An Explanation and Something of a Justification

I cannot quite place which of the Laurel & Hardy films Olly looks at Stan in that wonderful exasperated expression and asks ‘What did you do that for?’ . It seems to fit the theme of the post though.

Preamble 
I have long forgotten what my ‘WP Name’ was when first starting out on WP some fourteen years ago. All went well until between them WP & Kismet turned my replies to other posts into either unknown or spam. Neither would not admit to a flaw or offer an apology and would refer me to the other. That PAID FOR account was closed down and I set up a new  FREE account (Are you reading this WP?).
Anyway, simmering from the previous treatment I chose the name ‘determineddespiteWP’ as my  ‘name’ in thinking a point was being made, if only to myself.
And there it was for years and years and years. Quite forgotten, to the extent when folk replied to me by the name ‘determined’ for a few moments there would be no recognition until the ‘Oh Yeah’ kicked in.

The Build Up
The original reason for joining WP was to raise my writing profile and interact with other Indy writers. However (there is always an ‘However’), once involved with the ‘back and forth’ and dipping into random posts which caught the attention of my political side, I became involved in that track…….. Bound to happen.
And gradually, then at an increasing pace the folk being followed and my own posts took on a majority political slant; there was even a second site given over to politics but that withered a bit. The writer in me lamented…loudly at times…but despite a few public announcements there would be no more politics it did not take much for me to slip back to political views as a theme.
Now being a reader of histories, historical references and allegories tended to abound in my writing….. Here comes another ‘However’…….. Most of the my favoured subject matter were Military Histories along with the associated political causes and effects; and when wars are involved there are certainly no happy beginnings or middles and very rarely any truly satisfactory much less happy endings. This leaves an inveterate reader of these histories with a certain outlook. Some might call it ‘Realistic’, some might compliment you with ‘Incisive’ , others might simply suggest ‘Gloomy’ of ‘Judgemental’ – I would not argue with the latter.
Thus my posts or responses were along the lines of ‘It’s Happening Again. And Won’t Turn Out Well,’   or very censorious observations on the flaws in Human Nature. 
This outlook resulted in one recent throwaway line ‘Call me Cassandra’ used in a response to another’s post and they took up the challenge. I could not leave well alone.

Rationale 
Whereas the name has its origins in the Greek Mythologies around events in Troy, I cannot, truly identify with this most unhappy young trojan prophetess or her life. That would be, when examining the detail, downright ridiculous and weird. My allusion is with the common modern assumption that the name is all to do with very ominous predictions which many might feel extreme. BUT also and more to the point the popular British newspaper journalist William Connor, who headed his column with this name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connor   

In this there is a certain amount, albeit presumptuous dignity.  

Conclusion
My blog will still remain though  
Writing Despite Computers and Programmes
For this seems to be a common missions statement for most Bloggers hereabouts.

File this under ‘Just Saying. That’s All’ 

Best wishes to you all.
Roger

Don’t You Hate It When Ethics Calls You Out

Foreword: You are not going to like it…..No more that I do.

Often we will talk about Ethics, normally about someone who is being unethical. We will wield the word as a weapon in a just war, pointing out someone’s most grievous faults and actions, and we feel good about it.
We might, at some stage become involved in a discussion over the nature of Ethics and cite either hypothetical or historical events to support our views and naturally our political opinions.
We are in someway comfortable in these encounters, because there are degrees of separation from the actual daily encounters with Ethics
And then.
One day.
We are called out because of an event, and not a simple one like being critical of a politician or inhabitant of that world because they had said something we don’t agree with. Oh no, we don’t get off that easy, for the event has taken place in the grey and jagged area of Conflicting Beliefs, and Ethics itself has come calling asking very difficult questions of us. We wish it hadn’t.

Right now there is hope that the one conflict situation which has been The Many-Layered Big Global News event of the past two years might be coming to an end. Folk living in the Gaza region may be given a chance to not to fear that they may be killed today or tomorrow. Folk living in Israel might be reunited with their hostaged loved ones. The guns, for the moment may be laid down.
And we may give out with an expression of relief.
It would be so simple to embrace that ideal and feel good, save for one niggling detail.
Not only did it happen on President Donald Trump’s watch, it would seem his personal intervention has played a major role in this Peace Effort. The evidence might indicate that through his personal drive and characteristics he has steam rollered all parties into agreeing.
And Ethics stands at our door, barring our way out of the room and asks ‘Well?’
Don’t we wish Ethics had gone next door to ask that question.

Regular readers and I. We have spent the past nine or so years vilifying Trump. We have castigated his past, torn apart his judgements, pounced on his every word rounded on his appointees, associates, high profile supporters, family members and anyone else who came into our sights. We were justified in that we saw the whole miasma surrounding him has a threat to the basic stability of the USA and a threat to democracy. And when you look back on the past and in more detail the recent record we have a solid case. What good ever came from that collection of fundamentalists, prejudicial Conspiracy junkies and snake oil opportunists.
Right?


I made frequent use of adapting Churchill’s comment on the stance of supporting Communist USSR in 1941 ‘If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference of the Devil in the House of Commons.’ changing that to ‘If Trump said the World was round, I would at least do Flat Earth believers the common courtesy of visiting their internet sites,’ (and variations). After all what practical good has Trump ever done for Humanity in general?
Right?

So what is our response to this recent event? Trump linked to an Humanitarian Initiative? Do we start looking for the flaws, seeking some gratification in realising by our exacting standards it is not going to work? Do we go down the common train of thought, what does Trump think is in it for him, maybe it is just a colossal Vanity project enabling him to stamp his name favourably into History? Maybe, perhaps, just this once we’ll go scampering off down a Conspiracy Route? Or is our response a rather sour feeling that Trump should not get credit on the World Stage for anything; never mind what, how and that a ravaged and persecuted population should benefit?  

And while we jump to deny that Trump could never, ever under any circumstance be associated with any good idea, anywhere, anyhow, Ethics is still there, at our door.

Herein lies our problem. The conundrum. The person who is currently at the head of an administration which seems intent on dismantling Democracy and Tolerance in the USA, is associated with a Life Saving measure in The Middle East. Broadly this is nothing new. History has its catalogue of individuals renowned for some positive achievement who also have a weight of questionable if not downright hideous actions to their name: Stalin being a classic case and whatever historical heroes you might have there will be very questionable actions linked to them. This one however is happening right here, right now before our very eyes, when we have invested so much in our one stance.

Therefore, do we, for the sake of thousands of Palestinians give Trump some grudging approval, nay even support? If we care that much for them should we consider it, shift just a smidge? Hope it will work out for the best? Put aside our differences, on this one isolated issue?

Or do we remain knowingly entrenched? Reckoning it will only be a question of time before the whole thing falls apart like some political Ponzi scheme, and it was only a Trump effort to win a Nobel Peace prize, no more than that- we knew it!!……And we heave a secret sigh of relief. Well yes, the continued loss of Palestinian lives would be unfortunate, horrific of course, but at least we were right about Trump.
And is that what matters??
No we say, we have a bigger picture to consider. The quality of lives and wellbeing of millions are at risk here. We can’t let down our guard, we think to ourselves. We say, we cannot celebrate. There are greater issues at stake. This is all a ruse. It’s all you need to know about Trump, we argue. He cannot be trusted.
Ethics is still standing at our doors…..Waiting.  
For our Churchillian moment?   
Don’t expect a definitive answer from me I’ve retreated behind another phrase…
‘Just saying. That’s all’