Benedict Arnold/ Tony Blair

I felt quite a feeling of revulsion on reading in a recent Economist that in September 2001, Tony Blair in a speech had said “ Mine is the first generation able to contemplate the possibility that we may live our entire lives without going to war or sending our children to war”. If nothing more, that shows a lack of prescience and judgement to say such a things as a national leader and then a year or two later reverse that opinion with a vengeance. It looks in 2007 as if Blair has become responsible for many deaths and casualties in Iraq, which may not cease for many years to come, and without any obvious benefit to people in England or indeed Iraq! His latest argument is that we should contemplate 'liberal intervention' in the affairs of other nations overseas. I am not quite sure how this policy is different from old-style colonialism and implies a certain arrogance in a leader. I would hope whatever the policy a politician espouses, there should be some consistency and ultimately a measure of success, that we can all recognise.

It is quite understandable that the Americans should denigrate the name of Benedict Arnold (1741 – 1801) best known for betraying the United States forces and plotting to surrender the American fort at West Point to the English during the American Revolution. He is the most famous traitor in the history of the United States.

However the English probably took a different view and thought Benedict Arnold a loyal subject of King George. We had until recently supposed Tony Blair's responsibility was to safeguard the future of England and pursue policies that would benefit his own country - not the USA. While the Americans may feel happy that Tony Blair made what appears to be a 'personal' decision to support the USA, it does seem to be against the better judgement of the English people. However much Tony Blair may admire the USA, nevertheless one cannot help wonder whether there are not some other parallels in history, which need to be considered!

Servants

I have had servants at home since arriving in Venezuela in 1961, 45 years ago. I am not even sure one should admit it! Servants are wonderfully useful, and truth to tell I could not now live without someone to do my daily laundry and cooking. You could argue that it frees me to do other important and useful things in life such as writing! Servants are so cheap! You may pay a servant only US$100 per month plus food and lodging. A real bargain for a soul. It is lucky that populations continue to grow so fast, thus providing surplus labour which will eventually swell the pool of available servants!

It is not all cakes and ale! I cannot find things that only yesterday I put down in a safe place I know of. A continual tidying-up process goes on leaving me a stranger in my own house. When asked, the servant denies all knowledge of any artifact put down. Food that I buy disappears, and I am left eating 'laing' and rice when I had hope to be eating cakes and ale!

I get my own drinks from the kitchen - as Welsh ploughboy ought to - instead of calling for them on a tray. I still feel a sense of shame why I cannot do these things for myself, and no doubt a lot of people reading this essay will dislike reading my admission or even my truthfulness. Before retiring years ago, I even had a driver! Perhaps it stems from the day in 1944 when I came home for the holidays from my expensive school, and raised my cap politely to our gardener. My mother roundly ticked me off for raising my hat to an inferior. I still do not quite understand why in a world where equality and democracy are said to be important, very little effort is made by governments - and the international great and the good - to change to the status quo.

Some of us wonder why the world is not a better place, and I have slowly come to the conclusion that the elite from the ruling classes in every country of the world like it that way. However poor a country may be overall with people subsisting on US$2 per day, having surplus labour makes life so much easier for the ruling classes and elite, who may represent only 10% of the total population. Anyone who is anyone does not wish to see much change in the availability of servants. Change takes place but hopefully oh so slowly.

Abortion

I note the Pope was very much against abortion in his visit to Brazil. I think I would agree that abortion is a most unhappy result of young people unable to understand the consequences of their coupling. To what extent I would bring the full force of the law or even the threat of hell onto unhappy young people, I am less sure. It practice it does not seem to make much difference as abortions take place, law or no law. Young people need help, and I would think the girls especially, who often seem naive at this stage of their lives.
Looking at our biology, it seems men are capable of fathering many hundreds of children, and women often as many as 12 offspring in a lifetime. It is not quite clear to me why God would have created us in His image with this ability to breed! When I was born the world population was 2 billion, seventy years later it is 6.6 billion. This is an untenable situation economically and environmentally, unless of course you believe that famine and drought, disease and pestilence, violence and war will be the safety valve eventually. The Four Horsemen are indeed the ultimate solution.
I still feel mankind has some responsibility to worry about the future, but perhaps I am wrong. I take the view that allowing children to be born is perfectly acceptable - but only if children so born are looked after properly - food, love and education. It is not right that many should condemn abortion but then allow these selfsame children to die at a rather later age of disease, malnutrition and violence. I suppose that it is just possible to argue from a religious point-of-view that so many extra deaths of children don't really matter as God will take care of them after life is over, but I don't really like such a ruthless argument!