What happened when 'we' bombed the oil field the other night?

When 'we' bombed the 'oil field' the other night,

was there just oil and a field there?

Or were any of what are known as 'human beings' there too?

The kind that get the oil out of the ground.

The oil that we don't talk about,

when we talk of war and peace and democracy

and doing things for the good of the people,

the people like those who work in

oil fields...

Newly found Alice in Wonderland pages come to light

NEW ALICE IN WONDERLAND MANUSCRIPT COMES TO LIGHT

Alice sat down on a bench.
A very important-sounding voice said, 'You can't sit here.'
Alice looked round. She couldn't see anyone, so she went on sitting.
'You're sitting on me,' the voice said.
Alice looked down. She realised that it was the bench talking to her.
'I am Military Bench,' said the bench, 'and we will fight them on the beaches.'
'Who?' said Alice.
'We've done it before and we'll do it again,' he said.
'Yes,' said Alice, 'but who?'
'There's only one word for them,' said Military Bench, 'because that's what they are.'
'Who though?' said Alice.
'And we will stand by our French friends,' Military Bench went on.
Alice looked up and saw that the scribes were there too, and they were clapping.
'What a remarkable speech,' they chorused.
'One of the best speeches ever,' they chorused.
'The best leader they haven't got,' they chorused.


Just then Alice heard a booming sound far off.
'What's that?' said Alice.
'That,' said Military Bench, 'is the sound of greatness. We have shown the world we won't take it lying down. We will meet force with force and farce with farce. An eye for a tooth and a tooth for a leg.'

The scribes applauded.

'Oh,' said Alice, 'no one will be hurt, will they?'

'Aha,' said Military Bench, 'only the bad ones.'
'And we're on the side of the good ones?' said Alice.
'Yes and no,' said Military Bench, 'in this particular case, the two sides, as such, are both bad. Apart from us. We're good.'
'Good,' said Alice,'I wouldn't want to be bad.'
'And, because they're bad, we're getting at the bad ones.'
'Which bad ones?' said Alice.
'The bad ones,' said Military Bench.

Another boom went off in the distance

'And no good ones will be hurt?' said Alice anxiously.

'Well, we won't actually know whether they will be or won't be. Or if we do know, we won't be telling you. I can swear to that on my father's grave,' said Military Bench.

'Ah, his father,' said one of the scribes.
'Ironic!' said another.
That's a funny name, thought Alice, so his full name must have been 'Ironic Bench'.
I would like to find out more about him, one day, she thought.

The Bench seemed now to be puffing itself up, getting bigger and bigger, so Alice thought she'd walk on.

And she did.




LikeCommentShare

How Corbyn lost Oldham.

I am very grateful to this newspaper for giving me an opportunity
to respond to the Oldham by-election - and indeed to respond
to every aspect of Corbynism since it first appeared.

I was one of the first to notice Corbyn's jumper
as a key part of why he would fail to win the Labour
leadership contest and though I wasn't entirely right
in that matter, I think I can say with confidence that
he would have won it by more votes had he worn
a suit and tie.

Again, I spotted the fact that Corbyn has spent a
lifetime on the backbenches. I don't think anyone
had noticed that before, so I made that public.

More importantly, I've been able to write and
talk about that again
and again. And again and again...and how Corbyn has
split the Labour Party. The Labour Party used to
be united. All the time. In the Blair era, the Labour
Party had a great, charismatic leader who united
the party round the need to kill people in the
Middle East. This was a major achievement
and everyone in the press - and therefore the world -
are in great admiration of him for doing that.

The moment Corbyn came in, he gave support
to the little ragbag of outsiders, losers, has-beens
and wannabees, while the people who could really
unite the party have been pushed to the edges.
That's why I am so glad that the TV companies
give these great unity-creators such a good
airing day in day out, to come on to the TV
and explain how bad Corbyn is. This unites
the party. Obviously.

Now to Oldham: well not literally. I've never been
there. Oldham was a disaster for Corbyn.
If he hadn't been the leader, Oldham would
have been a 100% Labour-voting constituency.
No one would have voted Tory, UKIP or LibDem.
As it was, thousands of people refused to vote for Corbyn.

Even so, there is clearly something wrong with the people
of Oldham because some of them did actually vote Labour.

I look forward to being on Question Time, Any Questions,
Sky News, ITV News, Channel 4 News, Channel Five,
Five Live, World at One, the Daily Politics, to put
these crucial ideas across.

I'm not actually an MP anymore but I do have a place
in the House of Lords though I haven't been able to get
there recently as I am spending more time with my
yacht.

Important Speech on why we should go to war, just released.

"We can drop bombs through the eye of a needle.

We can't always find the needle. 

But we drop the bombs anyway. 

And they land very accurately. 

On..er...whatever's there. 

Which is good, isn't it? 

"There will be civilian casualties. 

That's true. 

But these will be less important than our civilian casualties

...er...yes.

I think we're all agreed on that.

"Every time a bomb falls out of one of our planes 

onto the people of the Middle East, 

our credibility with the people of the Middle East 

goes up...er....yes.

We will strain every tissue to bring people

together to discuss how to bring an end

to the killing

apart from the killing we're doing. 

And the people of the Middle East

are with us on this.

They're always very grateful to us.

They love us.

And always have done.

All the way back to..er...Kitchener..

and Gordon. 

Great men. Much loved.

"We are very sympathetic to the er...

plight of the refugees.

Yes, there will be refugees

as a result of our bombing action

we know that, 

but you can rely on us

to...er...send them back,

where we will bomb them.

You can rely on us to do that. 

I would like to make a point about Russia.

We don't trust Russia. 

They say they're killing ISL people.

If they are, they're doing it in the wrong way.

If they're not, they should be.

Yes.

And Assad.

Assad is the most evil person to have ever 

walked the earth.

He kills innocent civilians.

Can you imagine that?

We are doing all we can to

remove his enemies from the face of the earth.

That's what we're doing

and we know why we're doing it.

And none of us want the Russians in there

instead of us. 

A quick point about Jeremy Corbyn.

He may look like a weak, useless, pacifist.

And he is. 

He is very, very weak.

Very, very useless.

And very, very pacifist.

He's also a crazed killer.

Incredibly dangerous.

And with the potential to bring Britain to its knees

in the blink of an eye.

He and his evil marxist henchmen

sympathise with terrorists.

I can put my hand on my heart

and say we on this side of the argument

 have never ever sympathised 

with terrorists anywhere.

You will know for example

that we have never in anyway

ever ever had anything to do with 

Northern Irish Protestant paramilitaries

directly, indirectly, through intermediaries

or secretly through our secret services.

Never. Ever. Not ever. Or ever. 

Nor any terrorists in Libya. 

Or in Syria. 

Oh, no Syria is different.

Sorry, as you were.

In Syria we sympathise with moderate terrorists.

Who do their terrorism moderately.

There are about 70,000 of them.

The moment we bomb ISL

the 70,000 moderate terrorists will come 

rushing out of their houses and 

head for Assad and get him. 

There may be some Russians in the way.

Yes.

We have figured that out. 

But...er...we haven't figured out what to do

about that yet.

But the 70,000 moderate terrorists

will get that sorted.

Russia isn't the big bear it once was.

No, really it's just an old threadbare teddy.

A threadbear.

Sorry, for that levity in a moment of deep, deep seriousness.

Which reminds me:  

"No government takes the decision lightly to go to war...

that's why we keep doing it again and again

...er...not lightly. 

So, I would like to plead with  you

to stay united with us on this.

After all, there's no one else out there who's united.

Thank you. 

Vote for war.

We've got to keep this economy going somehow.

Keynes wasn't right.

But Keynes for killing makes sense.

Pump prime the arms economy, stimulated growth.

You see, everything connects.

When they don't there's trouble.

And when there's trouble we pour oil on troubled waters.

Oil? Who mentioned oil?

Not me.

You must be thinking of someone else.

Thank you.

Bombs away!

Chin chin. 

The Walrus and the Carpenter are very sorry to have to eat the Oysters

Whenever I hear politicians saying how terribly sorry they are for bombing people, I always reach for these verses to give me a bit of insight:







A loaf of bread,' the Walrus said,
Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed —
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed.'


But not on us!' the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!'
The night is fine,' the Walrus said.
Do you admire the view?

It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!'
The Carpenter said nothing but
Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf —
I've had to ask you twice!'

It seems a shame,' the Walrus said,
To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!'
The Carpenter said nothing but
The butter's spread too thick!'

I weep for you,' the Walrus said:
I deeply sympathize.'
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

O Oysters,' said the Carpenter,
You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none —
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one."

Comments from the 'Comments' thread, following 'Dear Ms Morgan' this week

On the thread following my 'Dear Nicky Morgan' article in Tuesday's Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/01/religious-education-atheism-humanism-schools-pupils-gcse#comments

I wrote some replies to comments. they are four different 'replies' and are in different places on the thread but I've put them together here - numbered separately:




1. re atheism: the belief that both 'theoretical' and 'practical' atheists have is that they can live their lives without reference to the supernatural. They enact their lives in that way, every second of every day. Mostly this is unremarkable and looks like doing one's daily stuff. Even so, it does mean that such things as coincidences, accidents, lucky breaks, gifts etc are not connected in any way to thanking deities or hoping deities will help you. That requires 'belief' that the everyday is sufficient. Some people think a lot about this. Others just get on with it.


That said, the crunch point comes for many atheists when serious mishaps and tragedies occur or indeed when such people (me) think about our own birth and death and/or the universe. Again, many atheists just do it. On the other hand, many think about how these moments are in fact 'material' or 'just there' or 'part of the mystery of the universe' etc. So long as the supernatural is not involved in such people's conclusions, what we have is a set of beliefs about birth, death, the universe and some view on whether life has a 'meaning' or 'purpose' or not.


I'm not sure why many people above think that none of this involves a set of 'beliefs'. In my experience, many atheists (who may also call themselves humanists or vice versa - people really don't get too worried about names, you know), think long and hard about this stuff and in effect, carry around a portable, invisible 'book' that explains or justifies their actions across life, across the death of their loved ones, and towards their own death. How do you think we cope when, say, our parents die, or - as in my case - when my son died? We have to figure out how this fits in to daily existence. We don't write a sacred book about it, but we still have words and thoughts to help us put it into how we can go on and live the next day and the day after.


Again, I'm not sure why this seems to give some people above cause to imagine that an atheistical existence is merely a negative state of 'not religion'. Maybe that's what it looks like from the outside, observing atheists, but to live that way, is a different matter - even if some of us express it as 'no, I don't do religion' or some such.




2. Many people have pointed out that there is the word 'religion' in the title 'Religious Studies' and that 'explains' why humanism or atheism is not in that course of study. The online article provides a link to:

'The Religious Education Council of England and Wales document: 'Curriculum Framework'.


If people with the view that there is no place for humanism in RS, could take a few moments to read who recommended that there should be a place for it and why (see the section headed 'Purpose', perhaps they could or should argue with them about it, rather than me. After all, these were representatives of a wide range of religious organisations.


It's quite clear that RS at GCSE goes far beyond talking about specific religions. Its remit is to talk about values, and the purpose of life.

Why not have a look to see what it says?




3. Some people above appear to be saying that atheism and non-religious views have no history or belief system. In fact, there is a long history to this, some of it being a struggle with the ruling orders here such people found themselves. But then how, in the context of religious explanations for the cosmos, human destiny and human purpose, did people come to the conclusion that they didn't need any form of supernatural being to guide them or believe in?

That is a fascinating history involving individuals, groups, movements. A literature past and present supports it. There are many significant documents, court cases, examples of imprisonment - and worse - from all over the world. As I said in the article, some of this goes back to ancient and classical times. Rather than simply saying 'there is no history' or 'there is nothing to teach', why not google 'atheism' 'atheists', 'humanism' 'humanists' and see where it takes you. Even the history of Charles Bradlaugh - mentioned in the article is worth a read. If not, try Lucretius. Or Baron d'Holbach.




4. Just to clarify, Religious Studies is 'about' religion, not worship. I am in favour of it. The committee that advised the government recommended that 'non-religious worldviews' should be included. They glossed 'non-religions worldviews' in a footnote saying 'including humanism'. This parity of esteem was not carried through to the RS GCSE syllabus - which is NOT a compulsory subject. You choose it. There IS mention of humanism in the syllabus but no parity of esteem Because of that, the Sec of State's comments were challenged in court and the case won. However, so far the govt have not budged.

House of Commons Education Committee called me to witness on Holocaust Education

This was my written submission to the Education Committee's session on Holocaust Education at the House of Commons today. I spoke more or less to this in the session:

Here's the link. I was on a panel from 10.30-11.00

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/d786196e-87a6-491e-b5a2-799096b34531

I have been involved in Holocaust education in a variety of ways: making radio programmes, in many schools reading poems that are about members of my family, doing presentations to older school students about my family. I have also observed my own children’s perceptions of what they have been taught.

1. There is a difficulty about distinguishing between the Holocaust and other genocides. That’s to say, the issue is not simply one of numbers but of intention. So, as far as victims are concerned, it could be said it makes no difference: a death is a death. However, politically it is important to distinguish between brutal mass murder of people and the scientifically engineered attempt to eliminate a people from European history. This is a hard point to make to young children - perhaps impossible. It is one that can be discussed with older school students.

2. Holocaust denial is alive and well. I have faced it in colleges. Clearly, documents are circulating, things are being said that ‘the Jews’ invented the Holocaust.

3. My own view is that it is vital that the story of the Holocaust is disentangled from the story of Israel. That is another discussion to be had. The Holocaust is a story that took place between 1933 and 1945, quite independently of the story of Israel. Intertwining it, either by the Zionist narrative or by the ‘denial narrative’ is counter-productive.

4. In order to counter denial it is vital - more than vital - essential that we get every minute fact is correct and corroborated. I see books of all kinds circulating around the world of education with glaring errors eg Belsen described as an ‘extermination’ camp, 6 million Jews were gassed in Auschwitz and so on. It is also vital that teachers are directed to up-to-date sources where testimonies can be verified eg Nizkor.

5. Personal testimony is vital. I’m not sure that there is enough video of personal testimony used in schools, as teachers feel under pressure to tell the whole story. There are several key films, - ‘Shoah’, ‘Le Chagrin et le Pitié’ and the BBC films of Lawrence Rees. Likewise, the testimonies that came through the courts.
We have to accept that from now on, it is becoming less and less possible to invite survivors into schools. We should be thinking in terms of the children or relatives of survivors where the family has documents and recordings of their relatives.

6. The UK was involved in the Holocaust in several ways. People came out of Poland and Germany with stories, the authorities here reacted to this. This has been documented. Antisemitism prior to the Holocaust has a long history, the UK played a role in both sustaining and combating it. The story of Guernsey reminds us of what could have happened if the Nazis had been successful in invading. In order to bring the story home, these aspects can be told.

7. There is fruitful discussion to be had around the subject of ‘What could have been done?’ The German state in 1930 was as democratic a state as any in Europe. How was it possible to dismantle this by January/February 1933 - that is, prior to the laws passed specifically against Jews? I see very little discussion around the so-called ‘Reichstag decree’ and the ‘Enabling Acts’ of that time. Democratically elected governments are capable of passing anti-democratic laws and instituting terror. I am of the strong opinion that we need to keep distinguishing between ‘the Nazis’ and ‘the Germans’. Most students have not lived under a regime of terror. We do not know what it is like to be coerced on a daily basis, whilst being subjected to daily propaganda.

8. There is fruitful discussion to be had around the subject of what do we do now? This applies to a) the rise of racist groups b) countries that appear to be on the verge of practising genocide c) refugees.

9.There is now a substantial body of fiction, poetry, cinema and TV which can be used thematically with any of this. It is not a sufficient condition for ‘Holocaust Education’ but I would argue that it is a necessary one.

10. None of this should be used to claim that one victim is more hard done by than another. A death is a death. A mass murder is a mass murder. As I stated at the outset, much of this is as much about ‘intention’ as ‘outcome’. This doesn’t make what happened worse. It affects how we view politics.