Bobbing Around

 

*About Bobbing Around subscribe/unsubscribe guidelines for contributions *Thank you, Atlantic Bridge *REMINDER: the second free-edit contest. *Bob's newest release, and report of progress. *EPPRO expands its function. *Responses to 'TERRORISM' Clive Donaldson Ariana Overton Susie Evans Vicki Delany Gary Birrell Larry Retzak *Other responses from readers. Vicki Delany: more on the apostrophe. *IRAQ 2005: A prophecy by John Gorman. *Conservation: A conference on chemically caused diseases. *Counselling: The TROUBLE with internet counselling. Thought Stopping. *Writing: Paragraphs they'll skip. *Book reviews The Ultimate Visual Dictionary Devil Glass by C. Robert Cales *Poultry... um, Potery... Poetry! 'So Who's Reading?' by P. J. Oosterhoff. 'Our Unknown Soldier' by John Williams. 'Dichotomy' by Lee Taylor *Humour Wish You Were Here by Cornelia Amiri

Birds are beauty. Every day, colourful flying jewels grace the surroundings of my home. Now, in Autumn, the mating songs of many species fill the air, especially at dusk and dawn, and lyrebirds practise their song and dance routine.    There is only one thing against them. They get more of my agricultural produce than I do! Free Counselling!    Last issue, I offered a free email counselling exchange to subscribers of 'Bobbing Around'. The response has been so positive that I am extending the offer. If you haven't already had a free session, you may claim one until the 31st of May, 2003.    If you are interested, go to http://anxietyanddepression-help.com/intercouns.html and read how internet counselling works. Then send me an email, stating that you are accepting the offer in Bobbing Around. Disclaimer    I am responsible for anything I have written. However, where I reproduce contributions from other people, I do not necessarily endorse their opinions. I may or may not agree with them, but give them the courtesy of a forum.

Thank you, Linda Ebertharter

   Sending Bobbing Around off used to be a big job. Now, it's a matter of visiting an online form, then sending a single email, thanks to Atlantic Bridge Publishers. The least I can do is to offer this forum to Linda Eberharter, the publisher, for publicising her publishing business. Please visit her and look around.

A new release in Australia

   Anger and Anxiety: Be in charge of your emotions and control phobias is published in North America by Zumaya Publications, and is my most popular title there. I DO sell many copies elsewhere in electronic format, but lots of potential Australian buyers have asked for a paper copy. [Postcript, July 2005: Zumaya and I have amicably parted company. The book is now available as a PDF file from Twilight Times Books, and still in paperback from me.]

   So... I have released a Print On Demand version within Australia through Anina's Book Company. The book is available within Australia for $20.00 including GST, plus $1.50 postage.

   And remember, any buyer of any of my books in any format is entitled to a free e-book. Inspect the list of available titles.

And the next book...

   The next book will be Anikó: The stranger who loved me, a biography of my mother who achieved the impossible more than once during her all too adventurous life. The first draft is completed, and this is the best book I've written so far. A senior editor at Hodder Headline has agreed to read the completed book, so now I want to get it as good as possible.

   The story takes place in Hungary. My friend Aniko Dobosi is currently checking all the names I've used for spelling and accuracy, and I am exchanging critiques with quite a number of other writers, some of them also editors.

   I hope to send the manuscript off at the end of May.

EPPRO Broadens its Brief

   Never heard of EPPRO? I am proud to be a member of this organisation of writers, publishers, book designers and illustrators who want to advance electronic publishing, the book of the future.

   Want to find good books at low prices? Want to visit author websites? Are you a published author in need of a personalized, highly promoted webpage for just $25 per year? Visit The Author and Publisher Spotlight Pages. The Spotlight Pages get thousands of 'hits' and rightly so: they lead to many excellent books, typically at half price because electronic books cost so much less to produce and market.

   Almost all electronic publishers now also produce paper books by Print on Demand technology. While at the moment cost of printing per book is greater than for offset printing, the huge problems of warehousing, holding inventory and disposal of unsold stock are eliminated because copies are printed as needed. POD is not as environmentally friendly as e-books, but is far better than the conventional way of turning forests into pulped waste after a book has been a few weeks on the market.

   The best thing about the books you will find at EPPRO is the content. Member publishers all take pride in editing the books they publish, and insist on high quality of both content and presentation. They are not 'vanity' or 'subsidy' publishers but the kinds of businesses that used to be the heart of the publishing industry before the giants swallowed them and commercialism took the heart out of the book.

   This is why, if you don't want to read the same thing over and over with new characters and locations plugged in, you are much better to go to EPPRO.

Responses to 'Terrorism'

Clive Donaldson
Ariana Overton
Vicki Delany
Susie Evans
Gary Birrell
Larry Retzak

   Last issue, I published a short essay about my views on war. To me, it is just another version of terrorism.

   I received a staggering 86 responses! Most of them were simple one-liners, expressing the writer's agreement or disagreement.

   71 of the responses were in complete or substantial agreement with the views I had expressed. Almost all of these people live in countries whose soldiers were in Iraq at that very moment: Americans, British, Australians.

   I have selected a few emails, two expressing disagreement, the rest agreement.

   I welcome further correspondence on the issue, regardless of what happens in the war. The philosophical and ethical issues are independent of what you see on the news.

Clive Donaldson

Unsubscribe me from your ezine.

   I refuse to have even a marginal connection with a publication that stands for a monstrous tyrant like saddam Hussein, and is contemptuous of our boys who are risking their lives for our freedome and safety.

Clive Donaldson.

   Clive, I will gladly remove your name from my list. In fact, should you ever want to resubscribe, I will decline.

   You have a British email address. I suggest you read the speech of resignation by a senior Minister in the Blair cabinet. I think his name is Robin Cook.

   Also, emotions make a poor filter when you are reading. My essay on terrorism did NOT in any way condone Sadam Hussein's past actions. What I said was that the response to him was no better.

   Nor was there a single word of contempt for the soldiers who are in there, young people required to do the dirty work for politicians and the people who control politicians. The people whom I feel contempt for are those who use war to achieve ends, particularly questionable ends.

Bob

Ariana Overton

Dear Bob,

   We've been friends for a very long time and, after enjoying your newsletter many times, appreciating its positive stance on helpful things like writing and counseling, I have to say I was appalled by your latest issue. By using your newsletter to promote a personal, hyper-critical, very one-sided view of the war in Iraq and the United States part in it, I feel you've stepped over a line; a line that is bound to create anger and nationalism that shouldn't be encouraged, especially now.

   In the U.S. freedom of speech is sacrosanct. Everyone has the right to speak their minds and I wouldn't want that right violated. You've exercised this right, now I'd like to exercise mine. I'm an American and, although Americans are viewed, in general, by foreigners as 'spoiled, self-serving, undereducated, childish' people [I have heard this in my travels so it's not an assumption] I can tell you that stereotyping people seems to be the evil people promote from all sides. Americans have been stereotyped too but nobody stands up for us, just the people they view as minorities. You did this with your political statements about the U.S. motivations for starting this war.

   You made the ASSUMPTION that our motive is one of greed, wanting to grab Iraqi oil. What evidence did you view or hear that supports this? President Bush, and all other political figures who represent the U.S. have consistently stated that our reason for starting this war [the first we've EVER started, btw] is due to Saddam's track record.

   In the last two decades this sociopathic monster has killed hundreds of thousands of people, including his own. He's invaded other countries without provocation and used horrific means to do it. He's launched 'ethnic cleansing' programs that almost wiped out the Shiite peoples there. They're still terrified for their lives. He's taken a country that had more money than it could spend and turned its citizens into paupers, while he built palaces, bought war weapons, gathered, trained and outfitted troops similar to Hitler's SS and, in general lived the life of ease at his people's expense. And, he's made it clear that he supports, arms and helps trains terrorists, Iraqi and other country's as well. Just as long as they're Muslim, they are welcomed.

   By making your allegation that the U.S.'s motive is solely to gain their oil revenue, you call this government a liar, with a hidden agenda and a dishonest, dishonorable one at that. Like so many of the anti-war protestors here, you're accusing this government of something that their actions are not bearing out as truth. You're accusing them of something you THINK may be the case, something they MIGHT be doing. Don't you think this is a little prejudiced and bigoted, not to mention an affront to Americans in general?

   In over 50 years of living, the one big thing I've learned about the world is this-people NEVER have all the facts. You, like myself, are severely limited to what you see and are told. Every government, every culture, every country has its own agenda, including mine, but I've found that the U.S. has a much cleaner track record for honesty and truly caring about helping other countries than any other. We give literally billions to other countries, in a bid to help and have done so for decades, long before this war. Bush has seized oil money held by U.S. companies that would've gone into Saddam's pocket. He's publicly stated that these funds will go to rebuild Iraq. The money belongs to the Iraqi people. He's begged Congress for billions to feed, clothe and get electricity and water to Iraqi cities; cities Saddam didn't bother to care about. Are these the actions of a country that wants to steal other country's assets, control them like the dictators who use them now? Instead of assuming the U.S. is really doing something other than what their actions are now telling you, why don't you adopt an attitude of 'time will tell?' Right now, I choose to believe that my president is telling me the truth, that what I see on TV and hear are the facts, instead of more propaganda. I'm using 'time will tell' with an open mind and not assuming my government is lying.

   I lived in Australia, where you are, and I know the Aussie attitude toward dishonesty in government and in their society. I watched sports teams admit to taking bribes, sexually assaulting women, beating up men and worse, merely slapped on the hand then continue to play, representing the country. I watched and heard far worse about politicians there. I shrugged my shoulders and said, "This is their way." I didn't judge or feel the need to comment publicly about it. I am here because it proves a point, no other reason. I love Australia and the Aussie people so please don't take this personally. My point is, every country has faults, makes mistakes, has bigotry and violence and corruption of some kind. Historically, the U.S. is cleaner in that respect than most others yet we're being held up as liars, murderers, terrorists and worse in foreign news. You're spreading it here.

   I wouldn't judge your country or you by the slim amount of one-sided news I get here. I'd wait to see, gather information, make a logical decision, based on as many facts as I could get. So, can't you do the same? Just take a look, a really objective look, at American history when it comes to our dealings with other countries and give us credit for the good we've done, instead of condemning us out of hand for an action that isn't even proved yet? You cite the bombing of Japan but do you have all the facts on that too? I doubt it and, even if it is true, we've had many presidents since then. We've developed, just like Australia has.

   I don't know about your country, but in this one, no president would dare blatantly lie to the citizens here and expect to completely get away with it. Current history in this country dictates looking hard at, and being critical of, our leaders. That leader would find himself impeached and maybe jailed. At the very least, his career would be finished and he'd be a social laughingstock. It's happened before.

   As for protesting the war, I find it very interesting that anti-war demonstrators are so violent [while holding signs about peace]. They destroy public and private property, beat people up who disagree [while chanting and using freedom of speech] and are very close-minded to any logical arguments. Truth is, the percentage of anti war people here is a very tiny percentage of the whole population. You just don't see the pro-war people being so loud, chaotic, destructive and offensive. It's beyond me why people are not content to hold their opinions, allow others to have theirs and, if they don 't like the way things are being run, do something about it by using the system instead of drawing anger and hatred on themselves with violent demonstrations? Do you or anybody else really think the war will stop by protesting against it after it's started? If you do then you truly are idealistic and, worse, you haven't paid attention to the history of mankind. That history tells us that 'if you don't learn by history then you are doomed to repeat it.' Good words, realistic words. The reality is, in this world, sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils in order to stop truly evil people. We will never have true peace unless we're willing to sacrifice our horror of violence in order to eradicate the monsters in our midst. That is the reality of mankind, like it or not, agree with it or not. Idealism doesn't and can't over come reality, no matter how much you want it. People need to start seeing the world for what it is, not what they want it to be. Until they do, nothing will change because it demands realistic, determined, honest people to bring about real change. The dreamers have the visions but that's all they have. Both are necessary but neither is completely right or effective without the other. I'm realistic. I see the world the way it is and it is violent. I see the necessity for this war so, in spite of my horror and distaste, I support it.

   And, before someone blasts me for supporting this war…let me tell you I hate war, I detest it. If there was any way to avoid it, I'd back it up 1000%, but there isn't any defense against those who choose violence, except violence to counteract it. The bully on the schoolyard won't back down or stop his violent acts until a brave soul steps up and takes him on, shows him to be a coward and the bully he is. This is the role the world has DEMANDED and EXPECTED of the United States for a very long time now. We are the only remaining super power right now. We've been forced to adopt the position of policeman of the world, yet we are hated for it. I, for one, am proud that my country is courageous enough to step to that bully, draw the line then come out swinging when the bully continues to kill and abuse.

   You may say other means could've and should've been used….from what I saw, we tried and were stopped by other countries with THEIR selfish agendas motivating them. [Illegal sales, lies, big money dealings, violating international and UN laws etc.] Why don't you dig in and expose then point the finger at the countries that created a situation that made war necessary in the first place-IRAQ, SYRIA, PALESTINE, AFGHANISTAN, IRAN, then, by opposing bringing Saddam down---FRANCE, RUSSIA, CHINA, GERMANY…

   For now, until proven wrong, I choose to believe that my government is telling the truth; that the war is to liberate a suppressed, brutalized people. You can choose to believe what you want as well but, please, don't propagate bigotry, hatred and a prejudiced view on Americans in the process. Better yet, don't use your newsletter, which used to only deal with positive helping things, as a platform for political rhetoric. No matter which side you choose, there will always be a mob of others who violently disagree and the world could do without any more of that these days.

Your friend
Ari Overton

PS- In the name of fairness, put this in your next newsletter. *S*

Dear Ari,

   Indeed we are friends, and I sincerely hope we'll continue to be so. I like, respect and admire you, and your opinion on any matter is important to me.

   However, on this issue you have said nothing that makes me accept this attack on Iraq as anything but blatant aggression.

   I agree with you regarding Saddam Hussein and his regime. He is a blot on humanity. He is as bad as Robert Mugabe, as a whole heap of Latin American dictators past and present, as the succession of criminals who ruled in South Vietnam during the war there, as the military dictatorship in Burma, as the Apartheid regime used to be in South Africa.

   His government's actions in the war against Iran, and in the attacks on ethnic and religious minorities within Iraq, are as bad as what the Chinese are doing in Tibet, the Indonesians are doing in Celebes and Sulawesi and New Guinea and did with Western acquiescence for many years in East Timor.

   And where did Saddam Hussein get the funding and technology for his chemical weapons and all the rest? From us, mainly from the US, while it suited us to have him attack Iran. This was the time when the Iranians called the US 'The Great Shaitan', so any enemy of Iran was OK, even if he was a monster. I don't recall the US making any protests about his human-rights violations then.

   Your country's Government and mine are indistinguishable in their attitudes. Bush just happens to command more power than Howard, but both are equally culpable. So, I am not pointing the finger at Americans as such, but at the powers that rule in America, Britain and Australia. And these are not the elected representatives, but the powers behind them that pull the strings -- the purse strings.

   Terrible human rights violations have been taking place in Nigeria for years. The Army and Police there do the bidding of the Shell Oil Company who prefer to bribe rather than to do the right thing by the locals who live on top of the oil fields. Has the US Government done anything about this?

   You mention the American Government's track record. I am afraid I have a very different view on that. It has been one of consistent commercial self-interest. Successive US Governments have propped up and even created horrid repressive regimes when it suited business, and have destroyed humane, democratic Governments when these might have threatened commercial interests. I won't give you a list, but it's all in the record. Think of Chile for one.

   So, my statement is not based on an ASSUMPTION but on evidence.

   Yes, I am certainly calling George W. Bush a liar, and I am calling John Howard a liar, again on the evidence.

   General Peter Gration, a retired, very senior Australian soldier has said "The war is unnecessary and illegal."

   Andrew Wilkie, a senior Australian intelligence officer, has resigned in protest at the Prime Minister's push for Australia's involvement in this war. He has publicly stated that the reasons advanced are based on falsifications. He has stated that Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations contained untruths.

   I am calling Bush and Howard war criminals in exactly the same way that I am calling Saddam Hussein a war criminal.

   Two wrongs have never made anything but double the wrong.

   The attack on the World Trade Centre was terrible. The attack on Afghanistan was worse: it killed more innocent people. Here was a country devastated by a long-drawn out criminal attack by the Soviet Union. Then it was devastated by a long-drawn out criminal rule by the Taliban. Then it was devastated by a vicious attack by America and its allies, including my country.

   Ari, I was born while the bombs were falling on the civilians of Budapest. I am scarred for life by the experience. Nothing, NOTHING justifies exposing other babies to the same trauma.

   The only justification for war is self-defense.

   OK, are the USA and its allies in Iraq from self-defense?

   No.

   In 1991, Iraq attacked Kuwait. It was stopped. Since then, it has attacked no-one. It was accused of developing weapons of self-destruction. If it had these, it would have used them by now. Iraqui soldiers are using suicide tactics. They would use anthrax or mustard gas or anything else to hand -- if they had it.

   Iraq has been accused of aiding international terrorism. Any terrorist can buy all he needs in the Republics of the once Soviet Union. Men live there who used to be ruthless, powerful and wealthy. They are now ruthless, powerless and desperate. The armoury of that once great country is still in existence.

   Pakistan and India are far more likely sources of arms of all kinds. Saudi Arabia, nominally a US ally, is a known source of funds, weapons and manpower for terrorists.

   Even if Iraq should be one of the places where terrorists can look to for support, it is no worse than any of the others.

   So, I come back to my original premise. What is the difference? You tell me.

   All the best,

Bob

   Ariana Overton is the writer of many wonderful books. She is also a talented computer artist and an inspiring editor to work with. Look her up at http://www.angelfire.com/ri2/theovertons

Vicki Delany

   I am 100 percent opposed to attitude and actions of the Bushites. Their only reaction to violence and evil is more violence and evil. To refuse to address the causes of terrorism is like discussing the causes of the Second World War with the restriction that you're not allowed to mention the First. Terrorist leaders might well be 'evil', but the people whose support they feed off have reasons for what they believe and do. Reasons like poverty, humiliation. No jobs, No future. No hope. We can see already what is happening in Afghanistan -- abandoned to fall back into anarchy. As a feminist with many friends actively involved in organizations concerned with the women of Afghanistan it makes me sick to my stomach to see how quickly the West has forgotten them (again). Not that anyone really cared about the women of Afghanistan until it suited them to do so.

   There IS one thing worse than tyranny: lawlessness. That's why the people of Afghanistan accepted the Taliban. Because they were seen as better than the alternative. And now the alternative is back: warlords, lawlessness. And the Taliban is gathering strength again.

   I marched and demonstrated and protested against the Invasion of Iraq for many reasons. Not the least because the Bushites were lying when they implied that Iraq was behind September 11th. Anyone not spoon-fed CNN and FOX News knows that they weren't. The Americans supported, funded, supplied and advised Saddam Hussein until 1991. They then imposed twelve years of crippling sanctions that destroyed the middle class so thoroughly that the Iraqi people couldn't possibly overthrow Hussein even if they wanted to. And they probably did. And then the Americans and British invade, kill thousands, destroy homes and villages and call themselves liberators. Please!

   Incidentally I lived in South Africa for 11 years over the apartheid years. Under sanctions. Sanctions that affected the ordinary lives of us in the middle-class not one whit. But in Iraq sanctions destroyed the country. Could it be because the middle-class of South Africa were white, Christian, of European descent, English or Dutch-origin speaking? And the Iraqi's are... what? Fill in the blanks.

   I guess what I object to so much is how this all is such a vicious circle in which they (the white male multi-millionaire politicians and their friends in the Military Industrial Complex ) have trapped us. If I thought that the Americans (and all the countries of the West. I know that Canada is a big arms exporter, despite our pretension to be such great peacekeepers) would actually learn something, I might even be able to support them. But now they're arming to the teeth such progressive states as Pakistan (seething with Islamists, trigger on the finger of Nuclear Weapon), Uzbekistan, Algeria etc. etc. Do you want a prediction: Ten years from now President Musharraf of Pakistan (if he hasn't gone Nuclear with India by then) will have the honour of Enemy of the Year. And we'll be told that we have to fight Pakistan to rid the world of 'evil'. Better not to support and arm him now, I would say. But what do I know?

   At least our government stayed out of the Iraq Invasion. For which it's getting much flack from the business lobby and the corporate press (good heavens, we might lose some contracts! Their attitude seems to be: what are principles when money is involved? ) I'm sorry that your government chose to join the coalition of the bribed and threatened. Did you hear that the U.S. Ambassador lectured us like naughty schoolchildren on our failure to support the U.S. in its time of need?

   But what I find so amazing and what gives me real hope for the future, is that for perhaps for the first time ever, the people of the world were able to make up their minds -- as things happened, not years later -- because we had access to so much more than just the White House or Pentagon or Corporate Media spin. Lies if you will: such as the fabled British dossier that we learned was cribbed from a student paper ten years old or the famous purchase of nuclear material from the government of Niger. Signed by someone who hadn't been a government minister in Niger for twenty years! On the Internet.

   And, of course, people like you and I can communicate who ten years ago would never have crossed paths.

   Look at the pulling down of the Saddam statue in Baghdad the other day. Over and over the networks played the picture of the event. But on the Net you can see pictures taken from a distance. Clearly showing a handful of people. Less than 200, including American troops and journalists, in the square. And they're telling us that this is like the pulling down of the Berlin Wall!!!! There simply weren't enough Iraqi's around to topple it, and the Americans were too impatient to wait. They would have lost the photo op. So the Americans pulled it down and then tell us that the Iraqi people did it.

   Now, I am not saying that I approved of Saddam in any way. But at least I can say, with pride, that I didn't approve of him in the 1980s either, and that I disapproved then of selling him weapons and offering support and advice during the Iran-Iraq War. And that's not something that the government of the U.S., consisting mostly of the same people who were around back then, can say.

   There's a good article by Canada's own Naomi Klein in the Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030428&s=klein) about how the Americans will have privatized every single government owned piece of property in Iraq before the arrival of democracy (which means that the Iraqis can vote for any one of the US approved candidates they choose). And when they get their country back, Klein says, all the decisions will have been made and everything sold off. "fully privatized, foreign-owned and open for business."

   North Korea summed up the lessons of this war perfectly: Inspections and disarmanment lead to invasion and defeat.

   You don't want to be conquered by the U.S. -- ARM! You don't like your neighbour -- ATTACK!

   Wow! Wasn't that a rant. But you did ask, Bob.

Vicki Delany

PS One thing I remembered this morning. A quote I heard. Can't remember who it was by. 'A terrorist is someone who has bombs but no Air Force.'

Author of Whiteout, a novel of suspense, with a dash of murder and a pinch of a ghost story, and one very modern woman, just trying to find her way through life. A Hope River Novel.
Now available in Trade Paperback and electronically from LTDbooks.
Winner of 2001 EPPIE for best Mainstream Novel! www3.sympatico.ca/vdelany.

Susie Evans

Hi Bob!

   I fully agree with your courageous little essay. With the whole world polarized on the issue of war, you risk making some of your friends into enemies.

   What gets me about the so-called logic is that, as you said, people justify terrorizing civilians on the grounds that somebody else has already terrorized them. Saddam Hussein has done horrible things to the Kurds in his country. Let us punish him by joining him and doing other terrible things to Kurds (and others) in his country.

   We have blasted Afghanistan, but Osama bin Laden is still at large. OK, the Taliban are out, but that country is now ruled by autonomous war lords (so called, to me that means brigands). Maybe the Afghan people are better off. I don't know, you can't get anything about such topics in the media.

God bless you for your voice of sanity.
Susie Evans

   Susie is a psychologist in New York.

Gary Birrell

Bob, this is Gary Birrell, you edited my book a while ago now. Still not published, but that's not what I am writing about. It's about this stupid war.

   Here at home I am in a minority, almost scared to open my mouth. People have accused me of being a traitor because I don't think we should be in Iraq pursuing a pointless, useless, illegal war of aggression.

   I think the greatest tragedy of our times has been that a handful of Florida voters put this idiot in the White House. There would be no war today if Al Gore was President. I normally vote Republican, but last time I voted for Gore. I would have voted for anyone rather than Bush, and in fact a majority of the voters in my State did the same. Those that bothered to turn up that is. It is a shame that less than half of those qualified bothered to cast a vote.

   I don't know if you understand the Presidential election system here in the US. Enough to say it is complex. In fact, Bush had got less than 50% of the votes cast, and the States were tied except for Florida. And there it was so close that there was a court wrangle over it. Bush won, and humanity lost.

   He would have been a lame duck President, except, what saved him was 911. That outrage pulled the country together behind the President, as it should, whoever the President was.

   He has been reacting like a psychopath since. Somebody living in Afghanistan attacked us? OK, we'll attack the whole country! We can't get him that way? OK, we'll attack another country that has no ties with him!

   What'll he do next? Attack France and Germany because they refused to join his stupid coalition?

Take care,
Gary.

Larry Retzak

   Thanks for a great newsletter. Your piece on terrorism was insightful and compelling. I've forgotten where I once read that Harry Truman, because he authorized use of the atomic bomb against Japan, is the greatest terrorist in history. Of course, some historians and scholars will argue that the bombs that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved thousands of lives, both American and Japanese, that would have been lost during an allied land invasion.

   I'd never before thought about it quite the way you described the Dresden firebombing but must admit that your take on that conflagration sounds very reasonable.

   Finally, I thought your poem was surprisingly good considering the amount of time you had and the circumstances under which it was written. Keep up the good work.

Cordially,
Larry Retzack

   Larry is a writer, we are both members of a number of email lists for writers. Unfortunately his email service seems to have been eaten by electronic gremlins. My mails to him have bounced, and I can't wait for a 'bio' from him any longer.

Other responses from readers

Vicki Delany

Enjoyed Bobbing Around as always. I am compelled to comment on apostrophes.

   Mark Snell writes: 'I find many people can't resist the apostrophe for plurals of initials and numerals -- CD's and the 1900's are two popular examples.
   'These sorts of mistakes are so common I have started to wonder whether English is taught differently around here.'

   Actually Mark is right on! In formal Canadian English a apostrophe is used in the example of CD's. I quote here from A Canadian Writer's Reference by Diana Hacker.

   Use an apostrophe and -s to pluralize numbers mentioned as numbers, letters mentioned as letters, words mentioned as words and abbreviations.

Peggy skated nearly perfect figure 8's
You must ask to see their I.D.'s
Exception: An -s alone is often added to the years in a decade: the 1980s (so on that Canadians and Australians agree).

   Ms. Hacker does note: The Modern Language Association recommends no apostrophe in plurals of numbers and abbreviations: figure 8s, VCRs.

   I have lately given up using the aprostrophe as Hacker says is correct, simply because so many people point out to me that it is wrong and I have to explain. But in no language is onion's for sale correct!

Vicki Delany
Author of Whiteout, a novel of suspense, with a dash of murder and a pinch of a ghost story, and one very modern woman, just trying to find her way through life. Winner 2001 EPPIE award for Best Mainstream Novel. http://www3.sympatico.ca/vdelany

IRAQ 2005

A prophecy by John Gorman

   John Gorman has been a frequent contributor of thought-provoking essays to Bobbing Around. He is the author of a powerful historical novel King of the Romans (available from Awe-Struck Books) and a freelance journalist of many years' experience.

   By mid-April 2003, organized Iraqi resistance was broken. Saddam Hussein was believed killed in an air raid, but his body was never found and conclusively identified.

   With half a million troops involved in the war and dissent growing at home, the United States was glad to have the fighting cease. A friendly regime was installed in Baghdad, and, with oil flowing once again, the Americans prepared to go home. But, as the United States soon discovered, this new government, like the one in Afghanistan, could raise no reliable troops of its own and could only remain in power at the point of American bayonets. The cities and the oil fields might be secure, but the land beyond remained in the hands of fanatics, waging a Holy War to rid the sacred soil of the infidel.

   The American withdrawal grinds to a halt as more and more troops are needed for search-and-destroy missions in the rough and dangerous back country. Tank columns can drive the enemy into the desert, but the tanks themselves are vulnerable to the hostile environment as well as enemy action. The horrible fate awaiting their crews, should they fall into the hands of the Warriors of God, as they are now called, makes commanders hesitant to commit men and machines far from easy reinforcement. In the cities, acts of defiance, ranging from scrawls of "Saddam lives" on walls to suicide bombings and assassinations of Americans and their collaborators, make life uncertain.

   At home, the volunteer army becomes a thing of the past, and a draft is re-instituted, inciting still further protests.

   By now, all the coalition partners have departed, unwilling to police an American colony in the Middle East. The United Nations, offended by America's unilateral action, has offered no assistance beyond humanitarian aid and supervision for an American withdrawal. America's relationship with Russia has cooled, as our strong military presence in Iraq feeds historic Russian fears of encirclement.

   Worse yet, the armament of the Warriors of God is becoming more sophisticated. At first, their few modern weapons were salvaged from the Iraqi army. Once these were expended, the guerillas could only wage partisan warfare, annoying but not dangerous. Now, surface to air missiles are threatening our helicopters and gun ships, and even jet fighters are not safe from ground fire, when they fly missions in support of our embattled infantry.

   While some Arab nations are covertly arming the Warriors, it is also rumored that Russia, angered by our intervention in Afghanistan, is supplying advanced weaponry, not enough so the guerillas can win, but just enough to keep them fighting.

   Radicalized young Arabs slip across the porous borders of Iraq, eager to strike a blow against The Great Satan. Elsewhere in the world, fanatical Muslims wage a campaign of terror, chiefly against Americans abroad. American businessmen hesitate to leave their country, and American enterprise begins to lose important foreign contacts and contracts. The innocent bystanders caught in these attacks come to feel America is partially to blame for these outrages due to its expansionist policies in the Middle East, and anti-Americanism becomes widespread, a feeling our economic rivals are quick to exploit.

   In the United States, a few terrorist attacks have provoked panic, momentarily increasing support for the war but ultimately undermining it, as victory remains elusive, and costs continue to mount. The only alternative to an increasingly bloody occupation of Iraq appears to be another Vietnam-style rout for America, as George W. Bush repeats the tragedy of Lyndon Johnson.

The Environmental Law Centre
International Conference on Environmental Illness 2003

from Dr Kartar Badsha

   The Environmental Law Centre is currently involved in organising a major international conference on the following theme:

Misdiagnosed illnesses - What you can do medically and legally.

Speakers invited so far include:

Prof P Hunt [UN Rapporteur on Health]
Prof Koehler (Austria) [UN Rapporteur on Lockerbie, Accepted],
Prof Wong (Hong Kong) [Professor of Division of Neurodevelopmental Paediatrics, Accepted]
Prof D Aslf (USA) [Professor of Uranium Medical Centre, Accepted]
Prof Hooper (UK) [Professor of Chemistry & Biochemistry of drugs and drug action, Accepted]
Dr Wojtysiak (Germany) [Institute of Physiology and Physiopathology, Accepted]
Prof Pal (USA) [Professor of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Accepted]
Dr. Jakl (Austria) [Department of Environment, Austria]

Date : 2nd and 3rd September 2003.
Venue: Cecil Sharp House, Camden, London.

Background

   The World Health Organization (WHO) has concluded that around one billion people suffer from Chemical exposure and related illnesses. Seven out of ten sufferers are women. Prevalence is almost as high among children. One reason for this high incidence is that high-powered modern marketing techniques ensure that, on average, a person comes into contact with about 300 chemicals day (source : EU).

   In the UK it is estimated that there are 200 cases of forced marriage per year (source: UK Home Office). Yet forced marriage has become a focus of UK Government attention as tackling this social problem is considered a vote winner, while Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, affecting up to nine million people, is virtually ignored.

   Ten years ago 1 child in 850,000 was diagnosed as suffering from autism or autism-type-syndrome. Today it is 1 in 85! There have been similar increases in the incidence of asthma and other diseases. Gulf War Syndrome is another illness which has exploded and it affects not just those who fought in the Gulf War but also those who served in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Puerto Rico.

   The Government response is to prescribe Prozac or Ritalin or a put people in mental homes. Children as young as five are now put on Prozac and the problem is growing. One interesting aspect is that most sufferers identified so far are educated and from middle to C5 groups [middle income to higher income groups] and not poor! To date people have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on treatment with little to show for their efforts. This has often resulted in financial ruin, marriage breakdown etc.

   Our aim is to bring these problems to the attention of everybody so that attention can be paid to the plight of these people. ICESR provides the basis of right to health and housing. Their human rights are being breached according to numerous articles of the convention.

   The conference is targeted at a wide range of people including, lawyers, doctors, students (of human rights, law, medicine) plus victims of MCS.

   I hope the above gives you an idea of what our conference will be focusing on, but please come back to me if you need further info.

   I need a lot of people to help me with organising this conference are you interested in helping? Do you know of others? I should appreciate if you can advise what area you can help with. The two areas where we need most help are fundraising and publicising the event.

   Brochures and Appeal letters are already printed if anyone is interested in assisting us with sending these to various interested parties, please contact us.

Kind regards
Kartar Badsha
Email: drbadsha@elc.org.uk
Websites: www.mcsintnational.org
www.elc.org.uk

Counselling

Internet Counselling
Thought Stopping

The TROUBLE with internet counselling

   19th Century nurses faced a terrible dilemma. They got paid less than cleaners or scullery maids for their demanding and difficult occupation. The reason was that nursing was a Vocation, a Calling to ease suffering, a work of Care and Charity -- so surely you didn't want to get PAID as well? (Interestingly, the same logic didn't apply to physicians and surgeons, who were men.)

   Eventually, they did want to get paid, but the fight for reasonable compensation was long and difficult. Their quandary was that in fact they had chosen to become nurses because they had a vocation, and were motivated to ease suffering. They knew that any action to improve their pay and conditions would rebound on their patients.

   As an internet therapist, I am in a closely analogous situation. Why do I make my living from psychology? Because I get a huge amount of satisfaction when someone comes to me hopeless and helpless, and we part company when my client feels and acts powerful, and is able to handle the challenges of life. Otherwise, I might work as a farmer, or engineer or gizmo salesman.

   So, counselling is a vocation, a calling to ease suffering. When my books become best-sellers :) so that I don't need to earn money, I will STILL do counselling for free, because I have a talent, and a talent should be used.

   Alas, that happy state is not yet. I do need to earn a living, and my preferred activity is counselling.

   The medium of contact is immaterial: face to face, over the phone or by email. My local clients expect to pay, though my charge to poor ones is the next thing to free. However, at least a couple of times a week I receive cries of desperation via email, expecting me to wave my magic wand without charging for my time. And yet, I imagine, few of these people would go into a shoe shop saying "Those school shoes are a really great bargain, but if I buy them for my daughter, I won't be able to feed her this week. Do you think I could have a pair for free?"

   The shop wouldn't stay in business very long if the owner acceded to too many such requests.

   And yet, like those old nurses, I face a terrible quandary. How should I answer?

"Dear Desperate,

   "I realise that you are suffering and don't know any more what to do. I't all right, many of my past clients have faced similar problems and there is every expectation that you and I together should be able to get on top of yours. Now, just send me my fee and we can get started."

   Certainly, that would be the businesslike thing to do... but I can't stop there. This person is in trouble now, and I have the means of offering help, so how can I not do so? Inevitably, I offer some 'first aid': something for nothing. And invariably, the freebie-seeker never becomes a paying client.

   Matters are even worse when my correspondent is a young person, as is often the case. Not only is a child or teenager unable to pay (not having a credit card), but it is actually illegal for me to offer counselling without parental permission.

   Here are a few actual calls from kids: