As the political circus rolls into New Hampshire - the second performance on their nationwide tour - I'm already beginning to wonder whether this stopover really matters. But apparently it 'really' does, for Donald Trump it is an opportunity to regain the 'initiative' after his unexpected defeat by Ted Cruz in Iowa. Moreover, it is a another chance for Marco Rubio to confirm his 'credentials' as the establishment's favourite. Meanwhile Hilary Clinton who sort of won against Bernie Sanders in Iowa is now looking at 'damage limitation' having 'already priced into the market' the loss she is about to endure from the man from Vermont.
 
If you have no real idea what 'regaining the initiative', 'confirming his credentials', 'damage limitation and priced into the market' actually mean within the context of the US primaries do not worry your in good company but apparently I'm obliged to include these phrases in my introduction since it gives the allusion that I really understand what is going on and since virtually every media report in the US has already done so. However, I'm writing this introduction just before the vote is declared in the Granite State so just maybe all will become clear when I scribe the second part of this blog later today...                 
 
...The results are in and for once they reflect the predictions as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders win big. What does this mean? For the establishment within the two respective parties these are concerning results. Does this suggest that Trump will eventually arrive at the Republican Convention in the early summer with the necessary delegates to win the the nomination? Surely not! But his clear victory has placed serious doubts about the conventional view that someone like Rubio will claim the day, especially after the mauling he took from Christie, Bush and co in the latest TV debate. For Clinton the size of her loss is indeed unsettling since the last time she stood in a New Hampshire primary in 2008 she beat one Barack Obama. However, this is still early days in a process that will run through into July.

Moreover, in the Republican struggle the fight back can still come effectively from one of four opponents  - Cruz, Rubio, Bush or Kasich. So, will resistance grow as the prospect of Trump actually winning becomes a possible reality? On the Democrat side the issue is far more straight forward since it is clearly a two horse race and Sanders who has performed beyond expectations has yet to come up against the Clinton fire wall - Black Americans. If you look at the polling breakdown Clinton should benefit hugely from this section of society as the campaign trail turns south and down to South Carolina via a Nevada caucus for the next primary encounter. However, two issues that must be worrying the Clinton camp, firstly, in large part women are not voting for her because they do like or trust her, plus Sanders support has benefited from a growing number of young people who are attracted by his anti establishment agenda. Here lies the key. 
 
Although Trump and Sanders represent the opposite and opposing ends of the American political spectrum their commonality is that they are both seen by many voters as 'outsiders' - Two 'real Americans' who do not represent the vested interests that Congress stands for.(Trump is not a professional politician and although Sanders is he is an independent candidate). Moreover, the anger that many feel towards the political elite because of their inability or unwillingness to change anything is difficult to counter. Hence, the challenge for opponents of Trump is how to deal seriously with a man they thought was just a circus clown. Moreover, as Clinton heads South her team must wish that Hilary possessed a little of the 'Bill effect' that he once had on women and that Black America does come to her rescue otherwise just as in 2008 her long held dream will no longer be her reality.
 
More next week,
 
KK
 


                    
     
 
      

In a World that is about to face its Fourth Industrial Revolution - robotics, enhanced artificial intelligence and a world without work - one of our immediate challenges for all is to discern what is real. In other words, what is reality ? Now before we all descend into existential madness I ask this question since it keeps coming to mind as I gaze with receding degrees of sobriety at our current political condition especially when we consider the US presidential race. What are we told? What are we shown? What are we asked to consider? What are we asked to believe? Is any of this process real? Do we honestly believe in some perverse way that this over extended and hubristic political exercise has anything to do with most people's reality?

I ask this since over the next few months we will exposed to the mounting insanity that is the US primaries. Triggered by the bell that was rung for round one in Iowa on Monday night we had in the red corner Donald Duck Trump - the true blue heavyweight American - who was slatted to win big by the US polling data, but whoops along came another republican straight out of the same right field, well Canada actually but hey ho - Ted Cruz - punching above his weight and takes the Iowa crown. But wait a minute before fans of Ted the Texan start cheering too loudly apparently neither of these aforementioned gentlemen actually won. The real winner according to the ringside 'expert' commentators was Marco Rubio who came third in this political dog fight, but because of his 'performance' he is now seen as the real victor. But by who? Consider this, Donald and Ted are not real, they are just political phantoms placed to amuse and distract the crowd into believing that they actually have a real say in who becomes President. For it seems that the Republican party funded by Big Oil have already placed their 'undeclared' vote on an 'electable' and acceptable man from the sunshine state - Rubio.  The days of Jeb Bush are but a distant memory.
 
Whilst in the Blue corner this political media show-time becomes even more 'entertaining'.  Hilary Diane Rodham Clinton - the very experienced Arkansas bruiser - was slatted to win big in Iowa only last week, once again by those expert predictors of big data but suddenly we find that Bernie Sanders - the Socialist Slugger, a true red American - almost took the fight (Hilary on points 0.2%). But apparently Bernie did actually win because by coming second in the vote by such a close margin he now has the 'momentum' for the next contest in New Hampshire and is predicted to win big . But by who? Well, the Democrat Party funded by Wall Street are keeping their own counsel at present but is it likely that Sanders - a declared Democratic Socialist - will get the nod from the biggest capitalist club in town? Or is this come-back lady with confirmed Washington credentials as well as some interesting e mails going to enjoy the support of the 'establishment'?  I wonder. Do not mention Bill.
 
There is a serious side to this comedic political narrative that has been consciously camouflaged by the hurly burly that comes with a big fight night (the post, post modern version of the Colosseum and the Roman illusion of SPQR ). Since the decision as to who will win the coloured nominations and get a 'shot at the title' will not be decided by the voters of Iowa or New Hampshire but by America's 'real people'; the investors that pay for and control the 'real message' - The story that we are told, the evidence that we are shown, and what we are told to believe.          
 
Another sense of reality that US voters largely will not be exposed too (If you do not wish to descend into madness with me do not read this last paragraph). If we do not deal with climate change now (recognising that Paris was just another exercise in sophistry) the next generations that follow are toast. If we do not deal with the issues surrounding the use and abuse of natural resources now we will continue our downward spiral into contiguous and continuous bloody warfare. If we do not stop this current warrior based competition and redefine the place and space of being human meaningfully we will cease to exist. These elemental and primordial issues have nothing to do with ethnicity, gender and or sexual orientation. They have nothing to do with whether you were born in Wichita or Warsaw and they have little to do with the political conflict that will role out through the US over the coming weeks. But back to the show, who will really win? Whoever, big money tells us will win. As the present reality of our future is too awful to contemplate since our destiny is no longer being 'managed' by our 'elected' politicians but manipulated by the Multi National Corporations that pay for our thoughts to agree with their powerful short term cataclysmic ambitions, where do we hide?. Hence, the virtual reality of entertainment not enlightenment is the only real political game in town - true madness.  
 
KK
 
       

 
    

As many families in the US and Europe get prepared to celebrate in their own way the coming of Christmas and the arrival of the 'bringer of peace' it seems paradoxical in the extreme that his declared birthplace is at the centre of a continuous bloody and mindless conflict. Moreover, this place of worship sits in a region that seems fixated with ripping itself apart as it looks with increasing desperation to reshape the political landscape through the lens of religious, tribal, and historical understandings that have been warped, distorted and mutated by shifts in dictatorial power, imperial greed and Western influence and interference. But, as the Christian story implies; about this time a confluence of a bright star and the arrival of the Magi signified the birth of a bringer of 'peaceful coexistence'. I guess right now many seem not to have read that particular story. For if you have also chosen to ignore the teachings of Christ or find the narrative surrounding the birth of Jesus a little too fanciful try this... 

Its Christmas 2015, and in the 'civilised' Western World for people who are employed with money this a time to count their blessings, for others an opportunity to celebrate with the family, a time to remember happy yesterdays and ponder the wonders of tomorrow. In the streets and homes that are lit by festive signs and warmed by fireside cheer it is easy to pretend that all is well and all will be well. Yet, our wished for friendly festive frame seems even further out of focus than last year. In reality the consideration of the future is and has been contingent and conditional on a contemporary dystopian story that we increasingly feature in but seemingly have little say or influence over. This condition has nothing to do with the coming arrival of hope but everything to do with the advent of insanity - the War on Terror.   
 
This year alone we have witnessed due largely to our thoughtless interference the continuing fracturing of a society that was once recognised as Iraq. Conversely and paradoxically, thanks to 'our' newly adopted diffidence we look from on high at the continuing implosion of Syria. Moreover, the continued pretence that Afghanistan, Libya and the Yemen are now functioning states due to our 'guest appearance stewardship' is errant rubbish, as is the illusion that Egypt's military dictatorship which is funded from Washington, is in some way legitimate. In the very cradle of Christianity itself again with huge US funding the military might of Zion sits sometimes illegally, sometimes immorally but definitely disproportionately on top of the increasingly angry and 'unreliable' Palestinians. Have you wondered as the Archbishop of Canterbury did when hearing of the Paris shootings, 'Has God gone missing'?
 
While back in the secular world it seems that our political leadership has gone missing! Within the EU Hollande infused by the Paris atrocities looks engaged but largely inert, Merkel stares ahead frozen by the German ghost of guilt from past conflicts, while Cameron conjures up long gone images of imperialism while dressed up in some Britannia Rules costume. The one person who could actually make a difference to this real life story of lunacy just continues to rely on his large rhetorical utterances and small actions, as Obama spends his days sending his hapless Secretary of State round in ever decreasing circles while the President chalks off his final days before moving back home. You may have noticed that I haven't mentioned the UN, why bother! since the General Secretary was deliberately chosen by the Security Council to say little and do nothing - at least he is playing a blinder.
 
Finally, as our cognitive dissonance grows - the space between where we are told we are as opposed to the reality of the true Middle Eastern condition - I wonder what will it really take before the increasing wash back from these conflicts brings us wise concert ? Another Paris? Or does it have to be even more disturbing ? As a considered long standing political observer and agnostic I'm actually beginning to wonder whether putting my faith in a child born in a manger at Bethlehem is a far more realistic option then waiting for a bright star to appear this Christmas over Paris, Berlin, London, Brussels or Washington.      
 
I wish you all a very peaceful and safe Christmas, and in the New Year the hope that we rediscover our facility and ability to act as one on behalf of humanity.
 
KK
 
 

 
           

Since 1863 - a time of bloody internal conversation - the United States has celebrated annually Thanksgiving -  a day to recognise the benefits of peace,  a day to remember the fortunes of this nation, and as Congress proclaimed, 'a day of SOLEMN THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies'. For in many senses this is a day where the majority within the nation's 'secular' society, sits with their religious understanding; a way of translating their own particular 'manifest destiny' with their country's material success. Or is it visa versa?  
 
What is instructive about Thanksgiving is it ranks alongside Christmas and New Year as one the United States few principle federal holidays. This after all is a key domestic affair as it acknowledges implicitly and explicitly the exceptional nature of this 'united nation' and its separation not its congregation from the rest of the World. It is there to remind us all that its closely guarded unified independence is the real recipe of their success. In other words, the notion of self reliance is not just applicable to the individual but also to the nation as a whole.
 
But like much of the 'American Dream' this idea that the US became and remains pre-eminent because of its divine and divorced condition is largely nonsense. The United States on going political and military power is the product of a particular of form of economic and political literacy that continually demands expression, originated by the 'unchallenged' access to raw materials, the industrial revolution, and its imagination and innovation in turning these natural gifts of ideas and ingredients into products that would be sold, resold and retold world wide. The post civil war domestic markets that expanded due to increasing immigration was never going to be able to consume sufficient to satisfy the growing rapacious incorporation of the United States and therefore, it is not coincidental that the 'internationalisation' of the United States political and economic religion found real traction after this declaration of 'Thanksgiving', and the end of their destructive internal argument about the 'meaning of life'.
 
The subsequent 'real success' of the United States has been its unrivalled ability to sell one story and live another without real fear of any further divisive, destructive contradictions: The American Dream providing liberty and opportunity for all due to the unique 'genius of the people': American power that allows the nation to insulate itself from other nation's woes whilst benefiting from its continued participation and intervention in our capitalised world - One of those stories is largely fictional one is not. In other words, due to the mystic of 'unrivalled freedom' that cloaked the reality of geographical determination, political construction and commercial power, whilst other nations fought often self destructively on their own territory for their own understanding of liberty the US has remained largely untouched. The Founder's 'original' interpretation of freedom had long been dismantled on the battlefields of Sumter, Shiloh and Gettysburg and replaced by a Republican Washington into the self serving image of Wall Street and eventually a self service Wall Mart.
 
As growing technological advancements suggested that the natural separation that the New World long enjoyed was under threat the US maintained its insulated condition throughout the The First and Second World War, and the Cold War by protecting its natural borders on other nation's real estate. This is not to suggest that this approach was cost free, however, although US human capital was spent maintaining their domestic integrity the nation remained intact while other nations less fortunate bore a terrible cost. As we are witnessing at present the United States continuing default position to conflict is stark: unless we can clearly identify that 'we have a dog in this fight' stay clear.  
 
Moreover, this approach has allowed the US to benefit hugely financially from 'other nation's conflicts'. The First World War offering the US a material glimpse of the American Dream during the 1920's, the Second World War providing the environment for a decade of unrivalled growth as 1950's America experienced a step change in standards of living that have never been bettered. However, the Cold War abruptly reminded the US that no matter how powerful you are you cannot expect to control and order all international society without there being a domestic price. Vietnam, Afghanistan and then the Middle East continue to demonstrate that. Yet, as the United States sits down to their Turkey dinner with Pumpkin pie their celebratory thoughts will be towards their domestic fortune and future and not to their 'adventures' elsewhere.
 
The President will take time away from the matters of State to enjoy these peaceful celebrations; a far cry from the condition that now envelops parts of Europe, and has engulfed the Middle East for many a year. There will be the obligatory sound/film bite as Obama utters: God Bless America, but of course there will be no reference to the United States complicity in the conflicting story overseas since it just would not fit into their prevailing unflinching narrative. However, that should not stop us reminding the President that instead of concentrating on national self praise and meaningless rhetoric he should actual recognise that the United States continuing 'good fortune' has been due to others huge efforts and sacrifices outside of their nation's borders as well as to their own 'genius of the people'. That after all is truly worth saying thank you for.
 
KK
 
   
 
KK 
 

 
  
 
                           

In my previous blog I tried to link European understanding/experiences with American imperatives - A Tale of Two Cities: Paris and Washington - as a way of suggesting that the differences between these two worlds are many in spite of shared values and aims that the empowered and the lazy love to concentrate on. Then came Brussels... and the reaction to the 'terrorists on the lose' was markedly different from Paris, Why the security shut down? What does the 'capital of Europe' represent that Paris does not? Is this just a natural heightened extension of fear after missed opportunities or is their something else in the mix?    
 
Brussels is primarily the capital of Belgium but sometimes you wonder. I find it far easier to speak English in the capital then poor Flemish especially if I'm hungry, OK thirsty - I'm not the only one. But lets pretend that it is not now dominated by French language and sentiment, lets pretend that this form of cultural nationalism does not matter - it shouldn't but it does to some - and recognise that Brussels is the archetypal hub; citizens of the World spilling in and spinning off around Europe - an amazingly vibrant crossroads. It is also the administrative centre of the EU. Did Brussels actually invent the word Bureaucracy! If they didn't they should of, just listen  to the way EU institutions communicate, it defies 'gravity'.            

Brussels also, crucially, is the centre of the United States political and military footprint in Europe - NATO. This organisation was initially set up to protect 'Free Europe' from the dastardly Soviets. But when that particular raison d'etre ended a new reason for maintaining this institution had to be found, Why? Couldn't Europe of 1990's provide their own security ? Didn't the US want to go home ? After all victory had been declared, the US had won and as Hegel sort of predicted, history was a process that would end with no longer anything to be written about. Well, as awkward questions started to be asked about this institution's future, 'thank heavens' along came the Balkans conflict and the 'War on Terror' linking for 'ever 'European security to American imperatives. But what is fundamental to this ongoing relationship is the majority of NATO's funding comes from Washington, the majority of the military input from West Point, and regardless of what European face fronts this organisation the agenda continues to be set  and influenced by Washington. In other words, the lens that is looked through to consider European security was undoubtedly made in silicon valley.           
 
Therefore, as the US has 'significant' assets in Brussels I wondered if the urgency and agency surrounding this new approach in Brussels  had something to do with Washington talking to Charles Michel? Surely not! What I can suggest with some degree of surety is that this conversation would have been far more clearly understood than Secretary Kerry's talks with the Elysee Palace earlier in the week. UK PM Cameron's meeting with President Hollande tomorrow in Paris is not coincidental, this leading Brit is there to clarify what Kerry did not understand as well as saying thank you for the French led UN agreement earlier in the week. The British PM if he wishes to continue to eat at all the political top tables must keep Washington in the loop - as Kissinger famously remarked but then half heartedly denied, 'who do I call if I wish to call Europe'? Ironically, and surely paradoxically the answer was London. Why not Brussels? And we wonder why Europe still remains a mystery to the average desk bound State Department official let alone the political decision-makers! 
 
Last week, the influential US Atlantic magazine printed an article entitled, 'What is Wrong with Belgium?  Strange since two years ago whilst talking to three State Department officials based in Brussels they asked roughly the same question, roughly since we had all been drinking copious amount of Belgium beer. Putting aside their expletives the staffers observations were focused on the differences between this nation's understanding of freedom and Washington's. I did observe that you cannot expect Brussels to be Boston or Baton Rouge, precisely came the retort that is 'your' problem. I would not have minded but no one laughed.    
 
On Thursday the United States celebrates Thanksgiving  - I will write nearer the time on this - but I hope that many in Belgium are NOW counting their blessings that how lucky they are/ we are to live in this place and space with our particular unique nuanced understanding of freedom regardless of the few that come to live here and try to infect our society with hatred.For our sense of life should not be up for debate regardless of where and who, and Brussels should reflect that in any language that is clearly understood.
 
We zijn allemaal Belgen   (excuse my poor Flemish)

 
KK 
          
 

 

Paris a week on from the attacks remains sombre, agitated, anxious. These dismembered sentiments have been extended and accentuated into St Denis as security services using massive fire power stormed and destroyed their 'targets'. This reactive mood was further substantiated by President Hollande's call to extend emergency powers: the banning of demonstrations; tight quasi-military control of public places and spaces; 'on the spot' identity checks. There is little doubt that the mood in the city has changed but how deep and for how long... 
 
There is also little doubt who caused this outrage. So let us remove any doubt as to the three points of reference that should influence what we should do next. Firstly, IS is not a product of Western societal behaviour, it is perverse, mutated version of Islam that has more to do with contested religiosity in the Middle East then any sense of American or European liberalism. Secondly, tragically, because of myopic, insulated American foreign policy supported by European acquiescence and or abstinence, which knew how to start wars but forgot how to end them, we have helped create the opportunity, the space for this socio-political abomination to develop an agenda, gain a foothold and start to secure its 'future'. Thirdly, although other 'terrorist groups' continue to pose an on-going threat to Western security IS offers an exceptionally ' clear and present danger' to us all because their 'representatives' have gained access through our 'forgiving borders' due to the wash back of those ill considered and short term foreign policy initiatives driven by Washington and confirmed in Brussels.  
 
Where are we now? Whether Europe likes it or not Washington and President Obama continues to be the real lead in this situation. Hence, What does Obama see? More importantly what does he want to see?

He looks to the Middle East and... Afghanistan if it ever was a proper state has now returned in large part to Taliban control while Kabul and its immediate surroundings hangs on grimly to some sort of recognised civics. Syria is a broken and dismembered society. Iraq as a political and social entity that no longer exists, it is in three pieces, the IS Caliphate, Kurdistan and a Shia nominated region. Consequently, all these failed states have or are disgorging much of their citizenship onto and into Europe via Lebanon and Turkey. If you add to this the collapse of Libya, the return of a military dictatorship to Egypt, the on going Gordian knot that is Palestine and Israel and the Saudi/Iranian backed conflict in the Yemen the view is hellish.     
 
What does Obama and Washington want to see? What would Paris and Europe like to see? Primarily, the removal of IS, the ending of the civil war in Syria and a return of civil society. A real placement of security in Afghanistan and the introduction of a federal understanding in the region previously known as Iraq. Secondly, the genuine reintroduction of talks based on the 'two state' solution for Palestine and Israel. A constructed plan to drag Libya back from the brink of societal collapse. The cessation of Saudi Arabian and Iranian support for the conflict in the Yemen and the introduction of a 'peace building' force.     
 
This lengthy wish list or any part of it can only be achieved in any meaningful manner if three conditions are introduced. Firstly, the lead on this situation should not be the White House or Brussels but the United Nations driven by the Security Council and supported by the General Assembly. This allows the other significant partners - Russia and Iran - to be responsibly involved. The primary objectives for the UN are clear, the swift, unredeemable removal of IS and the settling of the Syrian civil war, as a consequence some semblance of political social balance will eventually return to 'Iraq'. Secondly, far greater involvement of other Middle East nations in taking responsibility for their own futures - as nation-states and as a region. Especially, in the areas of displaced people, local governance and funding of these 'terrorist' groups. Thirdly, that the US and Europe should re-evaluate their joint understanding of regional security policy and how it should be achieved since Europe should not leave itself vulnerable to the vagaries of Washington politics. Just because the US and EU share some common aims, values and history does that mean we should always follow in the dominant partner's path?

Is Paris just the result of unforeseen consequences? Possibly, but the key question is why were they unforeseen? The principal reasons seems obvious: US imperatives are not always aligned or sensitive to European needs for  understandable reasons; Europe has for far too long ducked responsibility for foreign affairs and therefore, has become far too reliant on 'Uncle Sam'. To consider these observations just visit Washington and then Paris; they are distinctly different worlds filled with competing cultures and competitive politics. Especially now...                                       
   
KK

A very ordinary autumnal Friday evening in Paris was unseasonally bright almost balmy but otherwise it was typically Parisian, the streets busied themselves as people finished their weekly toil and strolled off to find a glass in their local cafe, a plate in their favourite restaurant, a seat in their concert hall, or to chant their way to the national stadium as Les Bleus took on the 'old foe' Germany. For as anyone who has been to Paris will know this is a place and space that enjoys, understands and lives Liberté. Moreover, because historically, culturally and politically this city stubbornly defies other ways of being it continues to offer a unique form of Fraternité.
 
Suddenly 'these best of times became the worst of times' as this majestic 'City of Light' darkened. The ensuing carnage defies words, at least 129 people are dead and hundreds injured. One of the first to respond to this murderous outrage was President Obama who spoke with genuine humanity and humility - I paraphrase - 'as France has been there for the United States so the United States would be there for France', as it struggles to deal with this gross violation of civic society. France is 'our oldest ally'. The closest these two nations will get to Égalité. Yet whatever the level of friendship and understanding that these two nations share the key issue that continues to nag away at all of us is the growing recognition that this unremitting cycle and circle of violence can only be broken if we confront and diffuse this 'war' without continuing to resort to more violence, destruction and isolation.       

The main fuel of this dystopian process is fear. This is not a new understanding since Franklin D Roosevelt's inaugural observation that 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself' became a modern day truism. Fear after all  has become recently an emotion that seems far more powerful than hope. Yet our continuing eagerness to intervene in other nation's disputes, to adopt a moral crusades without any real understanding of what to do next, to remove leaders that do not conform to our understanding of life has left vacuums in societies that have been filled largely by forces and ideas that fail to understand humanity, who fail to understand hope. What struck me as I listened to the latest Democrat TV debate last night was the inability of Saunders, O'Malley and Clinton to articulate a policy or a plan that did not involve more intervention or more insulation.    
 
Aung San Suu Kyi the Burmese political reformer observed recently that the true definition of freedom is to be found when fear has been eradicated. It was clear last night that this condition is nowhere to be found. Since there is no real answer to this practical and existential crisis when our would be leaders are too frightened to speak their minds and too frightened to think differently. The French mother being told in a Paris hospital that her young son died at Bataclan wished they had - an absolute personal tragedy. Yet our politician's will review this event alongside Madrid, Mumbai, and Charlie Hebdo and come just see it regardless of tragedy and humanity, as just another piece of grim statistics.

 
This condition is truly scary...

 
Je Suis Paris

 
KK
 


 
       

Lewis Carroll's 'The Hunting of the Snark' has often been portrayed as a deeply philosophical, even theological search for the meaning of life without truly identifying, understanding or needing to understand what 'the Snark' actually is. Similarly, on Tuesday we witnessed the latest in a series of televised GOP debates as the Republicans continued their own particular quest for a a true conservative that could explain what American life is and as a consequence win against the liberal, libertine and clearly loathsome Clinton. The underlying argument being that the reason why Obama won two consecutive terms was because the Republicans failed to put up an authentic conservative and therefore, their supporters stayed at home. After all McCain and Romney were just moderate, weak and diluted representations of what life really stands for in the United States. Hence, Bush, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Kasich, Paul, Rubio, and Trump have all been identified as potentially the 'real deal', the right type of political animal that can lead the nation's search for conservative fulfilment and happiness. If only they can identify themselves?  
 
Unlike the previous TV debates the moderators from Fox Business and the Wall Street Journal largely focused their questions on financial and security policies and not on personalities, interestingly, this approach provided the best evidence to date of the differing characteristics that each candidate offered in this endless search. Rand Paul provided a view that traditional isolationists would have been happy with, whilst Carly Fiorina offered a corporate conservatism that would have sat well with Big Business if not Wall Street. Moreover, Ben Carson seemed to represent a closer, more genuine understanding of this own individual 'hunt for the snark' since the madness that Carroll induces in his allegory is certainly present in Carson's personal insanity as he tried desperately to square the circle between truth and deceit while not understanding the difference between them.
 
Predictably, Donald 'Duck' Trump offered the 'entertainment' as with his customary surety that comes from being a 'self made man' he noted that the 11 million illegal immigrants in the US should all be sent home - wherever that is - whilst a slumberous, somnolent Jeb Bush on hearing this view suddenly awoke observing this idea to be errant nonsense without truly understanding why. But clearly both these 'hunters' share common ground; they lack any real substance to support their political and social utterances, the only difference being is at least Trump provides some amusing if sometimes offensive nonsense whilst Bush offers little that is close to thought, entertainment or offence. This leaves Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Both are articulate, well groomed and informed, but informatively whilst Cruz spoke willingly on the immigration issue through his own particular understanding of the law Rubio chose not too, since these two differ not so much on the meaning of life but on who it is applicable too. 
 
Therefore, the search continues... with Cruz and Rubio probably offering the Republicans with the best opportunity to defeat the dangerous, insidious and demonic Hilary. However, as we start to leave the ' parallel realities' of the TV debates and enter the true world of primary elections we wonder what will come first the madness that is induced by the Republicans searching for a true American Conservative (the Snark) or for the hunting down and finding the real meaning of life? As McCain and Romney learnt to their cost relatively recently it requires one form of lunacy to prove your right wing conservative credentials to the Republican Convention but subsequently, it takes an entirely different form of neurosis to make these views acceptable to the majority of Americans - hey, that's life wherever that Snark might be!     
 
KK
                        

Yesterday saw the first of the Democrat Presidential TV debates. Forget the other contenders, Hilary and Bernie are the only ones that matter. Joe is still biding his time. Hilary as expected spent her time distancing herself from Obama but mindful of the President's large residual following stayed in touch. She objected to the protracted and protected trade deal with Europe (TTIP) and the Keystone pipeline proposals but fell back into line over gun control. Whilst, Bernie, a self declared democratic socialist offered a critic of Wall St and its relationship with Washington that many on Main Street found 'on the money' . As Hilary displayed mastery of her brief, moving effortlessly from domestic to foreign affairs Bernie focused on his belief that many citizens have been 'permanently' left behind by the remorseless neo-liberal capitalist process that insists on inequality. Who won?
 
To answer this we have to consider the very notion of winning. Hilary demonstrated her experienced hand supported by a finely tuned intellect - she has always been brighter than Bill - however, unlike her husband Hilary finds its almost impossible to disguise her inner desire to be President. Therefore, many have concluded that this lady will say anything to get elected. Hence, her predilection is to hold on 'too tightly to the handle bars' that would place her in the White House. Conversely, Bernie, is not holding onto anything but his ideas as he is of an age when power for the sake of it is hugely unattractive whilst being able to use this process as a place to expound his views is. Therefore, when Hilary spoke many agreed with her message but few trusted the messenger, yet when Bernie spoke there sat an authenticity that only comes when you have understood the golden rule - take what you do/what you care about seriously but never take yourself too seriously.
 
Hilary suffers from that unbending, unflinching notion, in built(in bred) into the political/social elite, that they deserve their place and space in history. Bernie meanwhile is just grateful that he has been given this opportunity to tilt at the Wall St windmill that will not be disturbed or distracted by his 'socialist nonsense'. By the way, if you think this particular fight is difficult to predict, think again, Hilary will take this contest relatively easily because she has the money, whilst Bernie will look back on his moment in the sun with a degree of smiling satisfaction. But before Hilary gets too sure of herself - if that is possible - watch out for Joe who is spending his time gathering financial backing while Bernie takes lumps out of Hilary's credibility. Just like sex politics is all about timing.
 
Bernie is a real citizen, which makes him attractive to many that are disaffected by the modern day construction of a computerised, digitised, synthesised and increasingly, homogenised world but Hilary understands power which she finds unremittingly attractive, and that is the real dystopian deal.
 

KK
    


 

 

 

 

 

 
            
             
 
        

Shaker Aamer is a name that few people have heard of or even care about in the 'free world', strange, even ironic since within his own small encased community he has probably been the most well-known resident, fighting and advocating for the rights for his fellow man. However, for this gentleman his external anonymity is about to disappear as he waits to catch a boat home having spent some thirteen years incarcerated often in solitary confinement, at Guantanamo (GITMO). During all this time he has been charged with no crime. Moreover, according to 'independent' observations Shaker like many of his fellow (citizens) internees has borne interrogation techniques that would have been deemed torture if their home had been based in the US or anywhere else in our 'developed world'. At present he is just sitting in 'dock' waiting for his ticket to be endorsed by Congress before being able to return to his family in the UK. But Shaker has been waiting for some while now since George Bush junior whilst President agreed his release as has Obama but the Pentagon, the US Security Services and Congress will not be hurried since their own timetable takes little regard for the 'powers' of the executive or it it seems the rights of the individual when the 'security of the state' is involved. 

Arguably, the single most important ingredient in the make up of American society is the centrality and pivotal importance of the law - it is the key element to a true liberal community and understandably the US is very proud of the Constitution and its attached Bill of Rights. After all, it has provided this political construct with a strong legal spine that has helped shape, define and redefine American society since 1787. The primary strength of this document is to be found in its focus and clarity when considering individual rights, consequently, offering all within the US, protections from the arbitrary actions of the federal and state governance. Hence, this condition is elemental and fundamental to this powerful nation's belief in the legitimacy and longevity of its 'free society'. Yet, what Shaker's story reveals is the very real contemporary dangers inherent in a nation that again arguably, ever since Wilson's presidency, has been engaged - consciously or not - in the increasing securitization of government policy. What does this mean? The process whereby the very freedoms and rights of the individual are suspended and or even emasculated by the primacy of state security. In other words, any idea, person or organisation perceived to be a 'clear and present danger' to the state can be expected to be dealt with 'outside of the law' if it is deemed necessary. This raises that key existential question as to 'who guards the guards'! As the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in GITMO, and clearly the White House has little either since Obama signed an order on his third day in office to close this US military prison -  Guantanamo remains open.  

The unlawful special rendition of Shaker Aamer (a British citizen), taking him from Afghanistan in 2001 having identified him as a 'unlawful combatant', and placing him in US military confinement, but outside the reach of the US 's very own laws let alone his own nations was done in the name of state security. He was after all considered to be a real danger to the US having led a unit of Taliban fighters after meeting the former al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. None of these accusations has been substantiated let alone proved in a civil or military court. His subsequent imprisonment and interrogation has revealed little to support these 'charges'. The effect that this arbitrary action by US authorities has had on Shaker and his family should be blindingly obvious to all but what should also be  clear to everyone is that if the US and its allies are engaged as they are, in a continual and continuing conflict with forces opposed to a 'free society' then we must not act or react in a manner that is representative of the very enemy we are engaging. Otherwise, what are we fighting for? Why are the lives of millions of people being displaced, devalued if not destroyed  in the Middle East and Africa? What is the point of fighting for freedoms by withdrawing from or ignoring them?
 
Shaker Aamer has been sitting for a very long time, 'Watching the ships roll in and then I watch 'em roll away again,'
but fortunately for him his wait is nearly over, least we forget that if the principles of liberty and the fundamental importance of the law are indeed worth fighting and waiting for then we should at the very least 'practice what we preach' in spite of the often overblown insecurity that this may offer us. Otherwise, life just becomes a futile often onesided struggle between the powerful and powerless. For as Shaker Aamar case surely illustrates, his liberty and ours are cruelly diluted and defeated by ourselves not by our enemy.    
 
 KK