|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact
free rant unfiltered by rational argument. |
 "There is no better demonstration of how far US politics has drifted from any moorings of civility." Trump ran amok at the first presidential debate. He bullied a weak-looking Biden and didn't hesitate to take on the moderator, who struggled to contain an insult filled session. Most of that vitriol coming from Trump.
The impression was of an unedifying mess dominated by Trump's antics. There is no better demonstration of how far US politics has drifted from any moorings of civility. Already the Twitter-sphere is full of comments: 'a shit show, a dumpster fire, inside a train wreck' captures the sentiment. Chris Wallace, the moderator, tried to reign in Trump's constant interruptions, reminding him of the rules. It didn't work. At once, Trump pivoted claiming Biden had interrupted him, and yes he had, but not regularly. The venue looked like a schoolyard with a petulant toddler in full tantrum mood "But Joe pushed me first!" Already Wallace is taking flak; but, it's hard to see how anyone could attain control short of shutting off the mikes. Trump opted to play nasty by evoking rumours about Biden's son. A visibly hurt Biden admitted his son had 'drug issues, but was making progress.' I suspect that short exchange earned Biden credit, while Trump came across as spiteful. Throughout Trump delivered his points with confidence, vim and didn't give an inch. In comparison, Biden was low-energy, plodding and looked flustered at times. No doubt the fact-checkers are hard at work assessing the details. We will need to wait but in a way none of that matters. It's the optics of debate that will sway opinion. On that score, Biden looked feeble next to Trump's chest-beating alpha-male. Yet, the question is, did Trump overplay his hand? No doubt he won the 'street-fight', but has he inadvertently created sympathy for Biden that could translate to votes? Doubtless Trump's base will love his performance; it's the swing voters who may demur. More to come.
1 Comment
21/9/2020 1 Comment Malice in Wonderland "Trump is conducting a symphony of chaos with no discernible tune" I am, to put it mildly, fascinated by the accounts of the Trump presidency. Has any other serving president had so much written about them. Over the past couple of years, we've had 'Fire and Fury,' 'The Room Where it Happened,' 'Unhinged,' 'Too Much and Never Enough' and 'Fear'. There are many others.
Now comes 'Rage' from heavyweight political journalist Bob Woodward. Remember him? Yes, he's the guy who in 1974 helped bring down Nixon with Carl Bernstein — a story told in 'All The President's Men'. Woodward wrote 'Fear' in 2018, without interviewing Trump. In that book, he portrayed Trump's presidency as 'chaotic and dysfunctional.' Woodward concluded that Trump was out of his depth, and couldn't recognise his predicament. Is this the Dunning-Kruger effect writ large? Then, in a bizarre move, Trump agrees to give Woodward full access for this latest book. Between December 2019 and July 2020, Woodward conducted seventeen interviews with Trump. He recorded over nine hours of exchanges. Likewise, Woodward had free rein to speak with anyone in the administration. Woodward treads a similar path to others in this genre; Trump comes across as unfocused and rudderless. In the end, Woodward concludes 'Trump is the wrong man for the job.' Bob, we all knew that, some time ago. Where Woodward serves a purpose is when he fills in the detail to give weight to insights. For starters, the trajectory of Trump's hiring and firing follows a predictable pattern. In the beginning, nominees are 'awesome,' 'a great person,' and 'incredible.' Then reality takes hold. The hire realises their advice goes ignored, or they fail to agree to Trump's demands. Slowly at first, a drumbeat against them starts. Then comes a steady increase in sniping and snide remarks. Even Tweets help to push home the message that someone is out of favour. Getting wind of their precarious position, honourable men offer to resign. Trump then acts fast to portray these resignations as firings. 'Glad he's gone,' 'I didn't like his leadership style.' It's petty, disagreeable, backbiting stuff. In the process, Trump proves in his world that loyalty is a one-way street. Everything for Trump is transactional, wrapped in hype, and driven home with occasional bitterness. The WTO, WHO, EU, China, Mexico, Canada and NATO are 'all ripping us off and screwing us.' Atop that is the legendary bragging and outright lies. These are too many to list. To help, The Washington Post keeps a record of all Trump's misleading claims. It's a fun read. Let us examine one signature policy initiative — 'The Wall' with Mexico. By mid-2020, it's still not there. How much is built? Well, that depends on how you do the maths. Trump would say 121.4 miles is complete, yet 99 miles of that is renovations and repairs. New sections amount to no more than ten miles. The border is 1,954 miles long. Some way to go. And not a cent has come from Mexico. Instead, Mexicans are stealing parts of the construction. Woodward had unique access during the unfolding Covid-19 crisis. He chronicles in detail all the steps taken by Trump or rather the lack of action. As the deaths mount, Woodward challenges Trump to account for the evident failures, the lack of coordination and reversals. On each occasion, Trump distracts, moves on or pivots to head off any admission. 'China is to blame' is the mantra. Such statements play well in the rust belt, where workers have lost jobs to cheap Chinese labour. On this score, only one point sticks. Why people couldn't move from Wuhan to Beijing due to a lockdown, yet international flights out of Wuhan continued. It's a fair criticism. Even when Woodward gives credit and acknowledges Trump made a tough call in late January 2020 to ban travel from China, the event gets twisted. Trump asserts he went against professional advice to do the 'right thing.' Strange how everyone else present recalls a reluctant Trump finally taking counsel. I suppose if anyone comes out of this book well, for me, it's young Jared Kushner. Against my instincts, I must give him kudos. Kushner scores points for his focus, attention to detail and for providing a stunning insight. Kushner demonstrates he can marshal resources and gets the job done at critical moments. His timely work in coordinating the distribution of ventilators for Covid-19 patients illustrates the point. He soon puts in place a system, which keeps ahead of demand. Then, Kushner inadvertently busts open the Trump phenomenon with a staggering and brutal insight. He cites four texts that a person needs to study to comprehend Trump. With these, we go deep down a rabbit hole, literally. The first came from a Wall Street Journal article that says, in essence, 'Trump is crazy, and it's kinda working.' Second, is the Cheshire Cat from 'Alice in Wonderland' who proclaims "If you don't know where you're going, any path will do." Next, Kushner recommends reading Chris Whipple's 'The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency'. Of course, Kushner is the de facto Chief of Staff. Last, you must digest the satirical Scott Adam's book 'Win Bigly; Persuasion in a World When Facts Don't Matter.' According to Kushner, Trump's 'misstatements' of facts 'invent any reality' the voter wants. Moreover, Trump will never apologise, and if you call him a liar: well, that's because 'you always do.' It's akin to trying to fight a shifting cloud of gas. Kushner observes that "The media can't hold Trump in check because he doesn't play by their rules." If they cross the line, they're ostracised. And because access for them is everything, Trump is prepared to cut them off. One other thing, Kushner has a 'lean and hungry look.' Although a tad untutored on the broader world, he will learn. After all, he recently brought home a partial peace deal in the Middle East. He's somebody to watch. At times during the interviews, you can hear that Woodward is attempting to school Trump. He repeats lessons from history, something Woodward at aged 77, and having dealt with every president since Nixon, is well placed to do. None of this appears to register with Trump, who displays few signs of introspection. There is so much to pick over in this book. Not addressed, but something that needs acknowledging is the damage Trump has done to the USA's standing on the international stage. Many believe he has accelerated the rise of China by distancing allies under his 'America First' policy. This remarkable state of affairs has consequences which remain unclear. In the end, I don't buy the argument that Trump is foolhardy. Far from it. He's a master of manipulation, can rouse a crowd and is ruthless. He's done many complex things in his life, while proving himself very stress resistant. Also, he's undoubtedly an odd man. Nonetheless, he's taken the US out of the 'normative mild-incompetence' of moderate politicians into a new arena of constant struggle. Trump is conducting a symphony of chaos with no discernible tune. The question is, will the US electorate opt for a new conductor? We will know soon enough. 16/9/2020 1 Comment The Sealed Knot "When in a hole, stop digging" The families of the 12 fugitives caught fleeing to Taiwan, held an ill-advised press conference last Saturday. Understandably, they are most concerned about their kids. You'd have to be heartless not to recognise their distress. And yet, in all truth, they may have made matters worse. In that, they are aided and abetted by opposition politicians James To and Eddie Chu.
"When in a hole, stop digging". These sage words served me well on the occasions when my belligerent side came to the fore. It's something I'll freely share with James and Eddie boy. Because having cajoled the protests last year, they're now sending some of their supporters to a worse fate. As one commentator noted, the 12 fugitives 'inadvertently, self-extradited to the Mainland'. Their foolhardy attempt to flee Hong Kong has landed them in the very situation they feared most. Also, there are questions the families must answer, including what did they know? They've all spoken of their ignorance of joint enterprise to flee including breaking bail conditions. That's hardly credible, given the life-changing venture their kids set out to undertake. Surely they noticed the preparations? The press conference, organised by James and Eddie, had the parents dressed like ISIS. I doubt this helps matters. On seeing it many of us had flash-backs to the nascent terrorists who ran amok last year, burning and trashing our city. The optics weren't right. Further, the event proved a spectacular own goal. The thrust of the parent's complaint is that the 12 fugitives are in incommunicado and can't access lawyers. The Mainland asserts it has provided them with proper representation. And, yes there is a legitimate conversation to be had about the legal system on the Mainland. But, I likewise, could make a case that US justice comes predicated on being rich enough to fight a lawsuit. Also, does anyone want to discuss Guantanamo Bay, enhanced interrogation techniques and Julian Assange? Meanwhile, it's emerged that Taiwan has held five other Hong Kong fugitives for two months under similar conditions. This bizarre twist has drawn no international reaction. Odd that. The rumour mill continues to churn out stories that the 12 fugitives were taken in Hong Kong waters and never intended in flee. Of course, in this post-truth age no one bothers to substantiate such claims with any evidence. Could it become any crazier? Well yes. In effect, the opposition politicians have now tied the fate of the 12 fugitives to the broader USA and China geopolitical struggle. Is that wise? By embedding the discussions about getting the fugitives back to Hong Kong in that context, they've made a timely resolution harder. Another example of the Pan Dem's reckless conduct that harms their cause. So far so bad, and it gets worse. The US chimed in with a characterisation of the 12 fugitives as 'democracy activists'. This statement ignores the fact the group includes accused rioters and bomb-makers. The Mainland fired back portraying them as separatists. Well done Eddie and James, you've now sealed their fate. I have some experience in getting suspects back from the Mainland. Back in the day, my command handled a murder case involving a suspect fleeing north. Acting on information, and by thorough detective work, my officers located the suspect in Guangdong. Then began a discrete and delicate round of liaison. For some months, this went on. We established that the suspect had also committed lesser crimes on the Mainland. Eventually, he’s handed back. After a trial here in Hong Kong, then a guilty verdict, he’s serving his sentence. All this helped bring some closure for the poor victim's family. This serving of justice was possible because we established a rapport and goodwill based on mutual respect with our Mainland counterparts. This then led to an amicable resolution. My experience is far from unique. Many other suspects have come home under similar circumstances. Thus there is a supreme irony in all this. Having spent most of last year decrying the Chinese legal system and vilifying Beijing, the opposition now begs its indulgence. I'm not a trained negotiator, but I reckon such an approach is unlikely to work. Plus, any sensible person recognises that Beijing doesn't take kindly to external interference. The intervention by the US is bound to backfire. Did Eddie and James sit back to reflect on their options? Because let's face it; the imagery and substance of their actions serve only to tighten the knot for the 12 fugitives. A more rational protagonist may think that burning bridges with Beijing is not such a wise strategy. Besides, there is nothing for the parents to gain by making their kids de facto hostages in the topsy-turvy US and China dispute. When the tides turn and the noise dies down, the 12 fugitives should return and face justice here. Finally, if this mess taught us anything, it's that these local politicians don't comprehend the rules of the game they've elected to play. Either that or they're prepared to sacrifice the 12 fugitives and their parents in the bigger game — nasty business. 15/9/2020 2 Comments Trapped in Space & Time "Is your maths any good? We’ll be doing a lot of counting of boats as they round the mark”. While not believing in parallel universes, my unfortunate victim may wish these existed. Then, he could escape my attention. But, hey, it’s not every day you get a CERN particle physicist hostage for six hours. We were there to marshal a sailing race, and I’d opened the discussion with “Is your maths any good? We’ll be doing a lot of counting of boats as they round the mark”.
He had the good grace to came back with “Yep, my maths is OK”. Twenty minutes later, I learnt his profession. He immediately regretted telling me. Typically, people run away when I start on about my theory for unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity. And why it will be possible to achieve near light-speed using a blackhole, by skipping off the event horizon, in a slingshot action. I'm currently building a mock-up out of old toilet rolls, sticky back plastic, and a coat hanger. This proof of concept may yet allow us to escape this planet to colonise the galaxy. My new best friend, the particle physicist, couldn’t escape. But he confirmed there is a particle detector between the tubes of the Aberdeen Tunnel used to detect neutrinos. I knew it. Millions of neutrinos created in the Sun’s nuclear reactions pass through our body every day without ill effects. How cool is that? Between races, I managed to get in a discussion about multiverses, worm-holes, dark matter, black holes, and gravitational waves. When I say discussion, that’s an exaggeration. It was more him correcting me “No, the magnets at CERN don’t accelerate the particles. The magnet act to contain the particles in the beam”. Got that. OK, so what did I learn, besides the fact that I'm dumb? Well, for starters, fusion reactors on Earth are as far off as Brexit. But, no worries, because we have a functioning fusion reactor that appears every morning over the horizon and disappears at night. It’s output only takes about eight minutes to get here. We’d be better off harnessing that because it appears the Sun has five billion years on the clock. And don’t mention Professor Brian Cox, the poster boy of modern physics. Physicists are a jealous lot, and the fact that Brian Cox hasn’t done much real research is a bone of contention. Also, his youthful looks are not due to Brian using the Large Hadron Collider to travel back in time and regenerate. Who does he think he is? After all, we know the second law of thermodynamics prevents backward time travel. Yet, forward time travel is possible. Our GPS systems take account of the fact that time runs slower on satellites orbiting at high speed. Also, this means that astronauts who speed away from us to the Moon and then return have aged fractionally less than people on Earth. Although, it's now known that particle physicists listening to boring farts with their crackpot ideas age faster than anyone. Based on observations, I can attest to the fact that particle physicists can move fast once ashore, and when approached in the bar. Although, why wives jump to conclusions faster than the speed of light remains a mystery, yet it ages us. 12/9/2020 1 Comment Courting Disaster "The significant issue is the legitimacy of the Judiciary in a polarised society" Magistrate Stanley Ho Chun-yiu is on trial in the court of public opinion, along with the rest of the Judiciary it has to be said. Ho's recent removal from Eastern Magistracy has raised eyebrows and prompted much discussion. It's also affected the image of the Judiciary. A flaccid statement from them has done nothing to dampen speculation.
Despite assertions to the contrary, it's evident that Ho's transfer is far from routine. For starters, he jumped from a Magistracy to the High Court, albeit in an administrative role. Is this a promotion? In a rule-based bureaucracy, with a strict hierarchy, this is unusual. Ho stands accused of biased judgments and handing down light sentences in cases related to Hong Kong's civil unrest. Some see his acquittal rate as higher than other magistrates. Indeed, he's made strong adverse comments against the evidence given by police officers. One opinion leader noted that "police officers appearing in cases heard by Ho all seemed to be either unreliable or dishonest witnesses. Either it is an extraordinary coincidence that Magistrate Ho was assigned cases with weak evidence, or do we see a pattern that can be explained by the obvious reason." Netizens, legal types, and politicians have all raised concerns. Besides, the former head of operations at the ICAC, Tony Kwok, a man not known for supporting the police, wrote this article. He questions the actions of several judges, including Ho. For the laymen, it's difficult to assess the merits of these accusations. I know police officers can give weak evidence. Likewise, court prosecutors can fail to press cases with vigour. Nobody is infallible. Thus, as regards the specific conduct of Magistrate Ho, I'd caution against rushing to judgment. A mechanism is in place to deal with such matters. I'm assuming that process is underway. Although many reasonable, fair‑minded and well‑informed people have already taken a view, I’d rather wait. After all, assessing the attitudes of any person is hugely problematic. This reminds of Elizabeth I's words that she did not propose to "open windows into men's souls". Could it be that something else is going on, obscured from public view? Within most closed, elitist organisations it's expected that cliques form as people jockey for power and influence. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that such groupings may exist amongst our judges. An insider tells me these groupings coalesce around sporting activities such as golf. That's hardly unique. Whether Ho's transfer is related to internal machinations is impossible to say. However, with the imminent departure of the current Chief Justice, the tectonic plates of influence are shifting. Meanwhile, with predictable willful blindness, opposition politicians have jumped on this matter. The cry has gone out that judicial independence is under threat. Yet, a matter of months ago, these same politicians lobbied against District Court Judge Kwok Wai-kin. He's barred from hearing criminal cases related to the civil unrest. At the time, I warned the actions of opposition politicians set an unwelcome precedent. In effect, they've opened the door for any aggrieved party to question a judge's motives. So it proved. The more significant issue is the legitimacy of the Judiciary in a polarised society. Let's be clear, if the Judiciary overlooks public support, no matter the lofty legal ideals they embrace, they'll be out of kilter with societies needs. If such sentiment grows, it could then undermine the 'rule of law.' Former High Court Judge Henry Litton already highlighted that Hong Kong's Judiciary is not evolving to meet the challenges of the future. He and others are gravely concerned about the direction of travel and the ability to sustain the common law system beyond 2047. The bizarre aspect to this is those who proclaim themselves defenders of the 'rule of law' are pushing an ideological agenda that may backfire. For example, the Bar Association, the trade union for barristers, has adopted a distinct political position under the leadership of Philip Dykes. This privileged guild, with a de facto monopoly of defending certain cases, is rightly judged by a yardstick not applied to others. Thus, having taken the group into the realm of advocacy outside the courtroom, he can hardly complain when flak comes his way. The Hong Kong Judiciary is one of our vital societal pillars. Weaken it at your peril. And yet, many in that fraternity lead a sheltered life, disconnected from the grassroots. Given this and other distortions brought about by their archaic practices, strange costumes and baffling procedures, the right question is who's interests do the Judiciary serve? Is it a highly-paid debating forum for esoteric points of law, or is it an agency for stability in difficult times? They'd probably answer neither. My legal friends frequently remind me that judges are legal decision-makers, evaluating cases on their merits, without prejudice or preconception. I get that. Except, when the public forms an opinion that partiality has crept into the process, things will soon unravel. That could take us into uncharted waters, and I'm not in favour of going there. 8/9/2020 3 Comments Testing, Testing, Testing. "It's a sign of the opposition's immense privilege that they mock a free scheme that benefits the poor." Last week, I joined the government's Covid-19 testing scheme. To date, some 1.2 million people registered for the free test. Making an appointment online couldn't be easier. When I arrived at the test centre, I'm greeted, instructed to sanitise my hands, and then registered. Next, comes the test: a swab from my nose and one from the throat.
The only issue I had was my eyes watered a bit. I'm heading home after less than four minutes. Eighteen hours later, a negative result pops up on my mobile phone. The scheme is a testament to Hong Kong's organisational abilities, with the help of the Mainland. Now the government is extending tests to meet the demand. This high uptake is despite the activities of the naysayers, who sought to disrupt the testing by encouraging people to stay away. Only in a demented world would anyone seek to stop such a worthy public health initiative by inciting mass hysteria. Yet even medical doctors, with breathtaking deceit, came out to criticise. A quick examination of their backgrounds soon established them as members of the militant opposition. Their opportunistic ranting then faded as public support grew for the scheme. Scrambling to find a point of attack, they seized upon the low rate of positives. Have they forgotten that a pandemic begins with one infected subject? Thus, any detections, even one, is a step in the right direction. But when you allow the infected to circulate, the deaths mount up and mostly amongst the elderly. Am I the only one to get the distinct impression that some in the medical community have allowed politics to cloud their professionalism? Or is the fact that private doctors lost a potential cash-cow, something that irked them? After all, the government scheme is free. With private doctors charging thousands of dollars for a test, they've taken a hit. Of course, the opposition politicians objected because, well, the Mainland is assisting Hong Kong. In their minds, anything from the Mainland is verboten. Seeking to dissuade the public from joining the scheme, they touted stories of our DNA crossing the border in some sinister plot. When faced with unassailable evidence that the entire procedure takes place in Hong Kong, they embellished their fantasies. The best I heard involved the covert planting of a micro-chip on our bodies. These malicious efforts exposed an opposition that is willing to sacrifice people's health for a perceived political gain. I'm not surprised. After all, these are the same politicians who turn up at Prince Edward MTR Station to worship the 'dead' killed by the police on August 31, 2019. Ask the likes of Legislator Claudia Mo to name of any of the 'dead' and expect a fact-free convoluted answer. When you want details, these people go further down the rabbit hole with claims of a massive cover-up. They muse about secret trains taking the bodies away, families paid-off, and hundreds of people missing. Then gullible western politicians, blinded by prejudices, rush to repeat these fake stories. In no time, the narrative takes hold. Only one problem - the dead are coming back to life. One popped up in the UK, where he is avoiding riot charges. Here's a thorough account of the events at Prince Edward MTR. Anyway, I digress. At least legislator Doctor KWOK Ka-ki, of the Civic Party, had the good grace to acknowledge that Covid-19 testing has its merits and is well-run. Speaking on Radio 3, he waffled around the topic before finally letting his professional side make a rational statement. When pressed on what he'd do different, he had nothing much to offer. He next went completely off-script by praising the Mainland. Shurely shome mishtake! Meanwhile, the government has preordered enough Covid-19 vaccine for one-third of the population. Plans are also in place to secure vaccine for the rest of the community based on two doses per person. With stage three testing of vaccines underway, the process of immunisation should start in mid-2021. It's now inevitable that the opposition will build an insidious campaign around stopping this mass vaccination. No doubt they'll draw upon the anti-vaccine lunatics in the USA, who've contributed to the re-emergence of measles and other diseases. It's a sign of the opposition's immense privilege that they mock a free scheme that benefits the poor. They can afford a test. No wonder the opposition stands accused of shameful hypocrisy. While trumpeting 'human rights', they seek to deny people the right to a disease-free society. This denial disproportionately hits our economically-deprived elderly by exposing them to increased risk. All rational and compassionate citizens must embrace testing and a vaccine so that we can get back to a near-normal and protect our senior citizens. Meanwhile, the opposition's mask of common human decency has slipped. 6/9/2020 0 Comments I'm Thinking of Ending Things "Coming home is terrible, whether the dogs lick your face or not..." Spoiler alert - In truth, a spoiler alert is meaningless with this film. There is so much happening, so many evaluations possible that you'll need to view it several times.
"I'm Thinking of Ending Things" is a movie full of daunting ambiguity. Having viewed it once, and tried to comprehend the plot (is there a plot?), I needed a libation. Director Charlie Kaufman is testing the boundaries. Although billed as a modern horror film, the impact is more unsettling than fear-inducing. Deeply unsettling. This movie is excellent for Netflix because you can pause, reflect and then move on. Even better, you can rewind scenes — did that plaster on the father's face change position, did he get taller? Answer to both: yes! Plus, throughout, there is a blizzard of 'foreshadowing' that will keep the movie-nerds debating for years. Is that the intension? What's with the children's swing that keeps appearing, plus the reference to chains? Is it because time in this story swings back and forward, and yet remains 'chained' to an eventual outcome. That's one interpretation, but it's anybody's guess because of the ambiguity piles atop the ambiguity. Yep, I'll need to use that word a lot here. At a basic level, we have a young couple in a new relationship — weeks rather than months — travelling to see his parents for dinner. Snow is falling, as conditions deteriorate throughout the trip. At first, we see events through her eyes. I say her because it's never clear who she is: her name changes, her clothes and her profession. Is she a poet, painter or physicist? The boyfriend is Jake. He's a timid, socially inept chap; although sensitive and well-educated. Or so we are led to believe. On route to his parent's house, we get hints that things are out of kilter. Jake exhibits indications that he can read what his girlfriend is thinking. At one point in the car, the girlfriend breaks the fourth wall for a fleeting moment as her eyes connect with the audience. She then recites a poem which is at odds with her character. In the last segment of the poem, she again breaks the wall to lock her eyes on us. Jake exclaims his love of the poetry with "It's like you wrote it about me". Then on arrival at the parent's house, the weird stuff kicks in. The parents are a bit kooky, although pleasant enough. As the evening progresses, Mum and Dad age. Then they reverse direction to become their younger selves. All a bit fragmented and confounding. None of this comes in a 'shock' moment. Most of these transitions are subtle, some hard to notice — a small change in hairstyle or height. That's were pausing, and rewinding helps. Then a couple of instances took me by surprise. And yet, none of it could frighten or evoke fear. Throughout all this, we bounce to scenes of an older man working as a janitor in a school. Then the girl wanders the house to find a copy of the poem she'd recited early in the car. That's when the penny dropped for me. She's not real. There is also an animated pig that is maybe acting as a guide to the afterlife. Confused? (Don't get hung-up on the poorly rendered pig. The director couldn't get a real one to walk on the slippery floors and turn its head. Animation provided the solution.) The whole thing ends with a bizarre musical number from the show 'Oklahoma' with a cue that the janitor committed suicide. Beneath everything is a sub-text of how we perceive the world and reality. These are not especially original insights. Perhaps this is Jake's mind at work because he is a tad immature and awkward. That includes his over-earnest utterances. It's as if he's seeking to polish his credentials as a 'woke' male who is 'safe' to be around women. Taking a run at it, I reckon Jake is the janitor, and the whole story of the road trip is his imagining of a possible reality. He's a lonely nobody who has suffered many slights in life. In the modern world, Jake is out of place. The girl is someone he once admired in a bar, although it never went beyond a fleeting encounter and her rejection of his attention. We are inside Jake's head, which echoes back to the director's earlier work as a writer on "Being John Malkovich". Could the title be signalling Jake's intent to commit suicide? Indeed, the final moment of the film suggests the janitor kills himself. But I don't know because there is more ambiguity here. The four lead actors — Jesse Plemons, Jessie Buckley, Toni Collette and David Thewlis — give impressively understated performances. Jesse Plemons as 'Jake' captures the disconnect between the surface personality and something bubbling deep inside. You know from the first moment he's an odd one. That sense of disquiet about him grows in increments. Toni Collette quickly adopts the unsettling mother role she rolled out in 'About a Boy'. Both Collette and Thewlis make for uncomfortable, cringe-inducing, in-laws. Although the story is strange, and at times inaccessible, it does engage. In the end, it's not a sad or morose film despite themes of regret, with isolation played out in a disturbing landscape. Nonetheless, I'm left perplexed about the purpose of the whole venture. Maybe the director wants us to think about the outsider. Doubtless, he's messing with us. Perhaps I need to watch it again. 4/9/2020 1 Comment Campbell Seeks Victim Status "As the high priest of the dark arts of deflection and propaganda, he's now engaged in an exercise of image rejuvenation." Alastair Campbell is at it again. For the uninitiated, Campbell was Prime Minister Tony Blair's spin doctor. Amongst Campbell's many doubtful accolades is his role in compiling a dodgy weapons dossier that cleared the way for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. As we all know, that went well. Campbell is a man who has built his life and career around misleading and manipulating people.
These days he's peddling a book with a tale of his victimhood around mental health issues. These are not matters I'd generally comment on except that Campbell made it an issue. Crucially, I would have more sympathy for Campbell if he had the common decency to own up to his part in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children. After all, can we attribute his ongoing struggles with depression, to the terrible things he's done? I'm no expert, but I reckon it must have an impact. As the high priest of the dark arts of deflection and propaganda, he's now engaged in an exercise of image rejuvenation. Helping him out are the useful idiots at the Guardian newspaper. Reading this piece in the Guardian, it's soon evident that Campbell wants our sympathy and understanding. And coming from a family that has experienced issues with depression, I have a degree of empathy. Except that the substance of Campbell's assertions comes wanting because he's less than honest — I hear a cry of 'nothing new there!' We know Campbell has a history of depression going way back; he has also spoken about his alcoholism. And yet I can't help but wonder if his ongoing self-deceit over the Iraq saga is playing with his soundness of mind. After all, Campbell is an astute man, who must in his quiet moments dwell on his part in the death and maiming of thousands. His leading role in a decision that caused untold misery to many families worldwide must be chewing away inside him. Especially as the mess that is Iraq continues today. And yet, we hear little about this saga from Campbell except when he seeks to earn our pity. Instead, he gives us details of his hallway curtains and his shaving habits. We also learn he operates a number system of one to 10 to assess his state of depression. I'd award him 10 out of 10 for being disingenuous. Of course, you may think a protracted period of calm reflection and solitude may help. Yet Campbell enjoys the limelight, and loves the sound of his own voice; thus, he must seek the attention he craves. So, despite all his 'suffering and pain', he still manages to pop up on TV and in the media at frequent intervals to share his words of wisdom. Campbell tells us "It was a horrible shock and I felt scared and powerless" when the Hutton inquiry sought his private diaries. That inquiry looked at the death of government weapons inspector David Kelly, a man who some believe Campbell propelled to suicide. It would be nice if Campbell could at least have the honesty to address the 'horrible shock and powerlessness' that Iraqi children must have felt as bombs fell on them. Listen how Campbell makes light of these horrors when caught out with his own words. He deftly steps over the corpses. Nonetheless, you've got to give Campbell his due. His antenna remains fine-tuned to the cultural zeitgeist with its fawning over victims. Accordingly, Campbell is doing what he does best — spinning. He's crafted a narrative with himself at the centre. And, the mental health card is only second to the race card as unassailable in the current climate. Having seen the Windsor boys exploit the mental health issue to regain lustre for their damaged brand, Campbell jumped at the opportunity. Now, I know, instances of well-known people talking about their struggle with mental illness can encourage others to consider seeking help. I get that. Yet, I'm far from convinced with Campbell. I'd maybe change my mind if he donated the profits from his book to the Iraq kids who lost arms and legs. Instead, Campbell has jumped on the gravy train getting himself appointed as a mental health ambassador. No doubt that will earn him speaking engagements to keep the revenue stream running and himself in the limelight. Meanwhile, Campbell's mate and partner in crime, Tony Blair, pops up to review the book. Blair is looking like a haunted shell of his former self. In recent years, he's acquired a worn and haggard look. Considering what is on his mind, this is no surprise. On the other hand, waking up next to Cherie can't help matters. Anyway, Blair opted to bury his psychosis in religion, something he kept quiet about that while in office at Campbell's bidding because "We don't do God". Since leaving office, Blair has 'done God' big time with his conversion to the Catholic faith. Could that permanently pained expression be a realisation he's to burn in hell for eternity? Campbell, as an atheist, has no such worries. His concern should be the impact of cognitive dissonance, which is most painful when evidence strikes at the heart of how we see ourselves— when it threatens beliefs that we are kind, ethical, competent, or smart. Marcel Pagnol, in his play 'The Glory Merchants', asserted "In politics, everything is a comedy." Well, there is nothing funny about this pair. It's time for Blair and Campbell to stop talking and go away. We've heard enough from these Janus-faced men. 2/9/2020 1 Comment Foot In Mouth? "Basic Law: Article 85 - The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference." There's an excellent reason Hong Kong people are concerned about the separation of powers. In a place with a democracy deficit, the 'separation of powers' at least ensures that 'check and balances' exist and that our judiciary remains independent. Carrie Lam, our Chief Executive, knows this very well or at least I thought she did.
Then this week we get a statement in which she contradicts herself. On the one hand, she says we have 'checks & balances', and then in the next utterance, she asserts we have no 'separation of powers'. Which is it? Am I missing something here? Unfortunately, it is precisely these blunders that cause even her supporters — the few that remain — to despair. This mess comes on the back of what was turning out to be a fine week for Carrie. She'd seen off the ludicrous opposition to the Covid-19 testing scheme from a lunatic fringe of medical workers. Their attempts to sabotage this critical public health initiative failed. For the sake of clarity, if we don't have 'separation of powers', then I'm afraid Hong Kong's much-trumpeted 'rule of law' is over. Simple as that. So either Carrie Lam doesn't understand the concept or something has changed because she frequently cites 'the rule of law' as our great strength. Let's not forget that business people and ordinary citizens take much reassurance from this principle. They know disputes or criminal charges will face adjudication in an open, transparent manner without one party or another exercising undue influence. It's called justice. After all, the Basic Law says this at Article 85 : "The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference. Members of the judiciary shall be immune from legal action in the performance of their judicial functions." Unfortunately, Carrie has form for such blunders with a long list behind her. She'll usually refuse to admit she's said anything wrong. Then she'll clarify her position with a subtle statement down the line. Although, in fairness to her, she did recently admit on TV that she's unqualified for her job. Bless her! |
AuthorWalter De Havilland was one of the last of the colonial coppers. He served 35 years in the Royal Hong Kong Police and Hong Kong Police Force. He's long retired. Archives
January 2021
|
RSS Feed