Greedy Dublin

Yesterday I spent all day in our capital city Dublin. I had an important project meeting, which went very well, and then to select and book a hotel for another client.

There has never been a shortage of hotels in Dublin, and in recent years - as a result and by-product of our "Celtic Tiger" economic boom - many new ones have been built. So there is now rather a surplus of hotel rooms in Ireland's capital and one would assume that this might lead to more competition and fair pricing. But, as I had to learn yesterday, this is not the case.

Since I have not been in need of a hotel room in Dublin for many years, I decided to visit a number of recommended hotels, check out availability and prices, and have a personal look at the rooms on offer before I make the booking.

As I had expected, there was no shortage of rooms. But the prices most hotels were asking for surprised me greatly. If one needs a decent and modestly comfortable room with the usual facilities - such as a proper bathroom, writing table and internet access - one can no longer find it in Dublin for a decent price. The "Celtic Tiger" has obviously eaten up all common sense and decency of Dublin hoteliers, who have collectively joined the league of greedy b......s.

The only hotels that still offer relatively reasonable prices are those on the outskirts of Dublin, huge multi-storey concrete blocks far away from the city centre and all its attractions, and often wedged in by industrial estates, motorways and large building sites.
In the inner city the prices for rooms have risen well above the European average, and even in some cases above the level of London and New York. I was really and truly surprised, especially since the quality of most rooms I saw did in no way match the asked prices.
In all I visited a dozen hotels, and in most of them I found relatively small second (and even third) rate rooms with no great comfort, and often only a shower instead of a proper bath. But the prices were nevertheless first rate!

But what annoyed me most of all is the practice of Dublin hotels to charge massively more for a room on Fridays and Saturdays. It is not unusual that room prices are higher for a weekend booking, but in all hotels I have stayed so far - in many different cities and countries - booking a whole week gives one a general price for the seven days. Not so in Dublin, where visitors are charged extra weekend prices, even if they are staying in the hotel for a much longer time. The difference between the regular price for a room and the price charged for Friday and Saturday ranges between 20% and more than 100% extra!
As I said, I would not be surprised to encounter higher rates when booking only for a weekend, since there are often large sporting events that bring more people into Dublin. The city is also popular with young British visitors for extended drinking sessions, apparently more attractive to them than the pubs and clubs they can find at home. And they also come only for a weekend.
But when one books a hotel room for a week or even longer, it is usual to be given a fair price that does not change on certain days, only because some other visitors might come to watch a Rugby match or get senselessly drunk.

But the hotels of Dublin are obviously on a greed trip, out to milk visitors as much as possible, and with no thoughts or regards to image and reputation. "Grab as many Euros as you can get from each customer" has replaced "Cead Mile Failte" (A hundred thousand welcomes, the old Irish phrase used by the Irish Tourist Board) as the motto for the Irish capital.
This scandalous display of greed might bring in a few extra millions for a while, but on the long run it can and surely will deplete the influx of visitors, especially as there are now many more options for interesting weekend breaks all over Europe (and to many cities that have a lot more culture and attractions to offer than Dublin, and for much lower prices).

Another observation I made during my reconnaissance of Dublin hotels is the lack of Irish staff. Of the 12 hotels I visited yesterday, only one had an Irish receptionist on duty. Almost all staff I encountered was foreign, with a high proportion of Polish women in reception and Pakistani men in the role of hotel porters. The waiter who served me dinner was Russian, and several of the hotel managers I spoke with came from South Africa. Where are all the Irish gone? I really like to know, since we are no longer a country of emigrants.

Eventually, after hours of searching and arguing, I found a hotel that could offer my client a fair deal. The price for the room is still higher than it should be, but of all the available options it is the most attractive, with the largest and best-furnished rooms, and additional facilities not offered by anyone else. So my search was in the end successful for my client, and his visit to Dublin will - hopefully - be pleasant and successful as well. But I left the city with a generally bad feeling and will in future be very hesitant to recommend to anyone a stay in Dublin, if it can be avoided.
After all, there are many more Irish cities with plenty of hotels and other accommodation. And they, as far as I am aware, have not (yet) joined the Dublin gravy train of greed.

Glad to back at home again, I remain for now

The Emerald Islander

Back to Comm School . . .

Even though I regard myself as a modest man, I do take some pride in my work and skills. This goes for my now civilian life as well as my past service in the Navy, where I was a signals and communications officer (until promotion elevated me to command duties). So when it comes to any matter of communication I know a thing or two.

Listening to the BBC World Service, I just learned of a new development in the case of the recent naval encounter between ships of the US Navy and Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz. (For details see my entry of January 7th)

Having first been interpreted and reported by the Americans as a hostile approach by Iranian speedboats (most likely manned by naval elements of the Revolutionary Guard), sending some crude and threatening messages over ship-to-ship radio to the US squadron, comprised of the AEGIS cruiser USS Port Royal (CG-73, first picture), the destroyer USS Hopper (DDG-70, second picture) and frigate USS Ingraham (FFG-61, third picture), it appears now that this was not the case after all.


A thorough investigation of the incident has - according to the BBC and the American service newspaper Navy Times - revealed that the Iranian interpretation of "a normal encounter at sea" is much more likely than the alarming original report from the US 5th Fleet and various members of the US government, including George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Analysis of the recorded messages revealed that they were most likely sent by "a well-known practical joker and prankster" and did in no way originate from any of the Iranian vessels. This would support the official Iranian statement that denied any hostile acts or intentions.

During a press briefing at the headquarters of the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain on Sunday the commanding officers of two of the ships involved explained in detail what happened to them while on patrol on January 6th. Captain David Adler (of USS Port Royal, right) and Commander Jeffery James (of USS Hopper, left) confirmed the approach of Iranian speedboats, which came at times as close as 100 yards to the American ships. They said that they followed pre-planned procedures for such an encounter and sent warnings across on ship-to-ship radio. However, the naval officers refused to tell how close they had actually come to open fire upon the Iranian boats.

I am struck by the carefree willingness of the US government to escalate and exploit this rather minor incident (and one cannot but ask what the real reason for that was), and by the obvious incompetence or lack of experience of the US ships' radio officers and their ratings. Had I been radio officer in one of the US vessels, I am sure I would have been able to distinguish between a practical joker, sending in English, and genuine radio signals from the Iranians.
If highly trained personnel, operating the most sophisticated communication equipment that is currently available, fail on such a task, it would be advisable to send them back to the Naval Communications (in short: Comm) School for a refresher course.

On a general note I very much doubt that the five tiny Iranian speedboats (like the one pictured here to the right) did at any time and under any circumstances pose a real threat to the vastly superior modern US warships and their sophisticated weapons and electronic warfare equipment.
During the "Cold War" our ships and equipment were a lot less powerful, but the personnel was obviously better trained and motivated. Illegal wars, it appears, are not even popular with the victorious troops who are sent to fight them.

The Emerald Islander

It needs one to know one

George W. Bush decided to begin the last of his eight years in the White House with a lengthy tour through the Middle East, which included his first ever visit to Israel. For a politician who has been a staunch supporter of Israel for many years and has meddled in the region more than any other US leader in recent times, it is somewhat surprising that he has left it so late. But, as they say, better late than never.

After leaving Israel, without offering a solution for the Palestinian problem or anything else, Bush moved to the Persian Gulf emirates, where he gave a major speech yesterday in Abu Dhabi. This speech, well written and addressed to all major nations in the region, covers a wide range of political aspects in a broad sweep.
However, the most significant part is the passage in which he accuses Iran to be "the world's leading state sponsor of terror". It appears that by doing so Mr. Bush overlooks conveniently one other contender for this accolade: his own country.

Reading and analysing Bush's words one cannot help but seeing a lot more parallels between his accusation of Iran and the current situation at home in the USA. Let me give you just a few examples (and if you want to read the whole speech, you can find it on the website of the White House or access it through BBC online news).

"Iran is today the world's leading state sponsor of terror," Bush said. "It sends hundreds of millions of dollars to extremists around the world - while its own people face repression and economic hardship at home."
This is a heavy accusation, but we have only Mr. Bush's word for it. There is no positive proof, no shred of evidence.
We all still remember vividly the presentation the then Secretary of State Colin Powell gave to the UN about the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Iraq was accused to have. Powell even had a whole set of photos, drawings and diagrams in support of his arguments. But, as we now know, the whole thing was a tissue of lies, supported by fake and deliberately fabricated material.

What we do know is that the USA spends billions of dollars each year in support of oppressive and undemocratic states (such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt etc.), plus hundreds of millions on covert operations, conducted mostly by armed groups seen by many as forces of terror. Not even to mention the billions wasted on the illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan...
And when it comes to the matter of repression and economic hardship at home the finger Bush points at Iran is pointing right back at him and the USA. Perhaps there is still some more freedom and liberty in the United States than in today's Iran, but ever since the current administration passed the "Patriot Act", many of the liberties once taken for granted by Americans are suspended or gone. Especially those who don't agree with Bush and his cronies find themselves now in a very repressive country called USA.
And due to Bush's massive over-spending on military and intelligence matters the USA are in a serious economical crisis, with enormous debts, an ever falling dollar, rising inflation and great hardship for the majority of Americans who are not millionaires. Many of my American friends, all in meaningful employment and regarded as middle class people, tell me how difficult it is now even for them to make ends meet. The really poor Americans are meanwhile on the bread line and often even below it. (In New York alone more than 4 million people - equivalent to the total population of my country - now depend of regular food hand-outs...) Such is not the case in Iran.

"It seeks to intimidate its neighbors with ballistic missiles and bellicose rhetoric," Bush continued, talking about Iran. "And finally, it defies the United Nations and destabilizes the region..."
Well, well... I thought when I heard these words last night on the BBC World Service, isn't he really talking about himself and his country, rather than about Iran?
There is undoubtedly a lot wrong with Iran and its leadership, but not as much as with the USA since the Bush administration took over nearly seven years ago.

There is an old saying that "it needs one to know one", often used for people with special skills, like artists and writers, but also common for spies and many other kinds of individuals. Perhaps that also goes for political scoundrels and adventurers...

The Emerald Islander

Cities of Culture

This weekend the English port city of Liverpool held a series of spectacular celebrations to mark the official begin of its status as the European Capital of Culture for 2008. Predictably a lot of attention was paid to these show events by the British media, and equally predictably they featured prominently the two surviving members of the Beatles, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr.

Ever since their spectacular success as Britain's best-known and most influential music group in modern times, the Beatles - and everything even remotely connected with them - have been used and exploited by Liverpool's cultural bureaucrats to promote their grubby city and make it look more exciting and interesting than it actually is.

When I heard a few years ago that Liverpool had been chosen as European Capital of Culture for 2008, I was frankly quite surprised. It had been known that under the rotation system of the EU Britain was due for this annual honour in 2008, and then had to select the most suitable city from a number of candidates. In my opinion there are many more suitable cities, richer in culture, in the UK than Liverpool, which is better known for crime and deprivation. And - even though this goes a long time back - one should never forget that Liverpool was one of the main profiteers of the slave trade. Not an element I would regard as culture.

But, as with so many things in Britain, one should not expect too much, and certainly never the best and most logical solution. It just never happens in the UK.
By now it is of course too late and Liverpool will bathe itself in the glory and host a massive string of events, in total about 350 throughout the year. And I wish them good luck with them.
However, the question for me is what amount of culture and long-term input will remain in Liverpool when the year is over? On this line I am skeptic, knowing Liverpool and what is going on there below the great cultural canvas that covers the city for the moment.

Three years ago Ireland was due to provide the European Capital of Culture and the powers to be had chosen Cork, our second-largest city (after our capital Dublin had been chosen already in 1988, the year of the city's millennium celebrations).
As it happens, I was involved in the preparatory work for the events in Cork during 2002 and 2003, but not during the actual celebratory year 2005 itself (as I had another and even larger commitment for that year). There was a lot of planning done in advance, and Cork even used the opportunity to modernise its complete sewage system, although that did not directly fall into the category of culture. Much was done well, and the opening ceremony was quite breathtaking and impressive, especially for a small country like Ireland.
However, during the year 2005 itself the impact the status of European Capital of Culture had on Cork was a lot less than the city council had hoped for. Maybe the fact that the much smaller city of Waterford - 123 km east of Cork - hosted in the same year the start of the International Tall Ships' Race (and attracted more than 450,000 visitors in only four days) did not help Cork. But the main reason for the relatively limited interest was that there is just not enough natural and regular culture there, while many other attractions in the country were operating as normal and having many visitors, too.

The whole concept of the European Capital of Culture, as much as it was originally a good idea, is by now a bit dated and tends to get stale like old bread. After all the obvious choices for the honour have been selected already in previous years and hosted very successful and effective events, the award of the title is dropping down the list of available cities, reaching the second and third rate choices. Eventually the title will either have to be awarded to the major cities for a second time, or it will lose its value and should better be abolished altogether.

Strangely enough, quite the opposite is the case. Now the title of European Capital of Cultures is actually awarded not to one city per year, but to two: one in a member state of the EU, and the other outside the EU. This - frankly - makes no sense at all and devalues the status of the chosen cities even further.
Besides Liverpool the second European Capital of Culture for 2008 is the Norwegian port city of Stavanger. Outside Norway hardly anyone has taken notice of that, and the media in the English-speaking world only mention Liverpool. This is highly unfair to Stavanger, especially as the city has made a great effort and some of her 150 planned events are more original and more interesting than many of the shows lined up in Liverpool. But inflation means devaluation, and with simply too many specifically organised cultural events in one year everyone will in the end be disappointed. Like in every other way and walk of life, less could mean more in European culture.

The Emerald Islander

Crossing the Rubicon

As a historian with some interest in Astrology I have often wondered if certain days of the year are under a specific astral influence. It appears that over the centuries many days seem to attract or create certain kinds of events. There are days which subsume positive events, and others that did bring mostly negative influence. There are also days that changed the course of countries or even History itself.

January 12th is such a day, even though its significance is no longer general public knowledge and only remembered by students of ancient History. However, the event that took place on January 12th in the year we now number as 49 BCE, has created a phrase still widely used, even though its actual origin is rarely known to those who use it.
The phrase I refer to is "Crossing the Rubicon", which now means the making of an important or significant decision with consequences, a decision that cannot be undone again and will not be ignored.

It was coined by the Roman writer and historian Suetonius, who used it in the chapter about Caius Iulius Caesar in his famous work "The Lives of the Caesars". It refers to the begin of the Roman Civil War in 49 BCE, and specifically to the crossing of the Rubicon, a small river of only 29 km length in Northern Italy, by one of Caesar's legions, the Legio XIII Gemina.

The river itself was of no importance (and has by now almost completely disappeared, although parts of it can still be found today), except for the fact that it marked the official border between Italia - the central homeland of the Roman Empire, including Rome itself - and the Roman province of Gallia Cisalpina in Northern Italy (now better known as Lombardia).
Ever since the Romans drove out their king and established the Republic, they were extremely weary of potential internal conflict and created an elaborate legal system to prevent that. No legion was allowed to enter the vicinity of the city of Rome (which was exclusively garrisoned by the Praetorian Guard) and no military leader, no matter how successful, could bring his soldiers with him to Rome (with the exception of small contingents that were allowed to march in the hero's triumphal procession, but had to return to their camps outside the city before nightfall).
During the time of the First Triumvirate (59-52 BCE) between Caesar, Crassus and Pompey the ban of combat legions was extended to cover the whole of Italia.
When the Triumvirate ended - mostly because of discrepancies between Ceaser and Pompey - the Senate, dominated by more conservative elements, sided with Pompey and appointed him as the sole Consul in 52 BCE. Meanwhile Ceasar, whose great military success in Gaul had made him a hero and champion of the people, remained Governor of Gallia and Illyricum.
When his term of office ended in 50 BCE, the Senate, led by Pompey, ordered Caesar to return to Rome and disband his army. Moreover, the Senate forbade Caesar to stand for a second consulship in absentia. Caesar thought he might be prosecuted and politically marginalised if he entered Rome without the immunity enjoyed by a Consul or without the power of his army. Pompey then accused Caesar of insubordination and treason, and that led the powerful hero of Gaul to act preemptively.
By ordering his 13th Legion - the only one he had actually brought with him from Gaul - to cross the little river Rubicon, Caesar knowingly broke the law and thus de facto declared war on the Senate. The rest, as they say, is History. During the Civil War the long-established internal power structure of the Republic deteriorated, various political alliances were formed and broken, and at the end Ceasar was the undisputed ruler and dictator of the Empire. However, the conservative forces in the Senate never forgave him and subsequently murdered him on the steps of the Senate, only minutes before he would have been declared Imperator.

In modern times another "Rubicon", this time the border of technological possibilities, was crossed twice on January 12th: first in 1882 when Thomas Edison began to operate his central station in London, and the second time in 1908, when the first long-distance wireless message was sent from the Eiffel Tower in Paris.

In the USA the 12th of January has also a special Rubicon-like significance for women, especially those who campaign for equality and political participation.
While on January 12th, 1915 the US House of Representatives still rejected a proposal to give women the right to vote, it was on the very same day 17 years later that Hattie W. Caraway, a Democrat, became the first woman to be elected to the US Senate.
At first succeeding her husband, who had died while serving as Senator for Arkansas, Mrs. Caraway was then re-elected in 1938 and 1944 and stayed in the Senate for a total of 14 years.

More recently another "Rubicon" was crossed in 1991, when on January 12th the US Congress passed a resolution that authorised President George H. W. Bush to use military power to force Iraqi occupation troops out of Kuwait. The subsequently executed operation "Desert Storm" defeated the Iraqi army in a mere 100 hours and liberated Kuwait.
It did, however, also create the background and basic conditions for the illegal war against (and occupation of) Iraq that Bush's son George W. started in 2003. And like the crossing of the Rubicon by Legio XIII Gemina in 49 BCE de facto started the decline of the Roman Republic, the action against Iraq in 2003 is seen by many as the begin of the end of the USA as we knew her.

Wishing you a peaceful weekend, I remain for today

The Emerald Islander

Them and us

Another very cold day in Ireland led me to my local fuel merchant to order some more peat for the weekend. I still had some left in the house, but the current temperatures - combined with forecast of more cold weather - made me to stock up, just to be on the safe side. As my house is very old, it does not have the modern conveniences of proper insulation. So the only way to keep it warm is to have a fire burning in the fireplace all day. And that, of course, uses up my supplies of peat and fire wood. Yesterday I received a delivery of the latter, which is supplied to by a dear farmer from the county each week. So all I needed was more peat.
No problem with that, since it is - besides wood - Ireland's only naturally occurring type of fuel and still available in large quantities. But I was surprised to learn that the price for a bail of peat logs had gone up once again. This time last year I paid 3.20 Euros for a bail, in Autumn the price rose to 3.60, and now it has reached a full 4 Euros! Though I am not happy with it, I have no choice but to pay it, as the alternative would be sitting cold and unhappy in an unheated house.

The massive increase of fuel prices is only one element of a general trend here. Being already a quite expensive country for many years, with everything - from basic food to the cost of housing and transport - between 50% and 100% higher priced than on the European continent, it is not always easy to make ends meet in Ireland. But now we also have the highest rate of inflation in the EU and the cost of living is rising in all areas with amazing speed.
A pound of butter, until recently available in all major supermarkets for 1.42 Euros, is now 1.76, and the price for a particular type of simple tea cake has risen in one leap from 2.49 to 2.99. As many things get more expensive over time almost everywhere, an increase of prices is not such a great surprise in general. But what is shocking for many people in Ireland - myself included - is the frequency and in particular the rate of increase, which is often well above the inflation rate and thus drives it higher and higher all the time.

Sadly there is no equivalent increase in most people's income, so the costs for simply living and surviving becomes more and more problematic, especially for those in the lower income bracket. People working in the private sector, and especially the self-employed and owners of small and medium-size businesses, have not seen much increase of earnings in recent times, while costs of running a business have increased as well as the costs of living.

The only group of people in Ireland whose income has steadily (and often quite significantly) risen over the years and will continue to do so are our politicians, civil servants and employees of public bodies and institutions. They all benefit from a system known as Benchmarking, which gives them an automatic wage increase based on the national average. The system, probably not unique to Ireland, but also not very common elsewhere, was introduced as a result of a special good will agreement between the government and the public service unions, ending a long period of frequent and often devastating strikes that hampered Ireland's economy for decades.
I still remember with some horror a series of strike actions in the early 1990s, where within a few months the bank clerks went on strike twice and the post office employees once. For some weeks there was not only no mail, but it was almost impossible to conduct any normal financial transactions. It did a lot of damage to many businesses, and once again the smaller enterprises were suffering the most.

Such impediments have disappeared from Irish life since Benchmarking was introduced, and in general everyone was happy with it. But during the period commonly referred to as the "Celtic Tiger", which brought a massive and unexpected economic boom to Ireland for about ten years, the beneficiaries of Benchmarking received a massive increase of earnings that created - perhaps without intention - a new class system in Ireland. While everyone working in the many areas of the private sector had to negotiate increases of wages and benefits (either personally or through their trade unions), those included in the Benchmarking system received theirs without having even to ask for it.
Thus Ireland is now a country of them (who are benchmarked) and us (the majority of people).
The most scandalous part of it is a vastly unproportionate pay-increase for leading politicians, who basically award it to themselves (even though now there is officially a commission, set up by the government, that makes "suitable recommendations" for the increase in politicians' pay).

Based on this commission's report our Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern has just raised his own salary by a staggering 38,000 Euros per annum, which is more than most Irish people earn in a year. It makes Mr. Ahern the highest paid leader in the world, even though Ireland is a quite small and unsignificant country with a population of only four million. Cabinet ministers got an increase of 25,000 Euros (which is still more than the annual income of most workers) and in line with that lower ranking officials were also rewarded handsomely in proportion.

All this happens at a moment in time when it is obvious that the great economic boom is over. In a global situation of insecurity (mainly created by the USA, but effecting every country on the planet) and massively rising prices for oil, steel, minerals and even food Ireland is no longer as competitive as it once was. So the government is telling everyone to expect a slow-down or even recession, with necessary reductions of personal income and lifestyle. However, at the same time our leaders exclude themselves from such predicted hardship and make sure that they are safe, sound and extremely well remunerated (which also includes enormous provisions for the pension plans of politicians).
Meanwhile even the once so secure civil servants and public employees are beginning to feel a bit of a pinch, as the recently announced Benchmarking figures show little or no increase of pay for the majority of them. Only the top grades will still receive their by now usual top-ups.

The mood among many people in Ireland is therefore quite gloomy right now, and the very cold weather does not help either. But the question is if our people will eventually do anything about the unfair system of them and us. In most other countries I know there would already by some social action, with demonstrations and signals of unrest. But not so in Ireland. Irish people love to grumble and complain, but when it comes to action they remain lazy and complacent. This is the main reason for the scandalous way ordinary Irish people are treated by our government for years. Now, with the Green Party being in government as a junior coalition partner, we also see an increase in bureaucracy and restrictive regulations, pretending to improve the environment. In reality they change very little, except that they make our lives ever more complicated, regulated and expensive.

As long as Irish people cannot be bothered to stand up for their own interests, this unfortunate situation will continue, perhaps until we are once again a poor and neglected country from which all those with the interest of finding a good job have to emigrate (as it was the norm for more than two centuries). Even though all signs and signals are pointing already in this direction, I am somehow still in hope that one day a great awakening will come and our people will act to rectify the appalling conditions. What we need is one nation of Irish people, working together for the common good, instead of the unfair class system we inherited from the British and augmented with the greed of our politicians and civil servants. It need not to involve another Post Office, a simple series of public demonstrations against the government would be more than enough.

Widely disappointed and disillusioned, but still carrying a small ember of hope, I remain

The Emerald Islander

Women in Politics

Hillary Clinton stated today that her show of emotion was "a deciding factor in her sweeping to victory" in the New Hampshire Primary. She admitted in a TV interview that the rare show of her feelings, when tears welled in her eyes after being asked a personal question, helped sway many voters, especially women.
Basking in the glory of defeating Barack Obama and confounding predictions that her presidential campaign was over after her defeat in the Iowa caucuses, the former First Lady said she hoped her tearful moment proved her sincerity.

I do not share Mrs. Clinton's view. Being the cold, controlled and manipulating person she is - and has been for a long time - it is much more likely that her tearful moment in New Hampshire was as much a calculated performance (which seems to have achieved the desired result) as all her other speeches, actions and public appearances have been.

There is no doubt that politics does often create emotional moments, and it is also a fact that by nature women tend to be more emotional than men. But it is rarely seen that an otherwise cool and composed politician breaks out in tears during a public session. Had this politician been a man, it would have had a negative effect, as the public perception would have been of a moment of weakness and losing control over himself. Men are not supposed to do that, especially when in high public office or aspiring to such.
But when a female politician starts weeping in public, it seems to earn her some sympathy, most of all from other women, who assume that it must be horrible for a woman to be in politics and that all is much harder for a female candidate. There is no business like show business...

Personally I do not appreciate weeping politicians, regardless of their sex, party or position. To be a leader is a difficult job with huge responsibilities, and one looks for strength, character and exemplary behaviour in such a person, not for streams of tears. And if crying is really all a leader (or one aspiring to become one) has to offer to the public, it is clear that this person is certainly not suited for the position.

But Mrs. Clinton did not only disappoint me with her New Hampshire tears. What I find much more disturbing is her triumphalist behaviour after she narrowly won the state, only 2% ahead of Barack Obama. Had she won with a margin of 10% or more, I could tolerate the way she went over the top in her victory celebration.

Having studied Psychology and being an avid observer of public figures and their body language, I am frankly shocked by Hillary Clinton's hysteria after the first modest win she gained in a very small state at the beginning of the Primary season.
This photo of her was taken in New Hampshire and carried today by a number of newspapers, including the British "Daily Mail" where I saw it first. By itself it says a lot more than words can do. One does not need to be a psychologist to recognise the expression of the proverbial "mad woman in the attic"... (but no President would have such an expression)
If there is still some common sense and decency left in the American voters, then this picture of Hillary should be a warning and make sure that she is not elected President.

For the benefit of those who don't know me personally I should say that I have nothing against women, and that I hold them actually in high esteem. This even extends to women in politics, as in my opinion the input of both men and women is needed to cover all aspects of a nation and in this way create a fair and balanced system of government.

However, when one looks at the track records of women who were not only involved in politics, but rose to high public offices, the result is rather disappointing and somewhat discourageing.
Of the women who hold or held significant government positions in the USA in recent times the only one that stands out as a positive example is Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was US Ambassador to the United Nations from 1981 to 1985. Even though originally a Democrat and supporter of the campaigns of Humphrey and McGovern, she accepted when President Ronald Reagan offered her the job.
Even some Republicans admit that Condoleezza Rice is by far the worst Secretary of State the USA have had in modern times, and the least qualified and suited for the position.
The first woman in charge of the State Department, Madeleine Albright, was only marginally better and for most of her period in office more the "token woman" than a real maker of great policy and shaker of diplomatic matters. She was, however, a lot more energetic and determined than former US Attorney General Janet Reno.
The greatest blunder in recent US history is also down to a woman, as it was Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, the first female Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, who handed the unelected George W. Bush the keys to the White House by casting her vote in his favour and thus creating the 5:4 Supreme Court decision by which Bush was declared the 43rd President.

Outside the USA women have actually been active in politics a lot longer and often much more than in America. It would be too complex to name and review them all, but let me give you just a few significant examples:
- Sirimavo Bandaranaike, three times Prime Minister of Sri Lanka and the world's first ever female Prime Minister, was directly responsible for creating the deep political rift between the majority Singhalese and the minority Tamil communities in Sri Lanka, which lead in 1983 to the country's civil war (that still continues today, even though now on a lower level of violence).
- Indira Gandhi, four times Prime Minister of India, was the least fair and democratic of India's Prime Ministers, creating much division and unrest in the sub-continent, especially among the minority communities (which led eventually to her assassination by her own body guard).
- Golda Meir, Israel's first - and so far only - female Prime Minister is often portrayed as a dear elderly lady and a mother figure of the Jewish nation. The reality was quite different from that image. Golda Meir personally sanctioned numerous acts of aggression against individuals and countries, including the clandestine vendetta campaign against Palestinian intellectuals (several of which were murdered by Israeli agents in Europe) in 1972. But more significant is that she always put the interests of her Mapai (Labour) party ahead of national interests. This led to a series of bad mistakes, the most serious of which nearly lost Israel the Yom-Kippur-War of 1973 (and could well have meant the end of the State of Israel).
- Margaret Thatcher is probably the best-known female politician, and many still refer to her with some reverence as the "Iron Lady". There is no doubt that she was tough and determined, and certainly a woman of conviction and exceptional courage. But she was also an arch-capitalist and enemy of the common people, and during her time as British Prime Minister (1979-1990) she systematically destroyed the natural social and economical structure of Britain's society. In a cynical comment on her ideology she even coined the phrase: "There is no such thing as society." (The fall-out of her policies still hampers Britain today and fills her prisons with thousands of uneducated criminals, hopeless drug addicts and up-rooted drifters with no perspective...)

Only one of the world's current female leaders has so far made a very positive impact in her own country as well as in world politics. She is Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand since 1999 (and the second woman to hold this office).

The jury on Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor (Prime Minister) of Germany since November 2005, is still out. Although she has surprised some observers with a number of tough decisions, she lacks charisma, inspiration and other natural leadership qualities.

Sadly there are also outright failures among the world's female leaders, some of which are by now almost forgotten. They include the former Prime Ministers Edith Cresson (France), Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo (Portugal), Hanna Suchocka (Poland), Milka Planinc (Yugoslavia), Kazimiera Danute Prunskiene and Irena Degutiene (Lithuania), Tansu Ciller (Turkey), Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan), Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina Wazed (Bangla Desh), Beatriz Merino Lucero (Peru), Elisabeth Domitien (Central African Republic), Portia Simpson-Miller (Jamaica) and Claudette Werleigh (Haiti).
The wooden spoon for the worst performance of a female Prime Minister, however, must go to Kim Campbell, the first - and so far only - female leader of Canada. Having been previously the first female Minister for Defence, she succeeded Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister on June 25th, 1993. Feeling strong and confident, she soon called general elections for November 5th of the same year, during which her Conservative Party - in power since 1984 - was wiped out. All but two MPs lost their seats - including Ms. Campbell - and the Canadian Conservative Party disappeared into political oblivion.

Here in Ireland we have mixed experience with female politicians. In 1990 the independent human rights lawyer Mary Robinson, a clear outsider, was elected Ireland's first female President. During her seven years' tenure she changed the climate of domestic Irish politics forever, in fact so much that no political party even dared to nominate a man as her successor. She also had great influence internationally and became the United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights after stepping down as President in 1997.
Subsequently Mary McAleese was elected as her successor, and she is still President of Ireland (now in her second seven-year term, to which she was elected unopposed). It was the first time in history that an elected female head of state was succeeded by another woman.
On the other hand we also have the worst Minister for Health one could imagine. She is Mary Harney and was for a long time also (the first female) Tanaiste (Deputy Prime Minister), as well as Minister for Enterprise and Employment.

It is quite obvious that the sex of a person does not give any advantage or disadvantage for the holding of high political office. However, on an overall scale, the number of women who had a negative impact in politics clearly outnumbers those who made positive contributions. There are many reasons for that, but one is certainly that the structure of most political systems is more geared for male thinking and attitudes than for female intuition and emotions. It would be a mistake to see anything wrong in that, but equally there is no reason for standing still either.

Women can and do have important roles in all walks of life, and politics should be no exception. But the manipulative use of specifically female emotions for electoral purposes - as done by Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire - will neither earn respect, nor is it a guarantee of success (even if it has worked in New Hampshire). Only true skills, commitment and the ability to take responsibilities of the highest order make a real leader. I did have my reservations about Hillary Clinton before, but in New Hampshire she has demonstrated for me that she is not of the right mindset to lead a great nation, and in connection with it the Western world.

The Emerald Islander

Not much Hope for America

When I listened this morning to the reports coming from New Hampshire, I was quite astonished to hear what Hillary Clinton had to say. After winning this semi-open (which allows anyone to vote, not just registered party members) Primary of the Democrats by a narrow margin of two percent over her nearest party rival Barack Obama, she gave a speech that sounded as if she had just been elected President, or at least won the nomination of her party. What she did win in fact were nine delegates from New Hampshire to the national nomination convention, bound to vote for her. Not more and not less.

I cannot say that I was surprised, having observed her campaign (as well as all the others) now for quite some time. There is an air of superiority and arrogance in Mrs. Clinton's approach to politics, an attitude that implies she might be the only suitable person for the Presidency, simply because she has lived in the White House before. If that would be a fair criteria, thousands of US citizens would qualify, from presidential advisers to cooks, gardeners and chamber maids, many of which spent a lot longer in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than Mrs. Clinton.
If she were a Catholic or Christian Fundamentalist, she might as well claim a "God-given right" to follow in her husband's footsteps. The whole idea of people succeeding their fathers, husbands or other close relatives in high public office is not democratic at all. Hereditary succession, even though occasionally to be found in republics, is usually the practice in monarchies (and often with quite negative effects).

It is no secret that I am a Republican, in the general and especially Irish meaning of the word. If I were an American, I could not call myself that and would be most likely independent, with a slight leaning towards the Democrats. So when I look at the 13 remaining candidates for the US Presidency (six Democrats and seven Republicans), I think I can do this fair and unbiased and see every single one with the same critical scrutiny.
And what I see - on both sides - is not encouraging and does not offer much hope for the USA, her people and subsequently the whole world, which is much effected by anything that happens in the United States.

Having been in charge of the White House now for seven years, as well as in control of the House and Senate for six of them, the Republicans are in a right mess, entirely created by themselves and especially by George W. Bush and his inner circle of right-wing capitalists, war mongers and bible bashers.
The defence budget and the national debt are at a record high, as the administration spends money on their wars and other military projects as if there was no tomorrow. And for them - the Bush clan and its extremist supporters - there probably isn't. Even many Republicans are now very critical of the dangerous policies that have turned most of America's supporters (myself included) against the USA. In fact, there was no room for compromise, as Bush made it quite clear that one could only be "with us (his administration) or against us".
Given a choice that narrow, many chose to refuse the USA any further support and sympathy, especially when it became clear that under the Bush regime the one remaining super power on this planet would break every international law in the book, start illegal wars and invade and occupy far-away foreign countries that had never committed a single hostile act against the USA.
Even more disgusting and unacceptable is the creation of illegal detention centres and secret prisons abroad, where thousands of people were - and still are - held captive for years, without any charge, without any evidence against them, and without access to a lawyer! Alongside the administration sanctioned the use of torture on a massive scale, and - cowardly as Bush and his henchmen are - made sure that it was never done on official US territory, so they could pretend it did not happen at all. However, the facts are well known now and indisputable, and all this has backfired massively on Bush and destroyed the trust and confidence billions of people on the globe once had in the USA as a free and fair country.

With Bush having served two terms and Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney not standing for the Presidency (probably because he knows himself that he would have absolutely no chance of getting elected) the field is wide open. Looking at the candidates that seek the nomination of the Republican Party, one has to wonder how serious the Republicans are in their wish to carry on with the responsibility for their nation. Only one - Senator John McCain of Arizona - is a serious candidate with competence and ability, but he is also the oldest contender in the field. In case of him being elected, he would be the oldest ever man to become President, even beating the record so far held by Ronald Reagan.
This might not be negative at all, as it will need an experienced leader to sort out the mess Bush created and win back trust from the American people as well as countries and people abroad.
All things being equal, for me McCain is certainly the one person most qualified to be President, out of the 13 candidates still running on both sides.
However, being a Republican he would not only inherit Bush's mess, but also be forced to treat matters more lenient and even defend many of the failures the current administration made in every possible field of politics. This could lead to even more distrust and further deterioration of America's reputation in the world.

The other six potential candidates running for the Republican nomination have in my opinion no realistic chance, and some could make things even worse than they are now already. Even the theoretical thought of a Mormon (Mitt Romney) or a fanatical creationist who "loves shooting things" (Mike Huckabee) in the White House and having control of the massively inflated US military power - including the nuclear options - sends cold shivers down my spine.
Rudy Guliani, a former Mayor of New York City and a cold and calculating opportunist, is not a man to be trusted with anything. He is best remembered for "9/11" and his harsh policies of "zero tolerance" against the petty criminals, poor and homeless of New York, but that alone is no qualification for the Presidency. Any mayor in office would have done what he did under the circumstances of "9/11", and his "zero tolerance" campaign actually created as many problems as it solved. Subsequently more than four million people (of the more than 18 million who populate the New York metro area) are now living below the official poverty line and depend on regular food hand-outs.
Since leaving office in New York Guliani tries to show himself as a "liberal conservative", but not in a very convincing way. Many voters will rightfully wonder how "liberal" a man could be after making his name with the slogan of "zero tolerance". (They might also remember that George W. Bush ran during his first presidential campaign with the slogan "compassionate conservatism", and we all know what he did since...)

The remaining three - Congressman Duncan Hunter from California, Congressman Ron Paul from Texas and Fred Thompson, a professional actor and former Senator from Tennessee - are not likely to win any significant support and will drop out of the race sooner or later. Neither of them has a large enough political and financial base, and that is eventually the crucial factor in US politics.
Four previous Republican contenders - Senator Sam Brownback from Kansas, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, Congressman Tom Tancredo from Colorado and former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson - did already quit before the start of the Primary season.

Given the crimes and massive mistakes of the Bush administration, many Americans (including Republicans) as well as foreign observers expect and wish that the next US President should be a Democrat. Those with hope for a better future see that only a drastic change at the top of the political system could bring a real change, and cynics think that it will be better to let Democrats deal with the mess and chaos of the Bush administration than burden another Republican with it.
Therefore the attention of the world's media is currently more on the Democratic Party and its remaining six contenders. (Two other Democrats - Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut - have already dropped out after the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd.)

Of the six still running Hillary Clinton, Senator for New York, is clearly the favourite. Not for political achievements or experience, but mainly for three other reasons: She is the publically best-known of all candidates, she has collected the largest amount of money for her campaign (so far more than $ 90 million) and she is clearly the most determined of them all. She is also in many quarters seen as a true Liberal, and a significant portion of US women would like the idea to have her as the first ever female President.
However, the former First Lady carries a lot of baggage and it remains to be seen if that could become a factor during the campaign. One of the most serious details is that she actually voted for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and that she has not moved much away from this obvious mistake. It will depend on how much the disastrous war still matters to the American voters.
Further obstacles in Mrs. Clinton's path to power are her undisputed coldness and arrogance, a lack of true compassion and her attitude that she "knows best" and is "most experienced". That could in fact be her Achilles heel, since her actual experience in practical politics is limited to her term as the Junior Senator from New York. Being married to a President brings undoubtedly a lot of benefits, insights and interesting encounters, but it is no substitute for responsibility and holding high office.
In fact, her only venture into real politics during her husband's administration - her attempt to reform the hopeless and completely unfair US health system - ended in disaster and chaos. Not surprisingly, she has so far nor even mentioned this shambolic episode of her career and one wonders how long it will take until one of her opponents does.

Second favourite among the Democrats, and the only one of all candidates who offers real hope and a new approach to US politics, is Senator Barack Obama from Illinois. The son of a Kenyan father and white American mother would - if elected - be the first non-white President and as such the natural carrier of hopes and aspirations for America's poor and deprived people (many of which are black). However, there seems to be a tendency that he receives so far not as much support from these quarters than one might have expected. Obama is also the first non-white politician who does deliberately not play the race card himself (as it was done in previous years and campaigns by black Democrats like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others). He is in fact the first coloured candidate fully and easily acceptable to white Americans (as his decisive win in the 95% white state of Iowa has shown), while a large segment of the black population supports Hillary Clinton, mainly out of loyalty to her husband.
If I had a vote in the USA, it would clearly go to Mr. Obama. If there is any chance for the USA to recover from the catastrophic Bush years within the foreseeable future, it will need a man of vision, courage and new ideas. Among the 13 remaining candidates on both sides Barack Obama is the only one with such qualities, reminding one in more than one way of John F. Kennedy in his presidential campaign. And like Kennedy he has the ability to reach many of the young and unconventional Americans who have long given up on the established parties and traditional politicians. This could work well in his favour, and personally I hope it does.
What could be held against Obama is his lack of experience, especially when it comes to foreign policies. However - despite Hillary Clinton's forceful speeches - when it comes to practical and hands-on experience in politics, Barack Obama has more on his CV than the former First Lady.
As Obama is also the first leading US politician with open sympathies for the Palestinians, it is to be expected that he will not do very well in New York and other areas with a strong Jewish community. As New York is also Mrs. Clinton's current home turf, she will certainly make good use of the situation. But whatever she might throw into Obama's way, the fact remains that she is "yesterday's woman", representing old and worn-out ideas, while he is "tomorrow's man".

The third contender, and surely the "dark horse" in the Democratic stable, is John Edwards, a former Senator from North Carolina, who was John Kerry's running-mate in the Presidential Election of 2004. Energetic, handsome and a "man of the people" with great public rapport, he should not be written off, even though he currently trails Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in third place. In matters of political experience he outshines both of them, and he has a strong and solid support base of white voters, especially in the Southern states. As things stand for now, he has the best chances to be nominated again as the running-mate (for the Vice Presidency), with either Clinton or Obama as the main nominee. Should, however, Hillary Clinton fail to muster the amount of support she expects, John Edwards might well have a chance to pick up many of her delegates and secure a nomination, with Barack Obama as running-mate.

So far barely noticed by the pundits is outsider Bill Richardson, currently the Governor of New Mexico. Of all Democratic candidates he is by far the politically most experienced, having been a Congressman, US Ambassador to the United Nations and US Energy Secretary. Despite such an impressive service record, his public profile is rather low, which will dampen his chances for the first prize. But having collected so far more than $ 18 million (a fifth of Hillary Clinton's funds) in campaign contributions, he might have enough financial stamina to keep going all the way, with a chance to become either running-mate or - in case of a Democratic win in November - to take a senior position in the new administration.

With a new Democrat in the White House there might also be interesting appointments for the remaining two also-rans, former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska and Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. In the long and strenuous march through the Primaries, however, they will not find much support from voters.

As much as commentators emphasize the New Hampshire Primary, it is far too early to make a clear prediction for either of the parties. Nevertheless it appears that John McCain might carry on from where he left off in 2000 (when he also won New Hampshire, but was then pushed out of the race by massive corporate donations to the Bush campaign). Mitt Romney's funds (of now $ 63 million - twice as much as McCain's) make him a serious contender by force, but is remains to be seen if America is ready for a Mormon in the White House. Lack of support for Romney could benefit Rudy Guiliani, who collected $ 47 million in campaign funds, but has not yet spent much of it. If his unorthodox strategy of completely ignoring certain states will eventually pay off - well, only time can tell.

In the Democratic Party the contest is clearly between Senators Clinton and Obama. After Iowa and New Hampshire they stand at a one-all draw, with Michigan to come next in a week's time.
I am still astonished how much Mrs. Clinton praised herself last night after winning in the New Hampshire Primary with 39%, while Obama received "only" 37%. What few people realised and not one commentator mentioned is the fact that this result is only a win by percentage. What really matters in the Primaries is the number of delegates a candidate takes from each state to the nomination convention. And on that count Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama drew in New Hampshire, each receiving the support of nine delegates (with the remaining four going to John Edwards).

On the long and winding road ahead anything is possible with two such strong and determined candidates, and this year promises at least to be one of the more colourful and interesting on the often quaint and dreary plains of US politics. However, I cannot see much hope for the future of America (and the world) unless Barack Obama becomes the 44th President of the USA.

The Emerald Islander

The brief quadrennial Fame of NH

I think it was Andy Warhol who coined the phrase that in future everyone will be famous at least once, but only for 15 minutes. By now we all know how right he was with his prediction, as the world is full of virtual nobodies who have been "famous" or at least noticed by some part of the media for a few minutes.

What goes for people also applies - with only slight alterations - to places. The French seaside resort of Cannes, otherwise a rather quiet town, is briefly in the news for a few days when the film festival takes place there; Davos, a town high up in the Swiss Alpes and even quieter than Cannes at normal times, makes the headlines each year during the World Economic Forum held there; and various other towns, cities, areas and even countries enjoy similar brief fame and media attention for various reasons.

One of those places is the state of New Hampshire in the North-East of the USA. Usually more than quiet and hardly noticed for any special things or achievements (if one overlooks that Dan Brown, the bestselling author of The Da Vinci Code, was born in 1964 in the New Hampshire town of Exeter), New Hampshire attracts the attention of the world's media once every four years at the start of a US Presidential Election year.

This brief quadrennial moment of fame has nothing to do with New Hampshire itself. It only happens because NH (as the state is called by locals) is traditionally the first of the 50 US states to hold a so-called Primary, a state-wide election in which members of the two major parties in US politics (Democrats and Republicans) determine which of the usually quite numerous candidates should be supported by the delegates the state sends to the nomination conventions later in the year.

Looking at it from the outside, the whole political and election system of the USA seems rather strange. It can only be explained and understood if one remembers the history and development of the USA as a nation, especially during the 19th century. During a time when the Union grew ever larger and at a fast pace, expanding further and further into the West, but with all her political and economical centres still concentrated on the East coast, some system needed to be established to guarantee that new states and territories far away from the seat of power had at least some say in the political process of the nation. (They never had a lot of influence then, and the dominant position of the old East coast states only changed with the introduction of modern transport and communication.)

The system of the Primaries, as well as the institution of the Electoral College that eventually elects the President (yes, the leader of the Western world is not - and never was - directly elected by the people) go back to these early days of the USA, when it could take delegates from the West and other remote areas several days to travel to the federal capital Washington D.C.
And as much as the USA have been in the forefront of technological, economical and structural modernisation for almost two centuries now, there has been no modernisation of the political system. This is one of the reasons why on average less than 50% of US citizens participate in elections, and why so many of them have not a clue in which way they are ruled and governed.

It makes the American habit to go around the world and preach to other nations about "fair elections and Democracy" even more shallow and futile than it would be otherwise, in particular since the United States of America are not - and never have been - a Democracy. They are a Republic and very much alike the ancient Republic of Rome, on which the Founding Fathers of the Continental Congress modeled their new nation in the late 18th century. (Any doubters of this statement are advised to read the US Constitution and related documents.)

If anyone would create or re-create the USA today, with all the available means of modern communications and transportation, it would never been done the way it was 230 years ago. That is not surprising. But what does make one wonder is why there has never been any change and improvement to the US political system, and especially to the way elections are conducted. Could it be that the existing system - as quaint, cumbersome, outdated and expensive as it is - actually suits the rich and powerful people who make up the ruling classes in the USA, in the same way as it suited the Founding Fathers?
It is known that several of the Founding Fathers, especially Franklin and Jefferson, wanted to establish a Democracy modeled on the system of ancient Athens. But the majority - among them George Washington - saw this as "not very practical" and feared that "Democracy could give too much power and influence to ordinary and simple people who might fail to understand the needs of the nation and her government".
Ever since US politics have been a field for wealthy people, and it is not accidental that the 100 members of the US Senate are also the world's most exclusive millionaires' club (since there is not one Senator who is not at least a millionaire). This is only one of the many direct parallels between the USA and her ancient role model, the Roman Republic.

Tomorrow morning we will know what the people of New Hampshire have decided today, but it will not have much news value in a few days, as the massed caravans of politicians and journalists move on to the next states for their Primaries. After a few of these contests, some of the weaker candidates will drop out of the race, and eventually all will be decided before the many delegates elected during the Primaries will even get to the nomination conventions of the two major parties. For the past 60 years they have deteriorated more and more into "Oscar"-like show business events, with thousands of brainwashed people, dressed-up in silly costumes, reveling around, shouting, singing and waving placards. Such is the political system of the USA, and unless someone with both vision and courage emerges and leads the way into a new era, it will go on and on, until no one - in the USA as well as abroad - will take it any longer for serious.

The Emerald Islander (who no longer does already)

American Gunboat "Diplomacy"

As a former naval officer I have a natural interest in all maritime matters, and especially in the activities of the world's navies. (You might be familiar with the saying that one can take a man out of the Navy, but never the Navy out of the man...)
So when there is a news report about naval operations, deployments or anything else concerned with warships I always listen with special interest and great attention.


Today we learned that two days ago an incident happened that could easily have started a new war in the Middle East. Three US warships - the AEGIS cruiser USS Port Royal (CG-73), the destroyer USS Hopper (DDG-70) and the frigate USS Ingraham (FFG-61) - encountered in the Strait of Hormuz (see map above) five speed boats from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. After a brief stand-off, during which the Iranians apparently sent a number of threats and verbal insults over ship-to-ship radio, their speed boats turned away and returned to Iranian coastal waters. Not a moment too soon, it seems, as the Americans where so shocked by this encounter that they were preparing to open fire.
Had they done that, we could find ourselves now witnessing the begin of US military operations against Iran, something the White House - and especially US Vice President Richard Cheney - are very keen on for quite some time.

Gunboat "Diplomacy" is nothing new and has been employed by many governments for centuries. Especially the 19th and early 20th century saw numerous actions of that kind, most of them exercised by Britain, but also by France, Germany and other colonial powers. However, in recent decades the game of applying political pressure through the deployment of naval forces has been predominantly played by the USA, since the end of World War II the largest maritime power on the planet.

The Strait of Hormuz is an area in which the US Navy has been present with a changing number of warships for a long time, since the narrow stretch of water that separates the Persian Gulf from the Gulf of Oman is of great strategic importance, especially for the West and the USA, as about a fifth of the world's crude oil production is shipped through this very passage.
And although it is regarded as an international shipping lane, the area also consists partly of the coastal waters of Iran, America's arch enemy since the pro-western Shah Reza Pahlewi (who was in his time Washington's strongest ally in the region) was deposed in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini.

Since then there have been a number of clashes between the USA and Iran. On April 18th, 1988 a full-size sea battle developed, during which the US Navy sunk two Iranian frigates and six speed boats of the Revolutionary Guards (very much like the ones encountered two days ago).
On July 3rd, 1988 the AEGIS cruiser USS Vincennes (CG-49), a sister-ship of the USS Port Royal, shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, killing all 290 people on board.
In later years there have been several smaller incidents, but without any losses of lives or ships on either side.

After the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 the climate in the Persian Gulf region became naturally more serious and hostile, and for at least four years now the US government is looking for a suitable excuse to attack and invade Iran as well. The issue of the "Iranian nuclear weapons" dominated the White House propaganda for years, until recently a secret US intelligence report came to public knowledge, stating that Iran had "no nuclear capability and no activities to develop such for four years".

With time running out for George W. Bush and Richard "Dick" Cheney (who is the main hawk in Washington and desperate to deal with Iran before he has to leave the White House), it seems that the US administration is now searching for any possible excuse to start another war in the Middle East, even though it has become more than clear that they cannot even win the two in which they are already involved in (Afghanistan & Iraq).

Five tiny speed boats, even though armed, are no match whatsoever for three of the most modern and powerful warships of the US Navy. One can only be grateful that an obviously sensible regional commander - most likely the Admiral in charge of the US Fleet to which the three ships belong - saw the situation for what it was and prevented the incident from getting out of hand.

In my own naval career during the so-called "Cold War" I saw plenty of such incidents and close encounters, then with Russians and other ships from the Warsaw Pact. And it was always down to level-headed naval officers to prevent a shooting war.
If one would leave decisions only to the politicians, we would have seen a lot more wars already. But it is down to the soldiers and sailors on the ground to keep cool and keep the peace. Never in modern times was a war started by the military, it was always down to politicians who are never to be found in the firing line.

The Emerald Islander

Now Christmas is over

In the Western Christian Churches today is known as Epiphany, the day connected with the visit of the Magi (or three wise men). It is also the last of the twelve traditional days of Christmas. This goes back many centuries and has its origin in the change from the old Julian to the new Gregorian Calendar. As there was a difference of 12 days between the two, people began to celebrate them during the coldest and darkest period of the year, around Christmas. However, this twelve-day-festival has its roots in even older Pagan celebrations from ancient times.
It only shows that humans are creatures of habit, especially when it comes to feasts and holidays. So regardless what the dominant belief system might be, the traditional times of celebrations tend to remain the same. Pick, for example, any Christian feast day and you will find that it corresponds with an older Pagan feast on the same day, or very close to it.

Nowadays, as we live in a global village dominated mostly by American customs and even more by US business interests, it can easily be forgotten what our traditional winter festival is about. It appears that the massive advertising and marketing campaign for Christmas starts a little bit earlier each year (in 2007 a local supermarket began offering special Christmas goods in late September) and from November on - just as soon as "Halloween" is out of the way - every large department store and shopping centre is festooned with Christmas decorations and sports also a fat middle-aged man with fake cotton-wool beard, dressed in a strange red outfit with white trimmings of fake fur. This creature, commonly known now as "Santa", is the most recent addition to the pre-Christmas season and as fake as his beard.
Even though the figure has its roots in ancient characters like the Christian bishop St. Nicholas from Asia Minor and the Pagan "Grandfather Frost" from Russia, the modern version "Santa" (sometimes also called "Father Christmas") was created during the depression period of the 1920s in the USA as a marketing ploy for the Coca-Cola company and dressed in their corporate colours red and white.
Few people these days seem to be aware of this, and subsequently the season that once was Christmas becomes more and more a completely meaningless conglomerate of over-sentimental trash, massive consumerism and senseless over-eating and drinking.

Personally I do not participate in this sad charade, but I can only speak and act for myself. I do not have the right to tell others what to do and how to behave. But if anyone wishes to do what I am doing now for many years - simply ignoring the fake "Christmas" and live a normal life - it would please me to see such a sign of common sense.

When I was a child, Advent and Christmas were spiritual periods and full of joy and mystery. All this has disappeared under an avalanche of greed and capitalist manipulations, and I wonder if it will ever be possible to return to the true meanings of the winter festival season.

In the Orthodox Churches of the East, in contrast, today is actually Christmas Day, since they are still following the old Julian Calendar. During the past few weeks Jews also celebrated Hanukkah, Muslims had Ramadan and not so long ago Hindus enjoyed the feast of Diwali. But even though all these religious holidays are as significant as Christmas is for Western Christians, they do not create the same silly wave of secular consumerism. Therefore I wonder what has gone wrong with our Western culture and why we are the only ones that fall so gullible into the trap of ruthless capitalism?

Perhaps there is an answer, perhaps not. For now I am grateful that it is all over for another year and am happily returning to a relatively normal world around me. However, there seems to be no escape from the constant marketing onslaught of big multi-national companies. When I went shopping for my weekend groceries yesterday I spotted already the first batch of chocolate Easter eggs...

In my small spot of sanity, surrounded by a crazy world, I remain for now

The Emerald Islander

Power tends to corrupt

As so often in Ireland the bad weather lasted only one day. When I went out this morning for my usual round of Jogging it was not only calm and dry, there was actually bright sunshine and a clear blue sky with not a single cloud to see. Such is always a joyful experience and makes my morning exercise even more successful.

However, there hangs a cloud of thought over this part of the world, which results from an event that made the news yesterday and continues to be discussed on the British airwaves.
On one of the coldest and most miserable days of the year, one of the largest suppliers of energy in Britain, called N-Power (these days large companies have ever more anonymous and meaningless names), announced an increase in consumer prices for electricity and gas of more than 17% on average (and up to 27% in certain areas).
This came only a few days after Britain's railway companies (all private now, after the last Conservative government broke up the well-functioning national railway group British Rail and fragmented it in the most ridiculous and shambolic way) raised the prices for their tickets by 4.8% on average (and up to 8.7% for certain fares).

Consumer groups have issued statements of protest, there are interviews on the BBC, and a couple of politicians did raise the question of need, fairness and even legality. But this is as far as such things go. No one, and certainly not the British government (always the capitalists' best friend), will stop N-Power from charging ordinary British consumers until they bleed dry. For large industrial customers there are of course the so-called "heavy user tariffs", which means that those who use a lot of energy are getting it cheap, while those who use a normal or small amount are massively overcharged for it.
This happens despite a growing general awareness of global warming, carbon footprints and energy misuse. And despite a clear statement of Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown that the UK would be reducing the amount of energy used, in order to make a real contribution to save the planet.

Well, maybe this is what is really behind the announcement. People are beginning to understand the environment and save energy, so big utility companies like N-Power (which is, by the way, now owned by the large German energy group RWE) make less money from selling energy. And to compensate for the losses by volume they are now raising the prices per unit.
There is absolute no proper reason or justification for such a drastic increase in energy prices, several times the rate of inflation! But who is going to stop it? These days all British utility companies are completely privatised and care a lot more for their share holders and directors than for customers. They are like the industry's private herd of cows, to be milked as much and as often as it pleases the bosses. Ordinary people have no rights, and no ways to avoid this shameless exploitation of truly Victorian dimensions.

We all need electricity, as it is practically impossible to live and function without it. So the likes of N-Power have consumers over a barrel, in particular as no politician or regulator will come to their aid. All people can do is pay and pay, and should they run out of money, the energy companies will disconnect them and - to add insult to injury - even charge a hefty extra fee for doing that!

Here in Ireland things are not much better, and the price for electricity rises and rises just as our main national supplier ESB (still partly controlled by the government, but partly in private hands now as well) pleases. Subsequently Ireland has one of the highest energy prices in Europe, which makes life for ordinary people increasingly difficult and has even already some negative influence on the growth of our national economy.

What kind of world have we created for us and our children? Is this really how we want to live in the 21st century?! Handing the control over our lives to governments, police, intelligence services and greedy private utility companies? Where are our Human and Civil Rights? And where is the Common Sense that is supposed to guide society?

Lord Acton, the great British historian and author of many well-known quotations, would be livid if he were still alive. Yesterday, when I heard of the shameless greed of N-Power, I thought immediately of one of his most famous statements, which he made 120 years ago in a letter to Bishop Creighton. It is so fitting that it could be the motto of the privatised energy industry, and especially of N-Power.
"Power tends to corrupt," Lord Acton wrote, "and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

With this I rest my case, and remain for today

The Emerald Islander

Aethelred and other Unreadies

Today the rain is back, and with a vengeance. Augmented by regional snowfalls (especially in the North) and gale-force winds in all coastal waters around the island, rain and sleet is gashing down as if someone above the clouds was dashing it out with large buckets. An extremely unpleasant day, and one of those when one will avoid leaving the house if it is at all possible.
The cat, wise creature that she is, had one brief look out the window in the morning, then turned around and went back before the fireplace, which has been blazing red-hot all day, in order to keep the little old house we inhabit warm and comfortable.
I had to go out eventually, to the bank and for some shopping, but I left it until after lunch. By that time conditions in our area had somewhat improved, the wind had calmed a bit and the rain actually stopped for about half an hour. I managed to get out and back before the rain started falling again, so on a personal note the day was not too bad after all for me.

Others were not so lucky. Over large areas of Ireland, especially in the West and North, the weather was so atrocious that the local authorities decided to close schools and a number of roads on grounds of safety.
Some roads, including a stretch of the main national road to Cork, were covered with ice and a number of accidents occurred before the Garda Siochana (Ireland's Police) issued closing orders in the West.
In the North, which is still occupied and ruled by the British, many schools were closed after a sudden and unexpected snowfall had made many roads impassable. Thousands of motorists got stranded, with large amounts of man-hours being lost to the economy, Belfast's airport closed as well and life in general was seriously disrupted.

This sort of thing happens almost every Winter here, and in some years more than once. And each time the authorities in charge of maintaining (and clearing) the roads are found wanting and unprepared! I wonder why it is that they are never able to cope with the relatively mild and uncomplicated winter conditions here, while at the same time the authorities in other European countries, where the Winters are much longer and harder than here, have no such problems. In Northern, Eastern and Central Europe, where snow and ice is present for months each Winter, all major (and even many minor) roads are cleared every day, and if necessary several times a day, railways function and school closures are unheard of.

As a historian this reminds me of a famous - or rather infamous - medieval King of England, who ruled our neighbour island from the late 10th to the early 11th century. His name was Aethelred and the ineptness of his government earned him the by-name "the Unready".
I know that some of those names attached to ancient rulers can be a bit crude, but in this case it is well deserved and speaks for itself. To be fair to Aethelred (whose portrait you see here), he had not an easy start, succeeding to the throne at the tender age of 10, at a time when England was regularly attacked by Danish Viking armies. So some of the unreadiness associated with him must have been a result of incompetent advisers and court officials. (Not much has changed in Britain since, and many dithering boards and committees there are still responsible for a whole range of mishaps, procrastination, failures and scandalous disasters...)
For all of his adult years Aethelred was faced with the ever more hostile Danes, who had since the 9th century ruled a significant part of North and North-East England (known as Danelaw or Danelagh), but lost control of it shortly before Aethelred became King. Understandably, the Danes wanted their lands back, and having a large supply of well-trained and heavily armed Viking warriors at their disposal, they kept trying to achieve their goal almost every year.
Having not enough soldiers and pretty poor commanders, Aethelred realised that he could not match the Danish armies in battle. So he decided to introduce the force of monetary power into English politics and paid the Danes large sums of money for not attacking and ravaging his frail kingdom. The clever Danes took the money and withdrew, but only to come back the next year, demanding more. This went on for almost a quarter of a century, and the amount of money paid to the Viking raiders grew larger each time.
Neither Aethelred nor his kinsmen, advisers and military commanders seem to have considered to prepare for another Danish attack, build defences and raise an army strong enough to meet and beat the Vikings next time they appeared on England's shores. So even the Danes came back as regular as the seasons, every time the English were unprepared for it, not ready to fight and could only hope another and even larger payment would save them again.
Eventually the Vikings grew tired of the game, and in 1013 (one year before Ireland's High King Brian Boru defeated the Vikings of Dublin in the Battle of Clontarf) King Sveyn I "Forkbeard" of Denmark chose blood over silver, invaded England in force and drove Aethelred and his court into exile. Sveyn had not much joy with his victory, because he died only five weeks later. His successor, King Canute the Great (best remembered for ordering the tide to turn back into the sea), was officially proclaimed King of England in 1014. A year later Canute moved South and broke the last English resistance Aethelred and his kinsmen could muster against him. Having lost his kingdom and everything, Aethelred died as a sick and broken man in London in 1016, aged 48, entering history books as the most inept Anglo-Saxon ruler of England, forever marked as "the Unready".

Even though he achieved little and eventually lost everything, he left some legacy that continues to have influence on England and Britain even today. He was the first English ruler to use large sums of money as means of major policy, he began the long-standing (and often tragic) English tradition of dithering and ignoring foreign threats, and - probably most significant - he was the indirect cause for the Norman invasion of 1066, as his second marriage to Emma of Normandy established a claim to the English throne, used 50 years after Aethelred's death by his wife's grand-nephew, Duke William of Normandy (later King William I "the Conqueror" of England), as the excuse to invade England.

Another century later the Normans moved on to invade and conquer Ireland, and their legacy is still present and has influence on both parts of Ireland today. And so has - sadly - Aethelred's practice of dithering, ignorance, incompetence and procrastination. On a day like today many of Ireland's people feel and encounter the results of that, even though most of them might never have heard of Aethelred the Unready. History has a long arm, and it strikes all of us, the ready and the unready, the educated as well as the ignorant.

From a safe chair in front of a nicely burning fire I wish you all a pleasant weekend, hoping you are ready and prepared for more bad weather, as it is fore-casted for tonight.

The Emerald Islander

A cold Day with hot News and kind Gifts

After all the rain we had yesterday, today was a dry day, which is always welcome. But it was - and still is - very cold for Ireland. Strictly speaking it is never really cold here, if one compares it with some other European countries I have lived in (such as Austria, Germany or Norway), simply because we get the benefit of the Gulf Stream, or - to be precise - the North Atlantic Drift, which is the North-Eastern extension of the actual Gulf Stream. This means that the climate in Ireland is a mostly moist and temperate one, with no great heat waves during the Summer and no hard frost in the Winter. However, there are always some days when it is significantly colder than usual, days with an easterly wind that brings cold dry air from the Continent. Such is the case today.
To make life bearable, I keep the fire burning all day and the cat likes that very much, spending a lot of time sitting right in front of the fireplace and staring philosophically into the flames. How I wish sometimes I had more time to do the same...

But no such luck for me. Today I had to spend a good few hours to sort out a recent computer problem. On New Year's Day, shortly after I started this weblog, my main desktop PC quit his services (I hope that was not a bad omen...) and currently I am operating from my laptop. As there was nothing I could do on January 1st, nor yesterday, while being in Cork, today was the day to consult the IT expert. Well, to make it short and plain: I will need a new PC. Nothing lasts forever, and that includes of course computers. But it is always a bit sad to say good bye to any companion - person, beast or mere machine - with whom one has spent a lot of time in creative partnership. I had a look at various models and will now take a few days to think before I make my choice of a suitable replacement.

On a wider scale I have to accept that a broken-down computer might be annoying, but it is a lot less serious than the things and events other people around the world have to cope with. In many countries people live under brutal regimes, have not enough to eat and suffer from terrible diseases.
In Pakistan the new year began with the mourning for Benazir Bhutto and a complete collapse of public order. And in Kenya the conditions are even worse, with open riots, shooting and massacres between rival tribes and political parties after a botched election. More than 300 Kenyans have been killed so far, many hundreds more were wounded and thousands made homeless. And, almost too normal to make the news these days, in Iraq and Afghanistan the daily bloodshed continues with soldiers and civilians being killed and wounded, while there is no real prospect of any proper solution for either country.

What strikes me as the most significant in all these bloody events is that they are happening as a result of "Democracy", or what a lot of people take for Democracy, this often misused word. In our (the Western countries' and especially the USA's) misguided obsession to bring "Democracy" to the developing world, we drag many countries which have no democratic tradition and no real understanding of the concept into ever greater confusion and turmoil.
Pakistan, Kenya, Iraq and Afghanistan - as well as many other developing countries - are still dominated by an ancient tribal structure and have not even developed Nationalism. This is not really that surprising when one remembers that even in Europe Nationalism only emerged during the 19th century.

When it comes to true Democracy, the countries who really have such a system in proper operation can be counted with the fingers of two hands. And neither the USA nor the UK are among them. Contrary to common public opinion the USA is a Republic, but not a Democracy. And Britain, the USA's staunchest ally, is the last feudal state in Europe. If you find this hard to believe, take some time and read the US Constitution and the rules and procedures for the UK government and parliament (as they don't even have a Constitution in the UK).

What - I wonder - gives us the right to go around the world, imposing an idealistic system of government onto other countries and nations, most of which are totally unprepared and unsuited for it?
It is the Western arrogance, the assumption that we know better because we have more money and more power. This makes no sense, and is in the end counter-productive. The US attempt to bring "Democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan with military force has discredited even the idea of Democracy so much in the Middle East that there is no chance of any democratic development for a long time to come. Even the more moderate and westernised politicians from this area, who in the past favoured a democratic system, would not dream of suggesting it now. All they would hear from their people would be the reference to the US aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Reflecting on all the "hot" news I heard today on the radio, I can only count my blessings and be grateful to live in a peaceful country on the edge of Europe, with a roof over my head, enough food to eat and a warm fire against the cold weather outside. Even more so as I also received a very nice parcel today, with kind presents for the New Year, sent to me by a dear friend abroad.

In the hope that friendship and kindness may eventually prevail over hardship, cruelty, murder and wars and one day the whole planet may be as peaceful as Ireland is tonight, I remain

The Emerald Islander