Bushwhackers only after cheap cheers

[johnfoyle]

I`m far too shallow to be political but I found
myself agreeing with every word of this .
-------------------------------------------------------
The Evening Herald ( Dublin) , August 5 2004

Bushwhackers only after cheap cheers

by George Byrne

Right-on American rockers are ruining my nights out by
having cheap cuts at Dubya’s expense...

Overthe past few months it’s almost gotten to the
stage where I’m dreading attending concerts by
American artists. This is an odd state of affairs
given that more than a fair proportion of my favourite
acts come from across the big pond, but of late I’ve
really had it with the almost ritualistic Big
Political Statement emanating from the stage.

At her gig in Vicar Street last week Patti Smith was
the latest to push the increasingly tedious anti-Bush
button with an excruciatingly self-indulgent piece of
avant-jazz noodling called Radio Baghdad and the
audience then got to feel really right-on and liberal
about themselves as footage of the G7 riots in Seattle
acted as a backdrop to People Have The Power. Oh, how
the crowd cheered as they got to punch the air and
feel all radical for a few minutes.

Now, I’ve no time whatsoever for George W Bush, but
what’s really galling is that it’s now practically
become expected of visiting acts to casually throw in
a few remarks about him and in return they’re
guaranteed an overwhelmingly positive reaction.

EASY

It’s too pat, too easy and says nothing for our
allegedly “aware” audiences.

In recent weeks both James Taylor and Morrissey have
pulled this trick at shows in Kilkenny and Dublin
respectively and were swamped with applause for their
efforts. However, when it comes down to it these
little mentions are nothing more than another trick of
the trade, the contemporary equivalent of a visiting
performer mentioning that they really like the taste
of the Guinness here.

Curiously enough, when it comes to US politics Irish
audiences don’t appear to have a problem with the
foreign policies of the Democrats. When Bill Clinton
was in power you certainly didn’t get too many bands
standing on Irish stages denouncing him as a sexual
predator and liar who, in what was in effect a war
crime, ordered the illegal bombing of a pharmaceutical
factory in Sudan.

Oh no, sure didn’t our beloved non-voting Bono (the
man who thinks global but doesn’t bother to act local)
give Bill the thumbs-up so everything in the garden
was rosy.

The practice of people in bands dabbling in politics
has always been a vexed question, given that it
usually leads to embarrassment for all concerned.
New Labour’s cynical alignment with the music industry
at the height of Britpop undoubtedly gave them a
certain cachet of credibility which fed into the whole
Euro ‘96 and Cool Britannia euphoria and undoubtedly
helped them on their way to power in 1997.

Of course, New Labour turned out to be simply a
better-marketed version of the Tories — although
probably with cooler record collections — and today
only the most braindead musician would dream of
allowing themselves to be photographed anywhere next
or near a member of the government. The fact that
there’s more political apathy abroad today than ever
before makes it easier for glib onstage remarks to
assume the appearance of controversial statements. Not
that “political” artists haven’t been up for the easy
option is the past.


I recall a gig by the Tom Robinson Band (for younger
readers, they were one of the more outspoken acts of
the Punk era) in UCD back in the late ‘70s when
Robinson knew he was on to a winner by mentioning the
controversy over Wood Quay, but steered clear of
saying anything at all about the North.

The singer later admitting in an interview that it was
his practice to check the local papers when on tour to
see what the cause celebre was in any given location —
but nothing too heavy just to be on the safe side. And
that’s what these tedious anti-Bush remarks really
are: a safe, handy and cheap way to get a round of
applause and appear right-on.

So give yourself a bit of credit the next time someone
drops one and keep quiet or , better still , emit a
low groan.
You won't be alone.

[SweetPear]

I too, am far from being politically saavy, but find myself agreeing with every word of it also.

I had commented on another thread that a problem of mine (in trying to make an informed choice on a presidential candidate) is that I tend to look at the candidates on a far too personal level instead of focusing on their records and ideologies and how that's interfering with my ability to make a choice.
But the one thing that I really hate and find totally unproductive (and just plain old childish) is all these stupid cheap shots and personal bashing. It solves nothing. (Well, that's not totally true because what it's doing is diverting the publics attention from the real issues. That's the motivation and I find it an insult to anyone who really cares about who's in charge. This is where the Democrats are losing credibiltiy, with me anyway.) It's a joke.
Fine, have your point of view, support your candidate, but voting for some one just because you HATE their opponent is ridiculous!
Where are the real Democrats and why couldn't they come up with a better representative than John Kerry?? The man is no leader. (And I've looked at his record.)

[Mr. Average]

SweetPear:

While I don't want to lay a kiss of death on you with my agreement of your post, I must say that I do indeed concur with what you are saying. The same argument can be made for the Republicans, however...can't the party find a more suitable candidate to represent it's views then GW? It isn't that I think of him as a fool or a driveling idiot, because I think that he is much more intelligent than he is given credit for, and certainly moreso than his public presentation suggests. Read the Woodward account of his handling of the events leading up to the war, and you may have an entirely different view of this man as having some leadership qualities...not nearly as many as I think I have a right to expect from my Commander in Chief, but more than the other candidate by a ton.

I made similar arguments in a post a few months ago and was summarily eviscerated for expressing my educated opinion. I think the hard left has softened and followed the Dem Leader to the center, because he told them to go there. SO the tone is much kinder and much more gentle then when the "Hate Bush at all Costs" crowd ran this table. I still think they hate Bush, and that is certainly their right to do so. I have a right to disagree. What I think is interesting and a valid indicant of the outcome of the election (I predict Bush will win by between 4-6% of the popular vote and will secure a surplus of electoral college votes) is that the left has softened. Moores fables, Ronstadts diatribes, Henleys slander, Gore and Dean's tirades are producing a measureable backlash that is hurting the electability of Kerry. As I predicted many moons ago, stimulating an attempt at an intellectual lynching by the majority of the board members, was that Kerry was not electable because the DNC would see to it that he was not elected, for reasons that are easy to quantify, are reasonable in an oblique way, and there is an evidence-base to prove it. No, I did not hear this from Mel Gibson...I have just watched Terry McAulliffe,Bill and Hillary, and Al Gore very closely, and listened to their words and watched their actions.

The DNC knows that the party will never really unite under Kerry. They know that he is not a ggreat leader. That is why they speak so loudly and often to the contrary..."Ye doth protest too much". This is all about restoring power and changing politics through the return of the Clintons...McAuliffe knows that his legacy has NOTHING to do with Kerry, and that Kerry is the deal braker for the making of his legacy. So does Hillary and Bill. Bringing the first women President into the White House is a much higher priority. Lose the battle, win the war. And boy oh boy does Al Gore have a sweetheart deal in all of this.

Think about it.

Oh, golly, now I have gone and done it again.
Pick your issues. Forget about the personalities. Then go to the polls and vote what you have studied, and with your mind...not what you have been told.

[SweetPear]

Mr. A~
Boy you talk good.

I'm so embarrassed looking at my very UNarticulate, shoddy-ass post.
Believe me when I say I am much more articulate when I speak than when I write. (Besides being lazy, I'm a horrible typist and can't sit still long enough to make my point as eloquently as you!) (BTW~I truely, truely enjoy reading what you have to say.)

Ablut, blut, blut.....(me stammering cause I can't get the words out fast enough)
I totally agree with your entire post, Mr. A. I certainly didn't mean to slight Mr. Bush. I whined through the entire last Presidential election when I had to make a choice between Slick Willie and GW.
Mr. Bush, I felt, was not the best choice the GOP could have made and I was so angry (and still am) at what Clinton has done to our country morally that I was gonna vote for ANYONE as long as it wasn't him. (Oops! did I say that?) And AlGore scares me. The guy's a nut. But seriously, that's only half true. (Half true about Clinton, not AlGore. AlGore is totally a nut job!)
But I did go dragging my feet to the polls.

But I couln't have said it any better than you, Mr. A (and I didn't!)

Read the Woodward account of his handling of the events leading up to the war, and you may have an entirely different view of this man as having some leadership qualities...not nearly as many as I think I have a right to expect from my Commander in Chief, but more than the other candidate by a ton.

This is all about restoring power and changing politics through the return of the Clintons...

As I've posted before, I'm much too emotional and it gets in my way sometimes. I don't mean irrational or overly spontaneous, just very passionate.
After all....I am Italian.

[maria]

You know, I had the same reaction when I saw Eurythmics come over all political a few years ago at a gig in The Point Depot. There’s no doubt that U2’s musical achievements are fantastic – just as it happens, musically they’re not my particular bag of bananas. I also occasionally find myself reacting to Bono’s public persona in the same way as when I hear my mother scrape out an old saucepan with a sharp metal spoon. I could render up plenty of other examples of situations like this that make me cringe.

Then the thought occurs: why should I feel like this? Could this reaction be the onset of middle-aged intolerance ….like, man, how I define my own image of right-on mightn’t be right-on at all? Then I’m thinking: even if I can’t get with the spontaneity or mindlessness (depending on your view) of crowd reaction at a gig, would I not, with great justification, be very proud of myself if I finally lay down to die, having swayed even a fraction of public opinion in the direction of rectifying a few wrongs in the world? If I succeeded in using whatever tiny amount of civic power in my possession as an ordinary citizen to even approach a fraction of the achievements of, for instance, Bono in terms of offsetting Third World debt? Even Beatific Sting and his rain forests? Isn’t that possibility worth some squirming from those of us who are too jaded, self-conscious or trapped within personal fixed ideas of people’s roles in the world: “He’s a singer, so he should stick to singing, godammit. We should all know our place in the world. There are mortgages to be paid, now get on with the next damn song and make me feel like the raver I was…I mean, still am. Don’t get me wrong; the hair may be graying, but hey, I’m a groover, only yesterday I was rappin with my teens about the time the DS busted my plant pot in the seventies”.

To live, let alone stay alive, is political in a lot of places in this world. Now why should it be acceptable, even laudable, when an audience indulges in a gut reactive crowd twist and shout along to a political sentiment expressed through song? But why then should the right of the artist to express that same sentiment by spoken word suddenly be called into question? Any why should the audience be sneered at, or have their sincerity or intelligence doubted for reacting enthusiastically if he or she speaks to them in this way? Could it be that this journo has Mr. Angry issues all of his own that he needs to address another way entirely himself? You’ll find very few musical artists worth their salt who draw inspiration exclusively from sexual love or motor bikin or miscellaneous groovin non-political… because that’s life, folks! Or is the message here that the only certain subject matter is “appropriate” for rock n roll? Now where does that leave, say, Billie Holliday, Bob Dylan, Reggae, world folk tradition generally …. or even Elvis Costello?
Jeeze! Maybe this guy should look for another job, or even have a good session with his sweetie.

[stormwarning]

I think the original George Byrne article is a pile of crap. It's just lazy space filler for the Evening Herald because August is traditionally a quiet month for newspapers. I doubt that artists of the stature of U2, Eurythmics, Linda Ronstadt, and Elvis of course, need to make cheap shots at politicians in order to sway the crowd in their favour.

Maybe, just maybe, so many people are having a go at Bush because he really IS the dumb arse/ devil incarnate that so many people think he is.

In Japan at the moment there's quite an upset because the Japanese football team were roundly booed and jeered whilst playing in the Asian Cup in China (they beat China 2-1 in the final). Of course they were booed, Koizumi and Prime Ministers before him have never apologised to China, or anybody else in Asia, for the atrocious crimes they committed during WWII when they expanded into South East Asia - primarily to increase their oil reserves. Worse still, on August 15 Koizumi will once again be paying tribute at Yasukini shrine, where many of Japans convicted WWII war criminals are enshrined.

Maybe if Bush (and Blair too) apologised to the Iraqi people for going to war on the mistaken belief of the presence of WMD, and offered money to pay for the damage they caused, then artists and people on this board would go a little easier on him.

[A rope leash]

One should never express total loyalty to a leader or to a political party. A patriot loves his country, not his country's government.

Facism happens. Even in America, I suppose...

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml ... =hightower

...wake up, y'all. Your right to dissent has already been removed. Of course, it will take another "disaster" to really clamp down. Are you ready for that?

Let the artists spread thier viewpoints. Let them get rich doing it. If we allow ourselves to attribute thier free speech to cynical motives, then perhaps we are being cynical ourselves.

Everyone that has a pulpit uses it. Do you want them all to shut up, except the ones you agree with? Well, then...

[SweetPear]

(Maria~ great post!)

I just wanted to say that I'm not for or against anyone. My point of contention is the bloody outright HATRED for Mr. Bush. Is it necessary to freakin start a national movement against the guy based on the fact that you hate him? What is that?

Now before anyone pins me up against a wall holding the dagger of self righteousness at my throat~I'm not making a case for anyone here. And even if I was, I wouldn't deserve to be bashed within an inch of my life because I have a different opinion than you.
I mean, isn't that the point of [Maria's] post? (I'm not directing this at you, Maria, just using the points you made in your post to define a certain position that some members have.)

Who cares what Bono or Sting or the Dixie Chicks think? They can bloody well think what they want and express it any way they choose. In the words of John Cougar Mellencamp......ain't that America?
I don't make my decisions based on what Eddie Vedder thinks. I LOVE Pearl Jam. I've paid mucho, mucho dinero in my day for Pearl Jam tickets, but I'm not paying to go and hear Eddie preaching to his minions about how he thinks they should feel.
See, this is where this starts to scare me because with the political climate such as it is and the unbelievable apathy among the voting public, I begin to fear people being spoon fed what they should think and how they should feel because it's on the evening news and Peter Jennings says it's so. There's alot of dopes out there who can't and don't think for themselves and let themselves get talked into stuff they know nothing about. Then before you know it, Mr. So and so is sitting in the White House for no other reason than you hated his opponent. Just because Whoopie says it, doesn't make it so.

It's the HATRED I find repugnant.

[SweetPear]

(Well said Rope.)

[A rope leash]

Yes, Sweet, and a lot of right-wingers "hated" Bill Clinton. In fact, they pushed the boundaries of law and morality to defame him. It's called "politics".

I'm not sure that it's the person they hate, as much as it is what the person stands for. I personally think that the majority of those holding office in the USA are crooked. None of them got where they are by being perfect specimens, and if one did, please point him out.

I predict that GWB will lose the election. This is because there is a groundswell of displeasure at his policies. The fifty percent of the population that usually doesn't vote will vote this time because they are motivated not so much by hatred, but by fear. They fear that GWB is out to destroy our freedoms and our security, and it appears that that is just what he's doing. I'm sure you see it differently.

Whenever we see a poll quoted in the papers or on television, it is usually a poll of "likely voters". That means that only people who have voted recently were polled. The race is not nearly as tight as the media would like us to believe.

I'm not much for Kerry, either. I think we should vote out all incumbents, just to show the bastards for once who is really in charge. But that will never happen, because most folks are sedated and distracted by what they are told by the media.

Only two things could keep GWB from losing in November. One thing that could happen would be a voting fiasco caused by electronic voting machines and absentee ballots. Another thing that could happen would be a terror attack that would cause the the Congress and/or the Supreme Court to "cancel" the election, something that didn't even happen during the Civil War. But, they will certainly try it this time, and I think we can count on that. That's because Repubs, in my view, don't really cherish democracy. They cherish ideology. On the other hand, who knows what the Dems cherish...

[clairequilty]

Maybe if Bush (and Blair too) apologised to the Iraqi people for going to war on the mistaken belief of the presence of WMD, and offered money to pay for the damage they caused, then artists and people on this board would go a little easier on him.

If apologies are in order, I spose Mr Kerry and Mr Edwards should get in line also. Kerry stated plainly many times that Saddam possesed WMD's. And I saw Edwards in a town hall meeting with Chris Matthews state that a difference between his own feelings and Bush's is that he (Edwards) would have taken out Saddam much earlier than Bush did.

[SweetPear]

I'm not sure that it's the person they hate, as much as it is what the person stands for.

They fear that GWB is out to destroy our freedoms and our security, and it appears that that is just what he's doing. I'm sure you see it differently.

I love you, Rope.
But if I was you I wouldn't bet the farm on how sure you are about what I think.

Like I said before, I have no prob with the gamut of opinions out there.
God Bless America. (Oops, I bet you don't like hearing that.)(Be nice now.)
I happen to see it as a groundswell of hatred being peddled out there and I think it's sick. It's not fear because if more people cared, they'd freakin vote.

[clairequilty]

I'm sorry.

I really hate politics. It's so fucking divisive.

I respect all the folks on this board. I don't know why I even get involved in these threads. No opinions are gonna be changed.

Kerry, Bush, Nader, Ditka. The US moves like a land mass. One person, even a President, can't cause a Sea Change. I wish the best for the US and the world no matter what happens.

[A rope leash]

It just goes to show that they are all crooks who will say and do anything to get elected.

The agenda is maintained by those who provide the big money. These "politician" fellas are bought and sold like toys.

War makes big money for a lot of folks. War makes ratings for media news, and ratings equal money. An anti-war candidate has no chance, because he'll be shot down by the real powers behind the charade of "democracy".

Look at what happened to Howard Dean. He got a little too enthused about his candidacy, and he was labled all over the media as "crazy", and "unelectable". At about the same time, Kerry was being touted in the media as a "war hero" who could beat GWB. As per usual, the voting public sensed what thier corporate masters wanted, and Kerry began to pick up the momentum he needed to get the nomination.

I have yet to meet anyone who is really nuts about Kerry, but, there he is...

[A rope leash]

I don't mind "God bless America".

What bothers me is "God told me to do it".

A lot of folks, including GWB himself, believe that he was elected through devine providence. If this were true, then the same must have been true for WJC's election, but these folks surely don't believe THAT.

"Either everything is an act of God, or nothing is..." - Albert Einstein

[clairequilty]

I truly respect your ideals Rope, but they are ideals.

War is the second oldest profession. It will never end.

Power and Sex, Sex and Power. Everybody wants to attain and sustain them.

We're human. Animals. There is no Utopia and there never will be.

Dems and Repubs are after the same things. They just have different methods.

[SweetPear]

Honestly Rope, I can't argue with ya here. Every word is true.
It's awful, I'm so disgusted. (With politics, not with you, Rope.)



Here, here, Clairequilty. I'm glad you said it. I kick myself every time I start in on this shite.

I want EC not GW!

[A rope leash]

Everyone knows what a misanthrope I am.

There is no hope for mankind aside from some sort of mass epiphany. I have said that often. If there is a God, it would be nice if he would open up our brains and calibrate them to act upon good thoughts only.

On the other hand, I have to feel good about myself and what I believe. I can't say that war is inevitable, and "that's just the way it is", and still feel right about it. Being against the war and saying it out loud sets my moral compass to the correct specifications for my own peace of mind.

Honestly, I don't know how these war-mongering bastards sleep at night.

Wouldn't things be much safer for us now if we had just "turned the other cheek"?

But, there's no money in that!

(I know, I know, they hate us for our freedom, and they will stop at nothing to destroy us. Well, who came up with the tools that will allow them to do that? They didn't invent WMD, we did!)

[clairequilty]

As a devout and unabashed atheist, "turn the other cheek" is just another Biblical fairy tale to me.

But as for your follow up that "there is no money in that", I would tend to disagree. Money is the touchable, material representation of Sex and Power. And the desire for Sex and Power pervades the desires of every living thing. It is what sustains and propogates life.

Ted Kennedy, George Bush, Osama, O Bama. They all have the same ultimate goal. Propogate their version of the species.

Totally Machiavellian. From pastors to pacifiscts, the ends always justify the means. Every man for himself. Were polishing brass on the Titanic man. It's all goin down (Stolen from Fight Club).

[SweetPear]

misanthrope; noun- one who hates or distrusts mankind.


Not at all, Rope. Quite the contrary. Remember the mantra of the masses: ignorance is bliss.
Perhaps that is the formula for survival.

Too late for that, init Rope?

[A rope leash]

Not really. See, they go in through the nose, and they pull out a part of your brain. Then they put it in a jar so you can take it home with you.

Who's that in there? Who is that?

[Mr. Average]

Seven exceprts from the most recent posts to this thread:

1. "There is no Utopia and there never will be."

2. "There is no hope for mankind aside from some sort of mass epiphany."

3. Wouldn't things be much safer for us now if we just turned the other cheek?"

4. "As a devout and unabashed atheist 'Turn the Other Cheek' is just another biblical fairy tales to me."

5. "Every man for himself. We're polishing brass on the Titanic, man. It's all going down."

6. "See, they go in through your nose and pull out parts of your brain."

7. " Maybe, just maybe, so many people are having a go at Bush is that he really IS the Dumb Arse/Devil Incarnate that so many people think he is."

For the counterpoint, you can count on Mr. Average who suddenly appears, by contrast, to be far less fanatical than previously labelled.

I think that the hope for mankind is alive and evidenced daily by acts of incredible kindness and generosity displayed around the globe. While I do not believe this to be Utopian, I do believe in God and the reality of an eternal reward. In context, turn the other cheek takes on more then a passive meaning. Everyman for himself may save YOUR ass, and if that is why we are here, then billions of people who work together for a higher purpose are all wrong. I do not believe the government of the United States is creating a state of mind control and devouring individual freedoms in mammoth-sized bites. I want those resonsible for policing the safety of my homeland to be informed if someone at the public library is researching topics like "How to make a really big effen bomb" and/or "The best places to place an incendiary device to result in the greatest loss of human life". And I do not think Bush is a dumb ass, nor do I think he is the devil incarnate. I also do not feel that Kerry is a dumb ass nor is he the devil incarnate. They are politicians who are playing the game as it has de-evolved through the years. It is the PEOPLE who make the government strong, or weaken it. We have an administration in place at this time that is incredibly resilient and remains relatively striong in spite of mass hysteria and hate about the outcomes that it has wrought on all of the world. The only way that can happen is if everyone is drugged through the public waterworks or if Bush and Cheney have a Grade 1 Neurolyzer that they have ripped off from Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith and installed on the Statue of Liberty to make everyone forget that they have a voice. Somehow, I think that only happened in a Hollywood movie.

I hope I never approach each day with the feeling that this is all so futile. In remission, and under the constant threat of a reemergence of the cancer that kills more males my age than any other sickness but heart disease, I am not gullible and I do not use my strong Faith as a crutch. I listen. I learn. I accept opinions that are diametrically opposed to my own so that I cannot be accussed of parroting mindless gibberish that I heard during a viewing of a Micheal Moore film or a Don Henley concert.

Keep Hope Alive. It makes things better, I think. Keep Hope Alive. Regardles who wins the election. Regardless of the uprising of Islamic fundamentalists that want you to die because you are different from them. If you really want to rant against tyranny, hate, evil, and sinister intent, then may I humbly suggest you rank order the cause, and the curse of others who are so oppressed that they cannot breath a molecule of dissention less they are beheaded by their OWN PEOPLE. My God in Heaven, rank order the injustices, and fight the good fight, run the good race.

It's Sunday. Cut me a little slack...

[A rope leash]

I can't argue with most of that, Mr. Av. The reason why is that I am coming from such a different perspective.

In my view, the threat from Islamic fundamentalists is over-hyped. I don't accept the official story on what happened 9/11/2001. I think that if OBL succeeds in nuking us, it will be because GWB has failed to bring him to justice. I don't trust our government to tell us the truth, and I suspect that covert operations by our own intelligence forces are behind a lot of the "terror" we see today.

So, it's hard to argue with you. I'm not alone. I tend to read international news sources as opposed to US news sources. I don't trust the much of the US media. Yes, one might say I'm "on the fringe", but you know full well that I can link you to a hundred sites that support my point of view, just as you could do the same.

I think referring to the US as our "homeland" gives us a hint at what the creepy truth is. We are an imperialist nation. Otherwise, why would we call this the "homeland"? Isn't that what Hitler called Deutschland when he was going about militarily speading his vision for the world?

...and speaking of a drugged water suppy, did you catch this story?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3545684.stm

You be you, and I'll be me. There's always hope, but if we depend on "God" to pull us out of this moral abyss we've created, then I'm fairly sure we'll all be pretty disappointed. Men must do it, and I don't have much faith in that either.

As for the mass epiphany, well, that might well come from "God", or it may well come from a superior race of beings from another dimension or possibly another planet. I think both scenarios are equally valid.






But then again, I'm "crazy".

[laughingcrow]

They're all just giant shapeshifting lizards!!

[maria]

If you face the world in a state of paranoia, you are defensive. If you are defensive, you make people round you nervous. Nervous people are mistrustful and are a lot more likely to turn mean than trusting people are.

If there are lunatics about with truly evil intent, no amount of planning or controlling can thwart that intent – as evidenced by the horror of 9/11, amongst a multitude of horrible atrocities carried out by obsessed individuals. Fair enough: take reasonable steps to protect citizens going about their daily business, but no one can cover every eventuality – it’s just not possible, so don’t even go there. If you try that, the evil intenders win and impose their ways on the majority. Innocent individuals get damaged and the entire situation begins to spiral out of all control. Careers are made on all sides, premised on the certainty of the permanence of lunatic rule … eventually everyone forgets where it all began in the first place and complete madness takes over.

What you can do, however, is lead by example. Be respectful and trusting. People are basically good, and respond well to being treated respectfully. Even the paranoid or nervous will eventually smile back when someone smiles at them. Trust begets trust, believe it or not.

Here in official Ireland it was a given for years that you couldn’t listen to the men of violence: the only official way to deal with them was suppression. This was perceived as an absolute, which resulted in an ugly, violent, mistrustful stale-mate. Absolutes ruled and so did the lunatics. Then, finally, commonsense prevailed: a few brave people took some big leaps of faith and trust in the realisation that most people don’t choose to go about their business with murder in mind. And, unsurprisingly to most of us who have to negotiate our way through life pacifically on a daily basis, most people directly affected by violence responded with the same faith and trust and began to sort their difficulties through verbal negotiation. Because most people who are treated with reason respond with reason. When someone has a grievance, acknowledgement of this takes you more than half way to resolving it.

As it happens, and entirely by chance, I was at a function the first time a British official publicly said that the terrorists would need to be spoken to on a formal governmental footing. Within my group there were people who had had immediate family murdered by the IRA. To say they were devastated, horrified and repelled by what was said is an understatement. To say they were pessimistic about the idea achieving anything positive is even more so. There were heartbreaking scenes as the past, with all its bitterness and pain, was invoked there and then at the table. But now, a decade later, they would tell you a very different story. Nothing will undo the devastation caused by the terrorists, but the gamble of trust has blunted weapons, beyond all shadow of doubt. And for the most part, an entire generation has had the opportunity to experience a reasonably peaceful and prosperous existence for the first time ever (can you imagine that? Many thousands had never experienced this, a thing that most of us take entirely for granted), and now had a reasonable hope of it continuing into the future. And the poor, battered people who doubted the possibility of this course of action are now being left to come to terms with the past and live for a better future.

Politicians finally accepted the point that the majority of us wouldn’t in our wildest dreams countenance either waging war directly, or offering tacit support to anyone who would. And the quickest and most logical way to restore the natural peaceful order of life was to accept there was a legitimate grievance and try to find a compromise.

Yes, there are crazy, bad minded people about. And yes, they can “win” by their own lights upon occasion. But they never really win without the collusion of the majority, and mainly the majority just want to get on with their lives. These mad situations usually boil down to an elephant-in-the-room situation. There is generally a glaring truth staring everyone in the face. I say, be very wary of those who talk about solving the problem by changing the wallpaper, dimming the lighting or re-setting the table. At the end of the day, there’s no getting away from the fact that the elephant will always still have to be dealt with.