This is it: my first venture into...whatever.
Who knows where I'll end up? I don't!
For some time I've been close to newspaper blogs and online comments sections but rarely posted although I have often had lots to say. I found these blogs etc very polarised with very little shade. I am uncomfortable with either Black or White; either Left or Right; either Light or Dark and with "I am Right and you are Wrong". I am a shady person - not in an untrustworthy way - but in following a meandering path between extremes: rarely Black and rarely White.
But then .... I'm not sure I am as gray as I suggest. Perhaps I dislike unthinking views; fixed and unchanging views and views trotted out to a formula rather than views considered in context but am I free of those views?
No! I have those unthinking, fixed and unchanging views.
I believe GWB is a massively dangerous man and there is nothing he can do - or is likely to do - which will change that opinion
I believe nothing uttered by Tony Blair. I know some of what he says must be true but I can't judge what that is. Therefore, I disbelieve everything.
So in these two examples I have shattered my initial view that I am a man of shade.
Does this really mean that I am a man of Black or White? Might it not be that GWB and TB are themselves so extreme that even a "shady" person will have a fixed and unchanging view of them? This is a more comforting and comfortable position in which to place myself.
Moving on to some other ... whatever.
I read in today's Guardian (28 Feb 07) that Charles Clarke - former UK Home Secretary - wrote:
"Politics is the means by which ordinary people influence, control and otherwise direct the society of which they are a part."
What he means is:
"Politics is the means by which POLITICIANS influence, control and otherwise direct ORDINARY PEOPLE."
Politics is about winning: winning in the country, winning power; AND doing what the politician always wanted to do. Politics is NOT about winning the argument. Having power means the argument is irrelevant unless losing the argument results in loss of power.
Given this why did Charles Clarke make his initial statement? We know he doesn't mean it. Therefore, he is after something. He seems to want something from us but he doesn't.
Clarke does not want Gordon Brown (currently Chancellor of the Exchequer) to be the next PM but currently there is no credible challenger to Brown. Clarke doesn't have the power to challenge, and never will, but by asking for a debate on the direction of the Labour party he hopes to diminish the power of Brown and to build the power of a potential challenger. The role of "ordinary people" in politics is only invoked as a smokescreen behind which his aims are hidden. But I can see his aims clearly and so will all thinking people.
Beware those politicians who appeal to the "ordinary people"!!
They only want to use US for their benefit but not ours.
My next ... whatever is ....bed.