November 1, 2007
“We should not depend on the bloody American military any longer”.
“Sir Arnold was watching the French general intently: ‘Do you perhaps envision a time when we’d want to go to war with the United States?’ A hush spread around the room. while La Porte paced, his face in a sudden scowl, his ponderous body impressive for its agility. ‘We already are at war with the Americans, in every aspect of life and business except militarily. But militarily, we cannot be. We are too weak, too dependent on all their systems, hardware, and even the most modern weapons. We have soldiers and arms that we can’t properly equip, move or control, without Washington.’
“We French do not have a ‘special relationship’ with the Americans, unlike you English…..”
General Moore stared at La Porte a full thirty seconds more. Then he seemed to think of something else. He relaxed, smiled,and stood up. “I believe our business here is over. As for the fate and future of Europe, we in Britain consider it tied permanently to that of the United States, whether we like it or not.”
These are excerpts from a novel by world-famous author Robert Ludlum, The Paris Option, in this case of a meeting held by generals of several countries belonging to NATO. HarperCollinsPublishers, 77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB – www.fireandwater.com.
Another best-selling Welsh-born novelist, Ken Follett, also wrote a novel, a Corgi Book reprinted in 1987 in Great Britain by Hazell Watson & Viney Limited, Aylesbury, Bucks, which, in accordance with its preface “is a true story about a group of people who, accused of crimes they did not commit, decided to make their own justice” and this is part of its Cast of Characters:
Ross Perot, Chairman of the Board, Electronic Data Systems Corporation, Dallas, Texas.
Merv Stauffer, Perot’s right-hand man.
Five more executives of Electronic Data Systems and
Tom Luce, founder of the Dallas law firm Hughes & Hill
Several EDS Corporation’s executives headed by Paul Chiaparoni, country Manager.
It deals with the evacuation from Iran of these American executives carried out by a team commanded by Colonel Arthur D. ‘Bull’ Simons.
The book includes real pictures of the named people and situations in Tehran’s street immediately after the ousting of the Shah.
I have included these two books here because they had been written by two very popular authors and my intention is to maky a summary of how popular authors and books can influence the opinions of ordinary people for or against any particular person or country, as is the case of the former in the latter book and the latter in the former transcriptions.
I realised this because I am now reading Ludlum’s novel and compare it with the present situation in the world, where there appear to be antagonisms between the populations of Europe and America and I have thought that perhaps these antagonisms have been provoked by the reading of novels like those under review.
The book by Follett exalts the personal qualities of Ross Perot, after the book was written a candidate to the Presidency of the US.
What do you think of this likely influence of best sellers in people’s attitudes and stances?
In my opinion readers should be very careful not to admit those books prima facie, and consider sensibly what the implications of their contents may mean for the coexistence among us.
October 6, 2007
Our friend Anticant, perhaps inadvertently, gave me the idea of this post. Almost every country has a written constitution which is called the Mother of All Laws, except the case of the United Kingdom where the Law rules. But I regret to say that all laws today are a reflection of religion in a way, ethics some times been likened to religions, too.
I think that perhaps this is so because those who cultivated the art of writing were mainly from the clergy side of our societies, persons who had been brought up in religious backgrounds, so somehow this is quite logical.
But the human mind has learnt to think by itself without the support of those who have been exalted to higher positions among us, most of the times undeservedly. Primitivism has long been forgotten, there exist primitives among us but that circumstance is sporadic as education has been declared compulsory by law in most countries of the world.
Why must there be a law for this and laws for so many other incidences in our lives?
If what is taught to children since their earliest principles is the cultivation of Respect in all the ambits of their lives, then perhaps laws would not be necessary, because laws are made by persons like you and me and are in many cases absolutely unfair and unjust. In this connection the use of bail comes to my mind as unjust and unfair. That a person just for the fact that she/he has money enough can be temporarily freed from the obligation to be in jail, whereas another person with no means and who has committed a lesser crime cannot is something that I personally cannot understand. The same happens with too many other aspects of our legislations as is the employment of lawyers and attorneys who defend you better or worse depending on their standing in their profession…and their fees. There are some honourable exceptions, of course.
If Respect were deeply ingrained in everybody, racism would not exist, nor would any differences among us which today are the reasons of conflicts, or at least they might be reduced to acceptable minimums.
Can I not be utopian?
Let me, please!!!
November 30, 2006
A debate has been opened at: http://tygerland.net/2006/11/30/why-europe-fades/#comments, on the problems of education in Britain and Europe.
Something that has never been arranged anywhere is the problem of education. There exist public schools and universities and there are private ones, and the teaching in the former in most cases cannot be advantageously compared with the education in the latter, despite they are funded by the state.
Every time a government of a new political sign gets the power, new educational instructions are imposed either by regulations or by law, but as can be easily seen, those regulations or laws are issued in accordance with the political postulates of the ruling part. Which has been proved to be to the detriment of the integration of students in the system, apart from the prejudices caused to the teachers and professors.
If we want that education be democratic, it is necessary that a great international debate be organised – as are organised debates on environment or human rights to just name a couple of them – so that a general system of education be agreed upon by all.
Education is a human right, but it should be understood that Education should be, within the freedom that allows us to exercise that right, without any bias or political influences or interferences, and to that end it is necessary that professionals of all over the world meet and reach conclusions for the subsequent system to be approved and put into practice. Needless to say that any intervention in the UN would have that political influential I am talking about.
And, mind you, I know these debates would be subject to enormous pressure by interested parties in that the educational system be concordant with their postulates, as I said above.
Something that should be avoided at all costs if we want the system to work properly.
And of course, funding of official schools and universities to be done exclusively by the state, while the private ones should be excluded from any state funding.