I was gently but rightly upbraided by my sister for the more than usually fatuous remarks in my last post, though I would like to point out that it should be perfectly clear by now that people who come to my blog in search of informed comment have come to the wrong place. If what I wrote about my grandfather had any sense at all, it was to the effect that simply transcribing his diaries is incomparably more soothing than contemplating the horrors of the modern world.
Given my proud track record of being wrong on just about every single development in the world in the last 50 years (latest example: my prediction only yesterday to my brother that the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya would never get past the Security Council), you might wonder what on earth induces me to return to the fray now. Well, it's this sort of writing (from John Pilger in The New Statesman):
As the US and Britain look for an excuse to invade another oil-rich Arab country, the hypocrisy is familiar. While Colonel Gaddafi is "delusional" and "blood-drenched", the authors of an invasion that killed a million Iraqis, who have sanctioned kidnap and torture in our name, are entirely sane, never blood-drenched and once again the arbiters of "stability".
From what I understand, John Pilger is a respected and brave journalist, and he may even turn out to be right this time, but what on earth is the point of writing in these terms? It is almost as though he and others like him WANT the very thing they purport to fear to happen so that they can bask in the perpetual glow of righteous indignation. I just wish we could somehow raise the level of public discourse to a point where we do not automatically attribute the worst possible motives to those who do not think like us.
We are living in a very dangerous world and I don't think we can afford much longer the non-stop ranting that goes on nowadays.
Given my proud track record of being wrong on just about every single development in the world in the last 50 years (latest example: my prediction only yesterday to my brother that the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya would never get past the Security Council), you might wonder what on earth induces me to return to the fray now. Well, it's this sort of writing (from John Pilger in The New Statesman):
As the US and Britain look for an excuse to invade another oil-rich Arab country, the hypocrisy is familiar. While Colonel Gaddafi is "delusional" and "blood-drenched", the authors of an invasion that killed a million Iraqis, who have sanctioned kidnap and torture in our name, are entirely sane, never blood-drenched and once again the arbiters of "stability".
From what I understand, John Pilger is a respected and brave journalist, and he may even turn out to be right this time, but what on earth is the point of writing in these terms? It is almost as though he and others like him WANT the very thing they purport to fear to happen so that they can bask in the perpetual glow of righteous indignation. I just wish we could somehow raise the level of public discourse to a point where we do not automatically attribute the worst possible motives to those who do not think like us.
We are living in a very dangerous world and I don't think we can afford much longer the non-stop ranting that goes on nowadays.
Upraiding you, was I? So sorry about that! In fact I would agree that Grandad's diaries do indeed read as of a very "gentle", almost insular time - which I think was what he must have most wanted!
ReplyDeleteAs for your talents with the crystal ball, you are more usually right than not!
And as for Pilger - well, I'm sure he has his admirers (somewhere) but I'm not one of them.