do what they think in
faithful disinterested
judgement what is right

In a 1955 document titled, Modernisation of the House of Commons – First Report, contributed to by Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, Mr. Churchill said that:

The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what they think in their faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. The second duty is to their constituents, of whom they are the representative but not the delegate. Burke’s famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that their duty to party organisation or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.

Let me put that in bullet points.

• The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what they think in their faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain.
• The second duty is to their constituents, of whom they are the representative but not the delegate.
• It is only in the third place that their duty to party organisation or programme takes rank.

All these three loyalties should be observed, but there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.

Let me, repeat part of that last line.

But there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.

Change Parliament to Congress is easy.

But then you also have to change the last line to read, There is no doubt of the order in which they stand under this current un-healthy manifestation of democracy.

men make their history
do not make it as they please
chosen by the past

Adapted from, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte by Karl Marx  between December 1851 and March 1852, and originally published in 1852 in Die Revolution, a German monthly magazine published in New York City and established by Joseph Weydemeyer. 

According to Wikipedia, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon discusses the French coup of 1851 in which Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte assumed dictatorial powers. It shows Marx in his form as a social and political historian, treating actual historical events from the viewpoint of his materialist conception of history.

The title refers to the Coup of 18 Brumaire in which Napoleon Bonaparte seized power in revolutionary France (9 November 17s99, or 18 Brumaire Year VIII in the French Republican Calendar), in order to contrast it with the coup of 1851.

Mr. Marx wrote, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.“

Commenting on the changes brought on by the coup attempt, Marx writes:

” … fanatics for order are shot down on their balconies by mobs of drunken soldiers, their domestic sanctuaries profaned,

their houses bombarded for amusement –

in the name of property,

of the family,

of religion,

and of order.

Finally, the scum of bourgeois society forms the holy phalanx of order and the hero installs himself in the Tuileries as the “savior of society.”

Of course, that was then in the 1850’s.

It would never happen here.

It would never happen now.

History doesn’t repeat itself but historians do, still it seems like what goes around comes around.

crisis on top of
crisis – crises cheaper
when you buy in bulk

I started this blog and daily haiku as a salute to words, usage and the English language.

That it has turned into my rant platform over the current state of affairs, political and otherwise in this country is not my plan nor my fault.

I just want to say that I start each day looking for that bit of unique wordplay in life that makes me want to say something about the writers writing.

That this often turns into a political rant … well, I guess that is where the best writing is going these days.

Like something close to what Michael Corelone said, “… every time I think I am out, they keep pulling me back.“

And as Will Rogers said, “All I know is what I read in the papers.”

That being said, I read in the paper this morning:

The USA is in a political crisis layered on top of an economic crisis, which itself has needlessly exacerbated an already dire cost-of-living crisis.

The idea that the answer to a single part of this horror show is to bring back a morally degenerate financial incontinent who broke his own laws is something that tells you everything about the terminal sad-sacks who are so much as thinking of it.

The formal investigation into the last truth-aborting period in office is about to begin; if it ends up censuring someone for misleading Congress on January 6, as is perfectly likely, then we’d be in a constitutional crisis too.

Maybe crises are cheaper when you buy in bulk.

So I lied.

I didn’t read this this morning.

What I read was the article, Tories on their knees – and here comes Boris Johnson. Dear reader, look away by Marina Hyde this morning in the Guardian.

What she said was:

The UK is in a political crisis layered on top of an economic crisis, which itself has needlessly exacerbated an already dire cost-of-living crisis. The idea that the answer to a single part of this horror show is to bring back a morally degenerate financial incontinent who broke his own laws is something that tells you everything about the terminal sad-sacks who are so much as thinking of it. The formal parliamentary investigation into Johnson’s last truth-aborting period in office is about to begin; if it ends up censuring him for misleading parliament over the No 10 lockdown parties, as is perfectly likely, then we’d be in a constitutional crisis too. Maybe crises are cheaper when you buy in bulk.

I changed a few nouns to adjust for Greenwich Mean Time and there we are on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.

It was Oscar Wilde who wrote, “We have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language.

I think of how in my parents time, the two countries shared Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.

It’s just not fair.

can wipe up the sick
scrub it with vanish but the
odour still lingers

Oh those Brits.

Describing the current UK Government moves in response to the response over the current UK moves over the economy, The Guardian had this line.

“It’s like somebody has vomited all over an expensive rug,” reflected one former minister. “You can wipe up the sick, scrub it with Vanish, but the odour still lingers.”

In the Political world were so much depends on the sort memory of the voter, thank heaven that the odour still lingers.

BTW, I debated with myself to change the spelling of Odour to the American version of Oder, but Odour has so much more, that certain yet un-certain  je ne sais quoi when talking about politics and vomit.

I am becoming aware that politics, all through history, has been this way.

In the way of political action, there is nothing new under the sun.

What is new is the urgency of World Wide Web and social Media that allows to be there on the scene to see the vomit before it is cleaned up.

In the past, all we had was the odour and the speculation as to what caused it.

Today, the minute someone barfs, we are all over it.

Both to decry the barfing or to deny it depending on one’s point of view.

It isn’t that politics is a mess.

It is just that we are much more aware of it.

Not sure this is progress.

Being all over vomit is not a place I ever wanted to be.

But BOY HOWDY!, that is where we are.

From the article, How ‘knives of the long night’ led to brutally swift Kwarteng sacking,

I have always thought
the Yankees had something to
do with it, he said

Adapted from Why the Confederacy lost by by G. S. Boritt and James M. McPherson (1992) New York : Oxford University Press.

Mr. Boritt wrote:

Most interpretations fall into one of two categories: internal or external. Internal explanations focus mainly or entirely on the Confederacy, and usually phrase the question as “Why the South Lost.” External interpretations look at both the Union and Confederacy, and often phrase it as “Why the North Won.”

To illustrate the difference between an internal and external interpretation, let us look at the battle of Gettysburg as a microcosm of the larger issue.

Most of the controversy that has swirled endlessly for the past 128 years has focused on the issue of why the Confederates lost that battle — an internal explanation. Contemporaries and historians have blamed almost every prominent Confederate general at Gettysburg for mistakes that lost the battle:

Among them Robert E. Lee himself for mismanagement, overconfidence, and poor judgment;

Jeb Stuart for riding off on a raid around the Union army and losing contact with his own army, leaving Lee blind in the enemy’s country;

Richard Ewell and Jubal Early for failing to attack Cemetery Hill on the afternoon of July 1st and again for tardiness in attacking on the 2nd;

And above all, James Longstreet for lack of cooperation, promptness, and vigor in the assaults of July 2nd and 3rd.

It was left to George Pickett to put his finger on the problem with all of these explanations.

When someone asked Pickett after the war who was responsible for Confederate defeat at Gettysburg, he scratched his head, and replied: I’ve always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.

Someday maybe I will be able to write a History of the United States.

When I get to the chapters on the 21st Century, I will try to answer the questions of What Happened to the United States.

I will scratch my head and reply, “I’ve always thought Donald Trump had something to do with it.”

man against power
is struggle of memory
against forgetting

The quote this is based on is “the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting”, is from the book, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, a novel, published in 1979 in France, by Czech writer Milan Kundera explores the basic human nature of how people tolerate the torture and suffering of which they have no control.

Milan Kundera is a Czech writer who went into exile in France in 1975, becoming a naturalized French citizen in 1981. Kundera’s Czechoslovak citizenship was revoked in 1979, then conferred again in 2019.

Kundera’s best-known work is The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

Mr. Kundera works towards the point that people tend to forget their past and we learn nothing from history.

I know of lots and lots of Politicians who bank on this.

As Idgie Threadgoode asked, “You a politician, or does lying just run in your family?”

mistakes, those crummy
mistakes are only mistakes
if admitted to

“Generosity, that was my first mistake,” so says bandit leader Calvera in the Magnificent Seven.

And, sorry, you can remake this movie 100 times but Calvera will always, only be Eli Wallach.

Even a bandit leader can admit to a mistake.

Neither here nor, but I was reading today about how the President was making a speech and asked if a certain Congresswoman was in attendance.

The Congresswoman in question was not in attendance as the Congresswoman was dead.

When the Congresswoman was killed in a car accident earlier this year, the White House had issued a statement of remorse and condolence in the name of the President so it was fair to assume the President was aware of her untimely demise.

When the White Press Office was questioned about it, “Did the President mis-speak, make a mistake, was the error in his prepared teleprompter remarks?”

But the Press Office would say neither Yeah no Nay and ended their comments with, “I’ve answered it multiple times already in this room, and my answer is certainly not going to change,” she said. “All of you may have views on how I’m answering it, but I am answering the question to the way that he saw it. And the way that we see it.”

Not looking for a political axe to grind either way but just wondering why it is so difficult for the feller in the White House to say “I made a mistake.”

The previous feller admitted every mistake he ever made.

I mean to say, the previous feller would have admitted any mistake the minute he made that first mistake.

So in 2019, Hurricane Dorian was coming.

The President was told that the east coast would be hit along with Bahama.

The President heard what he wanted to hear and when he tweeted (I don’t miss those days one bit) instead of Bahama, he includes Alabama.

Trump, Donald J (September 1, 2019). “In addition to Florida – South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated. Looking like one of the largest hurricanes ever. Already category 5. BE CAREFUL! GOD BLESS EVERYONE!”. (Twitter).

Which came as a great surprise to the people in Alabama.

Rather than say oops, the White House went to great lengths to PROVE that Alabama had ALWAYS been in the predicted path was coming.

I am reminded of a bit of dialogue in the book the Caine Mutiny where Captain Queeg is being questioned by a Captain Grace about the tow line cutting incident.

Captain Grace asks Queeg to be honest and admit he made a mistake.

Captain Grace says, “... let’s both put this incident behind us. On that basis I can understand it and forget it. It was a mistake, a mistake due to anxiety and inexperience. But there’s no man in the Navy who’s never made a mistake ”

But Queeg (in the movie played by Humphrey Bogart but it is important to remember that in the book, Queeg is around 28 years old) responds, “No, Captain, I assure you I appreciate what you say, but I am not so stupid as to lie to a superior officer, and I assure you my first version o£ what happened is correct and I do not believe I have made any mistake as yet in commanding the Caine nor do I intend to.“

In a way it was good to hear he did not INTEND to make a mistake, but I digress.

Ho-hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

In July of 1863, after General Grant took Vicksburg he got this note from the President that said in part, “When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.”

It was signed, simply, A. Lincoln.

A later comment on this letter by a friend of Mr. Lincoln’s said, “was not intended for effect as some suppose but was perfectly in character.”

Character.

Good word.

Better character trait.

To have character I mean.

I guess instead of people with character, today the Office of President of the United States only attracts people who are characters.