Arguing About Arguments, the Chinless, and North Korean Parrots...Written by Ed Williams
Wanna know something that I get asked about pretty frequently from people who contact me about this column? They ask when I might write one about my views on politics and world affairs.
I really don’t know why it matters. My opinions are just that, only my opinions, and mean no more and no less than anyone else's. In past I’ve studiously avoided writing about politics and world events because there are already tons of people out there who write about such subjects, and, to tell y’all truth, I wonder why some of them even bother putting in effort. Columns about politics and world events end up being nothing more than columnist’s take on such things, but I guess people are interested in knowing just what those “takes“ are. Maybe they spur discussion, or something. Given that, I’m going to take one shot at giving y’all my honest slant on some of big news items going on out in world today. And hey, if y’all don’t like it, don‘t worry about it, cause it‘ll be a long time before I do this again. With all that having being said, here’s a short synopsis of what I see goin’ on out in world these days:
1. North Korea - Run by a megalomaniac who looks like a human version of a parrot dressed in green army fatigues. He constantly puffs his chest out and threatens nuclear troubles for all world around him, when reality is that he can’t even feed his own people. He only has nuclear chip to bargain for much needed hand-outs with, so he’ll drag out negotiations regarding them for as long as possible, even though he needs said hand-outs to keep his regime afloat. Doesn’t matter in least to him as he’ll still be eating through it all. This guy and person in charge of running “Oil-for-Food” program over at United Nations must’ve both attended same management school, that’s about only thing I can figure.
2. Syria - Terrorist supporting nation run by son of its previous dictator. He’s most notable for having no chin and for having even less leadership ability. Anxious to hang onto power at all costs, he’ll suck up to both U.S. and terrorists with equal amounts of zeal. Pretty much hoochie mama of middle east, he’ll sing a sweet song to whomever happens to be playing fiddle for him at time. My money says that if someone walked up behind him and hollered “Osama” really loud that he would salute and click his heels together before he even realized what he was doing.
BilderbergsWritten by Robert Bruce Baird
In words of a secret agent who has signed Official Secrets Act in Britain we find rationale for what government and supranational organizations have been involved in since Cleopatra, Christopher Marlowe and his own immediate predecessors Crowley and Ian Fleming. David Barrett tells us:
"Although policies of 'need-to-know' and 'compartmentalized knowledge' can sometimes cause more trouble than they're worth, there are very sensible reasons for them; there are many things which do require highest levels of secrecy. If a careless word at an embassy cocktail party were to reveal how successful Britain was at intercepting and decrypting another country's communications, a simple change of cypher equipment or cypher key generator could throwaway years of painstaking work at GCHQ. Another careless word could cause life of a long-term, well-established British agent abroad to be threatened, or at very to be bust open.
Lord George-Brown, a former Foreign Secretary (1966-68), raises a disturbing point about security, and trustworthiness or otherwise of members of security services and Diplomatic Service - and, by extension, MPs and Ministers of State. If someone is under suspicion, he writes,
‘Inevitably, much of evidence in such cases is hearsay or almost unprovable deduction, and one must reckon with natural wish of colleagues to protect, as it were, a fellow-member of club, especially when they don't know, and can't really be told, full extent of matter. This clearly happened in case of Burgess and Maclean. (60)
MPs themselves are a club; very senior civil servants - 'the Whitehall mandarins' - are a club, members of MI5 and MI6 are a club; British establishment, whether in public office or not, is a club. Most of these people also belong to various gentlemen's clubs; some belong to that huge but secretive club, Freemasons. Without casting any aspersions against any of these organizations, or their rules, regulations, restrictions, customs or obligations regarding 'mutual support' and 'members in need', it is not in slightest surprising if individual members look out for interests of each other, especially if they are friends and dinner and drinking companions. Over years favours, large and small, are traded; when someone is potentially in trouble, fellow 'club' members are likely - rightly or wrongly - to help them out.
The sort of 'corruption' of which critics accuse Freemasonry is not fault of Freemasonry any more than two members of any other club helping each other is fault of that club. In most cases it's questionable whether it's even corruption. Really it's simply human nature, for good and for bad. But those who spend their lives looking for evil, will find it everywhere." (61)