Wednesday, December 05, 2007

[december 5th] day for me to remember


The first thought which comes into my head regarding my mother is "energetic", energetic to a fault.


She'd never sit still. If we were watching the football, she'd be bustling round doing things and giving scornful glances as if to say: "You great lugs, sitting there when you should be up working." Didn't matter if it was a night match, it was the same.

If we went, as a family, which we didn't often, to someone's birthday or to dinner, it would be off with the coat and gloves and into the kitchen to help, often reaching for a tea towel before anyone said: "No, no, you're a guest." No one ever did say that because she'd have it all done with whilst they were still talking. They weren't fools.

This attitude of wanting to have the thing done and onto the next job has come down to me and I can't help wanting things settled, for example in Blogpower, so that we can get onto the next issue. I took less money for my last car for precisely that reason - I just wanted the thing over and done with.

She was canny as well - there was no way to fool her and when someone came at her with a tall story, the wry lift of the eyebrow was usually enough. She adored children which was just as well because they were her job and there are many today who look back on their mothercraft nurse with affection and a little awe.

The awe was because she was a stickler for the old ways. The bathwater was never deeper than six inches for toddler safety, one had to learn to say no to a child to bring the child up with good values and yet she never laid a hand or slapped any child except me - once - when I was two and pulled the knobs of the radio. Even then it was a tap, otherwise I would have remembered.

This is going to sound stupid but I'm typing this now at the table, rather than in the armchair because I half suspect she might be watching me slouching. Father too.

Despite this, she wasn't stern and if I was looking for a way to describe her, the old military rule of "fair, firm and friendly" is closest to the mark though I'd say loving rather than friendly. The type of love which never speaks but one knows it's there. Sense of humour too. The wry grin was her trademark.

If either my father or I accused her of something - throwing out a piece of equipment or washing a motor, she'd say; "Oh yes, all of that and more." She couldn't be insulted, she couldn't be hurt or so it seemed and in a male household, she held her own. In fact she held it together.

I always had to look someone in the eye if I was speaking to him, I never ate with my mouth full, used a knife and fork properly, wasn't allowed to slouch in a chair and so on. Came in handy during my military days later.

On such occasions as today, there is a tendency to wax lyrical, to eulogize. I shan't do that because she wouldn't. And yet she was as susceptible to the compliment, the flowers, the attention, as any woman. To be taken out was her delight, even if she could have cooked it better herself.

That was the other thing I took for granted - I just thought all women cooked superbly until I got into the wife business. Then I realized how spoiled I'd been for grub. In those days it was always the heavy, cast iron pressure cooker for the veg and the grill for the meat. Except on Sundays when it was the roast and I couldn't get enough of those tatie quarters.

As you'd expect, the house was clean enough to eat your meal off the floor and it was shoes off at the door if the weather was inclement. Only in Russia are they more obsessive about shoes inside. The venetian blinds and curtain rails constantly needed cleaning and that was my father's job. Another thing he was roped in to do was to wash up after the meal. This was never questioned and sometimes they got me into it too.

On our motoring holiday, she'd sometimes get me in free overnight wherever we were and if wasn't clean enough, that was the end. One day she sold our house because the price was right. More than right - it was apparently way over the odds. Both my father, from his work and me from university, came home that Thursday to discover we were moving.

Interesting about my dad that he put up with all this sort of thing but I suppose he knew when he was onto a good thing and her sixth sense for a good deal never, in my experience, turned out to be wrong.

Naturally, with such a go-getter, we could only take so much before we ran for cover - my father to the workshop and me to a friend's. Never fazed my mother though and the meal was ready when we returned. That's one reason I love the grandmothers over here.

They have no mental equipment to enable them to perceive that someone might not want to have their chunky broth and torn off hunk of bread. It's just taken as read and a person must have rocks in the head to refuse a grandma's cooking in this country. It's just so delicious. So it was with her.

Not that she ate this herself though. Oh, no, she was of the sparrow variety - a nibble of salad here, a couple of mandarins there - well eight or nine, actually - and the olives which I never got to love, though I can eat them today if served.

Ice-cream was her Achilles' heel and if it was from an ice-cream shop, she was gone. In the later years, when she had lost a lot of her powers, the mention of ice-cream had the intellect alert and the smile would come to the face.

As you'd expect, she could not abide a fool nor amateur dramatics. One day when I came home from school with a nose which had been bleeding several hours, supported by two stout schoolmates, one on either side and I was deposited at our front door, my mother came out and told them: "Uh-huh. He'll live."

The schoolmates were mortified as my dramatics had been pretty effective. Once inside, it was time to drop the act and just clean up the nose. She wouldn't let me out to play though and had the doctor see to me next day.

She adored Yorkshire though it had nothing to do with her - she came from other parts [see photo above]. That was my father's thing. Didn't like the snow though and that was one reason for the move to Australia. I don't really know then, from whence I picked up my love of the Russian winter.

So here I am before you this evening, a product of many influences but most certainly of my my mother, whose birthday is today.

Happy birthday up there, mother. My underpants were clean on today, I promise. Yes, yes, I cleaned my teeth after supper. Yes, I've done my homework. Yes I know I had two girls here now cleaning the flat and I could have saved the money but I'm not you, am I?

You were ... are ... a one-off.

[charisma] and the lure of the cult

Being an overweening egotist himself, this blogger can't understand the lure of the cult. At least he can understand it but can't feel the pull.

Remember the teen series Beverley Hills and how Kelly was lured into one of these cults run by one of her professors? [Yikes, Higham thinks ... there but for the grace ...]


Reminds this blogger of Jim Jones, of which one google entry opens:
This was a Christian destructive, doomsday cult founded and led by James Warren Jones (1931-1978).
Now there are a whole lot of things to say about this:


1. He used a sort of pseudo-Christianity as his springboard to lure people in. It was presented as Christianity for modern times, tuning in with many anomalies and vagaries in the bible and stressing the "free love" aspect, interpreting it as free sex, as distinct from the real Christian message of platonic love for one's fellow man, a completely different message.

Looking specifically at Jones:
His intention was to create an agricultural utopia in the jungle, free from racism and based on socialist principles. People who had left the organization prior to its move to Guyana told the authorities of brutal beatings, murders and of a mass suicide plan, but they were not believed.
And that's the key - what could have been a social experiment - inter-racial free love - became quasi-religious and the behaviour by no means matched the message. Also, there is always an element of socialism in these things. It's a mix of Christianity and Marxism, the former voluntary, the latter coercive. Dangerous brew.

2. There are distinct tendencies in such men [and it is usually but not always men]:

a. Egotistical yet personally not whole. Overcompensation for an inferiority complex [e.g. Charlie Manson];

b. Perceived as highly intelligent and well educated, concerning himself with the macro-issues of the world [either incapable or not interested in the day-to-day details of public life] and able to use articulate rhetoric to convey his message but when that message is analysed, it's found to have little actual substance.

As the most astute Agatha Christie observed, in N&M:
... carrying you away on a tide of emotion ...
c. Often with some sort of inner drive of a twisted nature, e.g. satyrism, lust for serial killing, whatever. In other words, possessed and a little other-worldly. As a sidelight, a good sign that the guy's finally gone over the edge is when he adopts the cassock, the robes, the one-piece garb, such as with Neo;

d. Needs a following to support and justify his excesses but once he has the following, not satisfied with the organization he's set up and feels the need for some sort of denouement [e.g. Manson and Jones];

e. Having had a tough time, e.g. Manson's time in prison and basically being, inside the psyche, a "wrong 'un". Look at such people in history, look, for example, at Clyde Barrow - look at his psychology. The correlations are uncanny;

f. Personally very dangeous if crossed and capable of turning savagely on former friends. See the Jonestown beatings as an example of those who dared to deviate or dissent.

3. The Method

He gathers followers through his charisma, his up front charm, his assiduous attention to women, knowing how to give the compliment and when to apply it and through offering a vision of a new world of love and peace where all the old muddling, hatreds and cruelty are all swept away and in its place some sort of utopia, of course with him as the head of it and his few "chosen" accolytes at his side - his henchmen and favourite concubines.


A Messiah fixation with a twist.

Another thing he does is identify "the enemy", i.e. any who have both the insight and the power to oppose and stymie him. His methods are not nice and there's no depth to which he will not stoop to silence dissent. As he becomes more powerful and more "family" join him, he sends them out to do the dirty work e.g. Manson again.

One method is to crucify the reputation of former accolytes who broke away. Now the very nature of this girl being an accolyte in the first place is that she has a screw loose and therefore she is not psychologically capable of opposing and only damages herself in the process, turning people against her.

Just been watching Die Hard again and it was a motif running through it. John McClane [Willis] was immediately viewed as a kook, a crazy, all sorts of things and why? Because he was presenting an idea, i.e. that a major hotel [citadel] had been taken over by terrorists, a concept which no one particularly wanted to believe.

Don't forget, his reputation had already been tarnished in his earlier gung ho ventures and he had a habit of seeing conspiracies which ultimately turned out to be so. People liked him personally but humoured him with his weird ideas. Analogously, don't forget Sackerson's blogname - They Laughed at Noah.


Back to our new Messiah. His theology, such as it is, is that Christ had a good idea going but didn't take care of the fine detail. He, the new cult Messiah, will supply that fine detail tuned into modern and future times and invokes all the religious and spiritual imagery, in other words, hijacking the "image" of the Christ, to add drive to his recruitment.

Whoa! That is seriously weird stuff. Not only that but as any real Christian can tell you, the central aspect is firstly redemption and secondly love your brother. In the message of Jones and other messiahs, there's no redemptive aspect - a warning bell for real Christians.

And now to the point of this post. What if a blogger knows one of these budding messiahs already? What if the great man is already inside the citadel, so to speak and is about to open his campaign? What should this blogger, as someone who instantly recognizes the type because he himself possesses many of the preconditional traits - what should he do?

Apart from posting a post like this, what should he do? Especially as he is now surely high on the hit list and expects his personal reputation to be tarnished very soon, most cogently? One of his own dear lady friends even suggested, some time back, that he should be sued for unsubstantiated remarks.

So what should he do?

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

[end of year] easy does it

I just said over at Blogpower and expand on it here that we shouldn't read too much into end of year blogging blues.

Many fellow bloggers are going into hiatus over the festive period and those downunder will go for their long break. It might look like the blogosphere's falling apart but it's not doing that.

There is weariness after a tough year and more than a little sickness, especially for me. My greatest concern is university end of year, with all its statutory requirements which are a pain in the neck. Blogposts are therefore, by definition, curtailed for now. My aim is one post in the morning and two in the evening until the week before Christmas.

I'm also going hell for leather on my four books, which are being condensed to three. I'd love to get them posted at my Lit blog before too long.

So, I'm not personally planning to go anywhere and my whole agenda for the next few weeks is to get out of things - academic pressure, buying of presents, pre-Christmas compulsory drinks and so on. My other agenda is to visit other blogs as much as I can and try to get a Blogfocus up soon.

Monday, December 03, 2007

[hawaii] calling russia

Now is this weird or is this weird? A New Englander, possibly to avoid leaf-peepers, settled at Maui and is writing of boogie-boarding:
"I don't see fins on you guys. Things in the water have fins. Things in the sky have wings."

Fortunately, in spite of his shamanic sense of metaphor, the know-it-all smartass in me was able to keep quiet, so we weren't kicked off the beach all together. Still, he was right. Even with a decent boogie board, it is tricky as hell to effectively move out there once you get past the white water... and ironically, with 5-15 foot waves, the white water is the part that frikkin' kicks your ass the most! So, I guess today's lesson is: If you're a crazy a-hole who likes to go boogie boarding in the rain, be sure to wear some fins.
So he's talking maybe 80 degrees, Fahrenheit, right? OK, so let me tell you that we're under snowdrifts here and it's minus 14 degrees just now and the sun went down an hour ago. What a world.

Possibly last post for the evening, people, Have to ease back into it, like.

[northumbria] remember the '19



The year is 1019. Northumbria, now accepting its final role as an earldom, cedes its northernmost territory to Scotland and assumes its eternal and rightful place as part of England. The ancient Northumbrian flag is in the right sidebar and under it, the ancient Northumbrian Tartan.

From Lindisfarne to the Humber, from the sea to the West Riding - all are welcome guests to our fair earldom. Now there is a proposal for a new Northumbrian flag and yet an ancient one, taking into account its final historical status. That flag can be seen lower right here.

G-d save Northumbria and England. This blog now bends its knee and pays tribute to the honour of being considered a Northumbrian [please don't utter the term Northumberland] and thereby, an Anglian.

[blogpower roundup] 4th of this series now up

JMB is a blogger who is very important indeed in the BP firmament. If you'd like to see Blogpower at work in one post, may I recommend the 4th Blogpower Roundup. Top job, JMB

Do look through it for an entertaining read.

[glitch] normal service soon

Yes, I was shut down by my provider - they simply pulled the plug. Now the weekend's over, they've let me back. But it won't be fully back until this evening. First post then.

Friday, November 30, 2007

[ian blair] there's no conclusive proof


I'm not going to name the three august bloggers who commented [to condense them]: "There's absolutely no proof and no shred of evidence of government collusion in 7/7 and its aftermath."

That's true - there is no final proof but as for no shred of evidence, for that to be true - well, that would mean that the whole of what appears below must be dismissed holus bolus.

It forever astounds me why bloggers who themselves do fiskings and investigations of their own using august opinion and circumstantial in large doses, then turn around and demand finite, absolute, lay-it-before-me, cast iron proof for an issue which can never have anything like that - especially if it is investigating organizations with past histories of lying and cover-ups.

The most you're ever going to get is a large collection of circumstantial of varying degrees of veracity. I don't necessarily suggest all the following is conclusive - I do suggest that it is most indicative that not all was above board.

October 8th, 2006 Iain Dale
reported:
Sir Ian said the British people should 'brace themselves for a truly appalling act of terror'. He said that following this act of barbarism 'people would be talking quite openly about internment', giving the impression that he would be leading the pro-internment lobby.
The Guardian noted:
The discovery that Khan was reinvestigated the following year appears to contradict claims from MI5 that inquiries about him came to an end in 2004 after it was decided that other terrorism suspects warranted more urgent investigation. It is also likely to lead to scrutiny of MI5's assertion that its officers, who had followed, photographed and secretly recorded Khan, and made other inquiries about him, did not know who he was.
On the surveillance operation which David Davis bought into, one claim was:
But the serious mistake that Panorama has identified is that at the time MI5 never informed West Yorkshire Special Branch about the surveillance operation that ended up in its patch.
A Canada Free Press article [now removed] said that a simultaneous bombing drill was going on, on 7/7, just as NORAD were running a 20 plane simultaneous attack exercise on 911. A deepjournal article says about this:
So it was with the Hinckley attempt to assassinate Ronald Reagan, when a presidential succession exercise was scheduled for the next day, as I showed in my George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992; reprint by Progressive Press, 2004)'.
And continues, on some other matters:
'The one virtuoso performance of July 7 was that of the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, and the European Central Bank, which flooded equity and capital markets with liquidity through such vehicles as the Plunge Protection Team (PPT), turning a big Wall Street loss into a small gain', writes Webster Tarpley.

A blogger named The Cunning Realist has done some
research and proves with some remarkable statistics (1 2) that the Federal Bank of the U.S., shortly before the attacks on July 7, pumped $35 billion into the market to soften eventual blows.
There was even some pre-7/7 speculation going on:
Insider Joseph Farah writes about the successful stock speculations just before 7/7: '[...] it appears some profited by short selling the British pound in the 10 days leading up to the attacks. The pound fell about 6 percent (approximately 1.82 to 1.72) against the dollar for no apparent reason
And so to the day itself, with Blair having flown in from Singapore and ensconced with the G8 leaders in Scotland while Giuliani and Netanyahu in London. J7, who run a nice timeline of the events of 7/7, note:
* Reports of defective trains and firemen at Balham [7.10 a.m.], at Caledonian Road [7.57 a.m.] and at Piccadilly Circus [8.07 a.m.].

7:21am
The 4 are caught on CCTV together heading to the platform for the King’s Cross Thameslink train.


8.26am
It is claimed the four alleged suicide bombers were recorded on CCTV at King’s Cross station at 8.26 or (later on) 'about 08:30'. None these pictures have never been made public.


8.43am Mossad office in London was alerted to a pending terror strike

8.49am
The first report of a major incident at Liverpool Street station was received by the London ambulance service at 0849, within a minute of the blast. [BMJ Diary of Major Incident (PDF)]


9.12am
First Alert Call – from Metropolitan Police to TfL and other Gold Partners. [7 July Review Committee Timeline]


9.24am The first reports: “British Transport Police say the incident was possibly caused by a collision between two trains, a power cut or a power cable exploding.
Deepjournal adds:
[In an] article by the Cambridge Evening News in which an eyewitness testifies: 'As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been. "The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train.

They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said.'
Mark Honigsbaum of The Guardian also talks in this radio report [RealPlayer] with witnesses about a bomb under the rail carriage.
To the timeline again:
8 July Sir Ian Blair, Head of the Metropolitan Police, said no evidence suggested that the attacks involved suicide bombers, but officials hadn't ruled out the possibility. Ian Blair curiously alluded to the number of bombers:
'If London can survive the Blitz it can survive four miserable bombers,' but then hastily added 'I am not saying there were four bombers', words then edited out of subsequent news reports.
9 July All four CCTV cameras on the 30 bus were not working. Al Qaeda take the blame:
MSNBC translator Jacob Keryakes suggests that [the al Qaeda website claim] might be a fake claim, since "This is not something al-Qaida would do." The Australian [story now removed] says: "The language of all the statements has been vague and does not conform to al-Qaeda language and style." The service provider appears to be based in Maryland, VA.
11th July Christophe Chaboud, France's new antiterrorism coordinator, states that he knew ‘the nature of the explosive’ in the London bombings: It ‘'appears to be military, which is very worrisome,’' he said, adding: ‘'We're more used to cells making homemade explosives from chemical substances’ (Le Monde)

12 July On the identification of the four: No DNA tests were necessary to identify them, because the suspected bombers all happened to be carrying personal documents (source: Boston Herald) , which survived the bomb blasts.
Blair, in his first report to the Commons, rules out an official inquiry.

13 July Traces of the military explosive ‘C4’ were found at all four blast sites, The Times reported. ‘C4,’ manufactured mostly in the United States, is very deadly and efficient - easy to hide, stable, and often missed by traditional bomb-sniffing detection systems. (United Press International)]


19 July
Scotland Yard still has no clue as to what explosives were used, declared the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair.
The Feb 18, 2007 James Casbolt evidence is strange, not so much for this:
No. This whole remote system is quite strange because on the day itself Ian Blair took down all of the mobile phone communications. Everything was switched off.
... but for ths:
The BBC relied exclusively on a testimony given by a Scottish guy. The Scottish guy contradicted himself so many times and yet no one in the media asked him about these contradictory statements.
... and this:
James Casbolt- "So they were told 'this is just a dummy run?"

X10- "It was a dummy run. They were part of the dummy run. They stopped their car just outside of Luton and they were briefed by somebody. When they left Luton of course, they didn't leave Luton at the time described because there was a cock up with train times.

So whether they managed to get to London or not is an unknown because the video camera evidence has been shown to be faulty. There is a problem with the timing on some of the video footage.

James Casbolt- "So the guys on the train who were ex MI 5, ex SAS, they left the explosives on the train and then got off. What were their names again?"

X10- "The ex MI 5 man was codenamed 'J-boy' and Mcgreagor was the ex SAS guy"

James Casbolt- "And then you say they escaped in a Vauxhall cabriolet?"

X10- "Yes and they were driven away from the scene."
Now my reading of X10, in the light of his later rhetoric, is that he was very keen to take the blame from the Muslims. The Shayler opinion, equally suspicious for a different reason, was:
Shayler added that what's even more suspicious is the private security firm in charge of the training drills prior to 7/7 had ties to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Which ties in with Rudi being in London on the day. Fast forward to 12.4.06:
Haroon Rashid Aswat, who was widely touted as being the ringleader for the London bombings, is being extradited without facing charges in the UK. Ex-Justice Dept and terrorist expert John Loftus’ claim that Aswat was an MI6 asset can be judged for yourselves but he has been extradited.

In an interview with Dayside of TV channel Fox he says that the British first told the Americans that Aswat was dead. They believe it and discontinue the lawsuit against him. But also the American Department of Justice is obstructive and 'blocked efforts [to have Aswat convicted] by its prosecutors in Seattle in 2002'.

However, the man surfaces alive and well in South Africa. Loftus: '[...] the Brits know that the CIA wants to get ahold of Haroon. So what happens? He takes off again, goes right to London. He isn't arrested when he lands, he isn't arrested when he leaves'.
Now to Ian Blair himself. Blogger Antagonize wrote:
One need only look to the date of the letter Ian Blair sent to Sir John Gieve in the wake of the murder of an innocent man. The letter asked that the IPCC be given 'no access to the scene at the present time'.

The result was that the IPCC investigation (Stockwell 1, which bizarrely didn't include Blair's own actions in its scope) was delayed for six days, thereby denying the IPCC access to crucial evidence.


Ian Blair's letter to John Gieve was dated 21 July 2005, a day before de Menezes was executed and two days before
Ian Blair says that he knew an innocent man had been executed.


When the letter was published after a freedom of information request it was issued with a caveat that: '
The letter is incorrectly dated 21st July. It should have been dated 22nd July when it was delivered.' July 22nd is the same day that de Menezes was executed.

So it would appear that Ian Blair knew exactly what happened on the day it happened and Brian Paddick is the only senior officer that appears to have any interest in telling the truth.

Not only that, but the evidence to prove this exists in the public domain and has done since the publication of Ian Blair's rather carelessly dated letter delaying the IPCC inquiry.
And finally to the current day's news:
IPCC chairman Nick Hardwick said there would be a series of recommendations to try to prevent mistakes being repeated. Mr Hardwick said there had been a "significant corporate failing" on the part of the force. He said the recommendations would focus on failings in the police's strategy and communications. The report is set to contain details of the case not heard during the trial.
The Less Universally Accepted Press claim the report also reveals how officers:
* Used the Prime Minister's name in a bid to stop the IPCC probe

* Failed to pass on alerts from the undercover team that they were tailing an innocent man


* Delayed five hours in deploying ‘specialist' firearms cops who could have taken him alive

* Doctored a Special Branch log of the surveillance operation leading to the shooting, as revealed by the News of the World in January, and

* Fouled up orders to frontline men, ordering that the suspect be "stopped" which was tragically interpreted as "kill him".


Other startling findings include evidence that de Menezes, 27, was high on cocaine when he was gunned down at Stockwell Tube station last July 22.


But the worst news for Sir Ian is the revelation that some of his most senior aides knew of de Menezes' innocence but kept it from him for 12 hours.
An IPCC-linked source told us:

"That's a cast-iron fact. The question is why. The belief in Whitehall is that it's because Sir Ian is notorious for taking bad news very badly—they just couldn't face telling him so they left it until Saturday morning."

An IPCC source said their report also spotlights "gross negligence" of the SO12 watchers' team leader in failing to tell bosses one of his men had definitely ruled out de Menezes as the suspect.
It was one of this group, says the report, that later deliberately doctored their official surveillance log to suggest they HADN'T identified de Menezes as the target.

The commission says loose language used by Yard commanders in communicating with officers on the chase probably condemned de Menezes to death. As he walked into Stockwell station, Commander Cressida Dick ordered that he must be "stopped" getting on a train. Another officer claimed she added "at all costs".


Commander Dick told the IPCC she meant the suspect should simply be apprehended. But on the scene her officers took it to mean death.
Conservative Home reports David Davis' words:
"There is something wrong with a process of accountability that, two years on, continues to prevent the publication of the review of the events leading up to 22 July 2005.
I suggest that could equally apply to the whole sorry business of 7/7.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

[wyatt earp] killer or protector

"Throw your hands up, I want your guns"

So said Virgil Earp, with brothers Wyatt and Morgan beside him plus Doc Holliday. Opposite them stood Ike Clanton, Billy Claiborne, Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton, cattle rustlers.

30 seconds later, Virgil had been shot in the leg, Morgan in the back, Holliday was grazed on the hip, both McLaurys and Billy Clanton were dead and the others had run away.

Wyatt Earp stood, unscathed, surveying the carnage.

The town was Tombstone, Arizona and a legend was born. It's all the more interesting because I've been trying to get to the truth of whether Wyatt Earp was a murderous gunman or an upstanding law enforcement officer.

Technically, he had no authorization to carry a gun on that day and did not wear a badge of office. Of course he had worn one earlier in Dodge City, from whence his legend had sprung. The friendship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt wasn't hard to understand either - Holliday had saved Wyatt from being murdered and yet Holliday disliked lawmen and Wyatt was one.

The more one reads, the murkier and greyer become the distinctions. The OK Corrall seems more and more a revenge killing for a complex set of happenings in the preceding months, people taking other's girlfriends and so on.

The people in the town were split too. Whereas the common folk seemed to back the Earps in their rough justice notion of law and order, the rustlers, particularly Billy, seemed to be reasonably popular in town. Wyatt seems to have been not universally loved and the Earps generally seen as men who took advantage of their positions to mete out fear and favour.

There seems to be no consensus because people were of one camp or the other. Wyatt? Dangerous, yes. Bat Masterton said of him:

Wyatt Earp's daring and apparent recklessness in time of danger is wholly characteristic; personal fear doesn't enter into the equation, and when everything is said and done, I believe he values his own opinion of himself more than that of others, and it is his own good report that he seeks to preserve.
Just a killer? Well, he was charged with murder following the shootout but was acquitted. Here's the modern day Clanton family's version of events. Bit different to the legend, yes? Here's a similar view. Here's a more pro-Earp account. Interesting that no two accounts seem to match.

In the rampage following the killing of Morgan some months later, when Wyatt and Doc Holliday then tracked down and killed the killers across the west is still a thorny question. Along the way, other outlaws like Johnny Ringo were found dead and that was attributed to the terrible two.


They certainly inspired fear in a lawless west at that time. One report from Wyatt's early days said:
Deputy Earp was known for pistol-whipping armed cowboys before they could dispute town ordinances against carrying of firearms. It is not known what kind of pistol Wyatt carried.
The line between lawless and lawman seems to have been a fine one. He's not known to have knowingly acted against unarmed or harmless people. He seemed to relish taking on the most dangerous. He doesn't seem to have had a brittle temper - reports say he was ice cold in such situations.

So was he a bad man? Was he a psycho behind a badge? Or was he a product of the times who brought law and order to part of a lawless land?

Dodge City, 1882 - would you want to have lived there in those times?


[christmas] what's in and what's out this year


In this year

The birth of Jesus of Nazareth, giving to the poor, wassailing, carolling, mulled wine, reflections on life, Christmas trees, prezzies under the tree, service in church.

Out forever

This winterval stupidity, crass commercialism, piped carols everywhere you move, credit debt, greedy eyes, depression, atheistic and humanistic spoilsports.

We don't have the December 25th orgy of commercialism here. It's celebrated on January 7th and is close to its original roots. Nice lunch with immediate family, nothing dire, not too long.