Joe Hack

After the longest farewell in the history of politics, Tony Blair has finally resigned as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It was a leaving characterized by the same spin and cheesey schmaltz that has flawed British politics for the last ten years. Instead of diving straight into the trough of the lucrative American lecture circuit though, his Tony’ness is now apparently off to bring peace to the middle east ! Yes, you heard me right !The group of four (America, Russia, the EUU and the UN) charged with promoting a middle east peace settlement have appointed him as their special envoy to do just that. If you didn’t laugh you’d have to cry. It is, of course, purely and simply a Bush appointment.  He’s throwing Tony a bone for his poodle-like subservience over Iraq and at the same time placing a tame mouthpiece in the middle-east to push a pro-US agenda. Yet another cynical move that thinks its pretty clever but is, in fact, dumb as a bucket of spanners.

The Israel/ Palestine conflict is a running sore that infects not just the middle-east but the rest of the world. A just, equitable solution is desperately needed. No-one could argue with that. So what are Blair’s credentials for this utterly crucial job ? Well lets think. Together with Bush he invaded Iraq on the basis of either outright lies or ‘flawed evidence’  (depending on how charitable you wish to be). That catastrophic mistake has led directly to the deaths of an estimated 600,000 people so far and turned a further 4 million into refugees.  The invasion and continuing occupation has de-stabilised the whole region,  pushed Iraq towards civil war, created a new breeding ground for extremist terrorism, and unarguably made the whole world a much more dangerous place.

More recently, when Israeli war-planes and tanks were waging war on Lebanon and the whole world was demanding a ceasefire, Blair joined with Bush and the Israeli PM as the only three world leaders blocking any such move, thereby allowing the unneccessary killing of civilians to continue. Impressive credentials as a supposedly unbiased ‘peace-broker’, eh ? And those are just a few of the highlights of Mr Blairs involvement in the middle east, where he is probably the second most hated western leader (after Mr Bush of course) and is generally regarded as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the USA and Israel. So in what crazy alternate universe was Mr Blair seen as the ideal man to broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine ? There are any number of distinguished politicians who could have done this vital job and God knows someone certainly needs to do it, and quick.  In reality it would be difficult to find anyone who is a *worse* candidate for the job than Mr Tony Blair. He has no credibility in the middle-east whatsoever and is regarded with deep suspicion. Which kind of makes you question Mr Bushs seriousness about the whole process, or his understanding of the situation, or possibly both. But whats new ?

 Is it just me, or is the world getting crazier by the day ? You really and truly couldn’t make stuff like this up, could you ?

Joe HackTags:agenda American Blair British Bush catastrophic mistake civil war cynical flawed evidence Iraq Israel Israeli Joe Hack killing of civilians Lebanon middle east no credibility Palestine peace Political Rants politics Prime Minister refugees special envoy terrorism Tony Blair United Kingdom USAagenda, American, Blair, British, Bush, catastrophic mistake, civil war, cynical, flawed evidence, Iraq, Israel, Israeli, Joe Hack, killing of civilians, Lebanon, middle east, no credibility, Palestine, peace, Political Rants, politics, Prime Minister, refugees, special envoy, terrorism, Tony Blair, United Kingdom, USA

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

“But hell,  its not real” ! At least thats what someone once said to me about the relationships people have online. Which made me stop and think about the nature of reality in relation to this strange developing cyber culture (don’t worry … thinking comes hard and 5 minutes later I was back staring at the wall and drooling mindlessly again). But anyway .. back to to the elusive nature of ‘reality’. In the last decade, and at an increasing pace, people all around the world have formed friendships and fallen in love ‘online’. Sometimes it leads to a physical relationship but often it simply exists in its own right. So is a relationship, be it friendly, romantic or whatever else, only ‘real’ if you can see, smell and physically touch the other person ?

Well … not necessarily. In the non cyber-world what you see isn’t always what you get and many so-called ‘real’ relationships are firmly rooted in delusion and fantasy. They can involve lies, deception, masks and misdirection. Being able to smell someones perfume is absolutely no guarantee that you’ll have a clue whats in their head or what kind of person they really are. In fact most people have at least some experience that reinforces the notion that ‘reality’ isn’t always very real. On the other hand, what about the idea that all exclusively ‘cyber’ relationships are in some way trivial, transient, and instantly disposable ? That they can only ever be a poor, pallid ghost of ‘reality’. Well again, I’ve known people who have physically lived together for years and never known each other at any meaningful level and I have also known others who, separated by circumstance or geography, have spent huge amounts of time together, sometimes over years, learning to know and care for each other at a very deep level without ever having been in the same room together. So I’m not dogmatic. Its the people, not the nature of the relationship, that create success or failure.

In the so-called ‘real’ world, decisions as to who you will or wont bother trying to get to know are very frequently made in seconds, purely on the basis of how the other person looks. Thats a fact, sad but true. Online it can work the other way around, in that you’re often interested by a persons conversation, humour or mind before you even know what they look like. I heard someone once describe a successful cyber relationship as ‘falling in love from the inside out’. As well as being quite a charming phrase, that seemed to me to be describing a different kind of reality. Think about it. If you can make someone smile ‘online’ … if you can make them cry … if you can make them seeth with anger or feel desire, are those not all completely ‘real’ physical responses ? So I would have difficulty in arguing that a cyber relationship somehow can’t be ‘real’. It certainly may not be exactly what you want or it may lack elements that are necessary for you, and thats fine, but its kind of narrow-minded to therefore reject its ‘reality’ in a blanket way.

Having said that, of course a cyber relationship can be just as trivial, deceptive, or unsatisfactory as any in ‘real life’. You can think you know someone well as an online friend, but then suddenly find that they’ve vanished in a puff of cyber-smoke without any explanation, making you realise with surprise that you never really knew them at all. I guess its hardly a blinding insight to observe that weird people are just as weird online as they are everywhere else. How could it be any different ? The basic misconception though is to talk, as some do, about ‘real-life’ relationships and ‘cyber’ relationships as though they were fundamentally different things. Its an artificial distinction. There are just relationships, each one unique in its own right.

And reality ? Well .. it’d take a better man than me to define reality. I try to be open and avoid being too dogmatic. Its not easy. Sometimes its incredibly hard. But I do know that there are all kinds of realities and if you’re wise ( and brave) you won’t close any doors.Tags:cyber culture cyber relationship desire falling in love fantasy real life reality relationship relationships Zeitgeist Zoocyber culture, cyber relationship, desire, falling in love, fantasy, real life, reality, relationship, relationships, Zeitgeist Zoo

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!