That's (seemingly) a very 'good' question indeed. Just what should all these Syrian refugees actually do, that is, rather than 'simply' flee their rapidly sinking ship of state? I'm glad you asked.
For an entirely different and fresh perspective on this much-mooted point of contention, I seriously suggest you link in (in no more than about half an hour's time, I'm hoping) to my blogpost on my original blogsite. The opinion piece, entitled 'Who's To Say Who Should Stay?', reflects some considered thinking on my part over recent weeks and months, and utilizes a serendipitous reading I chanced upon just last Saturday in Dietrich Bonhoeffer's classic tome The Cost of Discipleship.
For those unfamiliar, my original blogsite is, and is located at:
http://nuffsaid:consideryourself-frombothsidesnow.blogspot.co.nz/(or .com/).
Friday, March 16, 2018
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Seven Sad and Sorry Years On In Syria: the more things change, the more they stay the same
The Scene and Setting: a battle-scarred wasteland of ruin and desolation, located to the east/north-east of Palestine...where Syrian Government forces, backed by the Russian military machine, fight it out with rebel forces and Sissii sympathizers in mainly urban enclaves throughout the land. In an odd cat-and-mouse juxtaposition with American forces supporting anti-Government Kurdish 'rebels' in the north.
The Diagnosis: Help for innocent civilians needed on every hand, especially for the establishment of 'safe corridors' out of danger into less threatened areas or out of Syria altogether as outcasts/refugees.
The Prognosis: Not too good.
Reason: The above military situation, topped off by a 'too little, too late' response by the United Nations, which has effectively been found to be 'missing in inaction'. As per usual.
No, you vehemently protest, the U.N. has indeed been involved, and on an ongoing basis, and for some considerable time, continually negotiating truces between the various warring parties. Yes, that's quite indisputable. It has indeed. But, really, where has it gotten things?
Only nowhere fast. It's been completely ineffective, ever lacking the military means and 'suasion' necessary to achieve its noble as, well-intentioned ends. True, its ongoing efforts to secure safe corridors for civilian passage out of conflict zones are providing a temporary breather or several to many Syrian civilians caught up unwittingly in the conflict...that is, until the next military assault and onslaught by Bashir al-Assad's forces with their Russian confederates...who, without batting an eye, readily regroup during said peace pauses and then swiftly move in once more like all-consuming locusts to devour yet another swathe of Syrian opponents cum neighbouring innocents.
No, on this one I'm entirely in agreement with New Zealand's former Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who recently remarked on how shameful the U.N. response to the entire saga has been. And how effectively impotent it and its new Secretary-General, the former Portuguese Prime Minister, has been in the apparently intractable conflict. And surely she should know. Yes, perhaps she's still resentful at having been pipped at the post (evidently by a country mile) by the new United Nations head, for that job, that's probably a given. Yet as #3 at the U.N. for the three years preceding her recent bid, heading the United Nations Food and Aid Programme, she's probably just as piqued knowing that she herself knew precisely the problem and what to do about it.
Supposedly. One can only assume that that was in the back of Ms Clark's methodical, detail-oriented and solution-driven mind. But even if she'd been U.N. head herself, how the heck can one get what has effectively been a sabreless tiger to exert any real coercion, moral or otherwise, over those (such as Assad and his Russian allies - let alone Sissii International) who have no inclination whatsoever to desist from their butchery and bloodshed. Little hope - in reality.
But dreams are ever free, and after all, without any such hope, we're ultimately all doomed!
The Diagnosis: Help for innocent civilians needed on every hand, especially for the establishment of 'safe corridors' out of danger into less threatened areas or out of Syria altogether as outcasts/refugees.
The Prognosis: Not too good.
Reason: The above military situation, topped off by a 'too little, too late' response by the United Nations, which has effectively been found to be 'missing in inaction'. As per usual.
No, you vehemently protest, the U.N. has indeed been involved, and on an ongoing basis, and for some considerable time, continually negotiating truces between the various warring parties. Yes, that's quite indisputable. It has indeed. But, really, where has it gotten things?
Only nowhere fast. It's been completely ineffective, ever lacking the military means and 'suasion' necessary to achieve its noble as, well-intentioned ends. True, its ongoing efforts to secure safe corridors for civilian passage out of conflict zones are providing a temporary breather or several to many Syrian civilians caught up unwittingly in the conflict...that is, until the next military assault and onslaught by Bashir al-Assad's forces with their Russian confederates...who, without batting an eye, readily regroup during said peace pauses and then swiftly move in once more like all-consuming locusts to devour yet another swathe of Syrian opponents cum neighbouring innocents.
No, on this one I'm entirely in agreement with New Zealand's former Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who recently remarked on how shameful the U.N. response to the entire saga has been. And how effectively impotent it and its new Secretary-General, the former Portuguese Prime Minister, has been in the apparently intractable conflict. And surely she should know. Yes, perhaps she's still resentful at having been pipped at the post (evidently by a country mile) by the new United Nations head, for that job, that's probably a given. Yet as #3 at the U.N. for the three years preceding her recent bid, heading the United Nations Food and Aid Programme, she's probably just as piqued knowing that she herself knew precisely the problem and what to do about it.
Supposedly. One can only assume that that was in the back of Ms Clark's methodical, detail-oriented and solution-driven mind. But even if she'd been U.N. head herself, how the heck can one get what has effectively been a sabreless tiger to exert any real coercion, moral or otherwise, over those (such as Assad and his Russian allies - let alone Sissii International) who have no inclination whatsoever to desist from their butchery and bloodshed. Little hope - in reality.
But dreams are ever free, and after all, without any such hope, we're ultimately all doomed!
Good on ya, Rand Paul - you've shown your quality. Now will the other - real - American men (and women) - as in Republican Party politicians, in this case - please step up...- that is, if any remain
Or has the once truly grand old party of such 'greats' as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight David Eisenhower, and yes, *'even' Herbert Hoover, vanished without trace?
My question, seemingly rhetorical, is somewhat facetious, as there are a couple - influential - Republicans (senators both) who have indeed come to the fore in this time of crisis (and previously) and truly shown their mettle. In the **genuinely bipartisan spirit of the equally great Republican senator of the 1960s through 1980s, Washington State's Mark Hatfield - a man so genuinely decent, progressive and far-sighted he was even apparently considered a serious Vice-Presidential nominee for George McGovern's radical presidential ticket of 1972 - Kentucky Senator and would-be presidential nominee Rand Paul has just stepped up to the mark (along with John McCain, who has almost made a specialty of standing up to President Trump); in publicly criticizing (and staunchly opposing) the imminent appointment of two individuals notorious for their active support (in recent times past) of techniques of torture utilized by the American military. Rand's voice of independence has been well-noted over recent decades with his firm and unyielding opposition to post-9/11 U.S. Government infringements upon citizen rights, freedoms and privacy, and by his almost sole 'voice in the (Republican) wilderness' opposing American involvement in Iraq. Paul, like McCain - and that despite the latter's momentary lapse of judgment in selecting then Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his own presidential running mate in 2008 - has long shown himself a thoroughly independent 'operator', acting courageously 'in all seasons' quite irrespective of his formal party political allegiance. Thus proving themselves - in times of crisis when heroes and heroines are few upon the ground and exceptionally hard to locate - people of valour and principle, of integrity and decency.
*Whom I mention because the historical records suggest that - very similarly to 'Jimmy' Carter - while not a particularly effective (some would claim more an 'unfortunate') President, he, just like James Earl Carter, proved himself an exceptional human being and humanitarian (throughout his lifetime). The former thoughts were gleaned especially during a memorable course/university paper in American History I undertook when recommencing my two-decade-long university study in 2003. I also found it interesting how each of these two (Hoover and Carter) were replaced by similarly popular, sanguine, charismatic Presidents with 'the gift of the gab', who went on to serve multiple terms (Reagan probably being prevented from a third term by the Republican Party, post-FDR, passing a two-term limitation on presidential terms.) Hoover served 'on the ground' throughout Europe during and after WW1 (and indeed also following WW11), personally overseeing and organizing the distribution of emergency food relief to the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of displaced and homeless orphans and adults from Belgium through to famine-stricken Soviet Russia, silencing critics by declaring: "Twenty million people are starving...Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!" So respected did his name thus become, that he was literally feted by homeless orphans in post-World War 11 Europe, his name becoming synonymous with disinterested benevolence both at home (hence the term 'Hooverizing') and abroad (coined in Europe as tantamount to the same, i.e. charitable good works without hope or prospect of reward or recompense).
Or such is my memory thereof. Whereas President Carter's works of decency, goodwill, reconciliation and peace-building since leaving office have quite rightly earned him the reputation of achieving more and greater things shorn of the vestiges and prestige and accoutrements of elected office than many, even arguably most, presidents have accomplished during their tenure in office.
**Indeed even the highly contentious 1964 Republican presidential nominee (and long-serving Arizona Senator) Barry Goldwater, and the equally long-serving and far more controversial Alabama Governor (and independent president candidate in 1968 and 1972) George Wallace, later proved their own qualities in various ways, the latter's eventually radically resiling from his staunch, do-or-die segregationist stance - even to the point of appointing blacks into top positions in his Alabaman cabinet; the former proving a genuine bipartisan force upon Capitol Hill, from being one of the first to seek President Nixon's impeachment, through to declaring illegal the Reagan Administration's bombing of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and/or equipping of El Salvadoran death squads, to his ultimately parting ways with the one-time Moral Majority, nowadays 'Religious Right', and then 'Christian Coalition', declaring his firm conviction that they were interposing upon long-settled American constitutional principles, and would indeed prove eventually to cause the demise of the Grand Old Party.
My question, seemingly rhetorical, is somewhat facetious, as there are a couple - influential - Republicans (senators both) who have indeed come to the fore in this time of crisis (and previously) and truly shown their mettle. In the **genuinely bipartisan spirit of the equally great Republican senator of the 1960s through 1980s, Washington State's Mark Hatfield - a man so genuinely decent, progressive and far-sighted he was even apparently considered a serious Vice-Presidential nominee for George McGovern's radical presidential ticket of 1972 - Kentucky Senator and would-be presidential nominee Rand Paul has just stepped up to the mark (along with John McCain, who has almost made a specialty of standing up to President Trump); in publicly criticizing (and staunchly opposing) the imminent appointment of two individuals notorious for their active support (in recent times past) of techniques of torture utilized by the American military. Rand's voice of independence has been well-noted over recent decades with his firm and unyielding opposition to post-9/11 U.S. Government infringements upon citizen rights, freedoms and privacy, and by his almost sole 'voice in the (Republican) wilderness' opposing American involvement in Iraq. Paul, like McCain - and that despite the latter's momentary lapse of judgment in selecting then Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his own presidential running mate in 2008 - has long shown himself a thoroughly independent 'operator', acting courageously 'in all seasons' quite irrespective of his formal party political allegiance. Thus proving themselves - in times of crisis when heroes and heroines are few upon the ground and exceptionally hard to locate - people of valour and principle, of integrity and decency.
*Whom I mention because the historical records suggest that - very similarly to 'Jimmy' Carter - while not a particularly effective (some would claim more an 'unfortunate') President, he, just like James Earl Carter, proved himself an exceptional human being and humanitarian (throughout his lifetime). The former thoughts were gleaned especially during a memorable course/university paper in American History I undertook when recommencing my two-decade-long university study in 2003. I also found it interesting how each of these two (Hoover and Carter) were replaced by similarly popular, sanguine, charismatic Presidents with 'the gift of the gab', who went on to serve multiple terms (Reagan probably being prevented from a third term by the Republican Party, post-FDR, passing a two-term limitation on presidential terms.) Hoover served 'on the ground' throughout Europe during and after WW1 (and indeed also following WW11), personally overseeing and organizing the distribution of emergency food relief to the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of displaced and homeless orphans and adults from Belgium through to famine-stricken Soviet Russia, silencing critics by declaring: "Twenty million people are starving...Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!" So respected did his name thus become, that he was literally feted by homeless orphans in post-World War 11 Europe, his name becoming synonymous with disinterested benevolence both at home (hence the term 'Hooverizing') and abroad (coined in Europe as tantamount to the same, i.e. charitable good works without hope or prospect of reward or recompense).
Or such is my memory thereof. Whereas President Carter's works of decency, goodwill, reconciliation and peace-building since leaving office have quite rightly earned him the reputation of achieving more and greater things shorn of the vestiges and prestige and accoutrements of elected office than many, even arguably most, presidents have accomplished during their tenure in office.
**Indeed even the highly contentious 1964 Republican presidential nominee (and long-serving Arizona Senator) Barry Goldwater, and the equally long-serving and far more controversial Alabama Governor (and independent president candidate in 1968 and 1972) George Wallace, later proved their own qualities in various ways, the latter's eventually radically resiling from his staunch, do-or-die segregationist stance - even to the point of appointing blacks into top positions in his Alabaman cabinet; the former proving a genuine bipartisan force upon Capitol Hill, from being one of the first to seek President Nixon's impeachment, through to declaring illegal the Reagan Administration's bombing of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and/or equipping of El Salvadoran death squads, to his ultimately parting ways with the one-time Moral Majority, nowadays 'Religious Right', and then 'Christian Coalition', declaring his firm conviction that they were interposing upon long-settled American constitutional principles, and would indeed prove eventually to cause the demise of the Grand Old Party.
Revisiting Regurgitated Entrails - for a moment longer...
Re: a certain university lecturer of yesteryear
Notwithstanding that seemingly overly large self-serving of humble pie having been dished out (by myself at the conclusion of my last blogpost), may I respectfully suggest, as a necessary corrective:
there are people who have no place whatsoever in any 'people profession' much less educational institution/'institute of learning', lacking as they are in even the most elementary of people skills; (no offence intended, you understand - but let the chips fall where they well may...)
Nuff said.
Notwithstanding that seemingly overly large self-serving of humble pie having been dished out (by myself at the conclusion of my last blogpost), may I respectfully suggest, as a necessary corrective:
there are people who have no place whatsoever in any 'people profession' much less educational institution/'institute of learning', lacking as they are in even the most elementary of people skills; (no offence intended, you understand - but let the chips fall where they well may...)
Nuff said.
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Yet While We're At It, If We Really Must Put The Boot In, May I Equally Respectfully Suggest A Couple Other, Very High-Profile, Seriously Major World Leaders...
Such as, for instance:
!Russian President Vladimir Putin
Never one to pussy-foot around when it comes to asserting his will and way, to promoting his own ego and grandiose sense of self for every compatriot to see, and his muscular physique and sheer physical prowess for every last besmitten Russian woman and girl to ogle, the one-time KGB agent and on-again, off-again President-Prime Minister-President, Emeritus Tzar for life Vladimir Putin leaves Trump well and truly in the dust, breathing up noxious, inorganic particulate matter...
What with the Russian Federation's Leader-for-Life (if he could arrange it) Putin, unabashedly gloating in unbridled fashion whilst promoting his grand nuclear strategy the other day - to bedazzle folks at home and terrify those abroad - by displaying the latest permutations and configuration of Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles; while simultaneously dishing out the poison cup - no doubt indirectly through his loyal-till-death-do-them-part operatives - to his regime's sworn and steadfast enemies...*including this very morning as well to a fellow (now in London) who'd lived - and moreover also been poisoned etc - here in God's Own just a few years ago!
*No, apparently not, i.e. the words 'including this very morning...also'. Otherwise my words above stand, and are anything but fake news. What I should've put/added in above was simply that said former Russian (I believe, unless he'd hailed originally from Lithuania or another of the 15 present-day nations/one-time republic components of the former Soviet Union) - a Boris Karpickhov (sp?) - speaking livecast on TV3 tonight (NZ time) from a British TV studio panel interview, confirmed he'd personally been targeted back in 2006-2007 while living in New Zealand; i.e. walking a central Auckland street where **'a beggar' [homeless woman] had accosted him and sprayed him with a powdery substance (subsequently causing much ongoing physical discomfort). And evidently - understandably enough - now evidently had more than his share of concerns for his own ongoing safety in the U.K. in the aftermath of the recent well-reported 'international incident', compounded apparently this very morning (NZ time) in London by a similar event (of which I'm still a little hazy).
**But for Newstalk ZB's afternoons talkback host Larry Williams to use this incident (in NZ 2006/2007) to add apparent fuel to the ongoing fire to justify the continuing call for the banning of beggars from central Auckland streets, is not only doing a disservice for the myriads of genuine as homeless/panhandling dudes upon our streets, but it betrays an utter lack of rationality and under-standing of how a sophisticated spy operation as the Russian Government has ever run is actually undertaken - in the real world, that is. So keep your cheap shots for a better target, Mr Williams; homeless guys and gals and other beggars have more than enough upon their plate to be constantly served such endless self-serving drivel, and former Auckland Mayor, National Government Minister and Whangarei M.P. John Banks ***himself in comparison - despite his own various faults and failings - at least had the relative humanity (apparently) to take sandwiches down every Sunday evening (or suchlike) to a person in that position years earlier (on a regular and anonymous basis).
***As once revealed by a phoner upon a Sunday night talkback discussion/'this is/was your life, John Banks' (with Newstalk ZB's John McGowan) a decade or so ago.
Oh, and hey...and now I'm getting myself into even hotter water...what about a certain
!Chinese Premier/President Xi ('Winnie-the-Pooh') Jinping.
This fellow evidently sees and styles himself in the same vein, only as the Chinese counterpart thereof, or the modern-day equivalent/personification/reincarnation (if you will) of one of China's ancient dynastic emperors. And having studied such a good 32 years ago at the University of Otago under the inspired and inspiring tutelage of a certain Political Studies Professor Stuart *Greif, Jinping's certainly placing himself amidst some illustrious company, not only that of communist dictator Mao Tse-Tung of half a century ago.
Yes, under Jinping's esteemed leadership the Chinese Tiger's roaring louder than ever before, though it's equally correct that it's managing to become a real economic powerhouse upon the world stage, even succeeding in lifting vast swathes of its citizenry into an ever-expanding middle class, whose membership now numbers into the 300 millions (if reports are correct). And the Chinese Government is taking a high-profile and celebrated role upon the global stage in tackling the climate change crisis. But for all that the influence of the Chinese Dragon only continues to grow and expand around the world, especially throughout the South Pacific, as the tentacles of the Chinese octopus gradually spread out further and further, seeking to engulf and gobble up each and every last vestige of perceived dissent and rebellion - especially (as with Russia) of (either present or former) Chinese nationals overseas. In this regards, to New Zealand's own shame, one needs look no further than the Key Government's formal ratification of an agreement with China to return Chinese citizens that Government wished to try for crimes back at home. In which regard the BBC reported extensively a couple years back as to how the Chinese authorities had evidently been found - as suspected - to have been behind the whisking off of five independent booksellers critical of the new regime in the supposedly newly autonomous Hong Kong.
*Though for Yours Truly perhaps 'Grief' would've been more apt, my ending up failing both the papers I undertook under said lecturer (though I generally did okay at Political Studies/Science (whether at Otago or Canterbury varsities, finally ending up with a 'minor', to my English major)); and to this day I happen to retain a pitiful and rather pathetic essay I had the effrontery apparently to present him with, his dismissive written comments/evaluation essentially being that: 'This doesn't even remotely approach being an acceptable effort'. Nuff said!
!Russian President Vladimir Putin
Never one to pussy-foot around when it comes to asserting his will and way, to promoting his own ego and grandiose sense of self for every compatriot to see, and his muscular physique and sheer physical prowess for every last besmitten Russian woman and girl to ogle, the one-time KGB agent and on-again, off-again President-Prime Minister-President, Emeritus Tzar for life Vladimir Putin leaves Trump well and truly in the dust, breathing up noxious, inorganic particulate matter...
What with the Russian Federation's Leader-for-Life (if he could arrange it) Putin, unabashedly gloating in unbridled fashion whilst promoting his grand nuclear strategy the other day - to bedazzle folks at home and terrify those abroad - by displaying the latest permutations and configuration of Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles; while simultaneously dishing out the poison cup - no doubt indirectly through his loyal-till-death-do-them-part operatives - to his regime's sworn and steadfast enemies...*including this very morning as well to a fellow (now in London) who'd lived - and moreover also been poisoned etc - here in God's Own just a few years ago!
*No, apparently not, i.e. the words 'including this very morning...also'. Otherwise my words above stand, and are anything but fake news. What I should've put/added in above was simply that said former Russian (I believe, unless he'd hailed originally from Lithuania or another of the 15 present-day nations/one-time republic components of the former Soviet Union) - a Boris Karpickhov (sp?) - speaking livecast on TV3 tonight (NZ time) from a British TV studio panel interview, confirmed he'd personally been targeted back in 2006-2007 while living in New Zealand; i.e. walking a central Auckland street where **'a beggar' [homeless woman] had accosted him and sprayed him with a powdery substance (subsequently causing much ongoing physical discomfort). And evidently - understandably enough - now evidently had more than his share of concerns for his own ongoing safety in the U.K. in the aftermath of the recent well-reported 'international incident', compounded apparently this very morning (NZ time) in London by a similar event (of which I'm still a little hazy).
**But for Newstalk ZB's afternoons talkback host Larry Williams to use this incident (in NZ 2006/2007) to add apparent fuel to the ongoing fire to justify the continuing call for the banning of beggars from central Auckland streets, is not only doing a disservice for the myriads of genuine as homeless/panhandling dudes upon our streets, but it betrays an utter lack of rationality and under-standing of how a sophisticated spy operation as the Russian Government has ever run is actually undertaken - in the real world, that is. So keep your cheap shots for a better target, Mr Williams; homeless guys and gals and other beggars have more than enough upon their plate to be constantly served such endless self-serving drivel, and former Auckland Mayor, National Government Minister and Whangarei M.P. John Banks ***himself in comparison - despite his own various faults and failings - at least had the relative humanity (apparently) to take sandwiches down every Sunday evening (or suchlike) to a person in that position years earlier (on a regular and anonymous basis).
***As once revealed by a phoner upon a Sunday night talkback discussion/'this is/was your life, John Banks' (with Newstalk ZB's John McGowan) a decade or so ago.
Oh, and hey...and now I'm getting myself into even hotter water...what about a certain
!Chinese Premier/President Xi ('Winnie-the-Pooh') Jinping.
This fellow evidently sees and styles himself in the same vein, only as the Chinese counterpart thereof, or the modern-day equivalent/personification/reincarnation (if you will) of one of China's ancient dynastic emperors. And having studied such a good 32 years ago at the University of Otago under the inspired and inspiring tutelage of a certain Political Studies Professor Stuart *Greif, Jinping's certainly placing himself amidst some illustrious company, not only that of communist dictator Mao Tse-Tung of half a century ago.
Yes, under Jinping's esteemed leadership the Chinese Tiger's roaring louder than ever before, though it's equally correct that it's managing to become a real economic powerhouse upon the world stage, even succeeding in lifting vast swathes of its citizenry into an ever-expanding middle class, whose membership now numbers into the 300 millions (if reports are correct). And the Chinese Government is taking a high-profile and celebrated role upon the global stage in tackling the climate change crisis. But for all that the influence of the Chinese Dragon only continues to grow and expand around the world, especially throughout the South Pacific, as the tentacles of the Chinese octopus gradually spread out further and further, seeking to engulf and gobble up each and every last vestige of perceived dissent and rebellion - especially (as with Russia) of (either present or former) Chinese nationals overseas. In this regards, to New Zealand's own shame, one needs look no further than the Key Government's formal ratification of an agreement with China to return Chinese citizens that Government wished to try for crimes back at home. In which regard the BBC reported extensively a couple years back as to how the Chinese authorities had evidently been found - as suspected - to have been behind the whisking off of five independent booksellers critical of the new regime in the supposedly newly autonomous Hong Kong.
*Though for Yours Truly perhaps 'Grief' would've been more apt, my ending up failing both the papers I undertook under said lecturer (though I generally did okay at Political Studies/Science (whether at Otago or Canterbury varsities, finally ending up with a 'minor', to my English major)); and to this day I happen to retain a pitiful and rather pathetic essay I had the effrontery apparently to present him with, his dismissive written comments/evaluation essentially being that: 'This doesn't even remotely approach being an acceptable effort'. Nuff said!
Yet For All That Rose-Tinted, Possibly Pollyanna-ish Optimism...the sacking overnight (NZ-time) of United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is in itself a somewhat concerning development
If for no other reason, that once each and every last sane, sensible, level-headed and reasonable, rational person is expelled from the asylum, the lunatics left inside will not only have full reign, but moreover the chances of their wreaking merry havoc therein, and subsequently spreading their folly thick and fast throughout neighbouring communities, towns, cities, provinces/regions, nations - and yes, ultimately the entire globe...only increases in exponential proportions...
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
For All his 'Faults' - and they are both numerous, even 'innumerable', and incredibly variegated...the sitting American President:
is surely deserving of at least a little commendation (of late)...would not 'all men [i.e. people] of good will' agree? My question is rhetorical, but seeing as some (perhaps fairly understandably, I'll freely admit) regard Donald J Trump as virtually (pun both unintended yet simultaneously quite intentional) the devil incarnate (eminent position - he currently occupies - notwithstanding)..:
Let me suggest, as gently and respectfully as I can - no hard feelings, you understand - that it's in absolutely nobody's interests ('best' or otherwise); except perhaps that/those of a patently hostile, malice-ridden assemblage of onlooking ***other-worldly would-be earth conquerors; for this present world to go up in an incendiary smokestack of nuclear mushroom-style ruin and desolation. No, truly. And yes, whoever happens to be sitting in the Oval Office at the time. Admittedly even when the toddlers are in charge of the schoolhouse and its precincts.
Hence, ipso facto, whoever happens to get the credit - and who really cares, that's for kiddies in kindergartens, folks - let's all just be grateful, for a moment (or several), anyhow, that the lifespan of this fragile planet has thus been, ****hopefully, reprieved for a couple more months, at least... .
Whichever of the two, even if both larger-than-life high-flying politicoes are ultimately responsible; again, who really cares? It doesn't matter a jot or tittle. You might indeed be right in your own evaluation/assessment, spot on in fact, and correct to the very nth degree even...but may I, again ever so respectfully, suggest and point out: if we're all dead, d'ya think we'll be around to extol your superior wisdom?
So stop, for just a sec (or two), in order, if not to positively give due credit where credit is due, to at the very least refrain (for the briefest of interludes) from ye usual petty party political, partisan bitching, bickering, nit-picking and just plain ('I can't stand the man' (I mean, oaf) ) ideological point-scoring and other assorted 'holier than Trump' self-indulgences...to do the following: celebrate with all men and women and children of good will a small 'win' for homo sapiens and all other Earth-bound creatures.
But please, oh pretty please, don't hold it against dear old Mr Trump that he honestly just can't help himself, for real, that he's once again chosen to trumpet (pun all too fully intended) his own supposed involvement in/contribution to such a (******highly temporary, no doubt) stay of execution for Planet Earth. And meanwhile, for all us supposed 'adults in the room', let's not do the 'ole 'hate the sinner whilst loving the sin' thingamy by emulating 'the Donald' himself...but rather just 'thank our lucky stars' (if that's the way we're inclined and all we can do): that the impending spectre of nuclear winter has been - at least temporarily - deferred for all beings that on this earth do dwell.
Yes indeed. That'll give us all due cause for pause and food enough for thought for some time to come.
**(From title: 'numerous, even 'innumerable, and incredibly variegated'): Too many indeed to easily cite here, and embracing a wide swathe of territory, that's for sure.
*(From title: 'all his faults'): Comprehending errors, mistakes, personality failings and flaws (as well as quite arguably the morally disqualifying act of cowardly evading the draft - while cynically employing that old 'last refuge of a scoundrel', patriotism, whenever it's tended to suit his own political purposes and agenda, including to 'dis' the likes of genuine war heroes such as Arizona Republican Senator John McCain)...but not here referring to the evidently well-founded allegations swirling around 'everywhere' of far more serious, even heinous, ********crimes of passion, shonky business dealings and employment practices (let alone the seething charges, now entering America's highest legislative bodies, of nepotism, gerrymandering election results alongside doing so by collusion with a foreign power of the most powerful and hostile type (i.e. effectively committing treason)).
***Eat ya hearts out, all ye comedians/comediennes of New Zealand's TV3's weeknightly 'The Project'.
****Of course ongoing, never-ending 'developments' in that *****other constantly simmering global (nuclear) hotspot, the Middle East, only ever seem to progressively worsen (outside of President Obama's own various reprieves a few short years back), and give no such cause for optimism, only for rather hopeless pessimism.
*****Though as 'we' were reminded this morning (on Kathryn Ryan's RNZ National 'Nine to Noon' show) by a longtime expert on the world's nuclear arsenals and deployment, we tend to hear little about the ongoing waxing and waning and waxing tensions between two other nuclear weaponry-wielding neighbours, i.e. Pakistan and India; whose rhetoric has often been just as worrisome!
******For with two *******madmen running this particular 'show', naturally some legitimately feel 'it's only a matter of time', and not, 'which one blinks first?', as it was with the three seriously intelligent - and essentially decent-minded and humane - statesmen of yesteryear, Cuba's Castro, the U.S.S.R.'s Khrushchev and America's Camelot President 'JFK' (during their own state-of-the-art brinkmanship in the 'Bay of Pigs' nuclear standoff).
*******Without even mentioning a whole assortment of present-day supposedly much more sophisticated, sensible and intelligent world leaders, and two (larger than life characters) in particular. And no, I make no reference here to one of the leaders of the historic Brexit referendum result, a certain much-pilloried Boris Johnson, who I for one regard as all of the immediate above - minus the descriptor 'supposedly'. And his idiosyncratic 'rough and ready' style detracts not one iota from that intriguing, endearing persona!
********Though admittedly not being the sole 'perpetrator' of some of these sordid affairs even amongst the generally, supposedly hallowed chambers of American presidents, his - at least apparent - combination of so many (in one individual) is enough to stagger the imagination, surely.
Let me suggest, as gently and respectfully as I can - no hard feelings, you understand - that it's in absolutely nobody's interests ('best' or otherwise); except perhaps that/those of a patently hostile, malice-ridden assemblage of onlooking ***other-worldly would-be earth conquerors; for this present world to go up in an incendiary smokestack of nuclear mushroom-style ruin and desolation. No, truly. And yes, whoever happens to be sitting in the Oval Office at the time. Admittedly even when the toddlers are in charge of the schoolhouse and its precincts.
Hence, ipso facto, whoever happens to get the credit - and who really cares, that's for kiddies in kindergartens, folks - let's all just be grateful, for a moment (or several), anyhow, that the lifespan of this fragile planet has thus been, ****hopefully, reprieved for a couple more months, at least... .
Whichever of the two, even if both larger-than-life high-flying politicoes are ultimately responsible; again, who really cares? It doesn't matter a jot or tittle. You might indeed be right in your own evaluation/assessment, spot on in fact, and correct to the very nth degree even...but may I, again ever so respectfully, suggest and point out: if we're all dead, d'ya think we'll be around to extol your superior wisdom?
So stop, for just a sec (or two), in order, if not to positively give due credit where credit is due, to at the very least refrain (for the briefest of interludes) from ye usual petty party political, partisan bitching, bickering, nit-picking and just plain ('I can't stand the man' (I mean, oaf) ) ideological point-scoring and other assorted 'holier than Trump' self-indulgences...to do the following: celebrate with all men and women and children of good will a small 'win' for homo sapiens and all other Earth-bound creatures.
But please, oh pretty please, don't hold it against dear old Mr Trump that he honestly just can't help himself, for real, that he's once again chosen to trumpet (pun all too fully intended) his own supposed involvement in/contribution to such a (******highly temporary, no doubt) stay of execution for Planet Earth. And meanwhile, for all us supposed 'adults in the room', let's not do the 'ole 'hate the sinner whilst loving the sin' thingamy by emulating 'the Donald' himself...but rather just 'thank our lucky stars' (if that's the way we're inclined and all we can do): that the impending spectre of nuclear winter has been - at least temporarily - deferred for all beings that on this earth do dwell.
Yes indeed. That'll give us all due cause for pause and food enough for thought for some time to come.
**(From title: 'numerous, even 'innumerable, and incredibly variegated'): Too many indeed to easily cite here, and embracing a wide swathe of territory, that's for sure.
*(From title: 'all his faults'): Comprehending errors, mistakes, personality failings and flaws (as well as quite arguably the morally disqualifying act of cowardly evading the draft - while cynically employing that old 'last refuge of a scoundrel', patriotism, whenever it's tended to suit his own political purposes and agenda, including to 'dis' the likes of genuine war heroes such as Arizona Republican Senator John McCain)...but not here referring to the evidently well-founded allegations swirling around 'everywhere' of far more serious, even heinous, ********crimes of passion, shonky business dealings and employment practices (let alone the seething charges, now entering America's highest legislative bodies, of nepotism, gerrymandering election results alongside doing so by collusion with a foreign power of the most powerful and hostile type (i.e. effectively committing treason)).
***Eat ya hearts out, all ye comedians/comediennes of New Zealand's TV3's weeknightly 'The Project'.
****Of course ongoing, never-ending 'developments' in that *****other constantly simmering global (nuclear) hotspot, the Middle East, only ever seem to progressively worsen (outside of President Obama's own various reprieves a few short years back), and give no such cause for optimism, only for rather hopeless pessimism.
*****Though as 'we' were reminded this morning (on Kathryn Ryan's RNZ National 'Nine to Noon' show) by a longtime expert on the world's nuclear arsenals and deployment, we tend to hear little about the ongoing waxing and waning and waxing tensions between two other nuclear weaponry-wielding neighbours, i.e. Pakistan and India; whose rhetoric has often been just as worrisome!
******For with two *******madmen running this particular 'show', naturally some legitimately feel 'it's only a matter of time', and not, 'which one blinks first?', as it was with the three seriously intelligent - and essentially decent-minded and humane - statesmen of yesteryear, Cuba's Castro, the U.S.S.R.'s Khrushchev and America's Camelot President 'JFK' (during their own state-of-the-art brinkmanship in the 'Bay of Pigs' nuclear standoff).
*******Without even mentioning a whole assortment of present-day supposedly much more sophisticated, sensible and intelligent world leaders, and two (larger than life characters) in particular. And no, I make no reference here to one of the leaders of the historic Brexit referendum result, a certain much-pilloried Boris Johnson, who I for one regard as all of the immediate above - minus the descriptor 'supposedly'. And his idiosyncratic 'rough and ready' style detracts not one iota from that intriguing, endearing persona!
********Though admittedly not being the sole 'perpetrator' of some of these sordid affairs even amongst the generally, supposedly hallowed chambers of American presidents, his - at least apparent - combination of so many (in one individual) is enough to stagger the imagination, surely.
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
And profuse apologies to one and all loyal blogsite 'followers' (in spirit if not in name) who've patiently, painstakingly awaited my eventual return to this (and my sister) blogsite, I can assure you your 114-day-and-night wait has not been without reason, purpose or ultimate recompense...over days (and weeks) to come
Hip, Hip Hooray for Four Paws, (as opposed to) Hysteria-ridden Hubbub from PETA: while the latter talks a good talk, the former walks a better walk
Congratulations to the animal rescue outfit known as Four Paws for rescuing lions Simba and Saed (sp?) from their strife-torn home in Syria, returning them safe and sound (as much as can be expected in the circumstances) to their native habitat in South Africa, long a bastion of 'the king of the beasts'.
Though some - including myself - might initially reflect unfavourably on their thus doing - whilst millions of human beings remain in wrack and ruin, in strife and suffering, in misery and neglect, heartache and hunger in Syria - let's for a change simply celebrate the betterment of two 'lone' lions.
While (for my part, anyway) reflecting - by way of comparison and contrast - less favourably upon their 'sister' organization (in these - Antipodean - parts) 'P.E.T.A.' Whose extreme form of 'Getcha' and 'Gotcha' tactics (in the cause of selfsame animal rights) has been over the top (and off into the wop-wops) as they, for instance, sought - ultimately unsuccessfully - to pin all manner of animal cruelty charges upon the likes of WETA workshop et al, in its well-supported crusade (by certain kiwis) to find ammo in their Hobbit films-bashing, Sir Peter Jackson-loathing misanthropy.
Though some - including myself - might initially reflect unfavourably on their thus doing - whilst millions of human beings remain in wrack and ruin, in strife and suffering, in misery and neglect, heartache and hunger in Syria - let's for a change simply celebrate the betterment of two 'lone' lions.
While (for my part, anyway) reflecting - by way of comparison and contrast - less favourably upon their 'sister' organization (in these - Antipodean - parts) 'P.E.T.A.' Whose extreme form of 'Getcha' and 'Gotcha' tactics (in the cause of selfsame animal rights) has been over the top (and off into the wop-wops) as they, for instance, sought - ultimately unsuccessfully - to pin all manner of animal cruelty charges upon the likes of WETA workshop et al, in its well-supported crusade (by certain kiwis) to find ammo in their Hobbit films-bashing, Sir Peter Jackson-loathing misanthropy.
Monday, November 6, 2017
Sunday, November 5, 2017
The Coca-Cola Company 'innocent'? Goodness Gracious, They're Guilty As Sin! (And Not Only For Coming Down like the Proverbial Upon a small-time Wellington Restaurant)
Just what is it anyhow about these sizeable corporations and their seeming readiness, nay eagerness, to wage all-out commercial warfare upon tiny little individual entrepreneurs and the like who're just seeking to eke out a rather meagre living...simply because the latter happen to - inadvertently, in almost every instance, there's little doubt - transgress the letter of the law in terms of (generally name-related) copyright infringements?
Have they nothing better to do with their time, than to end up spending considerable time and energy - and all the rest, including monies - in chasing up and hunting down anyone and everyone, who, however innocently and guilelessly, 'just so happens' to cross the invisible corporate line and stray into their territory?
Are they really so insecure - in themselves, let alone their particular product and franchise - that they actually feel genuinely threatened and intimidated even by some little company or often simply twosome or family concern, who as I say inadvertently strays into their business province, and - horror of horrors - uses a term or phrase, however commonplace in regular company, that just so happens to sound an awful lot like theirs?
It would appear so, for what else could possibly explain an outfit as dodgy as Coca-Cola, now increasingly 'implicated', according to various 'experts', in the global (or at least Western) obesity epidemic, pursuing down a couple who've had the sheer temerity - at least initially, until belatedly stopped in their tracks - to go ahead and name their small restaurant franchise 'Innocent Foods' (or 'the Innocent Restaurant')? Or, more precisely, without even bothering to consult their highnesses, the high-and-mighty Coca-Cola company itself, before doing so? As if they'd even have known to begin with! But that's the world some of these corporates with considerable clout live in, they instinctively feel everything revolves around themselves and their commercial concerns, and are almost more chagrined, I've little doubt, that said 'opposition' didn't even realize CC et al's actual prior possession of such names and distinctives as a point of fact, quite apart from thus being an actual copyright infringement as such.
Who'll be next in their sights, the famous 'Innocent Project' seeking to establish some body, New Zealand- or even Western-worldwide, that'd make it easier for unjustly-convicted individuals to contest their innocence vis-a-vis the particular national authorities concerned? Or those who still believe 'innocent' to be a beautiful word redolent and reminiscent of a gentler, kinder, more peaceable (and less driven and commercially-obsessed) era and world - and thus wholly unfit for the likes of a money-grubbing, health-debasing, truth-rejecting, and otherwise thoroughly objectionable commercial entity such as Coca-Cola to peddle in?
Hey, may they - however belatedly - have the gumption and preparedness to swallow some humble pie by taking a leaf out of the 'portfolio' of another company - itself actually once great - that's long since lowered its own standards and principles in the same regards? Yes, I speak now of none other than (the New Zealand division, anyhow, of) Sanitarium...who have themselves debased themselves over recent months (and perhaps years over this and other matters), to take to 'the cleaners', i.e. the Copyright Authority, a little Timaru-based outfit, evidently haling from Great Britain originally, who themselves dared to try to market their own breakfast cereal here in Aotearoa as 'Weet-abix', evidently just a little too close for comfort, in naming sensibilites, to the aforementioned's longtime market winner Weetbix!
Yes, truly 'nuff said!
(Nevertheless, to be continued.)
Have they nothing better to do with their time, than to end up spending considerable time and energy - and all the rest, including monies - in chasing up and hunting down anyone and everyone, who, however innocently and guilelessly, 'just so happens' to cross the invisible corporate line and stray into their territory?
Are they really so insecure - in themselves, let alone their particular product and franchise - that they actually feel genuinely threatened and intimidated even by some little company or often simply twosome or family concern, who as I say inadvertently strays into their business province, and - horror of horrors - uses a term or phrase, however commonplace in regular company, that just so happens to sound an awful lot like theirs?
It would appear so, for what else could possibly explain an outfit as dodgy as Coca-Cola, now increasingly 'implicated', according to various 'experts', in the global (or at least Western) obesity epidemic, pursuing down a couple who've had the sheer temerity - at least initially, until belatedly stopped in their tracks - to go ahead and name their small restaurant franchise 'Innocent Foods' (or 'the Innocent Restaurant')? Or, more precisely, without even bothering to consult their highnesses, the high-and-mighty Coca-Cola company itself, before doing so? As if they'd even have known to begin with! But that's the world some of these corporates with considerable clout live in, they instinctively feel everything revolves around themselves and their commercial concerns, and are almost more chagrined, I've little doubt, that said 'opposition' didn't even realize CC et al's actual prior possession of such names and distinctives as a point of fact, quite apart from thus being an actual copyright infringement as such.
Who'll be next in their sights, the famous 'Innocent Project' seeking to establish some body, New Zealand- or even Western-worldwide, that'd make it easier for unjustly-convicted individuals to contest their innocence vis-a-vis the particular national authorities concerned? Or those who still believe 'innocent' to be a beautiful word redolent and reminiscent of a gentler, kinder, more peaceable (and less driven and commercially-obsessed) era and world - and thus wholly unfit for the likes of a money-grubbing, health-debasing, truth-rejecting, and otherwise thoroughly objectionable commercial entity such as Coca-Cola to peddle in?
Hey, may they - however belatedly - have the gumption and preparedness to swallow some humble pie by taking a leaf out of the 'portfolio' of another company - itself actually once great - that's long since lowered its own standards and principles in the same regards? Yes, I speak now of none other than (the New Zealand division, anyhow, of) Sanitarium...who have themselves debased themselves over recent months (and perhaps years over this and other matters), to take to 'the cleaners', i.e. the Copyright Authority, a little Timaru-based outfit, evidently haling from Great Britain originally, who themselves dared to try to market their own breakfast cereal here in Aotearoa as 'Weet-abix', evidently just a little too close for comfort, in naming sensibilites, to the aforementioned's longtime market winner Weetbix!
Yes, truly 'nuff said!
(Nevertheless, to be continued.)
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Friday, October 20, 2017
Struck Down During A Noble Quest: Malta's Investigative Journalist of Distinction: Daphne Caruana Galizia
Just to record that yet another journalist 'simply doing her job' has been struck down, in this case seemingly blown to literal smithereens by a car bomb which took her life in one fell blast, apparently just half an hour after she made her final blogpost. Her last words were memorable, well worth noting: "There are crooks everywhere you look now. The situation is desperate."
Her life's work will thus live on, though her passing may seem but another 'statistic' upon the endlessly-growing ash-heap of investigative reporters and foreign correspondents mown down in their prime. Some occupations are indeed a rather risky 'business'.
Viva Daphne!
Her life's work will thus live on, though her passing may seem but another 'statistic' upon the endlessly-growing ash-heap of investigative reporters and foreign correspondents mown down in their prime. Some occupations are indeed a rather risky 'business'.
Viva Daphne!
Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish (aka Sissii International): Hurrah, hurrah for the Kurdistan Forces/Kurdish People
Simply *celebrating the victory declared two days ago of the Syrian Kurdish forces in finally dislodging Sissii International from its last stronghold in Raqqa (Syria). And to suggest that the sooner this modern-day incarnation of the biblical (Old Testament) **Medo-Persians get their own state, so much the better.
As folk (i.e. the Iraqi Kurds) left in the lurch by George W's Dad, i.e. President Bush Senior (in the aftermath of the 1991 U.N.-authorized Gulf War - Desert Storm) - though they were arguably the staunchest opponents of dictator Saddam Hussein, and so were subsequently subjected to chemical bombing by him and his henchmen - I ***can't think of anyone else more deserving of their own homeland. Never welcome in Turkey, yet with a****sizeable population there, and in Iraq and Syria (and also Iran), they have every reason for a place of their own.
May it come soon - asap. All power to the Kurds/Kurdish people!
*While commiserating with them in being simultaneously repulsed in Kirkuk and across northern Iraq.
**Or rather the first of these people groups, i.e. the ancient Medes, who have been traced to the peoples now constituting the Kurds and the geographical location where the Kurds are now situated.
***Though it's a topic I write about occasionally, even just the other day (about Catalonia/ns in particular) upon my associated blogsite (http://nuffsaid:consideryourself-frombothsidesnow.blogspot.co.nz/(or .com/).
****According to some admittedly older stats, in or around 1985-1986, according to Patrick Johnstone's acclaimed Operation World, the Kurds comprised approximately 16% of the Turkish population; 18% of the Iraqi populace, which people group included the 'ethnically-cleansed' Yezidis, 4% of said total; 6% of the Syrian populace; and 8% of Iran's population.
As folk (i.e. the Iraqi Kurds) left in the lurch by George W's Dad, i.e. President Bush Senior (in the aftermath of the 1991 U.N.-authorized Gulf War - Desert Storm) - though they were arguably the staunchest opponents of dictator Saddam Hussein, and so were subsequently subjected to chemical bombing by him and his henchmen - I ***can't think of anyone else more deserving of their own homeland. Never welcome in Turkey, yet with a****sizeable population there, and in Iraq and Syria (and also Iran), they have every reason for a place of their own.
May it come soon - asap. All power to the Kurds/Kurdish people!
*While commiserating with them in being simultaneously repulsed in Kirkuk and across northern Iraq.
**Or rather the first of these people groups, i.e. the ancient Medes, who have been traced to the peoples now constituting the Kurds and the geographical location where the Kurds are now situated.
***Though it's a topic I write about occasionally, even just the other day (about Catalonia/ns in particular) upon my associated blogsite (http://nuffsaid:consideryourself-frombothsidesnow.blogspot.co.nz/(or .com/).
****According to some admittedly older stats, in or around 1985-1986, according to Patrick Johnstone's acclaimed Operation World, the Kurds comprised approximately 16% of the Turkish population; 18% of the Iraqi populace, which people group included the 'ethnically-cleansed' Yezidis, 4% of said total; 6% of the Syrian populace; and 8% of Iran's population.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
In Defence of (one-time National Radio, now RNZ National) Morning Report co-host Sean Plunkett - and not the American 'Movie Mogul' Harvey Weinstein, as such...
Get 'im - sic 'im - get out the lynch mob, we'll have us a damn good public flogging...nay, burn us a witch, flay us another heretic... .
Let's get something very straight, so clear and plain in fact that there can be no misunderstanding, by honest-hearted 'souls', anyhow, if not for those who (ever) choose to wilfully misunderstand, misinterpret and malign: I've no brief whatsoever - for anyone (man, woman or even pre-adult) - who meddles with, molests, and otherwise - in far worse, cruel and brutal, humiliating and subjugating, fashion - degrades anyone else, whether sexually or in any other way...-and so no, this is no kind of 'apology' for/defence of, much less public vindication or excusing of the latest public enemy #1...i.e. Harvey Weinstein. No way, Jose.
No, I repeat I'm not - in any way, shape or form whatsoever - seeking to defend, excuse or plead one word even in support of, or to contest the latest object of peoples' new-found ire (via 'Social Media Incorporated' apparently, c/o el regular mainstream media), U.S. film director Harvey Weinstein. I wouldn't really know, actually, neither being a twit nor a facebook persona. No, I'm somewhat (or so I like to imagine, anyway) much more multi-dimensional than that superficiality and dumbing-down of modern-day humanity.
But getting back to my essential point: for some reason this 'movie mogul' is in the sights of Global Women Incorporated, or should I rather say, Modern Media Woman, as if he and he alone is deserving of all the justified pent-up rage and fury that some have been treasuring up, apparently, for just such a moment as this: i.e. when another of the rich and powerful, the influential 'heavyweights' of our era, has been - yet again - shown to have clay feet. (But of course Weinstein's alleged offences go way beyond mere misdemeamours and the like.) And moreover as if it's taken everyone by complete surprise, when point of fact - evidently - is that it was 'Hollywood's Worst Kept Secret' or some such - for literally decades in fact, from the sounds of it. A secret kept as such because some (even many) would-be female actresses were apparently unprepared to expose him publicly - for understandable fear that their future/s in acting would be, ipso pronto, put paid to, apparently because 'no-one would believe them', and HW et al would quickly terminate their budding careers.
All the latter would apparently seem to have a lot of validity, unless and until one considers that all of us have moments - for Yours Truly, in fact, many occasions, sure, far less traumatic that that - when we've/I've had to make just such decisions to maintain my/our own good conscience/s let alone sense of inner integrity... when, yes, forgoing - as Winston Peters once infamously termed it (in a wholly different context) - the showy glitter and tinsel of 'the baubles of office', one *deems a certain principle to be of infinitely greater value than any (mere worldly) recompense one might gain in this life; yes, **even though it cost one entrance into one's chosen profession.
No, it's the ready-made lynch mob mentality and feral witch-hunt, against someone who's both as ugly as sin and grossly obese to boot - and thus an easy target for ****those, I would (respectfully) suggest, too cowardly to take on someone without those particular personal attributes. A campaign, moreover, that's been conducted by all and sundry ever since Weinstein was effectively 'outed' only a week or so ago, and long since been given the judge and jury treatment, though still awaiting the executioner and being hung, drawn and quartered. Treated thus, as we're all constantly reminded, for his odious/appalling/criminal sexual harassment/assaults/rapes, over many decades, apparently, of innumerable actress colleagues. */**Fair enough, far as that goes, many would reasonably argue.
But what I happen to find rather sickening - if infinitely predictable in our present-day soundbite-driven media landscape - is the unseemly fashion in which the gutless wonders referred to in previous paragraphs are not only ganging up one after another to pile invective upon invective and calumny upon calumny onto an already deeply sullied reputation, but are moreover bending over backwards (forwards, and every other which way) to - apparently - not only uncover but forthwith cite every last conceivable hanging offence
for the 'man'.
So what's such a big deal, the guy's obviously as guilty as sin and much more, you readily counter? And so you do indeed legitimately suggest. Yes, I'll concede that much, anyhow. So what exactly is my real beef?
Well, you'll just have to wait - a little while (but hopefully not as long as we've been awaiting a new government in God's Own)...Shuteye beckons, and I must hearken to her gentle but oh so persistent pleading...
To Be Continued - asap.
*/**Though as I would suggest (now, immediately below) I happen to have a somewhat differing perspective.
*For Christians, like Moses upon 'bec[oming] of age, refus[ing] to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter' (and thus next in line for the throne), 'choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin'...esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt', '...look(ing) (instead) to the reward' for the faithful, tried and ultimately true. Hebrews 11: 24-26 (Scripture taken from the [The Holy Bible]: New King James Version. [Copyright] 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.)
**At least, that is, in the short term or immediate future. For apparent roadblocks and obstacles, one has well said, are really but the steps to one's eventual success (in any chosen field); and surely, if one's heart is set upon a particular calling or line of work, nothing will ultimately prevent one - even devils in human form.
***Postscript: Perhaps the most succinct yet perceptive remark upon the topic came after my writing the foregoing, upon Jim Mora's esteemed Panel, as guest John Barnett of South Pacific Films, alongside high-profile lawyer Mai Chen, joined host, fill-in Christchurch City Councillor Ali(sp?) Jones, today (4.50 p.m.ish) upon New Zealand's RNZ National. Barnett made reference to what (I believe) he deemed an obscure Old Testament 'custom' (or suchlike) to a/the 'scapegoat', which biblical scholars like myself know is located in Leviticus 16, arguably the most important chapter in that Book of the Torah, in which the Jewish Day of Atonement, otherwise known as Yom Kippur, is detailed. In 'awful' brevity that passage essentially posits an annual day upon which sacrifice and atonement is made and forgiveness proffered for each and every last sin committed by any Israelite over the previous year, and how two goats are thus presented 'before the Lord' on behalf of said Israelites; the 'Lord's goat' being offered (and then killed) as a sacrifice of atonement, and then the 'live goat', deemed 'the scapegoat', has those selfsame sins transferred onto itself, and it is then sent off into the wilderness to bear those sins forever. The Holy Bible.
Obviously there's no time here, as already alluded to, to get into my own denomination's understanding of how the former represented and represents The Lord, in particular as Jesus Christ upon Calvary's Cross, and the latter His arch-nemesis, 'the great dragon...that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world...the accuser'. And where the former thus bore said 'sins of the whole world' upon His lonesome (for time and eternity), bearing God's wrath for the same, and being prepared even to die eternally on behalf of each and every last 'son of Adam and daughter of Eve' (as the Narnians in C S Lewis' brilliant allegorical The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' characterized it) if that was what it took to appease God's wrath; and arguably that was what He fully believed would happen as He cried out "My Father, My Father, why have You forsaken Me?" Whereas 'the slanderer', Satan, symbolically has selfsame sins finally, ultimately, eternally imputed unto him (only!) at the end of the thousand years, the biblical Millennium, and thus (again, symbolically) the devil is attributed ultimate and complete responsibility for having himself been the instigator and cause of every last sin ever committed by anyone on earth (or in the entire Universe even). Revelation 20:2; 12:9/10; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34 etcetera. The Holy Bible (ibid.)
Sure, it's quite true that no-one will ever be able to shake their fist at God on That Great Day and accuse Him of unjust dealing, arguing 'the devil made me do it', but just as surely, in the very real sense that sin originated in Paradise with the one, Lucifer, the Light-Bearer and 'anointed cherub who covers', who was 'the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty', and was moreover 'perfect in [his] ways from the day [he] was created, till iniquity was found in [him]', that thus as the author of sin, he has been the ultimate instigator of every last sin ever committed, whether by direct agency (himself or one of the third of heavenly angels ejected alongside himself to this earth), via the tempting world all round us, or even c/o our own sinful human natures which ever, unregenerated, incline us to satisfy our legitimate needs in (an endless array of) sinful ways...since his successful temptation (of our forefather and 'fore-mother') in 'Eden, the garden of God' thus turned human nature from essentially sinless to sinful, thus inclining us to sin and sinful desires, attitudes, thoughts, ways and words as our inherent (if subconscious) modus operandi or pivot point at all times and in all places...though admittedly - thanks be to God - we don't ever and always so choose to order our lives thus. Ezekiel 28:12-15. Revelation 12:4. The Holy Bible (ibid.)
Enough for a pithy, brief, short and succinct summary I earlier indicated I had no time or space to pursue here and now...
****No, I don't include here those actually raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by Mr Weinstein, only those now belatedly jumping on the bandwagon, many of whom were most probably somewhat 'in the know' about said allegations in years gone by, but without the personal gonads or intestinal fortitude then, unlike now, to come forward and put themselves, their livelihoods and their reputations on the line for a greater cause and moreover on behalf of the vulnerable victims for whom their hearts are apparently now bleeding.
Reminding me once again of James Russell Lowell's memorable and inimitable 'Once to Every Man and Nation', in which verse two especially (and verse one, to some extent) sum up the aforementioned with wonderful aptness:
'Once to ev-ery [wo]man and na-tion Comes the mo-ment to de-cide,
In the strife of truth with false-hood, For the good or e-vil side;
Some great cause, God's new Mes-si-ah, Of-fering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by for-ev-er 'Twixt that dark-ness and that light.
Then to side with truth is no-ble When we share her wretch-ed crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and prof-it, And 'tis prosper-ous to be just;
Then it is the brave [wo]man choos-es, While the cow-ard stands a-side,
Till the mul-ti-tude make vir-tue Of the faith they had de-nied.
(Hyphenation already supplied - in Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal (SIGNS PUBLISHING, Warburton, Australia, 1985), and included so one (myself, anyhow!) can sing along. Bold highlighted letters supplied by me.)
Let's get something very straight, so clear and plain in fact that there can be no misunderstanding, by honest-hearted 'souls', anyhow, if not for those who (ever) choose to wilfully misunderstand, misinterpret and malign: I've no brief whatsoever - for anyone (man, woman or even pre-adult) - who meddles with, molests, and otherwise - in far worse, cruel and brutal, humiliating and subjugating, fashion - degrades anyone else, whether sexually or in any other way...-and so no, this is no kind of 'apology' for/defence of, much less public vindication or excusing of the latest public enemy #1...i.e. Harvey Weinstein. No way, Jose.
No, I repeat I'm not - in any way, shape or form whatsoever - seeking to defend, excuse or plead one word even in support of, or to contest the latest object of peoples' new-found ire (via 'Social Media Incorporated' apparently, c/o el regular mainstream media), U.S. film director Harvey Weinstein. I wouldn't really know, actually, neither being a twit nor a facebook persona. No, I'm somewhat (or so I like to imagine, anyway) much more multi-dimensional than that superficiality and dumbing-down of modern-day humanity.
But getting back to my essential point: for some reason this 'movie mogul' is in the sights of Global Women Incorporated, or should I rather say, Modern Media Woman, as if he and he alone is deserving of all the justified pent-up rage and fury that some have been treasuring up, apparently, for just such a moment as this: i.e. when another of the rich and powerful, the influential 'heavyweights' of our era, has been - yet again - shown to have clay feet. (But of course Weinstein's alleged offences go way beyond mere misdemeamours and the like.) And moreover as if it's taken everyone by complete surprise, when point of fact - evidently - is that it was 'Hollywood's Worst Kept Secret' or some such - for literally decades in fact, from the sounds of it. A secret kept as such because some (even many) would-be female actresses were apparently unprepared to expose him publicly - for understandable fear that their future/s in acting would be, ipso pronto, put paid to, apparently because 'no-one would believe them', and HW et al would quickly terminate their budding careers.
All the latter would apparently seem to have a lot of validity, unless and until one considers that all of us have moments - for Yours Truly, in fact, many occasions, sure, far less traumatic that that - when we've/I've had to make just such decisions to maintain my/our own good conscience/s let alone sense of inner integrity... when, yes, forgoing - as Winston Peters once infamously termed it (in a wholly different context) - the showy glitter and tinsel of 'the baubles of office', one *deems a certain principle to be of infinitely greater value than any (mere worldly) recompense one might gain in this life; yes, **even though it cost one entrance into one's chosen profession.
No, it's the ready-made lynch mob mentality and feral witch-hunt, against someone who's both as ugly as sin and grossly obese to boot - and thus an easy target for ****those, I would (respectfully) suggest, too cowardly to take on someone without those particular personal attributes. A campaign, moreover, that's been conducted by all and sundry ever since Weinstein was effectively 'outed' only a week or so ago, and long since been given the judge and jury treatment, though still awaiting the executioner and being hung, drawn and quartered. Treated thus, as we're all constantly reminded, for his odious/appalling/criminal sexual harassment/assaults/rapes, over many decades, apparently, of innumerable actress colleagues. */**Fair enough, far as that goes, many would reasonably argue.
But what I happen to find rather sickening - if infinitely predictable in our present-day soundbite-driven media landscape - is the unseemly fashion in which the gutless wonders referred to in previous paragraphs are not only ganging up one after another to pile invective upon invective and calumny upon calumny onto an already deeply sullied reputation, but are moreover bending over backwards (forwards, and every other which way) to - apparently - not only uncover but forthwith cite every last conceivable hanging offence
for the 'man'.
So what's such a big deal, the guy's obviously as guilty as sin and much more, you readily counter? And so you do indeed legitimately suggest. Yes, I'll concede that much, anyhow. So what exactly is my real beef?
Well, you'll just have to wait - a little while (but hopefully not as long as we've been awaiting a new government in God's Own)...Shuteye beckons, and I must hearken to her gentle but oh so persistent pleading...
To Be Continued - asap.
*/**Though as I would suggest (now, immediately below) I happen to have a somewhat differing perspective.
*For Christians, like Moses upon 'bec[oming] of age, refus[ing] to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter' (and thus next in line for the throne), 'choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin'...esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt', '...look(ing) (instead) to the reward' for the faithful, tried and ultimately true. Hebrews 11: 24-26 (Scripture taken from the [The Holy Bible]: New King James Version. [Copyright] 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.)
**At least, that is, in the short term or immediate future. For apparent roadblocks and obstacles, one has well said, are really but the steps to one's eventual success (in any chosen field); and surely, if one's heart is set upon a particular calling or line of work, nothing will ultimately prevent one - even devils in human form.
***Postscript: Perhaps the most succinct yet perceptive remark upon the topic came after my writing the foregoing, upon Jim Mora's esteemed Panel, as guest John Barnett of South Pacific Films, alongside high-profile lawyer Mai Chen, joined host, fill-in Christchurch City Councillor Ali(sp?) Jones, today (4.50 p.m.ish) upon New Zealand's RNZ National. Barnett made reference to what (I believe) he deemed an obscure Old Testament 'custom' (or suchlike) to a/the 'scapegoat', which biblical scholars like myself know is located in Leviticus 16, arguably the most important chapter in that Book of the Torah, in which the Jewish Day of Atonement, otherwise known as Yom Kippur, is detailed. In 'awful' brevity that passage essentially posits an annual day upon which sacrifice and atonement is made and forgiveness proffered for each and every last sin committed by any Israelite over the previous year, and how two goats are thus presented 'before the Lord' on behalf of said Israelites; the 'Lord's goat' being offered (and then killed) as a sacrifice of atonement, and then the 'live goat', deemed 'the scapegoat', has those selfsame sins transferred onto itself, and it is then sent off into the wilderness to bear those sins forever. The Holy Bible.
Obviously there's no time here, as already alluded to, to get into my own denomination's understanding of how the former represented and represents The Lord, in particular as Jesus Christ upon Calvary's Cross, and the latter His arch-nemesis, 'the great dragon...that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world...the accuser'. And where the former thus bore said 'sins of the whole world' upon His lonesome (for time and eternity), bearing God's wrath for the same, and being prepared even to die eternally on behalf of each and every last 'son of Adam and daughter of Eve' (as the Narnians in C S Lewis' brilliant allegorical The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' characterized it) if that was what it took to appease God's wrath; and arguably that was what He fully believed would happen as He cried out "My Father, My Father, why have You forsaken Me?" Whereas 'the slanderer', Satan, symbolically has selfsame sins finally, ultimately, eternally imputed unto him (only!) at the end of the thousand years, the biblical Millennium, and thus (again, symbolically) the devil is attributed ultimate and complete responsibility for having himself been the instigator and cause of every last sin ever committed by anyone on earth (or in the entire Universe even). Revelation 20:2; 12:9/10; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34 etcetera. The Holy Bible (ibid.)
Sure, it's quite true that no-one will ever be able to shake their fist at God on That Great Day and accuse Him of unjust dealing, arguing 'the devil made me do it', but just as surely, in the very real sense that sin originated in Paradise with the one, Lucifer, the Light-Bearer and 'anointed cherub who covers', who was 'the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty', and was moreover 'perfect in [his] ways from the day [he] was created, till iniquity was found in [him]', that thus as the author of sin, he has been the ultimate instigator of every last sin ever committed, whether by direct agency (himself or one of the third of heavenly angels ejected alongside himself to this earth), via the tempting world all round us, or even c/o our own sinful human natures which ever, unregenerated, incline us to satisfy our legitimate needs in (an endless array of) sinful ways...since his successful temptation (of our forefather and 'fore-mother') in 'Eden, the garden of God' thus turned human nature from essentially sinless to sinful, thus inclining us to sin and sinful desires, attitudes, thoughts, ways and words as our inherent (if subconscious) modus operandi or pivot point at all times and in all places...though admittedly - thanks be to God - we don't ever and always so choose to order our lives thus. Ezekiel 28:12-15. Revelation 12:4. The Holy Bible (ibid.)
Enough for a pithy, brief, short and succinct summary I earlier indicated I had no time or space to pursue here and now...
****No, I don't include here those actually raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by Mr Weinstein, only those now belatedly jumping on the bandwagon, many of whom were most probably somewhat 'in the know' about said allegations in years gone by, but without the personal gonads or intestinal fortitude then, unlike now, to come forward and put themselves, their livelihoods and their reputations on the line for a greater cause and moreover on behalf of the vulnerable victims for whom their hearts are apparently now bleeding.
Reminding me once again of James Russell Lowell's memorable and inimitable 'Once to Every Man and Nation', in which verse two especially (and verse one, to some extent) sum up the aforementioned with wonderful aptness:
'Once to ev-ery [wo]man and na-tion Comes the mo-ment to de-cide,
In the strife of truth with false-hood, For the good or e-vil side;
Some great cause, God's new Mes-si-ah, Of-fering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by for-ev-er 'Twixt that dark-ness and that light.
Then to side with truth is no-ble When we share her wretch-ed crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and prof-it, And 'tis prosper-ous to be just;
Then it is the brave [wo]man choos-es, While the cow-ard stands a-side,
Till the mul-ti-tude make vir-tue Of the faith they had de-nied.
(Hyphenation already supplied - in Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal (SIGNS PUBLISHING, Warburton, Australia, 1985), and included so one (myself, anyhow!) can sing along. Bold highlighted letters supplied by me.)
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Oh, How Exceedingly INtolerant are the 'tolerant'; or, let's give each and every - conceivable - religion (and religious understanding) its corner in the religious arena, except of course Christianity!
C.S.Lewis, the distinguished Oxford University scholar/professor/Christian author and apologist - and all the rest - would be wincing/squirming/turning in his grave, this very day, could he have foreseen what his beloved 'alma mater' *has just done...i.e. apparently, according to the British correspondent upon this morning's 'Mike Hosking' Newstalk ZB radio segment (around 6.50 a.m.), deeming the Christian religion alone effective persona no grata and thereby **'disbarred' from being able to operate upon said campus. And why, you understandably ask? Well, for obvious reasons: for being (at least in its evangelical incarnation, anyhow) politically incorrect to a fault. Or, in the allegation of those **'disbarring' it, for [promoting/instilling/circulating - my words and paraphraseology] homophobia and neocolonialism.
Without even deigning at this stage to dignify such slanderous, no doubt even ****libellous accusations against Christianity (as a religion) and Christians themselves (as the 'practitioners' thereof), let me simply point out the supreme irony of the particular time juncture upon which said esteemed learning institution has chosen to issue such an edict: apparently, from a wholly unrelated news item this morning upon BBC World Radio - which, interestingly and oddly enough (though perhaps I missed something earlier or later), carried no mention of this - cited the formal induction (if I'm not mistaken) this selfsame day of the famed Pakistani teenager *****Mahalai ******Yousseff into selfsame university. For her outspokenness in upholding religious freedom within a (national, i.e. Pakistani) context/atmosphere of religious intolerance.
Oh, the supreme irony of the juxtaposition of these two easily overlooked pieces of news...which together speak volumes, even tomes, about the point to which we have now - long since - well and truly arrived in the (one time) 'free world'. But then didn't that old sage, former British P.M. Tony Blair's distantly related relative, Eric Blair - better known to one and all as George Orwell - 'prophesy' just such idiomatic and vocabulary shenanigans in his own 1984 version of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Or, as the animals upon the farm in GO's equally brilliantly Animal Farm might have expressed it - if we can rephrase the sentiment in modern lingo (to adequately characterize the situation we see today in/at Oxford University): non-Christian religions and adherents (all invariably) good; Christianity and Christians bad. Or alternatively: all religions and their adherents are equal, but some are more equal than others.
'Nuff said!
*Or rather, the 'student union' thereof (far as I can gather at this stage anyway).
**Admittedly a term strictly relating to the law, and signifying ***'expel[ing] from the bar'.
***Once again, according to my ever trusty Chambers Concise Dictionary (1988), although I used to ever studiously consult my Grandma's equally tried and trustworthy Concise Oxford Dictionary (of a similar vintage, but even earlier, I believe 1980).
****Because surely the university 'edict' involved was issued in actual writing, whether physical or 'virtual'.
*****About whom I've previously written - and in highly eulogistic terms - upon this or, more likely, my other blogsite.
******Trusting my spelling is a-ok, but desiring to get this 'out there' ipso pronto...
Without even deigning at this stage to dignify such slanderous, no doubt even ****libellous accusations against Christianity (as a religion) and Christians themselves (as the 'practitioners' thereof), let me simply point out the supreme irony of the particular time juncture upon which said esteemed learning institution has chosen to issue such an edict: apparently, from a wholly unrelated news item this morning upon BBC World Radio - which, interestingly and oddly enough (though perhaps I missed something earlier or later), carried no mention of this - cited the formal induction (if I'm not mistaken) this selfsame day of the famed Pakistani teenager *****Mahalai ******Yousseff into selfsame university. For her outspokenness in upholding religious freedom within a (national, i.e. Pakistani) context/atmosphere of religious intolerance.
Oh, the supreme irony of the juxtaposition of these two easily overlooked pieces of news...which together speak volumes, even tomes, about the point to which we have now - long since - well and truly arrived in the (one time) 'free world'. But then didn't that old sage, former British P.M. Tony Blair's distantly related relative, Eric Blair - better known to one and all as George Orwell - 'prophesy' just such idiomatic and vocabulary shenanigans in his own 1984 version of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Or, as the animals upon the farm in GO's equally brilliantly Animal Farm might have expressed it - if we can rephrase the sentiment in modern lingo (to adequately characterize the situation we see today in/at Oxford University): non-Christian religions and adherents (all invariably) good; Christianity and Christians bad. Or alternatively: all religions and their adherents are equal, but some are more equal than others.
'Nuff said!
*Or rather, the 'student union' thereof (far as I can gather at this stage anyway).
**Admittedly a term strictly relating to the law, and signifying ***'expel[ing] from the bar'.
***Once again, according to my ever trusty Chambers Concise Dictionary (1988), although I used to ever studiously consult my Grandma's equally tried and trustworthy Concise Oxford Dictionary (of a similar vintage, but even earlier, I believe 1980).
****Because surely the university 'edict' involved was issued in actual writing, whether physical or 'virtual'.
*****About whom I've previously written - and in highly eulogistic terms - upon this or, more likely, my other blogsite.
******Trusting my spelling is a-ok, but desiring to get this 'out there' ipso pronto...
Monday, September 18, 2017
A Brief Tribute To A Holocaust Surviver:Edith Egar
Just to note the twice-'Trending Now' radio interview of R(adio) N(ew) Z(ealand) National Nine To Noon host Kathryn Ryan with the wonderful (post-traumatic stress disorder psychotherapist, I believe) Edith Egar. This elderly holocaust survivor - one of few still alive, evidently - in few and pithy words and statements, is such a wonderful exemplar of true Christian values in a present-day world on so many levels and in so many instances and places forlorn of values, genuine Christianity and truth. Her September 8th interview is well worth a (good and careful, prayerful, considered) listen to sometime.
Whatever you happen to think of my blogposts, this lady is succinct in word and effervescent (in an extremely modest, self-effacing way and manner, mind you), simply overflowing with helpful, enriching and unique 'tips' and insights upon life in the shadow of trauma and victimhood...don't miss it!
Whatever you happen to think of my blogposts, this lady is succinct in word and effervescent (in an extremely modest, self-effacing way and manner, mind you), simply overflowing with helpful, enriching and unique 'tips' and insights upon life in the shadow of trauma and victimhood...don't miss it!
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Yes, the man of our nation - and not only 'Big Labour' - was indeed 'Our Big Norm'...
On this day wherein the much-fabled Princess Diana is given her (inordinate) share of media attention, may many of us also reflect upon the (at least public) life of a person who left an indelible mark of his very own, in this case upon the New Zealand body politic, for time and futurity... .
Yes, another who died upon August the 31st, 43 years ago today, was a man and political leader many of us - from all shades and hues and dyes of political colours - still remember fondly and dearly...and whose death upon that fateful night, even, we still vividly remember. As the September All-Time Bulldog Band held forth with their unforgettable, irrepressible classic, 'Big Norm', we were 'humoured' with the wonderful verse (in particular) that declared, to one and all, that not only was 'the man of Big Labour...our Big Norm', but that he was moreover 'our great National figure', 'the man of Social Credit', and (something I presently cannot recall, but I think) 'the man of [kiwi] Values' (or some such thing)... . And who, watching Studio One (I believe it was) that memorable occasion, can forget how Norman Kirk phoned in from his hospital bed, where he was dying (and within hours about to meet his very death), to congratulate the guys (and gals) of the band upon their song...fully 'taking the mickey' and all (and moreover of P.M. Kirk himself!), as we say here in kiwi-land?
So let's here hear it once more for 'the man of big labour...our great national hero', Prime Minister Norman Kirk...*cut down in his very prime, while doing ever so much for the rest of us, no doubt 'simply' not taking sufficient care of himself, of his own health. He was someone who made so many of us proud to be kiwis, who strode astride on the world stage, and thus left an unforgettable impression upon any and all who dealt with him... . A politician in his very own league, someone we'll never again see the likes of surely...one who'll long be sorely missed.
Norman Kirk was someone moreover who had absolutely no truck whatsoever with the trendy as social liberalism that his own political party has subsequently embraced with its very heart and soul, and thus jettisoned the very heart and soul of a once great party led by such figures as the legendary Michael Joseph Savage...and Harry Holland (in its beginnings)...political figures who strode astride Aotearoa-New Zealand in the footsteps of the likes of the equally, even more legendary, larger-than-life Liberal Prime Minister 'King Dick' Seddon... .
May Big Norm rest in peace, ever symbolic of real, old, tried and true Labour, not the newfangled, imitation 'lite' version that since 1984 - until Jacinda Ardern, perhaps, God willing? - many of us have long since come to distrust and despise...the version that his modern-day Labourite counterpart, Tony Blair, served up such a watered-down version of that the great British people came to also learn to loathe... .
*Though not all subscribe to that 'simple' idea, the former Labour Party President (from Waitakere, I believe Bob Harvey's the name) 'famously' coming out with his own conspiracy theory a decade-and-a-half or so ago, about the C.I.A.'s (naturally clandestine) involvement in the extremely premature downfall, demise and very soon thereafter death of one of New Zealand's most popular and esteemed prime ministers. And though political figures of the day 'to a man' (and woman) either instantly dismissed outright or pooh-poohed the very idea, I find it more than a little interesting, even concerning/mildly disturbing that yours Truly a little while later - while undertaking educational training in my hometown of Christchurch during 2006 - heard wholly 'by chance' what was undoubtedly **selfsame conspiracy theory, albeit dressed (up) in rather elaborate and moreover highly convincing robes.
Though I recall 'getting in touch' (via phone etc), or at least making some such (reasonable) effort to, with relevant NZ current affairs show makers/producers etc (as a result), there was - as I well expected - no follow-up (let alone interest thereof); though one wouldn't normally expect the very purveyors of many of their own conspiracy theories, if rarely 'dressed up' as such, to be so outrightly dismissive of what was pretty nearly Aotearoa-New Zealand's own equivalent of America's JFK assassination. Of course people tend to follow up their own innate biases in such matters, but for journalists supposedly committed to pursuing truth at all costs to likewise adopt this sort of approach is depressing if not all that unpredictable. Yet, to be fair and reasonable myself, there may well have been other factors contributing to their refusal to investigate further...assuming I did actually get in touch (somehow-or-other) and am not simply guilty of a deluded memory!...such as a previous examination of such (apparently widespread) rumours... .
**(#1)What I was told by a fellow who, however otherwise level-headed and decent, nevertheless subscribed - like my younger sister - to a fairly unorthodox view of ***astrology (in his case traditional Western, in my sister's Chinese), at least for a biblical Christian...was 'something else altogether', as they say...and was it what!
***'Speaking' here as someone who had determined to become a professional astrologer, fully convinced in every which way of the accuracy of the constellations of the Zodiac and their uncanny influence(s) upon all things earthly and especially human, up until my unexpected conversion upon November 4th, 1982...mere months evidently after the equally unexpected and tragic accidental death of evangelical singing sensation, the inimitable and brilliant Keith Green, in a flying accident in a small plane with his kids, in the U S of A. .Yes, well aware of the oddity of adhering to such beliefs in our preeminently scientific, rationalistic age, let me simply add that anyone who knows anything substantial and meaningful upon the matter is equally well aware that what passes for 'astrology' - aka the well-known and oft-consulted weekly (magazine) and daily (newspaper) columns (at least Western) worldwide that pass for such, that purport to deliver day-to-day, everyday astrological (prophetic, future forth-telling) advice to one and all - ain't remotely the real thing!
What really matters is one's innate characteristics, temperament and personality makeup and tendencies as prefigured and predetermined by precisely which particular planets, (Earth's) moon(s) and 'local' solar system's sun were in the ascendancy, culmination and/or 'descendancy' at and upon the very moment one ****'arrived' upon this temporal globe.
****Though far as I know Western astrology doesn't subscribe - as perhaps Chinese astrology might well do - to the eastern religious idea that human beings, and 'other' fauna (i.e. animals) here, are simply born and reborn in an endless cycle - and moreover recycle! - of births and rebirths...much less have I ever done so.
**(#2)(At the wrong order of Asterisking Inc. I well know, but I've left the best - or worst (depending upon one's perspective) - for last: to simply 'say' that you'll have to stay tuned (in) for what that theory actually amounted to. It'll be - especially for me - exceedingly short, if not terribly sweet!
To Be Continued...
Yes, another who died upon August the 31st, 43 years ago today, was a man and political leader many of us - from all shades and hues and dyes of political colours - still remember fondly and dearly...and whose death upon that fateful night, even, we still vividly remember. As the September All-Time Bulldog Band held forth with their unforgettable, irrepressible classic, 'Big Norm', we were 'humoured' with the wonderful verse (in particular) that declared, to one and all, that not only was 'the man of Big Labour...our Big Norm', but that he was moreover 'our great National figure', 'the man of Social Credit', and (something I presently cannot recall, but I think) 'the man of [kiwi] Values' (or some such thing)... . And who, watching Studio One (I believe it was) that memorable occasion, can forget how Norman Kirk phoned in from his hospital bed, where he was dying (and within hours about to meet his very death), to congratulate the guys (and gals) of the band upon their song...fully 'taking the mickey' and all (and moreover of P.M. Kirk himself!), as we say here in kiwi-land?
So let's here hear it once more for 'the man of big labour...our great national hero', Prime Minister Norman Kirk...*cut down in his very prime, while doing ever so much for the rest of us, no doubt 'simply' not taking sufficient care of himself, of his own health. He was someone who made so many of us proud to be kiwis, who strode astride on the world stage, and thus left an unforgettable impression upon any and all who dealt with him... . A politician in his very own league, someone we'll never again see the likes of surely...one who'll long be sorely missed.
Norman Kirk was someone moreover who had absolutely no truck whatsoever with the trendy as social liberalism that his own political party has subsequently embraced with its very heart and soul, and thus jettisoned the very heart and soul of a once great party led by such figures as the legendary Michael Joseph Savage...and Harry Holland (in its beginnings)...political figures who strode astride Aotearoa-New Zealand in the footsteps of the likes of the equally, even more legendary, larger-than-life Liberal Prime Minister 'King Dick' Seddon... .
May Big Norm rest in peace, ever symbolic of real, old, tried and true Labour, not the newfangled, imitation 'lite' version that since 1984 - until Jacinda Ardern, perhaps, God willing? - many of us have long since come to distrust and despise...the version that his modern-day Labourite counterpart, Tony Blair, served up such a watered-down version of that the great British people came to also learn to loathe... .
*Though not all subscribe to that 'simple' idea, the former Labour Party President (from Waitakere, I believe Bob Harvey's the name) 'famously' coming out with his own conspiracy theory a decade-and-a-half or so ago, about the C.I.A.'s (naturally clandestine) involvement in the extremely premature downfall, demise and very soon thereafter death of one of New Zealand's most popular and esteemed prime ministers. And though political figures of the day 'to a man' (and woman) either instantly dismissed outright or pooh-poohed the very idea, I find it more than a little interesting, even concerning/mildly disturbing that yours Truly a little while later - while undertaking educational training in my hometown of Christchurch during 2006 - heard wholly 'by chance' what was undoubtedly **selfsame conspiracy theory, albeit dressed (up) in rather elaborate and moreover highly convincing robes.
Though I recall 'getting in touch' (via phone etc), or at least making some such (reasonable) effort to, with relevant NZ current affairs show makers/producers etc (as a result), there was - as I well expected - no follow-up (let alone interest thereof); though one wouldn't normally expect the very purveyors of many of their own conspiracy theories, if rarely 'dressed up' as such, to be so outrightly dismissive of what was pretty nearly Aotearoa-New Zealand's own equivalent of America's JFK assassination. Of course people tend to follow up their own innate biases in such matters, but for journalists supposedly committed to pursuing truth at all costs to likewise adopt this sort of approach is depressing if not all that unpredictable. Yet, to be fair and reasonable myself, there may well have been other factors contributing to their refusal to investigate further...assuming I did actually get in touch (somehow-or-other) and am not simply guilty of a deluded memory!...such as a previous examination of such (apparently widespread) rumours... .
**(#1)What I was told by a fellow who, however otherwise level-headed and decent, nevertheless subscribed - like my younger sister - to a fairly unorthodox view of ***astrology (in his case traditional Western, in my sister's Chinese), at least for a biblical Christian...was 'something else altogether', as they say...and was it what!
***'Speaking' here as someone who had determined to become a professional astrologer, fully convinced in every which way of the accuracy of the constellations of the Zodiac and their uncanny influence(s) upon all things earthly and especially human, up until my unexpected conversion upon November 4th, 1982...mere months evidently after the equally unexpected and tragic accidental death of evangelical singing sensation, the inimitable and brilliant Keith Green, in a flying accident in a small plane with his kids, in the U S of A. .Yes, well aware of the oddity of adhering to such beliefs in our preeminently scientific, rationalistic age, let me simply add that anyone who knows anything substantial and meaningful upon the matter is equally well aware that what passes for 'astrology' - aka the well-known and oft-consulted weekly (magazine) and daily (newspaper) columns (at least Western) worldwide that pass for such, that purport to deliver day-to-day, everyday astrological (prophetic, future forth-telling) advice to one and all - ain't remotely the real thing!
What really matters is one's innate characteristics, temperament and personality makeup and tendencies as prefigured and predetermined by precisely which particular planets, (Earth's) moon(s) and 'local' solar system's sun were in the ascendancy, culmination and/or 'descendancy' at and upon the very moment one ****'arrived' upon this temporal globe.
****Though far as I know Western astrology doesn't subscribe - as perhaps Chinese astrology might well do - to the eastern religious idea that human beings, and 'other' fauna (i.e. animals) here, are simply born and reborn in an endless cycle - and moreover recycle! - of births and rebirths...much less have I ever done so.
**(#2)(At the wrong order of Asterisking Inc. I well know, but I've left the best - or worst (depending upon one's perspective) - for last: to simply 'say' that you'll have to stay tuned (in) for what that theory actually amounted to. It'll be - especially for me - exceedingly short, if not terribly sweet!
To Be Continued...
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
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'.
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'.
Monday, June 5, 2017
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)