, the truly great don't actually need others' acclamations and plaudits to add any lustre to their greatness...for, to all who will (have ears and eyes to hear and see) it's patently clear and evident anyhow... .

So good-bye Glen, and thank you to his family - and moreover Maker - for lending him to us for awhile...he not only won't pass this way again, but I somehow doubt we'll see his kind again...ever. More's the pity. 

*Cf my oldest sister's unforgettable t-shirt (or whatever, I can't quite remember) emblazoned with that memorable phrase 'a round tuit'.

Yes, What the - our - World needs now is Love, sweet love..it's the only thing...not just for some, but for everyone

But never one to end on a negative note, I cannot but quote this memorable, lasting refrain from another childhood singer(-songwriter, was it Ed Ames?),...as I/we witness the awful carnage in London...'copycatted', it's certainly true, throughout much of the Middle East upon an almost weekly and even daily basis; invariably targeting the innocents of this world, ever easy targets for the sick and depraved who carry out such dastardly deeds.

While a kiwi (Christchurcher) surnamed Dowling received nasty, near life-threatening wounds, we were also 'treated' to Australian Mum Verena Hunniford's expressing an admirably calm and composed, serene and seemingly unruffled spirit as she told TV reporters this evening - apparently having only just heard the news - how her daughter's guardian angels must have been there surrounding her as she miraculously managed to survive the knife-wielding assassins (wreaking their apparently random and sporadic mayhem and carnage, firstly by running down folk on London Bridge then by entering some pubs and bars in the vicinity. But of course many another person there was not so 'lucky'/blessed/supernaturally protected (from injury, or even death).

[Postscript: What a wonderful 'example' of indomitable human spirit and fortitude and family love and loyalty: the interview just now seen on TVNZ's Sunday with the Hedge family, Candace the daughter (and beloved/fiance of Luke) critically injured in the London pub attacks (by three knife- and machete-wielding assailants), and her Australian father Ross and sister Amber, recently reunited by (the now recovering and discharged) Candace's side in London. Sadly two Aussie nurses ('Zara' from Brisbane and 'Kirsty' from Adelaide) were not so 'lucky', though Candace expressed a beautiful empathy, wondering aloud in vulnerable and admirable honesty about who could really say as to whether she or they were ultimately so blessed; but she was looking at things positively, grateful simply to be alive (and surrounded with such loyal family love).] 

Yes, Randy Stonehill says it all when he talks about 'all the innocent ones...born into a world they can't [?avoid]'...and our hearts should 'bleed' as his does for just such ones. Indeed, One did once do precisely that...and indeed experienced infinite suffering and sacrifice for each and every last one of us...both innocent and guilty...once for all time, it but awaits our heartfelt acceptance and resulting life- transformation...for our Maker and Redeemer has given each and every one of us that ultimate essence of true love: the freedom to embrace His unconditional love in responsive, grateful adoration...or to reject that love and turn away forever.   

When One's Admiration Turns To Dust & One's Deepest Respect Is Betrayed

I cannot leave off recording on this 'day of all days', i.e. Queen's Birthday (weekend), both in Aotearoa-New Zealand and the United Kingdom - and perhaps even throughout the British Commonwealth itself, I don't actually know - in the aftermath of the horrific scenes and sounds we've 'all' witnessed on our TV screens and radios (and no doubt innumerable other modern devices and computer gadgetry)...emanating out of London, England over the last 36 or so hours...
...that my one-time 'faith in' or at least deepest respect for a former (musical/lyrical genius) 'hero' of mine has all of a sudden taken a dive... .

Or let me immediately correct that: over the past two weeks (I can't quite recall exactly when) I learnt something which may well - permanently - change my view of a certain major 'popstar' irrevocably and forever. Sadly I heard it mentioned (upon Jim Mora's esteemed weekly afternoon 'Panel' on RNZ Radio in God's Own) that a singer-songwriter I'd loved and admired for decades (probably three-quarters/four-fifths plus of my entire life depending obviously upon when I first 'encountered' him in my childhood years) has a shameful 'secret' in the past; though evidently it's 'on the public record' so its actual 'secrecy' may be a moot or contested point. Irrespective, it was a real shock to my system as it were to hear that my hero has feet of clay - to put it nicely (and as tactfully as possible).

Though I owe it to him (as with any figure, whether personally known or only admired at a (great) distance) to check out all the ins and outs of this public 'revelation', I've little doubt, from the person (i.e. the aforementioned Mr Mora, no doubt also and equally a fan of this 'gentleman' his whole life long) the info came down the grapevine through, that it's factual...at least in essence (though the context involved is perhaps less certain or up for debate or interpretation). Essentially being such a species of unwelcome knowledge I'd managed to thus far successfully push it back into the recesses of my consciousness. But on as I say this 'day of all days', and in light of what's just 'gone down' once again in the U.K., it has sprung back - involuntarily - into my conscious awareness. And so repress or suppress the matter I can no longer do - to my deepest regret.

So who is the individual I'm alluding to, and thus far successfully and circumspectly avoiding 'naming' (and therefore shaming, if only in my own small way)? I'll keep you guessing a little longer, by adding that - for some reason or t'other, *unbeknownst even to me, quite frankly - I've generally lived up to only one half of my blogsite mandate. That is, I've freely bestowed bouquets 'with favour toward none', but have desisted bestowing brickbats 'with fear of none'. Well, today that tendency must of necessity be deviated from.

Yes, upon this day of days of British nationalism and patriotism, of loyalty and pride - though I well realize that some of the former are veritably oftentimes the 'refuge of a scoundrel', and the latter can be confused with one's own mistaken biases and prejudices - all I can do is state that anyone who sanctions in any way, shape or form the killing of innocent people in the name of religion (or any ideology), or even 'merely' 'justifies' the aforementioned by refusing to condemn it when given more than adequate opportunity, thereby offers his (or her) own stamp of approval to that death decree. Just as those on British streets (and no doubt elsewhere, especially the Middle East) publicly demanding the deaths/killing of the Danish cartoonists (and their supporters) back in 2005 for creating/publishing/reading/circulating and approving of cartoons generally considered insulting to the Islamic religion or more correctly its founder 'Mohammed' were likewise guilty of.

So who has apparently done such a thing? In this instance, who has publicly (in some form or other) lent his own rather weighty (as in very influential) support to such a death edict, to wit one imposed by the Islamic Republic of Iran back in the late eighties (I believe) upon the person of well-known British writer Salman Rushdie? By effectively - if indirectly - apparently asserting that his adopted religion has every right to pursue death upon the grounds of blasphemy of any such person determined to have insulted that religion, my childhood (and lifetime) musical hero (I've always found 'icon' distasteful) Cat Stevens, now going by his new Muslim name of Yusuf Islam, has apparently done just that. And we're all the losers. Shame upon you CS/YI...if that is indeed verily what you did say, and still maintain. 

*Except perhaps (if only subconsciously) I like to focus upon the positive in people, and find doing the opposite somewhat distasteful - unlike some radio talkback hosts (and assorted other political/ideological partisans) I'm quite familiar with!

Yes, Methinks Milady (i.e. the 'Iron Lady') Was Right All Along...Upon 'Europe', anyway; or Part Two (of my June 22nd, 2016 blogpost): So What Did the Iron Lady Have Right, if not the Might to enact/enforce?

Instalment #1 (Post-Brexit-Decision 2016)

As a follow-up to a blogpost I did way back in 2017 upon the very heels of the United Kingdom's European Union referendum, may I immediately apologize for one of my obscurest posts ever...though it did begin well! Meandering off as it quickly did into covering some fascinating 'stuff', but on a wholly unrelated topic, i.e. the breakup of the Soviet Empire both 'at home' (i.e. vis-a-vis the USSR's now 15 independent ex-republics) and abroad (i.e. throughout one-time Eastern Europe). Again, my apologies, and especially for failing to rectify the problem  (i.e. the deviant post) at the time.

I will return in subsequent days to take up where I initially left off, and explain how I came to 'embrace' a politician I had previously learned to 'loathe'(intellectually, that is, if not emotionally).

Instalment #2 (Post-Election 2017, and the 'fire of London')
[Following the Brexit referendum and now British Prime Minister Theresa May's calamitous snap election - and the revenge of the Bremain-desiring 'Y Generation' (if I'm not mistaken and confusing my generations) c/o Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and *his resurgent Labourites.]

And so, before this becomes well and truly, wholly outdated, let me 'simply' record a few observations on 'Brexit' and one particular bugbear of many 'Britishers' vis-a-vis 'Europe' and/or the European Union, one that is thought (by many professional commentators and others) to have been/proven decisive in carrying the decision to leave the EU 'across the line': the spectre (and seeming reality) of 'endless' immigration, i.e. the seemingly never-ending influx into the United Kingdom of especially ex-European arrivals.

Personally I refuse to accept that the majority of  (politically informed/concerned Englishmen and women, anyway) are patently racists, narrow-minded 'bigots' and the like, or even that that was the only major reason people in England and Wales especially voted to leave the European Union - sure, by a statistically 'small' but I'd maintain nevertheless numerically significant margin and sheer number. No, there were numerous other issues/reasons/causes, not least the ever-increasing and progressively impinging loss of sovereignty over their own affairs that folk throughout the U.K. were increasingly not just suspecting but actually witnessing - in many areas of their daily lives in fact; as European laws framed and legislated in continental European corridors of power were given effect throughout the European Union. But these 'other factors' I will put to one side for the present, and hopefully return very soon and give you the guts of my personal assessment in my third and major instalment.


 *Though Mr **Corbyn himself, like his one-time fellow veteran left-wing standard-bearer Tony Benn, hwas actually long (if not always and ever) a Euroskeptic (usually in a distinct minority in the British Labour Party) - of/for wholly different reasons, 'for struth', from many Conservative Party and UKIP supporters and politicians - a whole lot of the proverbial liquid stuff has now long since passed under ye average (very English) moat, so to speak.

** 'Corban' is interestingly a word used exclusively by the Master in a Scripture containing pointed and stern rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees, appearing in two identical gospel passages in both Matthew 15 and Mark 7: meaning, according to my beloved 'ole Newberry Bible, 'a consecrated gift' and/or 'an offering to God', in this instance one devoted exclusively to Him as opposed to supporting one's (probably frail, vulnerable and elderly) parents.

A superficial observer might well imagine, with events of recent days, that London Bridge is - literally - 'falling down', but, whatever befalls: "Je Suis England/Great Britain"

Once again, as 'Mother Shipton' so eerily prophesied those many centuries ago, whoever 'she' may indeed have been (composite of a whole lot of true prophets, or just one lone prescient 'soul'):

'England shall at last admit a foe, the world to an end shall come'!

But - thank God - not before she has time to hear and heed God's vital, merciful last-day message of a loving Saviour, Who looks down upon His scattered tribe of Ephraim with longsuffering mercies and lovingkindness.

"Whosoever will, let him - and her - hear!"

Equal Opportunity Offender (to both sides of the mainstream American political divide): In Defence of James Comey, A True Independent and Now-Former F.B.I. Director/Special Investigations' Prosecutor

As so-called 'fate' would have it, I'd intended posting this a few days ago, but procrastination got the better of me, as it oftentimes tends to; yet now events have overtaken me, with today's sudden dismissal of the Honourable James B Comey, Junior by the/his Dismisser-in-Chief, U.S President Donald Trump. Every time one views/hears (a video/audio recording of) the now former F.B.I. Director speaking, his voice/manner/ demeanour implicitly carries 'the ring of truth' (much as that 'ole New Zealand Colgate toothpaste ad ever memorably did in those far-flung days of my kiwi youth). A ring of truth about him that just 'rings true', if you'll *'scuse my appalling **doubled down metaphor...something somewhat anathema to today's partisan political rookies, whether (in the United States' context) of the Democratic Party or Republican Party persuasion/s.

But here methinks Mr Comey's suggesting - off his own bat, regarding his own 'last-minute' intervention prior to Presidential Election 2016 - that if indeed that had somehow turned/determined the result, the thought made him "somewhat nauseous": that that was the actual trigger-point, the thing which made President Trump's spirit snap and effectively made up his mind - to dismiss Comey (from his privileged post). I.e. the very idea, the sheer nerve of James Comey's thus suggesting that Trump's election had left a bitter aftertaste in Comey's gullet, which, to an Egoist and Egotist Extraordinaire such as Donald Trump, was not simply unable to be stomached (yes, again pardon the clear and unadulterated pun) but was veritably unfathomable, incomprehensible, off the radar screen. The very idea that anyone would not regard Trump's election as a celebration fete for time and immemorial, world without end...and then some. No, Comey had well and truly crossed the line, the threshold of acceptable commentary for an Administration official, and Trump was having none, or rather no more of it; full-stop; end of story.

Or rather, this served as a suitable justification/excuse/rationalization/incontrovertible raison d'etre for something Trump'd long since been seeking a convenient pretext for. And former 'The Apprentice' celebrity host has ever espied a good opportunity when he sees it staring him in the proverbial. So, like the ready cat, he instantly jumped upon his mouselike prey. Or, to use a metaphor dear to my own heart, like 'Smaug the Magnificent, the Chiefest of Calamities' in JRR Tolkien's inimitable children's classic The Hobbit (and its latter-day filmic trilogy adaptation) in relation to Bilbo 'Bagginses the Thief', flattery would've gotten Mr Comey everywhere with Trump; but this especial offering, this succulent and tasty trifle the former F.B.I. investigator was simply unwilling to give him. He was too much a person of integrity to stoop that low.

No, such in-your-face treachery, such "Treason!" as New Zealand's own long-serving Prime Minister and wannabe United Nations' Secretary-General Helen Clark herself once accused then TV3 current affairs' host John Campbell of showing her (during NZ's own Corngate scandal in the run-up to the 2002 General Election), and as Clark's own 'spiritual' forbear ***Queen Athaliah (of ancient Israel) herself, shouting "Treason! Treason!", accused her fellow Israelites of showing her as they unceremoniously deposed her from her usurped position, was not simply unconscionable, it was tantamount to the ultimate crime in Trump's newfangled America. And would not - under any circumstances whatsoever - be seen to be countenanced, by simply turning the other way and pretending it hadn't occurred. No, punishment swift and sure needed to be meted out, and the Commandant-in-Chief intended doing just that - and yesterday!

The ****sheer gall of Mr Comey's thus, if rather backhandedly and inadvertently, even suggesting that President Donald J Trump's America was not the best thing since wheat grain was transmogrified into our daily bread itself, and moreover wasn't headed by America's equivalent of North Korea's 'Great Leader' himself! Again, much like the proverbial mythological Dragon &/or Rooster of Chinese Horoscope fame whose essential nature and characteristics Mr Trump seems to have perfected to an art-form, Trump was brooking no opposition, he was broaching no disloyalty, certainly not from amidst the Governmental apparatus itself - or more precisely the apparatchiks themselves! Or at least this too served as an oh-so-convenient pretext for Trump's well-known real rationale: getting rid of a man whose oh-so-inconvenient investigations are getting just a little too close to the bone, and increasingly liable to lead to impeachment and indeed blowing the Trump Presidency quite literally out of the water altogether. 'The Russian Connection' vis-a-vis Presidential Election 2016, that is. Or at least that pertaining to his also-former Secretary of State Michael Flynn.

James Comey's voice (and strictly non-partisan approach, equally upsetting political partisans on all sides of America's mainstream political equation) *****'will [yet] speak' (despite Comey's, now effectively) 'being dead' (in terms of public role, anyhow)..and will yet serve, I've little doubt, as a footnote, a milestone signifying the beginning of the end in D J Trump's already unprecedented presidency, or at least in the infamy he manages to accrue to himself however long he manages to maintain and even literally cling for dear life to said office, come hell or high water.

*For 'excuse', one of my many  (personalized) 'wordisms'; though it seems especially appropriate in this post, touching - however briefly, as it will - upon that newly recovered word in American politics - 'recuse'.

**In unintentional but fitting 'mimickry' of Donald J Trump's general political modus operandi.

***Who would've guessed that in the ancient annals, the hallowed halls of the olden time Kingdom of Israel (or rather, Kingdom of Judah in this case - following the divided monarchy upon King Solomon's death), there'd be a female monarch, i.e. a queen (upon the throne, naturally enough); something also the case - and equally unknown to the supposedly 'biblically literate' and non-believing masses alike - with the ages-old Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, the Vatican/Holy See/Papacy. If you find that a little beyond the pale, just a step (or several) way too far, check out re Pope Joan sometime. Unfortunately her evident pregnancy quickly saw the end to her pontificate, with the sort of fate meted out to her as to so many others by that Institution of Institutions!

****Or at the very least Comey's clear and obvious, utterly inexcusable violation of D J Trump Cardinal Rule #1 (in terms of running the United States' Government): "Don't you dare offend my inflated sense of ego...whatever else you do or don't do!; understood?!?!?"

*****See the Holy Bible, Hebrews 11:4.

P.S. The Russkies must be celebrating, even if the cows never quite come home...; and also Hillary Clinton. Perfect evidence if any was yet needed that James Comey's contribution was 'right on the mark': that of a very nonpartisan, non-political 'actor' in a highly politically partisan day and age. His contribution will assuredly and sorely be missed...if not by President Trump! And no, it didn't - wouldn't - couldn't possibly have anything to do with Comey et al's long-running, present-day investigation into illegal Russian involvement in U. S. Presidential Election 2016 - did/would/could it? As our kiwi 'tui billboards' put it so aptly: 'Yeah, right!'

P.P.S. To the question put this afternoon, in the immediate wake of this dismissal, by Larry Williams upon his Newstalk ZB Drivetime show, to another (?former) FBI agent, he responded that he didn't believe anything was lurking in the background, and would be later uncovered about James Comey (detrimental to his character). Quite contrary to the overt and wholly unfounded insinuation in TV3's 6 p.m. News this evening that Comey's previous testimony to the American legislature that there were numerous emails of Hillary Clinton then being investigated was somehow later disproved, and found to be just a couple or few.

P.P.P.S. Interestingly in writing this piece I've 'coincidentally'/serendipitously/fortuitously stumbled upon two previously unknown words which seem to sum up essential aspects of this article. Both taken from my trusty 'ole Chambers Concise Dictionary, they are: 'au courant', signifying 'well up in the facts or situation'; and 'comminate'/'commination', meaning 'to threaten'/'threatening, denunciation: a recital of God's threatenings'. The applicability to the actors in the aforementioned political drama I believe is not lost upon my readership: the former aptly sums up James Comey's ever professional approach to his work, the latter to Donald Trump's reaction to Comey's impeccable impeachable credentials and integrity.

P.P.P.P.S. There are seemingly innumerable 'inconsistencies' in Trump's 'explanation' for Comey Junior's sacking, among them the much-lauded 'intervention' of another of Trump's judicial appointments, ............ ............, conveniently ignoring the obvious ******Gigantisaurus in the room, i.e. that Attorney-General Jeff Sessions this time apparently didn't 'recuse himself', as he sometime ago pointedly did, in relation to the investigations into Russian Government involvement in the last American presidential election; the earlier instance in regards to Michael Flynn, one-time (and soon dismissed) Secretary of State, the latter of course vis-a-vis James Comey's own newly-ramped up and highly inconvenient investigations into that alleged involvement generally. And that - refusal to recuse himself, and moreover associated alleged personal involvement in the decision therefore to sack Comey - is *******so akin to the state of play in 1970s' America with former disgraced president Richard Nixon as to have been metaphorically pulsating neon warning lights and blaring danger signals to Sessions to 'cease and desist', to back off and maintain his sacred oath to, at all costs, maintain the strict neutrality and integrity of his office. It was indeed a litmus test he has blatantly, flagrantly failed - thus displaying his true partisan colours and showing his first allegiance is to his earthly boss (in the White House), and neither the land whose much-vaunted, world-renowned constitution he is pledged to uphold nor the religion of the God of the Bible he has publicly sworn to honour.   

******Another newly minted david-edwinism.

*******What would otherwise, in any other circumstances, make this all a comedy of errors, of sheer farce and comedic drama and irony, is that none other than Nixon's own 'right-hand man', Dr Henry Kissinger, was seen entering the White House around the very time the President gave Comey his marching orders - as we all now know, in a way to publicly disgrace and humiliate Mr Comey while 'on the/his President's own business' visiting F.B.I. operatives out West. Someone if only by implication deeply associated with and therefore party to the sort of 'dirty tricks' ever associated with the Nixon brand, if admittedly never implicated in the scandal now immortalized as Watergate. A scandal moreover in which - as now - the President concerned was facing increasingly probable impeachment, ultimately departing before he was pushed. And as any close observer of the present-day American scene is only too well aware, possible (and in the view of many, like myself, both untraceable/unprovable and ********maybe even nonexistent) involvement by the Russians in Election 2016 is only one of almost innumerable ditches into which the Trump Presidency might sink, or, to vertically alter my metaphor, petards upon which it might be ultimately hung out to dry! 

********Even were White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders (as per her well-known colleague and fellow femme-in-arms Kelly-Anne Conway) correct in her only too conveniently ready-to-order description of Democratic lawmakers' own previous demanding of Comey's dismissal as the ultimate hypocrisy (in light of their new-found horror at his sacking), what does even that really prove? It most assuredly is hardly a sign, proof or indication of the charges' falsity, rather that 'politicians will (ever and always) be (just that, i.e.) politicians' - on all sides of the political equation; and certainly Democrats in the USA have no monopoly on that! (Though innumerable commentators no doubt would have us believe that.)
Sure - let's give these 'unethical' Senate and House (of Representatives) Democrats their full due, they're political animals (through and through) - just like the vast majority of their Republican counterparts, truth be told - and can tell political blood (on President Trump's hands re that 'Russian involvement in Election 2016' and numerous other instances, and his colleagues' re a whole lot else besides) when they smell it, but then, what else is new (in partisan political hatred and ideological warfare)? Even if such a link cannot ultimately be proven, as well-known security analyst/critic/activist Glenn Greenwald himself readily conceded - as he has in times past - upon New York's award-winning Democracy Now broadcast this morning, what really does matter is that someone who clearly curries no favours with either side of mainstream politics (despite his definite Republican Party background, whilst appointment by a very Democratic President) in the United States (once arguably descriptive of Trump himself until he readily, upon election or at least inauguration, by the nature of his very appointments, jettisoned all semblance of centrism or moderate politics - much less the kind of old-fashioned New Deal Rooseveltian big government liberalism he'd championed in the long-running election campaign), is most definitely, as I've already deemed him, an 'equal opportunity offender' to either/both sides of said political divide, as per my own blogsite's motto, someone renowned for, if not bestowing bouquets and brickbats like Yours Truly, nevertheless '[carrying out his duties] with fear of and favour toward none'. Much in the same mould, incidentally, of his twice-millennium removed selfsame-initialled predecessor, Jesus Christ, Who was *********aptly described by the spies sent out by His enemies just prior to his Passion as One Who was true, Who spoke and taught aright, Who  courted no man's favour and did not show personal favouritism. Such a descriptor, if indeed applicable to Comey Junior - as would at least, to all intents and purposes, appear the case - would surely be high praise indeed, however much he might be decried by ideologically partisan and otherwise-motivated political operatives and their hangers-on generally; (those who ever tend to see others through their own oh-so-cynical and jaded politically-partisan eyes.)

*********A personal mix 'n match of the essential substance and wording of Mark 12:14 and Luke 20:21.

The British Brexit is upon us - long live the Brexiters! May they ever Bremain!

And as to the rest of us - peoples and nations of the world, that is (but more especially European ones)...the mind simply boggles at the possibilities... . Let's see, just for starters, we have - potentially - a: *Nexit (no longer evidently, following the Netherlands' recent election). *Frexit (let's see how the French go in their upcoming presidential election). *Gerxit (Germany's election hasteneth greatly also, though the word rhymes with a less than complimentary anglicism!) But how do the other - long-term - European nations fare?

Well, Spain would undergo a *Spexit - Portugal a *Porexit, i.e. a really bad Euro-exit! - Belgium a *Belexit (they'd really go ballistic, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it, since they're the very base, the veritable heartland of the 'European Project', alongside little 'ole Luxembourg, which'd experience a *Luxit or Lexit, probably pretty similar to Belgium, only more ambiguous... .

In brief, we'd also have a *De-exit (for Denmark), the Danes being contrarians by nature - a *Swexit (for Sweden), the Swedes invariably (furiously) sweating it - and a *Fixit for the Finns, Finland ever being a bit of a fix-it society, or at least *Finxit (i.e. thinking it if not always carrying though on their grand resolve.) In other words the Finns'd fix the whole thing (i.e. the European Project) from top to bottom and inside out!

As far as the present-day constituent members of the United Kingdom are concerned, well, in addition to the general(ized) Brexit, how about *Scotchit (sure, a bit of a (linguistic) stretch, but it not only speaks for itself - something the Scots have never been backward about coming forward to do, but it does perfect justice to the Scottish position without doing huge injustice or disservice to the English language); *Walexit (i.e. "We'll exit", seemingly the Welsh response in their assent in the recent referendum, or even 'well-exit', indicating an all's well that end's well attitude to the whole thing); The Northern Irish could be *Nixit (which again fits with their - overall - remain position, even suggesting the whole enterprise of brexiting should not only be nixed, or nipped at the bud, but even, for good measure, nuked if necessary (not to put too strong a point upon it!) The Irish themselves, looking on **askance from the sidelines as it were, are aptly enough in an *Irkxit about the whole affair, while the English themselves simply want to *Exit once and for all - end of story!

Yet as to all the other current - or future 'wannabe' - European nations: to be continued (soon enough)...

**Appropriately enough, according to my ever handy Chambers Concise Disctionary, to look or view [something] askance means: 'to look (at) with disdain, disapprobation, envy, or (now usually) suspicion'!

Go Great Britain's 'Gaggle' of Gutsy Gals

Let's hear it once again for Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who apparently didn't budge a millimetre as she met today with England's equally gutsy Prime Minister, Theresa May; in May's steely refusal to swerve a smidgen from keeping Great Britain together, and in Sturgeon's unwillingness to waver in her resolution to hold another referendum upon Scotland's bid to leave the United Kingdom. My *ROGET'S 21ST CENTURY THESAURUS defines gutsy as 'bold, brave', with these synonyms: 'courageous, determined, gallant, game, indomitable, intrepid, mettlesome, plucky, resolute, spirited, spunky, staunch, unfearful, valiant.' Yeah, all the above - with knobs on: go ye gutsy **'gals'!

While in the spirit of peace and reconciliation engendered over and through the Good Friday talks that finally brought some peace and stability to Northern Ireland's previously fractious politics - and moreover violence-wracked society - and even saw ***'the Reverend' Ian Paisley and his erstwhile, recently deceased, antagonist, ex-IRA *****assassin Martin McGuinness, come together (as, evidently, the best of buddies eventually), and witnessed Paisley's wife, accordingly, recently show up for McGuinness' funeral service, let's hope and wish for that much-troubled land 'the best of British' (greatly excusing my choice of pun here!), as it proceeds to - likewise, please pardon the awful 'modernism' - 'go forward' at this politically-fraught time...

*Edited, Princeton Language Institute, The Philip Lief Group, Inc., 1992/1993.

**Please don't accuse me of demeaning either Ms May or Ms Sturgeon by the use of that synonym for girls, 'gals' (rather than women or ladies); but hey, assonance - good 'ole-fashioned rhyme - is a fairly fussy thing!

***And I'm sure that that Protestant of Protestants himself wouldn't have an issue with my own refusal, as an equally staunch and hopefully as forthright and brave Protestant, to use a term - i.e. 'reverend' - that our Lord and Saviour ****Himself denounced while explaining such terms should be reserved for God (and His Son) alone.

****The Holy Bible (Matthew 23:28-30).

*****While not - remotely - seeking thusly to diminish or devalue the lingering sense of horror and disgust and outrage felt to this day by Lord Norman Tebbit and his wife and the families of those other folk either impaired for life or so savagely blown to smithereens at that terror-ridden Conservative Party conference in England back in the 80s.

Let the Childrens' Voices Be Heard

*'Then I returned and considered all the oppression that is done under the sun:

And look! The tears of the
oppressed,
But they have no comforter-
On the side of their oppressors
there was power,
But they have no comforter.'

**Good reporting job, you! (that is, Brigitte Purcell, of Aotearoa-New Zealand's nightly news show, (TV3's) 'Newshub', on Sunday (March 19th)): on your inspired and inspiring ***news item on the Indian newspaper Balaknama, created and run by street kids in that land.

Their tale and quest means much to me, as it was as a young adult, a teenage student at my local high school that I spent lots of time researching and writing and interviewing folk for various news reports, feature-length investigative articles, and opinion/editorial 'pieces'/columns throughout my years there - for our at times (long before my own, I must hasten to add!) nationally-renowned, even sometimes reviled, student newspaper Mercury - as well as serving briefly as KVHS (now Kaikorai Valley College, then Kaikorai Valley High School)'s representative on the International Year of the Child's Dunedin City Council-organized 'Student Council for a Day'.

But back to the subject of our musings here: all credit and (moral) power to Shonna, Jyoti, and their colleagues, creators of and contributors to this (?twelve-year-old), monthly eight-page paper, representing, literally-speaking, 'the voice of the children'; speaking thus on behalf of themselves and their fellow Indian street kids, with children sharing their own true-life stories in special support groups editor Shonna et al have set up (partly for that very purpose). Yes, they've all 'been there and done (or perhaps, more accurately, experienced) that'...and so are in a unique position to champion their own...speaking truth to power, as some would say; in their own unique sphere of influence (however powerless onlookers might regard them).

So may their tribe flourish, going from strength to strength, and, however scoffed at or doubtless scorned by some, nevertheless constituting real 'movers and shakers' in their caste-wracked Indian society, as they seek to deal with and to that deep-seated scourge of their great land, the seemingly ineradicable bane and evil of child exploitation...supposedly long since eradicated from 'our own' Western lands (by the likes of ****'the Reverend' (?Samuel) Waddell/Weddell here in Dunedin in his famous 1888 sermon upon 'the sin of cheapness').

Yes, let's hear it one more time for these youthful journalists/newspaper pioneers as they doughtily confront the inequities upon the streets of India, in the process fearlessly exposing the iniquitous perpetrators thereof, and thus and so inevitably 'earning' the ire and opposition of the (relatively) rich and powerful in their society. Real investigative journalism is sadly pretty well the relic of a bygone age here in the West, so may its embers yet burn on in Shonna and Jyoti's writings in their ancient, remarkable and mysterious land.

*King Solomon in his (near deathbed, repentant-laden) book of Ecclesiastes (4:1): as cited in
The Holy Bible, The New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers Inc, Nashville, 1983. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

**To use a mannerism borrowed from the classic late 70s'/early 80s' sitcom 'The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin', a phraseology peculiar, if I recall rightly, to Reggie's brother - whose name I (presently) can't recall.

***One of numerous such in-depth 'magazine'-style news items, incidentally, over recent weeks, months and years...which is but one of innumerable instances of the sheer quality of their nightly 6 p.m. news programme, despite persistent - and moreover wholly ill-founded - suggestions to the contrary. By the by - I'll add at no extra cost - the apparent fact that Nzers who watch the box (at that time slot) on a regular basis prefer TV1 News - not to mention TV1's Seven Sharp over against either TV3's former show, The Story, or its recent equivalent The Project - says a heckuva lot more about peoples' (I must hasten to add, pretty well media-induced) collective inattention span alongside en masse obsession with trivia, the sensational and/or pure *****'human interest', even tabloid journalism - over against the substantial and important these days - than anything else... . Certainly it is no reflection upon the relative quality of the respective news offerings on TV1's & TV3's weeknightly 6 p.m. news bulletins.

The comparison may initially seem altogether irrelevant, but the closest analogy I can make is of those who scoff and sneer at a piece of genuine, authentic art, while celebrating the doling out of thousands, even millions, for and upon the latest bits of out-and-out, way out there crud, even crass ******biz-art(e): 'artwork' so-called (served up to an unwitting and witless, aesthetically-deprived and emasculated public under the all-embracing rubric of 'modern art'). Those doing so thus make a commentary, yea, an unerring judgment even, not so much upon the relative quality, or lack thereof, of a particular artwork so-called, but rather, I'd respectfully suggest, upon their own conspicuous lack of good taste: end of story.

****As I've often enough noted elsewhere - in line with my Master's example - not a term I'd tend to use!

*****I say this, neither to deride human interest stories as such, nor to suggest there's no place whatsoever for them in the broader scheme of journalism - after all, positive, so-called 'feel good' news is every bit as legitimate 'news' (and accordingly 'newsworthy') and hence deserves its place alongside the rather relentless stream of negative 'real-life' journalism the Western public is almost constantly inundated with these days; its simply that some journos seem to wallow, even revel in the same at the very moment that far more pressing at times even, dare I suggest, earth-shattering (or at least, at times if only in its implications, deeply fraught) news is simply screaming out to be covered, and moreover covered properly. (In some ways it could even be said that Balakhama seems to be a conduit of both these news streams at the same time  - i.e. 'human interest' items and the utmost serious issues and story lines, though without the same emphasis, obviously, upon that purely 'good news' variety of material.)

******How d'ya like it, i.e. that new word I've just created/coined? I quite do, to be perfectly blunt.

No, This Really Ain't No Conspiracy

Well, so much for the 'plans of mice and men'...since 'a friend [not just] like [but - named] Ben' has indeed in the meantime 'come to the party' (as it were), bringing a better understanding in my particular direction. He has - effectively - if not 'dismissed', at the very least somewhat (if temporarily) allayed - my not so subtly alluded to concerns...thus essentially 'giv[ing] me the all-clear' (so to speak). And so my indicated caveat - to my assorted 'bundle of qualifications and stipulations' - has indeed been, at least provisionally, met. However, when I get the chance (provided I do, in the not too foreseeable) I fully intend to revisit the issue, and then perhaps let fly big-time, even spilling the (proverbial) beans - or, at the least, the ardour of my passions - upon aforementioned enigmatic entity... .  

Hoping I haven't but realizing in saying the foregoing I've undoubtedly pissed *a number of ya's off, but even more so, trust me, Yours Truly...

And with that equally obscure reference I'll again sign off.

*But still keep the comments (I encouraged) coming, I'll do my best to read, review and carefully reflect upon/evaluate each and every last one of them...most truly!

Now, Believe you me, this AIN'T no conspiracy...

Though I'm not presently at liberty to divulge the gist and the guts of a very real and deserved *'[com]plaint' against a particular high-profile and apparently well-respected outfit that holds great sway in our present-day (supposedly) techno-savvy world - that, quite frankly, if metaphorically-speaking, gives it the proverbial (and all the rest), sparing very little in the process in a no-holds-barred expose of this well-known 'concern'...trust me when I inform you (in this 'precursor') that the one and only reason I presently demur is the likely repercussions that Yours Truly will, almost inevitably, incur as a consequence...almost immediately I do (let fly, that is). Suffice to say that though this certain organization is by no means necessarily the worst such offender in our modern-day era - how would I even know, it's not as though I make any inane, immodest claim to be around more than a smidgen of contemporary technology anyhow? - it's such a blatant, flagrant example of the same that it not only deserves such (negative) exposure, it likewise warrants all the 'comeuppance' that that ought to entail...but sadly, likely won't suffer... .

Be that as it well may, this blogpost today begins a sort of series of 'teasers' in which I'll 'toy' (in the nicest of ways, you understand!) with your expertise in 'sussing out' (as we like to say in Aotearoa-New Zealand) precisely what it is that I'm referring to...and all I - ever so respectfully, please also understand - ask from you in return is that...if you do somehow (or other!) manage to 'stumble upon' or otherwise experience a moment of insight into what I'm actually - if ever so gingerly and sensitively (at this stage) - alluding to: keep it a secret (for the time being)...for all will be revealed in due course...though admittedly (for all the aforementioned reasons) the interim period must of necessity (in all likelihood) remain somewhat longer than I'd normally wish...possibly even by a considerable degree. Which is not to throw the proverbial damp squib upon proceedings, but simply because - like, I imagine, for so many people - false expectations over the years and decades have ever played quite a number upon me, leaving me super-aware of their 'dangers' and therefore reluctant to visit them upon others wherever and whenever avoidable... .

That all having been 'said' or rather noted, I place the following proviso - attach the following caveat - to my (aforementioned) bundle of qualifications and stipulations: unless **'a friend named Ben' happens meanwhile to dismiss my nameless fears and give me the all clear. Being in the very field (concerned) himself, I feel if anyone ought to, then he should know... . And with that equally cryptic comment, I'll now 'sign off'... .

  
*The old-fashioned usage (that I kinda like) is - was - simply 'plaint'. Which dictionary definition (in my handy and beloved Chambers Concise Dictionary) is, appropriately enough: 'lamentation: a statement of grievance (etcetera)', from the root derivation of the Latin 'plangere, planctum, to beat the breast, lament'!

**All credit (with that reference) to a(n ultra-famous) 'singer-songwriter' I (otherwise) really have never cared much for at all - hey, see if you're able to guess that person's identity - though (in my view) in this instance (alongside his then famous siblings) he rose to the very heights (of/in a career that subsequently descended to unfathomable lows, apart from one or two other briefest of - positive - aberrations) .

***So please post comments - for once - upon my blogsite (thereabouts), I promise I'll check these out fastidiously and post any and all that are legible, reasonably coherent, civil and helpful to our discussion. Understood - and agreed?

So Who's To Blame...for the 'Trump Phenomenon', or, more aptly, the unexpected recent success thereof?

To answer my question, let me suggest the following five 'things', at least for starters: #1: modern-day Western media's undue and excessive, ongoing, seemingly never-ending exaltation of celebrity/entertainment culture to the rafters; #2: the selfsame's sidelining, marginalizing, ridiculing, pigeonholing and otherwise delegitimizing of various un-trendy and out-of-popular-favour population groups - whether of minority or majority membership/s - throughout the United States of America (in particular); #3: the inherent laziness of the Clinton machine to make a serious effort in, let alone engage in meaningful campaigning in several highly at-risk (and, as it of course ultimately transpired, pivotal and decisive) midwestern industrial ('rust belt') states, due to their denial (syndrome) of anything politically significant possibly happening there; #4: apparently somewhat inaccurate (though not extremely so, despite popular understanding to the contrary) opinion polling generally, and especially in these aforementioned states, in the run-up to the American presidential election; and #5: the mainstream media's highly partisan, extremely pro-Clinton - or, more correctly, highly anti-Trump bias - from the very get-go of the campaign.

Numbers 2 & 5 helped to galvanize the denizens of disgruntled ((President) FDR's? "huddled masses") behind President Trump - the same sort of people who early on got in behind King-in-waiting David of ancient Israel...as Holy Writ describes them, "everyone who was in distress, everyone who was in debt, and everyone who was discontented[margin:'bitter of soul']". (Without such an observation in any way even remotely constituting any sense of equivalence between (King) David and U.S. President Donald J Trump!)

Numbers 3 & 4 served as an effective smokescreen, an - wholly unintended, arguably even providential - diversion(ary tactic) ultimately allowing Mr Trump to sneak through and win by the proverbial whisker.

And number 1 saw an otherwise utterly inexplicable media infatuation with Donald J Trump as a media phenomenon and even the Clinton camp's own obsequious deferring to such and its every ebb and flow, its every nook and cranny, and thus ultimately served to make otherwise arguably reasonable-minded folk political grist/fodder for the Trump mill.

And all the rest - as we all now well know - is history.

P.S. I do realize that each of these deserves more in-depth elaboration, exploration and examination, but to avoid - for the moment - that old bugbear/bane, 'paralysis by analysis', I'll leave these with my readership, to chew over, ponder and reflect upon at their own leisure... .  

It's Now all Over Bar the Shouting - and Stamping - and Stomping...and Endless, Bitter Venom, Invective and Vitriol: Welcome to post-Obama America as the new Trump Administration Prepares to Take Power and Usher in a New and Uncharted Era of Post-Politics As We Once Knew (and Loathed) It

I could quite easily, even glibly (much as the very term makes me squirm) say (to one and all - were they even listening!): "I told you so!" But sadly, very few are...however accurate my own prognostications as to the new and present political realities have indeed generally been... . Though I'll - readily - admit to getting two significant matters wrong: admittedly - despite being a wanted man by more nasties, extremists, fanatics and others (not to mention legions of Ku Klux Klaners) than any other president in United States history most likely - and that most probably by a country mile or several - Barack Obama has not met the fate of the assassin's bullet...unless that were to happen over the next ten hours or so... . Though some would - in Obama's case clearly uncharitably - suggest that not only do the good die young, but that likewise only good American presidents are assassinated... . And secondly, and equally significantly, the person to swear allegiance upon *the Bible (no doubt) in but a few hours time, and thus be sworn in as America's 45th president, is not the widely-expected Hillary Rodham Clinton, but - wonder of wonders, or more aptly horror of horrors - a Mr Donald J Trump. 'Nuff said - already!

But again I can only repeat my aforementioned "I told you so", as Ms Clinton and her media advisors, political acolytes and other sympathizers - **in prematurely and consistently elevating 'the Donald' and his invariably off-the-wall-and-over-the-other-side comments and other pronouncements over his two-three supposedly far more serious Republican rivals in the primaries, such folk as the two Floridians Mario Rubio and Jeb Bush especially with their far more measured, 'reasonable' and moderate statements, proposals and moreover very manner and nature and personae - were ultimately the authors of her/their own cataclysmic demise; alongside said aforementioned Republican Party contenders, of course. To repeat my essential contention while rephrasing it in other words - and at the risk, I well appreciate, of thus seeming to treat my readership as fairly simple - by thus treating DJT and his message as if he and it were serious (***as some have well put it, by taking literally what Trump and Co simply meant to be taken seriously, while Trump's own supporters took these seriously but not literally) they thus accorded President-Elect Trump and his message a level of dignity and apparent respect neither he nor it deserved. Yes, they bargained that they'd set up a straw man which would ultimately fail, supposedly falling down in a blaze of notoriety and infamy, whereas what ultimately transpired - as we all now well know - is that they thus propelled him upwards and onwards until he - eventually - despite all the odds, all the naysayers, all the media pundits and mainstream pollsters, all the received 'wisdom' of anyone who was anyone in this deadly serious game people call politics - he succeeded...and became the President-Elect. End of story, or perhaps only the beginning!

Epilog(ue): Yes, the (admittedly top secret, known only to the very few) plan totally backfired, and people throughout Political Punditry Incorporated are still smarting...and getting adjusted to the new reality. Yes, they still just can't process it...which in itself is yet another (if admittedly, merely anecdotal) proof or evidence that no-one but no-one really  - in their wildest nightmares, even - expected 'the Donald' to win...and become the next United States President. Yes, the voters - the small number who participated, that is, and thus gave Trump less than 25% of American voters as his 'mandate' - called the pollsters' and elitists' and pundits' bluff, amazingly (if arguably) thus fulfilling words themselves transmitted and transcribed almost two millennia earlier. As if by complete default the Apostle Paul - writer of just under (thirteen) or just over (fourteen) half of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament canon of Holy Scripture (depending upon one's view) - is the penman for what could possibly be seen as biblical (and hence divine) shorthand signifying the very person who could well (prove to) be the very last American President - ever - that is, in the run-up to the Second Coming itself... . For said 'Pauline' Scripture in the Book of First Corinthians, closing a long discussion of the basic Christian doctrine of the resurrection (of both Jesus Christ, 'the Firstfruits', and hence all His true followers), refers to the saved (of all ages) being called back from the dead into renewed, resurrected life and/or being translated without seeing ('the first') death.

At what point of time, or in relation to or in association with what specifically do said/selfsame translation(s) and resurrection(s) occur? Admittedly it's in the old, standard-bearing King James ('Authorized') Version only, but therein we are informed - in no uncertain terms - that these long prophesied events of solemn significance and grand, overwhelming importance and moment occur 'at the last trump' - 'the trump of God' !

*The Good Book itself makes a number of interesting references to such machinations of mere mortal men (and women) - in reference, as might naturally enough be expected, to individuals (and One Persona in particular) who/Who stand head and shoulders above Donald Trump (and any of his ideas, plans or proposals), let's make that perfectly clear for starters... . In pointing to His long-prophesied Messiah, He - through His biblical prophets and seers - declares such things as, for example, that the nations and their self-important leaders ****'have fallen into the very traps and nets and snares they themselves have forged'. 

**Though for the full story you'll quite literally read nowhere else check out my 42-page thesis (sure, it's long - but never long-winded - and for something this important, it's well worth your careful perusal whether I say so myself or not)...entitled (something like the following, if I recollect correctly): 'If It Looks Like a Set-Up And It Sounds Like A Set-Up And It Walks and Talks Like A Set-Up, Wise Up Quick, Folks; Perhaps It Really Is A Set-Up (etcetera)'. I first posted it on-line on August the 22nd last, upon my original (and unfairly far lonelier) blogsite: http://nuffsaid:consideryourself-frombothsidesnow.blogspot.co.nz/ (or .com/). Yes, I know 'I would say that', but check it out, you'll be 'pleasantly surprised', or perhaps rather suitably shocked and dumbfounded. Though the outcome I myself - and millions, if not billions, of others fully anticipated - did not come to pass, that's no reason whatsoever for dismissing (let alone not even considering) my basic, essential thesis. Again, I promise you, it'll metaphorically 'blow yer socks off'.

***Such as New Zealand's own highly observant and astute political commentator Josie Pagani has put it.

****My personal paraphrase of a Scripture (I believe from the Psalms) I cannot presently happen to locate!

Tying Together A Few, But Quite Important 'Ends'

As the world, especially its Western 'division', takes a much-needed breather at the conclusion of a year of political upsets and upheavals, I pen the following thoughts - better suited, admittedly, to a number of separate, in-depth opinion pieces - upon the state of affairs humanity finds itself in, inextricably linked and connected - however superficially disparate - as will become apparent... .

Though no defender of the horrified elites and establishment intelligensia in their consensus reaction to the election of Donald J Trump, yet far from a supporter, either overt or covert, of either his peculiar persona or his political agenda, let me place on record the following thoughts - generally scribbled initially months before his 'impossible' elevation to America's and essentially the world's highest political office - to suggest 'how we got here'... .

The mainstream Western media can really blame no-one but themselves for giving the business tycoon come political novice/upstart known as 'the Donald' publicity well beyond his just desserts - from the earliest Republican primaries (in which he not only wielded the weapon of personal insult but effectively honed it to a force to be reckoned with) through his notorious rallies (attended, in all actuality, by fewer people than Bernie Sanders' own, generally completely ignored and overlooked, sizeable campaign meetings), through his ultimate upset - to upset all upsets - on November 9th.

And so what does our world have to look out on as we soon end 2016 and move on into 2017? The prospect, as outlined recently, of Wall Street financiers re-establishing and ensconcing themselves anew in the U.S. Treasury, appointees 'one and all' apparently uniquely unqualified to serve in a federal administration, and now - 'above and beyond' all those tidbits of political novelty and wet-behind-the-ear-ness, and, much more concerningly, apparent duplicity and utterly shattered promises and pledges (to the working-class poor) - we have the unbelievably scary prospect of a renewal of the hitherto dormant arms war between the U.S.A and Russia...despite every apparent indication that Trump and Putin (and hence their respective administrations and hence nations) get on swimmingly, like a house on fire... .

What to make of all this? Hey, the possibilities are endless and not altogether all that edifying or hopeful, eh...but nevertheless, let me propound several ideas, brief as they will necessarily be for the moment:

*The infatuation, nay obsession, of mainstream American - and by extension Western - media generally with the ups and downs, the insides and entrails, of a celebrity culture has paved the way, has provided the necessary groundwork for the Trump phenomenon to bud, blossom and flourish... .

*Which infatuation, nay obsession has been constantly, shamelessly and shamefully pandered to by none other than media darling and 'everyone's favourite President', Barack Obama himself - and wife Michelle herself...who have almost literally bent over backwards - from party night immediate post-election (2008) itself...to indulge and humour and otherwise pander to in every conceivable way...the 'Hollywood set', the 'movers and shakers' of 'Who's Who in Americana', especially its esteemed and ever-feted celebrities...from attempting to tell jokes that were only funny to those select few (and their politically partisan supporters) and/or to belittle, demean and otherwise 'poke the borax' in the face of ye average Jane and Joe - too unsophisticated to necessarily 'get' all that was being said or implied but too busy getting on with earning their daily crust to have the time let alone the inclination to seriously consider much less respond to such subtle as (yet ever so devastating) criticism, mockery and insulting innuendo... . And yet the selfsame President no doubt implicitly expected such 'ignorant masses' to get in an uproar on behalf of his lonesome whenever Mr Trump et al called his very citizenship into question... .

*Where is the concern, yea outrage, over the effective ethnic cleansing of the Christian population of the various Middle Eastern nation-states that has now been 'progressing' for well-nigh the 'best' part of the last few years? No, Mr President, your silence has been deafening...and the 'verdict' could well be placed - justly, fairly and squarely - over your presidency thus: 'found' missing in utter inaction... . But I exaggerate, of course...for months and years after one population group after another had been effectively wiped out somewhere-or-other (and the next place) in or around Iraq and Syria especially, your ever-in-earnest Secretary of State, John Kerry, helped draft some resolution or the like (even had it taken to the United Nations or the International Criminal Court) condemning what was happening as crimes of war, of crimes against humanity. And indeed they were - and continue to be - but where was the moral outrage, the sense of the sheer evil of what was occurring - with the noteworthy (and admitted) exception of the U.S. airstrike protection of the persecuted Yasidis of Iraq...?

So for all those Westerners especially so very vocal these days about the lack of democracy in the likes of Egypt - post the admittedly undemocratic military ousting of President Morsi - when were your voices last heard bemoaning and decrying the random bombing of Egyptian Coptic churches and massacring of the Christian innocents harbouring therein... ? Yes, sad to say, once again the silence has been deafening...but is nevertheless inexcusable and unconscionable, as has been that of 'that great humanitarian', Barack Hussein Obama himself...who has, as I say, virtually lifted heaven and hell on behalf of Muslims worldwide but has said - and much more importantly, and shamefully, done - little to console or uphold much less defend and protect the world's, especially its Middle Eastern, severely persecuted Christian minorities. I cannot help being reminded of the memorable refrain of a once would-be Republican presidential contender,  a Barry Goldwater, a man cited as a warmonger and a threat to world peace and liable to trigger World War 111 itself. Back in 1964, at the Republican Party's presidential convention, he stated (if my recollection is accurate): 'Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, extremism in defence of good is no vice.' Perhaps words that the prematurely-Nobel Peace Prize-anointed current United States President would have been well to have taken to heart and acted upon as he began his own unprecedented presidential tenure, though for thousands and tens of thousands and perhaps millions of Middle Easterners - whether Christians or otherwise - such hypotheticals would give some very cold comfort indeed.

Or as many another historical worthy has put matters: talk is cheap - it's actions that matter.

And while we're handing out bouquets (and brickbats)...

Admittedly I'm no fan of her breathless, take-no-prisoners, abrasive as, give no interviewee a breather and constantly interrupt 'em and on a never-ending, ongoing basis...-yes, they do say it takes one to know one! -...having said that (!) let me simply say that TV3's The Nation compere Lisa Owen used that quality to her superlative advantage the other day...(as I was reminded by that laugh-a-minute Mickey Mouse/Goofy lookalike - no wonder he was sent to report back on *'the Donald' in the US of A - Paddy Gower, on today's The Nation end-of-year get-together).

Yes, with America's United Nations ambassador Samanatha Powers the previous Sunday (on the November 27th The Nation), Lisa Owens, like the proverbial dog with a bone, cornered her, rounded on her ceaselessly, doubled down and came back - again, again and again; almost ad nauseum - for more, more, and more...and Ms Powers showed it - and in every which way (to the nth degree and beyond).

Yes, thank you Lisa for doing what every half-pie decent journalist ought to do - and these days so seldom do do - i.e. hold your guest to account. And believe me when I say there was a heckuva lot here to (attempt at least to) hold the 'honourable' woman and international representative of the most powerful nation of earth to account for. In particular it's inveterate, pot-like habit of claiming the kettle's so much darker than itself. Well, as Ms Owens demonstrated time and time again, those living in glass houses really oughtn't chuck stones and rocks at others. Because for every single innocent, (including) hospital patient and worker bombed to hell (and beyond) by the likes of Putin's Russia, and its client vassal state Syria...well, let's just say there's 'the odd' hospital and school with their many innocent and extremely vulnerable 'clientele' and clinicians targeted inadvertently, oh yes, as mere 'collateral damage' according to Ms Clinton, not to mention the occasional wedding party out celebrating (till they're bombed to smithereens) throughout the Middle East (from Pakistan through Afghanistan over to Syria and Iraq etcetera)...that hey, perhaps deserve just a mention also?

*I.e. Mr Gower's distant relative, the late, great Donald Duck himself.

Let's Hear It For Laila, Though the Lady's hardly 'Hard of Hearing'

Though I'll immediately concede I can't resist some blimin' good alliteration when I stumble across it (if I do say so myself), let's hear it for the much (and often unfairly) maligned Laila Harre (alongside her equally incisive former political colleague Pam Corkery). To wit: for evidencing on last week's TV1 Sunday show that she's someone prepared to back the down-and-out and vulnerable, the neglected, forsaken and forgotten, to the hilt. Including and especially when they're friends, itself showing she 'mixes' - i.e. on a close, personal basis - not only with 'the rich and famous', but with Mr and Ms Average citizen. Unlike so many 'well-connected' politicoes I have little doubt - whatever their rhetoric and PR spin (to the contrary).

Yes, Ms Harre has enough humanity and decency to associate herself with a fellow who is presently being given the runaround by bureaucratic officialize who consider it a mark of their competence to require workers on the lowest echelon paywise (and conditionwise) of New Zealand society to be required to give a running account (and timewise!) of the number of times they wipe their clients' bums... . So who's the real barbarian at the gate of NZ Inc, eh?

A Future National Party leader-in-waiting no longer, may Dr Parmjeet(sp?) Palmer not take Roskill tomorrow, rather may the best man (in this case the Wood; or Ethnic Party candidate) win, and hands down...

Sometimes during a by-election the truth comes spilling out, and one's initial view is proven ill-founded. And thus I've realized this time - though my 'hearing' of this political battle is few and far enough between...but sometimes what appeared all glitz and glammer proves a baser quality, and the authentic if rather boring and uncharismatic rises to the surface...and so it has well and truly proven on this occasion. Yes, this is an occasion where all I can add is: may the better person and not the slicker politician win...and win handily.

Aftermath (two days, and 'an eternity in politics', later): What a thumping victory to write home about, and I mean really! And yet, Mr Little's days (as head of NZ Labour Inc) may well be numbered after all. But how can that be, you ask, in light of the result Saturday? For surely that was the obvious prognosis that I myself - alongside Pundits Anonymous NZ Inc - were suggesting if the very opposite had happened on Saturday, and Mr Wood had gone down to defeat (especially at Dr Palmer's hands)? Hang on a mo, yes I'm indeed intimating that, apart from National no longer (feasibly) grooming an Indian as another potential future female National Prime Minister, as far as Labour is concerned, well it may itself be looking for a new leader.

Though I've long since taken a liking to Napier's Stuart Nash - grandson of another (one-term, Labour) Prime Minister - I respectfully suggest that at this stage the party needn't be looking too much further than a certain Michael Wood (only a distant relation, I understand, of Dunedin's own present-day National List member and cabinet minister Michael Woodhouse!) Yes, Mount Roskill's new Member of Parliament turned in an exemplary performance yesterday, for what had - even under the long-serving popular Labour M.P., former leader and one-time high-profile cabinet minister now turned Mayor of Auckland Phil Goff - distinctly become a marginal Labour (even party vote National) electorate over recent elections. And a socially conservative seat at that, alongside the electorates/traditional areas of Mount Eden and Mount Albert evidently 'possessing' Auckland's 'Bible Belt'.

Original (pre-election day thoughts), not posted till now due to (unforseen) time considerations Friday:
the 'authentic' person came to the fore and won handily, simply because people saw he was who he claimed to be, not a mere clone or yes-man for his leader or party, whereas his opponent sadly evinced the very opposite. Though I'm not quite sure about some last-minute rumours/rumblings about 'stigmata' etcetera (much less who they're specifically associated with, let alone what they'd even signify if accurate) - and am even aware (intuitively) that Dr Palmjeet(?sp) Palmer's ethnicity may well have actually counted against her (sadly enough) despite what political pundits were early on claiming - in the brief clips after unruly meetings and various incidents and media 'conferences' etc, what struck Yours Truly were the following things.

Here we had someone with a clear sense of entitlement, scornful of any accountability whatsoever, even deeming/deigning ever so reasonable questions put to her as clearly beneath her, as being only worthy of typical political obfuscation and fudging...and oh, that oh so typical province and peccadillo of aspiring politicoes, not giving a straight answer to a simple question. And being no more than a soundboard to her leader (and/or parliamentary party), that when confronted with an issue upon which loyalty to her electorate would be demanded over against her own party colleagues, she dissembled once again. Correction: she failed to confirm that she would indeed support her locals over her political superiors, thus leaving one to naturally enough draw the conclusion I myself inferred. Overall, the sort of stuff that in decades not all that long ago would have seen a candidate booed off the stage if not actually pelted with some rather unpleasant materials.

And to think she had the gall to try to rough up Michael Wood's good wife, then instantly call foul when challenged for the personal affront and dragging family into the fray; all showing she obviously had neither the temperament nor the character to win the seat Saturday. And apparently Mount Roskill's good citizens saw likewise. And Mr Wood's Q & A interview this morning saw him deftly parlay the el typical questions on his party leader without equivocating or hesitating a second and without being (essentially) dishonest. A nice and notable contrast to the P.M. (on the latter score, anyhow), someone who immediately evidenced he was having a bad face day! 

Let's Hear It For Some of the Much-Maligned Left

Admittedly - like so many Westerners (especially my fellow kiwis) my words are few and far between 'these days' in defence of left-wingers, especially political parties of such a description...but - 'au contaire' - on this occasion 'let's hear it' for the likes of Gary McCormack/McCormick, John Minto and Laila Harre...

Yes, they're not all 'Marxists in disguise', as some zealous partisans and ideologues would have it, awaiting their grand Jackpot chance, conspiracy-style-wise, to foist their particular worldview upon their helpless, hapless fellow citizenry throughout the West...although I well realize that some indeed have followed Antonio Gramsci's plan of infiltration of that particular ideology - failing of attaining political power per se - through the corridors of bureaucracy and the 'department' of education (and other cultural 'ministries') especially...

*Gary McC - who, as I've oftentimes informed Jim Mora of the famous RNZ National's afternoon weekday 'The Panel', alongside Gordon MacLaughlin(sp?) and Joe Bennett, 'oughta be runnin' our fair land'...

This comedian extraordinaire, left-wing talkback host, (one-time) friend (and confidante) of such famed political 'practitioners' as former Prime Minister David Lange (of that much-celebrated "I detect uranium on your breath" tete-a-tete with one-time United States Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell), and that long-time, semi-permanent fixture of New Zealand local government - from the shores of the Waitemata to the icebergs of Invercargill - i.e. Tim Shadbolt...

...is presently being 'persecuted', treated shamefully and shamelessly, shabbily and despicably - by that oh so beloved carrier/purveyor of kiwis through the air, Air New Zealand - as detailed upon TV3's 'Story' on Monday/Tuesday the 28th/29th November (and on RNZ National's 'the Panel' of the same dates...).

Hey, just a question (of certain overly well known) radio personalities: So where are the long queues of Newstalk ZB talkback hosts, for instance, lining up to rally behind Gary, to back to the hilt his brave quest and support him in his present extremity...for surely a personality of McCormick's/McCormack's mana, a comedian of his quality and a talkback host of his undoubted pedigree -if equally well-known (supposedly) for his outspoken if highly idiosyncratic left-wing sensibilities - deserves the unqualified support of one and all for daring to - despite it possibly being seen as cutting off his nasal regions to spite his face - place his proverbial fairly and squarely, and ever so firmly, where his little (verbal) member is...

No, 'their' silence is audible. And the only verdict possible is: missing - collectively - in inaction.
Good on ya, Gary - and all power to your tribe; may it go from strength to strength...
To come: hurrahs for two other well-known kiwi leftists, both recent Mana Party co-founders/leaders: the oft-decried former Alliance co-leader (upon Jim Anderton's desertion), then Green Party member, Laila Harre, and that inveterate protestor from Springbok Tour days, the would-be mayor (of Auckland to Christchurch), John Minto...for their guts, for their loyalty to the dispossessed and downtrodden etcetera.

Another good-hearted Syrian bites the dust...

Just a brief tribute to the recently-married Syrian who braved life (but was ultimately served up death) in his war-wracked nation to minister to trauma-riven kids and others there, serving as a clown...who's apparently joined the queues to the morgue there. Like Mr al-Hussein (if my memory serves me aright), the archivist who stayed till he - quite literally - dropped (and died) in ancient Palmyra awhile ago, rather than see his lifelong treasure desecrated and destroyed by the philistine cult of el-Sissi...

Didn't someone say somewhere, sometime that the most basic and pre-eminent virtue is that of courage - one which embraces every other, especially that foremost one, love, seeing as it necessarily presupposes it?