Odd thing, ain't it? Let's start off with a dictionary definition:
mor·al (môrl, mr-)
adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence.
n.
1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong
We all have a moral code that we live by - each of us have a slightly different moral code. This is exactly how it should be. While one person can believe it's morally right to strap on an explosive vest, walk into a crowded shopping centre and blow themselves up, another person can believe their morals dictate them to drive into the centre of town, pour gasoline over themselves and set light to it and yet another person can comfortably decide to walk past innumerable women each day and make that conscious decision not to rape and murder them.
Morality is subjective. Very subjective. It has to be that way. No-one has the right to dictate a complete moral structure on us, because it's at that point that individual responsibility ends and pack mentality or even slavery ensues - not the kind of slavery which relies on physical restraints, but the psychological type practised by dictators and cult leaders.
Just lately there seems to be a worrying trend in America to lend moral weight to everything. New laws are being passed with morality clauses which put into common law the right to refuse medical treatment or retail service or physical defense if the person does not feel morally obligated to do so. Imagine if you will being operated on by a Jehova's Witness who decides he cannot morally allow you a blood transfusion despite the fact that you've just been shot and are currently haemorrhaging all over the sidewalk, or the pharmacist who refuses your raped and possibly pregnant eight year old daughter emergency contraception on the grounds that their staunch catholic morality considers birth control ungodly, or the soldier who refuses to protect his islamic comrades because he's jewish.
Morality has no place in Law: Law is not "Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence.".
And there's more:
What is it between the US and the UN? Or the EU for that matter? Does US foreign policy really amount to nothing much more than "subjugate all other countries to our will"?
Let's look at the evidence:
Cato, a US antil-UN lobby group whose handbook sounds rather close to US policy.
The US has consistently argued against foreign plans to curb Global Warming. Lately they have been trying to convince everyone that the widely accepted scientific evidence that Greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming is wrong.
The problem is that since 9/11, George Bush's administration has convinced the majority of Americans that they hold not only the moral high ground on everything, but that the mere fact of not believing that they hold the moral high ground on everything is anti-American. Which means that when the state ignores the growing rumour that Saddam Hussein orchestrated the 9/11 attacks they can walk into the country and take over with massive internal support. As the largest, most powerful country in the world, they can easily afford to consider themselves above international law. Just like Al Capone did, or Adolf Hitler, the American Government has decided to follow its own off-kilter version of international law where you can build a false image of a country in the minds of your populace, then use that false image to justify a pre-emptive invasion. Who cares if it's illegal? Of course it's illegal, but if you're too big to be held to account, it makes no difference.
So what is Bush trying to hide by monging the evidence for climate change, and why is he doing such a bad job of it? Well, it's probably the first attempts to try a Stalinesque revision of history. Just a couple of months ago, it was common knowledge that market forces precluded Bush from ever agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol. Big Business runs America and there is no way on this Earth that they would ever tolerate any American Government setting vastly expensive cleanliness regulations on them.
I wondered how much the Government reflected the view of the people and how attitudes had changed over the years, so here's an article from 1998 entitled "What do people really think of the UN?" and then compare that to this article from April.
Quite a difference. Some of it explainable under the circumstances, some of it obviously evidence of Bush's unbelievable and scary spin.
The more I look at reports coming out of the States, the more it becomes glaringly obvious that Bush will use any method available to forward his vision - One Nation Under God? Oh no, we want one World under George.
And Britain? Well, we won't stand in his way, but I'm damned if I'll agree to it. In maybe twenty years time, we're going to see massive conflict between east and west. Just remember, we're all going to be on the wrong side. They're right, we're wrong and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it - short of emigrating to New Zealand or Switzerland or something.
Do try and enjoy the ride, won't you.
