He-he, I agree with all of that actually. I even thought of suggesting in my
post that they'd be ordering politics appreciation chairs
I am suspicious of agitprop because if it fails then it really fails. What
swung me in that case of _100 days_ ("a thrilling read" R Dillon) was the
people who were doing it - they're serious, thorough, engaged, intelligent
etc &, as I said earlier, I had a piece which fitted
Heads of state are distractions, but not entirely. It's complex. Kubrick may
be the best guide. In the case of Airstrip 1, there is little doubt in my
mind that Blair is making decisions, even though he is more a monkey than an
organ-grinder - a well-trained mammal of some kind, and I don't really think
that the actual Head of State distracts anyone here... [Of course, there is
the Queen Mother; but there has been a tacit promise that there will be no
first use of the QM except in extreme danger]
There's a rather poor Michael Caine film called _The Whistle Blower_ where
MC tells the security services he'll expose their machinations and they tell
him very calmly that he doesn't stand a chance. No one will hear. That rings
true. Here it seems to be not so much a matter of distraction as a matter of
"I don't think we are allowed to say that", a mode of being which - oddly -
applies as much to the well-behaved like me and the Great British Mob.
Mind you, some recent outbursts do seem to suggest this is at least a
transAtlantic problem: we show the evidence and are told that our hands are
empty
I am more worried by people like Robertson and Solana who do not have to
account directly to the electorate even in the attenuated meaning of
_directly_ usually employed in electoral contexts. They justify the
unjustifiable and suddenly become very big players.
It's very difficult protesting against the unnamed unseen - you're in danger
of finding yourself starring in a heart-warming family picture about an
individual's resistance to a heartless corporation, made by Disney
L
----- Original Message -----
From: "domfox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 17 March 2002 22:03
Subject: Re: Gorbachev and Enron: Liar's Club.
| > There are inconsistencies in Adams, but I think it's clear that the
power
| > from which the president is meant to distract people is not the guy in
the
| > shed
|
| No, indeed. But that's it: he's a distraction, not the thing itself. Which
| is why it seems a bit self-defeating for opponents of the current
| administration to fixate on him personally.
|
| > Bush is more in the space of some of the sub plots - the demolition of
the
| > earth among them
|
| 2000AD once ran a very dispiriting comic strip showing the misadventures
of
| Dan Dare during the Thatcher era. Thatcher & co. had of course compacted a
| deal with the Mekon, who was far more "one of us" than the square-jawed,
| scoundrel-biffing ex-public-schoolboy Dare.
|
| May we expect to hear Bush reciting "O freddled gruntbuggly..."?
|
| Dom
|
|