Democracy: The European Parliament Elections

"From Strasbourg with indifference

The rich world’s biggest election, with 375m potential voters, ought to be both exciting and uplifting. Yet campaigning ahead of this weekend’s election (June 07, 2009) to the European Parliament has been neither. Almost everywhere it has focused exclusively on national issues, not European ones. In several countries a ragbag of extremists, nutcases and xenophobes look set to win seats. And the turnout, which has fallen in every European election since 1979, may yet sink to a new low.

The fact is that Europe’s electors do not care about their parliament. Most do not bother to vote. Those who do take the excuse to cock a snook at their national governments and boost fringe parties. In so far as they have any view about the European Parliament, they see it as a talking-shop with no influence—a place that lavishes its unknown members with pay, pensions and expenses and wastes oodles of euros every month on a ludicrous commute from Brussels to Strasbourg.

Some (but not all) of this is either unfair or plain wrong. The European Parliament has real power—and will become still more powerful if the European Union’s Lisbon treaty is ratified (see article). In many ways MEPs have more say over legislation than do most of their national counterparts. In recent years a few hardworking MEPs have wielded a decisive influence on the final shape of EU directives that ranged from chemicals and services to animal rights and working hours. And the parliament has, in effect, arrogated to itself the power to reject national governments’ appointments to the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm. Even its much-abused expenses system is being cleaned up, though at the cost of higher salaries for most MEPs."

Complete article at the Ecomomist.com

Elections in the usoA

Elections in the usoA
Or how a bad president can be good for a country.

It has traditionally been an unspoken rule in the usoA, that presidents are males from good, rich, politically connected, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant families. People have subconsciously associated these types with that “right stuff” needed for their presidency. It looks quite likely however, that his year the next president of that country will either be a democratic woman or a … half-Negro/black/person-of-colour/African-American (or whatever one must say is according to the PC Gestapo) from a Muslim family … in any case … somebody who doesn’t fit the “typical” description.

Should this be surprising?

Of course not! The last time … the usoA elected just the “right” kind of president. His name, as we all know, is “George W. Bush”. He was of the right gender, from the right family of the right religion who went to the right schools and belonged to the right clubs. But he turned out to be such an appalling disaster that worse could not be imagined even for use in fiction.

George W. Bush has managed the almost impossible feat of combining all the potential faults that can be crammed into just one person. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that Mr Bush is stupid … and we are talking borderline retarded here (no offence to the mentally challenged). This genius furthermore believes himself sanctioned by God, with Whom he apparently likes to have daily conversations, giving us a pretty good indication that he is also a religious fanatic. And that the fact that, as commander in chief, he basically ordered the purposeful murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis in an illegal attack on their country also means that if evil if what you want, he’s your man. An added bonus of this of course is that the use of false pretences to launch his country into an unjustified war also makes him a traitor. And … well … let’s just leave it at that for now, as the point I’m trying to make here should already be fairly clear:

The citizens of the usoA figure that if the “right” kind of president ends up being a stupid, fanatical, evil, traitor … well maybe it’s time to look around for more options. It would basically be impossible for the “wrong” kind of president to be as terrible as that guy. It is thus a ironical fact that in a way, Bush has achieved a great act by having turned out to be such a piece of scum. He opened up the field to more options. Thanks to him the first woman or black man in the history of his country will take the office of president.

I imagine that if a Black Muslim lesbian woman in a wheelchair could have been found for candidacy … the trouble of elections could even have been avoided altogether … they would have moved her right into the Whitehouse! :)

Cheers!

Nuclear Weapons: Iran and North Korea

Most people (outside of Iran and North Korean) would probably tend to agree that it is preferable for the types of "unfriendly"(?) governments, characterised by these two countries, not to have nuclear arsenals.

If so, we must decide what kind of coherent policy civilised countries can advance to deal realistically with the phenomenon.

We must take tangible steps to make the argument credible ... that if such governments decide to opt out of developing WMD arsenals ... they will nonetheless be safe. We must be weary (to say the least) of Bush-type imbeciles being allowed to commit international crimes. By now, few people ignore that International law, human rights and the principles of civilisation were not taken into account during the invasion of Iraq. This means that countries like the usoA, traditionally a voice of reason, have no ethical legitimacy to speak of anymore. This makes everything more difficult.

And it was all foreseeable.

And those surreal infomercials that pass for “news”, "debate" or 'analysis" in the usoA don't help. It's like a good-cop-bad-cop routine with CNN and FOX playing each role. Thing is ... the world is much less stupid than the neocons seem to think it is.

What did they think would happen when they responded to Iraqi disarmament by promptly invading that weakened country!?! Did they really think that they would get away with killing Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands ... then have the bad taste to try to prop up a puppet regime made of any corrupt -or desperate- Iraqi they could find (including the worse among the thugs from the previous regime) ... and then tie a ribbon around it all and try to call it ... “Iraqi democracy!”?

Won’t some people realise that it’s most peculiar that a “democratic government” should need some foreign invasion force to protect its members from being lynched by the people?

At this point neocon actions have made people all over our planet ask themselves: How dearly can we make them pay if they attack us? And feeling under threat, people are reverting to primordial instincts, as they always do. This tends to favour all kinds of dictatorial immune responses. And everyone is trying their best to arm themselves as lethally (WMDs), as fast, and as covertly as possible. They figure that they need to, just in case.

Basically, the principles of civilisation, international law and enlightened reason have been hit hard. And we are now facing the possibility of new dark ages. And we must work hard to avoid that. Things are worse off than they should be ... but still solvable.

Biology vs religious "biology"

Let us perform a “Gedankenexperiment”:

Let us imagine an ideal rational thinker in a jungle studying earth biology. He is not influenced by any religion … not Zoroastrianism not Judaism not Christianism not Hinduism not Buddhism ... no preconceived notions, no creation myths, no paranormal nonsense.

He examines all life forms there, including some primitive hunter-gathering humans in their huts.

This scientist observes, experiments, thinks and eventually, using reason, draws conclusions.

He would notice that the essential biological differences are not between humans on the one hand and all other animals on the other … but rather ... between some animal groups and some other animal groups of this planet. There are differences between reptiles and mammals, between plants and animals or between sexually reproducing vs asexually reproducing life forms.

In terms of similarities within lifeform-types like "the great apes," there is practically no essential physiological difference but for hair, stance and of course the fact that humans are much smarter than any other ape. There is of course this difference in intelligence between humans and chimpanzees ... BUT humans are not so much smarter compared to chimps than chimps are compared to, let’s say, worms.

As it is, on what rational basis would our biologist come up with a scientific theory according to which humans are a biological entity entirely alien to all other life forms? To claim that humans are the result of a separate act of creation is simply not supported by observation. Coming up with the theory that … the human (male) was created apart by some paranormal entity, that the human female was made from his rib … supernaturally … and that none of this had anything to do with any of the other similarly (sexually) reproducing life forms ... can only be a fairytale ... not science.

Humans are born just like dogs, cats, horses and dolphins are and then they eat, piss, shit, play, fuck, sleep, die and do basically what all other mammals do.Again, the big biological differences are between some animal groups and some other animal groups. Humans simply belong to one of these groups. The structural physiological differences between a dolphin and a shark, for example, are much more essential, than those between a human and another ape. Humans are brilliant but biologically they function exactly like the other animals.

If unlike other mammals each human, was born by appearing from nowhere with the sounds of trumpets as a result of a prayer ... well ... then ... I guess that the religious myths would make more sense.


PS)
We humans are our own and our ecosystem's greatest threat ... but ... if the goal is for our type of intelligent life to make well into the future ... as in millions of years into it ... then ... in the very long run, we are also it's only hope.

But right now, we are still stuck in primitive superstition! It may be time to start getting serious again about reason. It is not a trivial concern. If we do not start thinking about some real basic steps to improve our species' chances for the next millennia ... but instead spend our time, energy and intelligence arguing over fairy tales, magical beings and such similar nonsense ... we might one day find ourselves in a situation of too little, too late.

If this does happen, the loss of our happiness, the unnecessary suffering and even possibly our extinction could have been caused by those of us too stupid, weak and disingenuous to face the still manageable realities of our one and only planet as it hurls through space.

Kill 'em all and let God sort them out!

"Kill 'em all and let God sort them out!"

This expression, that marines from protestant countries' seem to be quite fond of, is rarely understood within the context of its actual origin. Often attributed, especially on the internet, to some non-existent “Amal Ulric” whose name appears to be a distorted reference to the Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amalric, the expression was inspired by the Bible's "The Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tim. ii. 19). It was uttered during the Albigensian Crusade of 1209, a crusade led by the French Knight Simon de Montfort and recorded in Latin by a German observer, Caesarius Von Heisterbach:

"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius".

About Von Heisterbach's original quote
About De Monfort
About the Albigensian Crusade

The Albigensian crusade, called by Pope Innocent III, was akin to the ones that had been going on against the Muslims. This time however, it was not meant to “liberate” towns and cities from Islam, but from a Christian heresy: That of the Cathari, a dualist Christian group who derived their name from the Greek 'Katharos', meaning 'pure'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar

In 1207 the pope asked Philippe II Auguste, the King of France, to go to war against any nobles who permitted the Cathari to openly practice their faith. The French King did not comply however, as he had to first deal with an alliance of the English, the Flemish and the Germans … who had all joined in an attack against him. It is only after 1214, after he defeated them that he turned his attention to the unfortunate Cathari.

In the meantime, Simon de Montfort with pious liberation in mind ... and thirty thousand French knights and soldiers ... went to Gothia at the foothills of the Pyrenees to “save souls". Tough he had previously distinguished himself by refusing to attack fellow Christians in Constantinople, here ... well ... the extermination that he engendered was apparently so terrible that it is sometimes referred to as the first case of "genocide":

On July 22, 1209, as they broke through to Beziers (where between 10 000 and 20 000 Catholics had all courageously refused to surrender the about 200 to 500 Catharis in their midsts), the Crusaders asked Arnaud Amalric how to differentiate between the heretics and the good Catholics located in the city. He is said to have replied:"Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaîtra les siens!"

“Kill them all. God will know his own!”

"Cognoscentes ex confessionibus illorum catholicos cum haereticis esse permixtos, dixerunt Abbati: Quid faciemus, domine? Non possumus discernere inter bonos et malos. Timens tam Abbas quam reliqui, ne tantum timore mortis se catholicos simularent, et post ipsorum abcessum iterum ad perfidiam redirent, fertur dixisse: Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." "When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot "Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics." The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied "Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His"

Such an act may have been somewhat natural in the Middle Ages, when Christians felt that life on earth was simply a preparation for the hereafter. If all were killed, the Catholics would ascend to Heaven and the heretics would go to Hell. In their minds, these knights were doing God's work.

But today? This could make sense ... but only if we were to fall back into medieval mentalities ... distinguished by the superstition, ignorance and violence that were characteristic during the dark ages. And sometimes it seems that religious fundamentalists in Muslim countries, in Israel and in the usA are doing a pretty good job doing just that. Way to go!

Anyway, the Cathari were the initial targets, but eventually the Waldensians, Fraticelli, Knights Templar, and (much later) Protestants all perished by this medieval mentality

And many of those who like to think that they are emulating the "Kill them all and let God sort it out!" ... might be surprised to know that, unless they are Catholic, they themselves would have promptly been put to the sword as despicable heretics by the French Crusader knights who originated the expression.

PS) In France the royal guard was instructed one day in 1572 to kill every group of Protestants that they found. The King, justifying it on reasons of national security, had 10 000 Protestants slaughtered in Paris alone. Many Catholics were only too happy to do away with them.

When news of this holocaust reached Pope Gregory XIII, his joy was so great that he had Giorgio Vasari paint pictures in the Vatican of "the glorious triumph over a perfidious race."

The anniversary of the event was celebrated in France as a great Christian victory against heresy for centuries thereafter.
On the Massacre

These celebrations would so disgust Voltaire that he would become physically ill.

Civilisation vs Barbarism (Huntington and Fukuyama)

In my view, both Huntington (and Fukuyama to whom he is often contrasted) use conceptual categories that will soon show to be of limited relevance in terms of this century’s central ideological conflicts.

Basically, what Huntington has done is to try and comprehend what consequences the reduction of meaningful diversity between nation-states (the political entities we are used to thinking about) will have. He proposes that since nation-states are becoming less conceptually important, future historical developments will occur along the lines of … “civilisations” … and more specifically a kind of tribal/cultural clash between what is often (erroneously) called “Western Civilisation” and … “the rest”.

He tells us:
“It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.”

He also tells us:
“The central axis of world politics in the future is likely to be, in Kishore Mahbubani's phrase, the conflict between "the West and the Rest" and the responses of non-Western civilizations to Western power and values. Those responses generally take one or a combination of three forms. At one extreme, non-Western states can, like Burma and North Korea, attempt to pursue a course of isolation, to insulate their societies from penetration or "corruption" by the West, and, in effect, to opt out of participation in the Western-dominated global community. The costs of this course, however, are high, and few states have pursued it exclusively. A second alternative, the equivalent of "band- wagoning" in international relations theory, is to attempt to join the West and accept its values and institutions. The third alternative is to attempt to "balance" the West by developing economic and military power and cooperating with other non-Western societies against the West, while preserving indigenous values and institutions; in short, to modernize but not to Westernize.”

And he concludes:
“Non-Western civilizations have attempted to become modern without becoming Western. To date only Japan has fully succeeded in this quest. Non-Western civilizations will continue to attempt to acquire the wealth, technology, skills, machines and weapons that are part of being modern. They will also attempt to reconcile this modernity with their traditional culture and values. Their economic and military strength relative to the West will increase. Hence the West will increasingly have to accommodate these non-Western modern civilizations whose power approaches that of the West but whose values and interests differ significantly from those of the West. This will require the West to maintain the economic and military power necessary to protect its interests in relation to these civilizations. It will also, however, require the West to develop a more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying other civilizations and the ways in which people in those civilizations see their interests. It will require an effort to identify elements of commonality between Western and other civilizations. For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the others.”

And that’s about it. That is the gist of his contribution. I find it obvious, simplistic and irrelevant to what is already starting to take place. Of course the nation state is conceptually less crucial today than in the early part of this century. And of course the concept of a civilisation has meaning. And of course various civilisations will “clash” to some degree. It’s all true … but it’s also trivially so because civilisations clash in a way that is only marginally different from clashing nation-states.

What Huntington is basically saying is this: It’s not about nations states … it’s about …”civilisations”! Did he come up with that all by himself? :) He simply uses larger groupings of people to grandiosely exclaim: “Clash of Civilisations”! And of course some people in the USA think that something interesting was said.

This would be fine I guess if there was something to it … but there isn’t. This is NOT what the conflict is about. Something much more interesting is going on. There is a clash of civilisation going on but it is the conflict between civilisation with a capital C and … what used to be called barbarism.

Let me explain: What Huntington means by “Western Civilisation” is more accurately described by the terms “European Civilisation”. And it travelled to America, Australia and many other places with European settlers. None of this matters of course and this civilisation was not much better than any other … BUT for just one little thing:

European civilisation at some point in history placed an unusual emphasis on … “reason”. Now, today this doesn’t seem like much but keep in mind that at the time everyone was up to their neck in magical explanations of the world. People everywhere were not as concerned about solving problems through observation and logic but about fixing their relationships with this or that deity … praying begging and all the rest … calling for supernatural interventions.

Contrasted to the authoritarian/tribal/superstitious/magical/religious perspectives that characterised the other civilisations … a consensus/scientific/rational perspective emerged in Europe. And THIS is what made the difference … a difference that led to conceptual, scientific and technological advances, to both the American and French revolutions and to the rest of the ideals that characterise us.

And this is where the clash occurs ... yet again. And this time, the USA chose the wrong path. It has been tempted and succumbed … abandoning its original enlightenment ideals. It manages to both go fundamentalist and to represent everything that is unholy in humans: Though they pay lip service to the original European ideals, one knows today that if something is good … the USA is actually against it … from the International Criminal Court, to the peaceful union of Europe, to International Law, to the environment, to Human Rights and even to arms control. Though they support a bizarre kind of “targeted arms control” (to soften up countries that they might want to invade) ... general arms control they actually hate … and they typically spend more on weaponry than anyone else … by very very far ... to inforce "disarmament" no doubt!

Invading disarmed countries, killing thousands upon thousands of civilians … “for their own good” … kidnapping people, incarcerating them without due process or any judicial protection and even torturing them seems to become more their kind of thing. They thus have become just another barbarian people. They are trying to establish a protection racket.

Not too long ago, the enlightened ideas that characterised Europe seemed to have spread planet-wise … with the USA as its most proud proponent … and now Europe has lost one of its few standard-bearers of civilisation.

And THIS is what it’s all about: The real coming conflict is between reason and all kinds of racist/religious/nationalist zealots. There is no “fundamental” (pardon the expression) difference between Islamic-fundamentalists, Judaic-Zionist-fundamentalists or Christian-fundamentalists.

And it’s absurd for anyone to claim that their own specific dogma is IT… that they know how God thinks ... and that he is “a jealous God” who is into punishing humans over which faith they were born into. But all of the fanatics will claim exactly that. THEY, and only they, are the way to salvation you see. And the creepiest part of it all is that we know, from historical experience, that if we actually give these kind of people any real power, they will do horrible things … dark-ages style!

Basically Huntington models his thinking (without crediting it) on that of the ancient Greeks. They recognised a long time ago the obvious differentiation of the conflicts between the Greek City-States and those between the whole Greek civilisation and the barbarians (non Greeks). And by simply reapplying these ancient conceptual categories to current events, this guy pretends he has done his job of thinking about what is occuring today.

Problem is … this is the wrong situation. What the current situation is like is rather that of the renaissance … in reverse. And the upcoming conflict will be between those who want to establish some computerised-neo-dark-ages and those who will work for an enlightened computerised-neo-renaissance. It’s ... again ... between reason and ... hum ... un-reason.

And if the divine exists, reason is the path to it … and it can be argued that that’s why the ability to reason exists. We can, other words, reason ... for a reason (so to speak). It’s about understanding why … “thou shall not kill” for example … without being threatened by the supernatural punishments of some deity.

Of course, reason means responsibility … and the fact that the organised decisions we make today absolutely determine ... FOR REAL … our future, the human race’s future, life’s future … THAT ... is too much to bear. The safety of dogma with a foretold and inevitable armagedon dispensing us of any responsibility about the next generations … well it seems so soothing. It's just like a drug.

And by the way, by “reason” I don’t just mean science/engineering (knowing how to do) but also and most importantly … ethics (choosing what to do). If, for example, some sick or ruthless or stupid scientist shows no better sense than to engage in altering animals into genetic freaks ... in order to increase stock prices for some corporation ...

...well …

... that is not “reasonable” … that is stupid and evil and bad and everything else you can throw at it.

But anyway … enough for now.

Cheers!

What are the Neocons about?

During the Usan attack on Iraq, some Bush supporters asked in a forum : "What does "Neocon foreign policy” mean?" They implied that there existed no such thing. I answered along the following lines:

"Well ... it's not that complicated:

Does "Neocon" mean anything to anyone? Yes? No? If not, this is it in a nutshell: "As a rule, the term refers more to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century etc". For a more thorough explanation you may to check out Wikipedia about it. It's presented quite well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

How about "foreign policy"? Does that mean something to you guys? In any case, that one is easy: "A foreign policy is a set of political goals that seeks to outline how a particular country will interact with the other countries of the world."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy

Still nothing? Still confused? Still wondering if there is such a thing as a Neocon foreign policy? Well ... see if the following helps. Below are the Neocon's basic statements of ... principles (so to speak:)) from their project for "a New American Century" aka the Neocon manifesto of 1997. These characterise Neocon foreign policy ... very precisely ... in their own words:

" • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

And THAT is basically it!

And now, here is my understanding of the above:

1: Neocons seek ... a "significant increase of defence spending" in order to carry out "global responsibilities"

I'm sure that these responsibilities must have to do with international law, human rights, the environment ... you know ... that kind of thing. Neocons are obviously seeking to become something between Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières and Greenpeace!But of course! What Neocons mean by their "responsibilities" is made quite clear by an apparent requirement to first engage in a ... "significant increase of defence spending"! Because, historically, every time somebody launched into militarism .... it was for humanitarian reasons! :)

2: They seek ... to "Challenge" regimes hostile to their "interests and values".

This basically means that these guys will try to use the above "significant increase of defense spending" to eventually attack countries where they don't like the governments. You see ... these governments might not share Neocon "interests and values" ... and even ... you know ... have their own interests and values. The nerve! "Invasion or regime replacement or whatever is in order! ... Hey, we've gone hypermilitary ... we've got more weaponry than everybody ... Who's going to stop us?"

And finally:

3: They seek to (this is an especially good one) ... "Accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles"

Translating: "We are sooo special! Other government may be suject to International Law, but we, on the other hand ... we have have a "unique role". Yep, that's the ticket!

And what is that "unique role"? Well ... "preserving and extending an international order friendly to their own security, their own prosperity, and their own principles.

Right, then! Quite unique. Governments rarely see themselves as having a special role to play in promoting their own security, their own prosperity, and their own principles? Nope! And so, the Neocons are quite justified by their ... "unique role" ... in disregarding any contraints on their activities.

Just keep in mind that Bin Laden is another one who thinks that he has a "unique role" to play in preserving and extending an international order friendly to his own security, his own prosperity, and his own principles!

And so ... I don't know how you guys see this but to me the above statements represent as clear an evidence of a plan to engage in criminal activity on a global scale as I have ever seen put down on paper. And this basically represents the principles of ... tadah ... "Neocon foreign policy"!

It's like something from a James Bond movie ... only that the nutcases trying to take over the world ... are on our side this time ... our allies !!!

Weird!

Now, I may make light of this whole matter … but this is real stuff … as in it is happening right now … and it is deadly serious. Many tens of thousands of people have already died as a result of this Neocon ideology (a majority of them Iraqi citizens). And I just think that you should be made aware of it. So later, you won’t be able to say:

“We didn’t know!”

Cheers!

The star-spangled banner

Myth vs Reality I recently read one of those “inspirational” nationalist anecdotes that make the rounds in the USA. And at the occasion of the Iraq war, this type of thing is typically combined with a vitriolic hate of France, anything vaguely French or, by now, even anything European. And as the insults fly against Europe ... we look with mild amusement at things like this:

Isaac Asimov speaking:

“I have a weakness--I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about our national anthem. The words are difficult and the tune is almost impossible, but frequently when I'm taking a shower I sing it with as much power and emotion as I can. It shakes me up every time.

I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing our national anthem--all four stanzas. This was greeted with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting.

"Thanks, Herb," I said.

"That's all right," he said. "It was at the request of the kitchen staff."

I explained the background of the anthem and then sang all four stanzas. Let me tell you, those people had never heard it before--or had never really listened. I got a standing ovation. But it was not me; it was the anthem.

More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the anthem and sang all four stanzas. Again there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. And again, it was the anthem and not me.

So now let me tell you how it came to be written.

In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain, primarily over freedom of the seas. We were in the right. For two years, we held off the British, even though we were still a rather weak country.

Great Britain was in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. In fact, just as the United States declared war, Napoleon marched off to invade Russia. If he won, as everyone expected, he would control Europe, and Great Britain would be isolated. It was no time for her to be involved in an American war.

At first, our seamen proved better than the British. After we won a battle on Lake Erie in 1813, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, sent the message "We have met the enemy and they are ours." However, the weight of the British navy beat down our ships eventually. New England, hard-hit by a tightening blockade, threatened secession.

Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and in 1814 was forced to abdicate. Great Britain now turned its attention to the United States, launching a three-pronged attack. The northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York and seize parts of New England. The southern prong was to go up the Mississippi, take New Orleans and paralyze the west. The central prong was to head for the mid-Atlantic states and then attack Baltimore, the greatest port south of New York. If Baltimore was taken, the nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast, could be split in two. The fate of the United States, then, rested to a large extent on the success or failure of the central prong.

The British reached the American coast, and on August 24, 1814, took Washington, D. C. Then they moved up the Chesapeake Bay toward Baltimore. On September 12, they arrived and found 1000 men in Fort McHenry, whose guns controlled the harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore, they would have to take the fort.

On one of the British ships was an aged physician, William Beanes, who had been arrested in Maryland and brought along as a prisoner. Francis Scott Key, a lawyer and friend of the physician, had come to the ship to negotiate his release. The British captain was willing, but the two Americans would have to wait. It was now the night of September 13, and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about to start.

As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes saw the American flag flying over Fort McHenry. Through the night, they heard bombs bursting and saw the red glare of rockets. They knew the fort was resisting and the American flag was still flying. But toward morning the bombardment ceased, and a dread silence fell. Either Fort McHenry had surrendered and the British flag flew above it, or the bombardment had failed and the American flag still flew.

As dawn began to brighten the eastern sky, Key and Beanes stared out at the fort, tyring to see which flag flew over it. He and the physician must have asked each other over and over, "Can you see the flag?"

After it was all finished, Key wrote a four stanza poem telling the events of the night. Called "The Defence of Fort M'Henry," it was published in newspapers and swept the nation. Someone noted that the words fit an old English tune called "To Anacreon in Heaven" --a difficult melody with an uncomfortably large vocal range. For obvious reasons, Key's work became known as "The Star Spangled Banner," and in 1931 Congress declared it the official anthem of the United States.

Now that you know the story, here are the words. Presumably, the old doctor is speaking. This is what he asks Key:

Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn's early light ...”

http://www.purewatergazette.net/asimov.htm


What a wonderful story!

Too bad it doesn’t quite give the flavour of the real story.

What actually actually happened is that, on a fine day in 1812, the USA tried to invade Canada!

Huh?

That's right!

US "War Hawks" wanted Canada added to the USA, imagined that they could easily invade, and tried to do just that.

The escuse for their disastrous attempt at invasion was that British ships had been stopping and searching American ships in order to recover the seamen who were deserting the British navy. They might press-gang the odd American while they were at it. And your typical US history book is thus chock-full of pompous declarations about ... "British violations of American neutral rights"! :) But "in truth (...) the core of the War Hawk agenda was expansion". It was that simple!
us-history.com

"As the record reveals, the Americans wanted more than just maritime rights. What they also wanted was the other half of the North American continent still in the hands of the King of England. In 1778, during the American Revolution, the Yankees had tried to seize Canada, and actually captured Montreal. The expedition however, under Generals Richard Montgomery and Benedict Arnold, perished in the sub-zero cold beneath the towering walls of the fortress at Quebec. In 1812, Americans were determined to make another attempt at eradicating the British presence in North America, and settle "the Indian question" once and for all. Such a campaign, promised Thomas Jefferson, would be a matter of mere marching. In Congress, the War Hawks took up this position and demanded the United States finalize the independence from Britain they had fought so hard to win".
The war of 1812

With the vast majority of British forces desperately fighting Napoleon Bonaparte in Europe ... the "War-Hawks" figured they would get away with this. Henry Clay was actually so confident of an easy victory that he said at some point: "I trust I shall not be presumptuous when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky alone are competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet."
War Hawks on Wikipedia

The reason for this "presumption" was simply this:

"From the Detroit River to Halifax there were spread along a thousand miles of border-line less than 5,000 British troops. The population of the whole vast region was only 300,000, men, women and children as against an American population of 8,000,000. The people of Upper Canada, where the bulk of the fighting was to take place, were only 77,000 in number. Eustis, the Secretary of War, declared that "we can take the Canadas without soldiers."
War of 1812 from Quebec-History

Hostilities began in good order. And was indeed with a carefully planned three-pronged offensive. But, though most in the usoA seem to be ignorant of this, it was the U.S. that tried to invade Canada. And it was certainly NOT, as Asimov tries to tell us, the other way around!!!

And so ... the invasion of Canada by the United States of America went ahead:
www.u-s-history.com

1:from Lake Champlain to Montreal;

2:across the Niagara frontier;

3: into Upper Canada from Detroit.

This is what then happened:

1: Along Lake Champlain the forces of the usoA were stopped and forced to retreat by an outnumbered Canadian force.
LacolleMills
Charles de Salaberry
Annals of Congress

2: On the Niagara front U.S. troops were stopped, retreated and lost Queenston Heights.
Queenston Heights

3: As for invading from Detroit ... well let’s just say that Detroit ended up surrendering!
Detroit

Needless to say that the US offensive failed to "place Montreal and Upper Canada at (their) feet". Their attack was so thoroughly beaten that U.S. troops kept falling back ... further and further away from anywhere near Canada. By August of 1814, the US capital city itself, Washington D.C., fell to Canadian forces. Washington D.C was occupied, sacked and most government buildings, including the white house, were burned to the ground. The U.S. president (Madison) had to flee. He hid in Virginia!

All that Canada needed to do is to repel the invasion. The counter-offensive into US territory had to finally stop at some point. And when it did ... in Baltimore ... they just couldn't contain their excitement in the usoA . They just had to burst into song! :)

Oooh say can you seeee ... !

Now, I doubt that the real story of the star-spangled banner would get many standing ovations in the usofA!

Incidentally, another interesting titbit is that "The star-spangled banner" music was "borrowed" from a hymn called "The Anacreontic Song", the real lyrics to which are as follows:

"To Anacreon in Heav'n, where he sat in full glee,
A few Sons of Harmony sent a petition;
That he their Inspirer and Patron wou'd be;
When this answer arrived from the Jolly Old Grecian;
"Voice, Fiddle, and Flute,
No longer be mute,
I'll lend you my name and inspire you to boot,
And besides I'll instruct you like me, to intwine,
The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine."


The news through Olympus immediately flew;
When Old Thunder pretended to give himself airs.
If these Mortals are suffered their scheme to pursue,
The Devil, a Goddess, will stay above stairs.
"Hark", Already they cry,
"In transports of joy,
Away to the Sons of Anacreon we'll fly.
And besides I'll instruct you like me, to intwine,
The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine."


The Yellow-Haired God and his nine lusty Maids,
From Helion's banks will incontinent flee,
Idalia will boast but of tenantless Shades,
And the bi-forked hill a mere desert will be.
My Thunder no fear on't,
Shall soon do it's errand,
And damme I'll swing the Ringleaders I warrant,
I'll trim the young dogs, for thus daring to twine,
The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine."


Apollo rose up and said, "Pry'thee ne'er quarrel,
Good sing of the Gods with my Vot'ries below:
Your Thunder is useless"--then showing his laurel,
Cry'd "Sic evitable fulmen' you know!
Then over each head
My laurels I'll spread
So my sons from your Crackers no mischief shall dread,
While snug in their clubroom, they jovially twine,
The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine."


Next Momus got up with his risible Phiz
And swore with Apollo he'd cheerfully join-
"The full tide of Harmony still shall be his,
But the Song, and the Catch, and the Laugh, shall be mine.
Then Jove be not jealous
Of these honest fellows,"
Cry'd Jove, "We relent since the truth you now tell us;
And swear by Old Styx, that they long shall intwine,
The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine."


Ye Sons of Anacreon then join hand in hand;
Preserve Unanimity, Friendship, and Love!
'Tis yours to support what's so happily plann'd;
You've the sanction of Gods, and the Fiat of Jove.
While thus we agree,
Our toast let it be:
"May our Club flourish Happy, United, and Free!
And long may the Sons of Anacreon intwine,
The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine."
http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anacreon.html>



PS)
After conquering Moscow … Napoleon suffered great loses … to the Russian winter. Moscow was a hollow victory for the French forces. When at “The Battle of Nations” in Leipzig, soldiers from Russia, Prussia, Austria and Sweden, with financial backing from the British, went against French troops, the latter could not longer prevail. In the past, Napoleonic France had many victories against similar odds but after the invasion of Russia, they could not hold against a well-equipped alliance of four hostile powers. A third of Napoleon's men died fighting.

Attack on Iraq debates: France

I happened upon one of my bookmarks of a fascinating 2003 debate on the Ryze's "500 Citizens of the World" Forum:

On the subject of whether attacking Iraq was justified, some person living the USA had writen:
"With friends like the French, who needs enemies?"

A Italian man (Fabrizio Lanata) responded:
"yes, they should have thought twice before making you a gift of your independence from the uk..."

Some woman( Lorian Weston)  from the USA then wrote:
"A gift??"

I responded:
"I think that what Fabrizio is referring to ... is this:
The campaign and the victory [Yorktown] that led to the creation of a country called the United States of America was accomplished by the following:

Troops outside New York City under George Washington … and … an army in Virginia under the French General Marquis de Lafayette … French forces in Rhode Island under the French General Comte de Rochambeau … a French fleet at Newport under the French Comte de Barras … and a French fleet in the West Indies under the French Comte de Grasse.

George Woodbridge summed up that victory thus:
" The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau’s victory. " And, by the way, the British actually surrendered to the French. But Rochambeau … refused the sword presented to him and directed that it be given to General Washington.

Freedom means liberty and your statue of liberty is also French ... you could rename it the Statue of France ... no meaning would be lost ... for in the US ... freedom and France must necessarily mean the same thing. Calling "French fries" ... “Freedom fries” was absolutely correct.

So, as you enjoy your freedom fries ... compare the venom aimed at France ... coming from the country that France helped create ... to the following passage"

“Nothing better puts in its true light the dominant characteristic of the French sentiment throughout the war than what happened on this solemn occasion (the surrender of the British), and more shows how, with their new-born enthusiasm for philanthropy and liberty, the French were pro-Americans much more than anti-English. No trace of a triumphant attitude toward a vanquished enemy appeared in anything they did or said. Even in the surrendering, the fact remained apparent that this was not a war of hatred. (…) Cornwallis realized quite well that the French had fought for a cause dear to their hearts more than from any desire to humble him or his nation. He publicly rendered full justice to the enemy, acknowledging that the fairest treatment had been awarded him by them. In the final report in which he gives his own account of the catastrophe,’ and which he caused to be printed when he reached England, he said: “The kindness and attention that has been shown us by the French officers … their delicate sensibility of our situation, their generous and pressing offers of money, both public and private, to any amount, has really gone beyond what I can possibly describe …”
http://www.bartleby.com/238/107.html

Some guy (Neil Basso) from the USA then wrote:
 "Yes while most of this may be true...And since this is a "well look what the french did for you" This cannot be used as a summery of the Revolution. In my opinion I think the French motives were more at getting to the brits than helping Americans.

We, at least I do, know that the French helped us, and I am grateful...I still don't see how this relates to now, even if the French did not want to help us in Iraq, that is fine, it is their perogative.

The war has not played out to be 100% convincing, maybe time will tell...Afghanistan on the other hand, thats was a no brainer."

I responded:
"Neil, you wrote:
“In my opinion I think the French motives were more at getting to the brits than helping Americans.”

I realise that this is how it has often been presented … for whatever reason … but that is clearly a total reversal of how the people involved felt. And this is exactly why in my previous post, I though it important to bring these:

About General Lord Cornwallis, commander of the British forces:
“Cornwallis realized quite well that the French had fought for a cause dear to their hearts more than from any desire to humble him or his nation. He publicly rendered full justice to the enemy, acknowledging that the fairest treatment had been awarded him by them.”

And this part … the general’s own words:
“The kindness and attention that has been shown us by the French officers … their delicate sensibility of our situation, their generous and pressing offers of money, both public and private, to any amount, has really gone beyond what I can possibly describe …”

And, now, this part: 
“Rochambeau, learning that he (Cornwallis) was without money, lent him all he wanted. He invited him to dine with him and his officers on the 2d of November. ‘Lord Cornwallis,’ writes (Baron von) Closen, ‘especially distinguished himself by his reflective turn of mind, his noble and gentle manners. He spoke freely of his campaigns in the Carolinas, and, though he had won several victories, he acknowledged, nevertheless, that they were the cause of the present misfortunes. All, with the exception of Tarleton, spoke French, O’Hara in particular to perfection, but he seemed to us something of a brag.’ A friendly correspondence began between the English general and some of the French officers, Viscount de Noailles, the one who had walked all the way, lending him, the week after the capitulation, his copy of the beforementioned famous work of Count de Guibert on Tactics, which was at that time the talk of Europe, and of which Napoleon said later that ‘it was such as to form great men’ …”

To me the above indicates that the promoted impression that “the French motives were more at getting to the brits than helping Americans” is anything but correct. To me, none of what happened seems especially vindictive toward the British. It, instead, shows an uncommon kinship in the French stance towards the Britons: “No trace of a triumphant attitude toward a vanquished enemy appeared in anything they did or said. Even in the surrendering, the fact remained apparent that this was not a war of hatred.”

In any case, Neil, you also wrote:
“I still don't see how this relates to now, even if the French did not want to help us in Iraq, that is fine, it is their prerogative.”

This does relate … but not in a “Remember how the United States of America were created … how dare you disagree with France!” kind of way. This is, instead, simply to respond to the type of thing that the neo-cons did by saying “Just remember what the US did for France in WW2 …how dares France not go along with Bush!”

As they were preparing the public for the armed invasion and occupation of a semi-destroyed country by a very powerful one, neo-cons had some quick patching up to do about real, valid and serious questions coming from the government of France (among other places). They thus chose the true-and-tried method of … “character assassination”, launching an unprecedented campaign against France … calling for boycotts, renaming food (!), distorting historical facts (trying, even, to turn history completely on its head) … and generally looking for any way to discredit that source of objections.

And many people in the US started helping these guys by trying to come up with any anti-French stuff possible. On this very forum, whatshisname still tries to discredit France. He is using that an Iraqi rebel strike was witnessed by journalists, who happened to be French, and somehow concludes that … “With friends like the French who needs enemies?” Is it just me or is this truly ... as idiotic as it can get!

And all of that simply because, in France, Bush’s claims about Iraqi WMDs were understood to be bullshit well before it became obvious everywhere else. At the time, Bush’s spin-doctors had to somehow explain why in France they would not believe their claims … that the United Nations inspections were not working …that Iraq was actually teeming with WMDs … that the clear danger that those weapons presented required an armed invasion without actual provocation! (This was before the rest of the world figured out that these guys were simply lying).

Neo-cons even tried to cultivate the impression these objections arose because France was devoid of any martial courage. There is something to reproach in French history, but it is the tendency to try and resolve differences through war ... not the opposite! Thankfully, even a basic knowledge of history could show that the neo-con spin was about as opposite to the truth as one can get. This sobering realisation then turned right back on them and they lost even more credibility.

They were, after all, not talking about a country fairly safe on some island somewhere … but about a country standing right in the middle of probably the most violent place on earth (Europe where, historically, we have this nasty habit of fighting each other all the time) … smack in the middle of all the action … fighting war after war against and enemy after enemy … since before the Franks were called Franks (frankly!) … to become one of the largest countries in Europe … This was the country not just of Rochambeau … but of the "Warrior Knights", of William the Conqueror, of Napoleon and of scenes which have become legendary in military history:

"Messieurs les Anglais, tirez les premiers!" (Gentlemen Englishmen, shoot first!) That phrase of the Battle of Fontenoy (11th May 1745) bespeaks the chivalry with which foemen worthy of each other's steel treated one another … And though this “geste” was expensive (nineteen officers and many men of the French Guards are said to have fallen at that first discharge, Fontenoy was nonetheless a French victory against combined forces of British, Dutch and Germans.

Anyway, a typical anti-French assault seemed to be based on WW2. In pre-war France, though German power was recognised, Hitler and his generals’ aptitude was not. Major mistake! And the French are the first to recognise that mistake … for France paid dearly for it. But it was, thus, as easy as it was disgraceful for Bushist neo-cons to spin this for their purposes. You see, in France those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the common struggle against the Nazis are honoured … be they from France, the United States, Russia, England or elsewhere. And one could not respond in kind to neo-con insults for this would mean disrespecting those brave men.

Thankfully, some of the Americans who actually participated in WW2 … were bothered by what was being said about France and rose to defend it: Men like John Warner, of the 90th Infantry division (of the June 1944 D-Day invasion of Normandy) who wrote:
“It bothers me today when I hear people say the French are cowards. I know firsthand they are not":

"… We equipped a few French outfits, one was the French 2nd Armoured Division. The Division spearheaded for us in a number of battles. That means they took the brunt of the punishment from the Germans. I'll tell you this -- they were soldiers ... They were men and they fought like men ...

The average French soldier didn't like to take orders too well. They’d do their job and do it well, as long as no one tried to push them. But they liked to party. More than once, they liberate a village, and we'd roll in several hours later and find them drinking wine and dancing with the women, celebrating their victory. They'd just get drunk and didn't care. But the next day, they’d be ready to fight.”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_127695.html

So much damage was done by Bush and his attempts to bullshit his way through this Iraq thing, that thought the French cannot quite lose esteem for the US ... one can imagine that Bush will forever be referred to in French history books as that country's "la president a-hole". :-)

Finally, Neil, you wrote:
“The (Iraq) war has not played out to be 100% convincing, maybe time will tell.”

Here I am at a lost for words! :-) This recognition, as reticent as it may be, is basically what I have been looking for in all my lengthy arguments. And the reason I don’t know what to say is that I had made up my mind that you, Neil, of all people, were the among the most extreme fanatics of this invasion.

It just goes to show you … :-)

Anyway, as you say Neil: “Time will tell!”

Time did tell!