Change Your Image
dgraywatson
Reviews
Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads? (1973)
The Most Likely Story Ever Told
These two seasoned series followed up on the exploits of the lads five years after they were last seen together. It ran from 1972-1974 but what was different from the original series was that Robert Ferris had moved off the shop floor and worked for his fiancés father as a white-collar executive building houses in the north-east. In addition, he'd moved out of his parent's place and purchased a two up two down in an upscale housing estate with a car to boot.
By contrast Terry Collier came back to his hometown after spending five years in the army, embittered by a failed marriage and resentful at missing out on the swinging 60's and permissive society of his beloved north-east. Therefore, the episodes mostly centered round Terry coming to terms with how his hometown had changed and how everybody else had changed too. He stubbornly clung to his working-class ideas and refused to conform to the early 1970's and took a sneering view towards Bob's newfound status and his engagement to Thelma. Terry was consistently coming in between Thelma and Bob trying to turn the clock back and rekindle days gone by with things like, boy's night out. This was not to say Bob himself didn't miss the old days as it didn't take much effort to lead him astray. It was hilarious at the same time watching him try to get Terry to change his ways, responsibility was not in his vocabulary. This led to some great story lines and some great laughs. The early 1970's was considered the beginning of the golden age of situational comedy and this BBC comedy is still a gem to watch. To pull this off you have to have good story lines, good scripts great dialogue between the characters and good actors to play the part and the creators of this certainly hit the sweet spot with this series. It ran a respectable two seasons was followed up by a great Christmas special at the end of 1974 and a film released in 1976 which was not bad, but it had a melancholy feel to it. There was great on screen chemistry between the two lead characters whether both having a laugh and reminiscing about the old days or else were at each others throats.
I can't finish this without commenting about the rift or the falling out between the two actors in real life. I have no insight or knowledge but my feeling is that James Bolan really didn't care for Rodney Bewes either as an actor or a person. Whether this went back to the earlier series or just boiled up during the run in the 1970's it's difficult to say. But when you work together for the best part of four years which included a BBC radio adaption of the series as well as doing commercials for ITV, that could easily test people's patience and staying power. When the series wrapped up James Bolan's next project was "When the Boat Comes In" a serious drama where the character he played was so far removed from Terry Collier you get the impression that he wanted to get as far away from his association with Rodney Bewes as quickly as possible. Bolan would return to comedy in the late 1970's in "for only when I laugh" where he played a bit of a slacker and followed up in other comedies as well as other serious dramas over his career. There never was a reunion which was a shame, because by the 2000's the die had been cast, it was too long after the 1970's for them to be pressured into another series or even a one-off comedy special, but it would have been a great salute and tribute to the fans of the series.
I would highly recommend this series as walk down memory lane at a time when people could laugh at everything and recommend it for younger people that appreciate good quality comedy at work.
Managing England: The Impossible Job (2018)
England football team, the biggest underachievers in international sports
The first thing to note is that England's performance in the world cup and the European championships is actually worse than it appears because all the countries that have won the world cups and the Euros have also been runners up a few times. So why is it a nation that claims to have invented the game, that boasts about having the best league in the world fails so badly on the international stage.
It's important to go back to the beginning. To be on the winning side in two world wars and then defeat the Germans in the 1966 final must have been a great feeling. The following year Celtic won the European cup and Manchester united won it in 1968 with Manchester City winning the European cup winners' cup in 1970, it seemed that British football was in good shape. With England being world champions one suspects that a sense of superiority and complacency crept in to the English mindset. It's generally accepted that the 1970 world cup squad was probably better in depth than the one in 1966 and most sports journalists at the time could claim that England were unlucky to lose to a very good Brazilian team. Yet it was in the quarter final against West Germany when England blew a two-goal lead with 20 minutes to go before losing 2-3 to West Germany in extra time that the rot set in. This was reinforced two years later when they were outplayed in the quarter finals in the 1972 Euro tournament by the Germans who went on to win that year and then followed by a labored effort in an easy group to qualify for the 1974 world cup. Needing just a win against Poland at Wembley England only managed a 1-1 draw despite having a dozen good chances to score in one of the most one-sided international matches ever seen. They then followed up by missing out on 1976 Euro tournament as well as the world cup in 1978. Were England now jinxed or had the self-esteem taken such a blow and there was a lack of confidence?? Scotland were the UK's representative in both those world cups and when they failed to progress out of the group stages, there were complaints that the English and Scottish domestic leagues were too long, and players went into the tournaments tired. There didn't seem to be the will to create the environment that would be conducive to the national team. There is so much money in the domestic game that any shortening of the season or taking a mid-season break prior to the international tournaments wouldn't be popular with those that ran the game in the UK.
Something worth mentioning is that from the late 1960's through to the early 1990's most of all the top English clubs were inundated with players from Scotland, Wales and from both sides of the Irish border. In the early 1970's Leeds United and Derby County were big benefactors of this as was Nottingham Forest, Arsenal and Manchester United in the late1970's. For example, in the 1979 FA cup final between Manchester United and Arsenal of the 22 players that took the field only 8 players were eligible to play for England. This accelerated in the very late 1970's with the introduction of players from continental Europe and other parts of the world. Liverpool who was one of England's best club teams also went down this road which resulted by the 1985 European cup final of having only 2 players that were eligible to play for England in contrast to the 1977 European cup final where Liverpool had 9 players that were English. There is no doubt that Scotland having its own league, and this being complimented with Scottish players being able to play for English clubs helped their national team during this period. Northern Ireland qualified to two world cups in the early 1980's, and this was at a time when qualification was harder. The Republic of Ireland had a good team from the mid 1980's to the mid 1990's with largely players who were playing in the English premier league. England were unable to build a national team around the foundation of the top three or four teams in the league because so many players couldn't play for England.
This by contrast to West Germany who had 5 players from Bayern Munich in their team that won the 1974 world cup and in 1982 Italy had 5 Juventus players in the team that won the world cup. In 1984 France had 4 players from Bordeaux and 3 from Monaco that anchored their team that won. In 1988 the Netherlands had 4 players from PSV Eindhoven 2 from Ajax and 2 from Inter Millan. By contrast England who lost to the Netherlands in that tournament never had more than 2 players from the same club a total of 4, the other 7 were from different teams. If you were to tell anybody that London doesn't have one team, not even two, but six they wouldn't believe it. So, from the late 1960's to the early 1990's from terrible pitches, questionable selections, long seasons, loss of confidence and a preference for the long ball game English national aspirations and hopes were always higher than reality because the whole system was working against itself. The greater the success of the league was to the detriment of the national team. This was quite obvious that all England managers have been hamstrung by the way the English league is run, but the press and media have consistently gone after the manager which under the circumstances is cynical move because they of all people knew better. Not all of the England managers were cut out to be national team coaches, but they didn't deserve the ridicule and abuse from the media which encouraged some members of the public to abuse them and their families.
So, there you have it, England came up empty from 1968 to 1990 with one world cup semifinal on the ledger, yet things were only going to get worse. From the sacking of Alf Ramsey in 1974 till the Bobby Robson resigned in 1990 England would have a total of four managers with Don Revie and Ron Greenwood sandwiched in between. In the 1990's alone there was a carousel of five managers Graham Taylor, Terry Venables, Glen Hoddle, Kevin Keegan and Howard Wilkinson. This also was at a time where the Sky sports got the rights to broadcast most of the English premier league matches which eventually resulted in many football clubs giving out salaries on par with their counter parts across the pond in the National Football League. The premier league consequently became a very attractive place for the world's best footballers, but it was the Brosnan ruling in 1995 that in effect put it all on steroids. Footballers from all over Europe were able to play in any country and clubs were also free to sign any players without any restrictions. There was also no salary cap unlike the NFL, therefore clubs with money were able to sign up a collection of international super stars. Despite this by the mid 2000's England national team were labeled by the press and the media "the Golden Generation" and there were high hopes for international success. It all lead to nothing as England tripped up at every event and were finally embarrassed in the 2016 Euros by Iceland. The "Golden Generation were nothing but an over hyped bunch of prima donnas that believed their own press. Putting together a team of all stars and on paper very good players is no substitute for team spirit when huge egos encourage petty rivalries and jealousies between the players.
By 2018 England had a new manager and from then to 2024 they had some relative success with one world cup semifinal and two Euro finals so there are indications that things could be moving in their favor although I suspect not through anything they have done. Germany hasn't competed in a final of an international tournament for 10 years, which for them is unusual. Italy didn't qualify for the 2018 and 2022 world cups and in the 2024 Euro they were knocked in the round of 16 despite being European champions. Brazil hasn't won the world cup since 2002 and although the Netherlands got to the semifinals of the Euros this year they've gone through a bit of a slump the last 12 years too. So, it appears that these four national teams aren't as dominant as they used to be. So maybe there is a silver lining on the horizon for England as all their top players too are scattered around the various European countries.
They'll always be the demand for international football, whether super international club football eventually supersedes international football remains to be seen. The trial balloon of a European league and a world league has been raised but as too yet hasn't taken off. It depends on how countries that play football see the future and if players want to be more loyal to the clubs than they do to their nationality, as for England they made their choice a long time ago and there not going back.
Frontline: Plot to Overturn the Election (2022)
If elections made a difference, they wouldn't let them happen !!
I'm not sure who is credited with that statement, be that as it may it's often banded about, although likely by journalists or political activists that are on the losing side of an election. If anybody thought that the aftermath of Bush v Gore in 2000 contest tested the electoral integrity of the US presidential election, the 2016 to 2020 elections ratchet it up to such an extent that there are serious calls for a complete overall.
Both major parties would probably concede that the process might need some reforms, however the problem is it's never at the same time. The party that comes out on top of the election is quite happy until they lose the next one and then call for change. No party wants to do anything that will be of little benefit to them and actually might hurt them. Since 1992 the Republicans have benefitted from the electoral college after being nationally out voted 7 out of the last 8 elections. The irony is that the election they won in 2004 by 3 million votes could have had a different outcome if only a few thousand votes had changed hands in New Hampshire or Ohio. The shenanigans of the US presidential election and chaos that often ensues is not a new thing. The campaign is in effect a two-year campaign with rallies, glad handing, debates and constant fund raising. Consider this, the candidates have sacrificed so much time energy and emotion, they have so much invested, therefor it's perhaps not surprising that the candidate that appears to have lost would want to be absolutely sure that they have lost.
Going back in history It should be noted that in 1972 President Richard Nixon received over 60% of the vote yet was forced to resign less than two years later and his Vice President who hadn't been elected to anything became president. It was perfectly reasonable for Al Gore in 2000 to demand a recount in Florida, however the method of doing it was questionable. Instead, the courts got involved and although in the end they were probably right to stop the bizarre hand counts on seemingly spoilt ballots, nevertheless declared Bush the winner in Florida with a margin of only 500 votes, this was clearly an unsatisfactory outcome. But it was even more of a scandal that there was no mechanism to have a runoff between Bush and Gore later that month or in early December. In the UK when an election is called polling day is about 4-5 weeks later. To go through 18 months of campaigning and the result be decided on the basis of 500 votes cast in Florida out of nearly 6 million and then for it to be validated by the highest court in the country seems absurd.
Donald Trump real estate billionaire, showman, reality tv front man had for many years flirted with the idea of a presidential run, but he was never taken seriously. He came across as clownish, slightly eccentric and although he had the look of a CEO, probably had too much personal baggage and wasn't cut out for the rigors of glad handing and public scrutiny by the media. Yet it shouldn't be forgotten that Trump himself was very much a product of modern-day America with its fixation of celebrity's. He was promoted by show business, large parts of the media and indeed Hollywood did a lot of his bidding giving him cameo roles in films and TV shows. In fact, Trump was probably the most invited guest on ABC's "The View" until he announced that he was running for the Republican nomination for President where he swiftly fell from grace.
From the get-go he came out swinging and seemed fearless and oblivious from the criticism from most of the media. Not only did he attack the Democrats but had to fend off assaults from Conservatives and a lot of the Republican punditry class. However, he committed the cardinal sin of calling out illegal immigration through southern border and then declaring that Mexico should be forced to pay for the building of a wall on the US/Mexico border. This went down like a lead balloon amongst the Democratic party the media and many in the Republican part too. Of course, it was a ridiculous notion, Mexico wasn't going to pay for a wall nevertheless the media took the cheese and became more unhinged and outraged.
Donald Trump seemed to be crossing every red line that the media set up, but he just bulldozed through and dismissed all the calls to back track and apologize. During the debates the other Republican candidates looked uncomfortable, bewildered and frustrated as Trump insulted and elbowed his way to the center of the stage, gradually, they all began to look very small. It was obvious that Trump had torn up the playbook for the traditional way of running for president as one by one the other republican candidates fell by the wayside as their poll numbers cratered and the much-vaunted Clinton v Bush showdown that was expected evaporated.
Trump resembled the "great white hope" as he ran rings around the other well-known and seasoned candidates, yet after he secured the Republican nomination, he now was stepping up in class to take on Hillary Clinton the biggest international political rock star and odds-on favorite to win the White House. Trump the showman yet a political novice was going head-to-head with the biggest political dynasty and campaign organization. On that late Wednesday morning when Hillary Clinton conceded the election loss, she looked stunned and angry as Trump defied the bookies and the pollsters. The script for Hillary Clinton being the first female president followed by a tour around the world all had to be cancelled and instead the state visits rearranged for Donald Trump.
This documentary somehow creates the impression that everybody should have been shocked by the aftermath of the election. Trump never played by the rules during the campaign, why would he play by the rules after the election?? The trouble with this Frontline documentary is that it focuses on the claims that Trump was trying to overturn the result but completely ignores some of the unusual things that had never happened before.
For example, some of the pre-election polls gave Joe Biden anything from 13-18% margin of victory over Trump. Never has a poll the day before an election ever been as bad for an incumbent president and then actually turn out to be incredibly wide of the mark. Secondly, normally in an election the losing candidate gives a concession speech in the early hours of the morning or sometimes as in 2004 and 2016 later in the morning a few hours after the media have declared a winner. This never happened in 2020, it was a couple of days later because of a huge number of postal ballots. Also, President Trump is the only incumbent president to receive more votes in his reelection but to actually lose the election. Fourthly and this dovetails into the second observation that ballots arrived at the counting centers a few days after the election day. So not only was there mass early voting but there was also late counting too. This resembled the type of chaos that you would see in Zimbabwe, Venezuela or Iran where days later ballots were still being counted. Lastly, in a normal presidential election cycle the turn out would be somewhere between 50 to 60% of registered voters, in 2020 it jumped up to over 66%. To me it's not surprising that the party that loses an election after the voting system is changed would cry foul, particularly with some of the irregularities that were observed.
Planet of the Humans (2019)
The greens slow motion campaign to disappointment
The environmental movement in the 1960's and 70's spawned activist organizations such as "friends of the earth" and "Greenpeace" which were created to encourage people to think carefully about what humanity with its modernity is doing to the world. Although there were transnational non state actors operating to highlight global concerns, it was at a local level that the green movement organized itself into political parties in countries like New Zealand, Sweden, Germany and the United States.
Greenpeace were successful at getting an international agreement between America, Canada, Norway and the USSR banning the killing of polar bears for game. The testing of atomic weapons in Amchitka Island and the south pacific by the USA and France respectfully. By the 1980's there was a worldwide ban on the hunting of most whales and the clubbing of seals in the Artic.
Corporations came under greater scrutiny and eventually had to deal with regulations over excess waste from oil companies, chemical plants - adhering to environmental laws. This was prevalent in 1st world countries as waste products just couldn't be dumped haphazardly. Rivers and lakes all over Europe and north America became much cleaner and habitat returned.
However, despite this success by the late 1980's environmentalism became more ambitious and active in bringing attention to the global climate caused by emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, termed the "greenhouse affect". Rather than escaping back out to outer space, the carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere was trapping more of the suns heat which is reflected from the earth's surface. Consequently, the burning of natural gas, oil and coal is causing the earth's carbon dioxide to increase which in turn has caused the global temperature to increase.
This theory had been prevalent by scientists on university faculties and politically on campuses for many years. However, what was different, not only was there a conflation between politics and science, but it wasn't just scientists and non-state actors involved but it was discussed at a global level between different countries governments at international forums such as the Rio de Janeiro conference which in 1992 was the highest profiled event for climate awareness. This was the catalyst for a global movement which was the beginning of green politics being taken seriously in many developed countries. Governments made commitments to find other sources of fuel as developing nations were still unable to do so.
However, this proposal by the developed countries and internal political pressure from the green movements has led to some questionable public policy. Germany who has a had a strong green lobby for decades embarked on a shift away from fossil fuels and nuclear power over to Solar panels and wind farms. Although this was very popular at the time, over the long term ultimately was an optimistic goal and was never achievable. To offset the closing of coal fired power stations, domestic natural gas and nuclear energy, - electricity was imported from France and Switzerland (which was produced from nuclear reactors) and natural gas was piped in from Russia. This in hindsight was not only viewed as cynical and deceitful but relying on a non-EU country for a huge amount of its energy has now been exposed as problematic as power supplies today have been disrupted by global events involving Russia and Ukraine.
The green movement has always been opposed to nuclear power and unfortunately, it's not an energy supply that is suited to quick changes of policy. Nuclear reactors take years to get online and take as long to be safely powered down for closure. The transportation and disposal of waste from nuclear stations is also unpopular.
Despite the efforts of scientific led headliners such as "greenhouse affect", "global warming", "climate emergency" as well as media and government attention to any unusual climate patterns or major weather catastrophes, what has changed?
Since Rio in 1992 there has been a massive increase in the global demand for energy caused by the peace dividend at the end of the cold war with the opening of new markets, a two and a half billion increase in the world's population plus the advent of a technological boom i.e., the internet and the various components which includes, computers, smart phones, Wi-Fi that all require power.
The fossil fuel industry has been targeted in the developed world for a move to green energy, but the question arises, is it wise and practical for an economy which is already becoming more reliant on technology-based Wi-Fi to be completely committed to the electrical grid with no other source of back up power?
Way back in the late 1960's the world's population was about 3.6 billion by the 1970's it was about 4.3 billion. When Paul Ehrlich published his book "The population bomb" in 1970 he was trying to make the case that a growing world population was unsustainable which would ultimately lead to starvation as the dwindling food resources would be a critical factor. Although Ehrlichs pessimistic conclusions then were obviously massively wide of the mark, the point is at that the world's population could eventually be too high for the earth to be able sustain it.
The world's population is now over 8 billion and most of the growth since 1992 has been in the far east, middle east and Africa and many of those people want to get out of poverty. The question is what should that worlds population be and for how much longer can the worlds resources support humanity?
The experiment in Germany exposed the harsh reality that the green revolution not only has its limitations but the desire to limit or lower C02 emissions is way beyond the abilities of governments to achieve. Existing fuels cant be phased out and replaced by renewables in a world that is demanding more energy due to a technological revolution and a growing global population simply cannot be brought about.
Despite nothing to replace fossil fuels governments with media support can declare unrealistic and extreme policy goals such as "carbon-zero" or "Net-zero" to exploit fear over climate change is fine for a political class that are here today and gone tomorrow. Is it cynical and nothing but short-term politics or is it really an exercise in self-delusion?
Either way its far more likely that with there will be a continuation of the incessant fear mongering. This mantra will be sustained for quite some time yet without any real meaningful change to satisfy the ambitions of the green movement. I'd recommend this film!!
America's I.O.U.: Slave Reparations (2001)
The moral and legal issues over reparations
The subject of reparations due to the forced transportation of Africans and eventual enslavement in the Americas from the 17thC, comes up in politics every so often in the United States and Great Britain, but it seems to get more traction even as more time lapses. On examination Britain's experience is very different to the United States, yet the calls for reparations are very much enmeshed in both countries' politics. However, the principle of reparations to offspring of people that were enslaved centuries ago or discriminated against in the late 19thC and early 20thC needs to be examined for what it really means.
In many respects it's not just about the distribution of money, which is what reparations mean, but there is something greater at stake which can't be ignored. In this case the argument will center on the clash of the moral and ethical question within a legal and historical perspective rather than the political or how the financial framework would be agreed upon for distribution. That in itself is complicated, but I'll leave others to make the case of the difficulties that would create.
From an historical perspective the first question that has to be asked is why does the transportation of slaves from Africa from the early 1600's to the early 1800's stand out as requiring attention than any other awful event from the past? The legal transportation of Africans to the Americas was outlawed in 1810 and slavery was forbidden in all British possessions and territories by 1833. After the American civil war came to an end in 1865 all slavery in the USA was abolished.
So, we'd have people that never owned slaves underwriting reparations for people that were never slaves on the basis of an historical injustice that dates back as far as 350 years ago to the eventual abolition of slavery in the USA which was nearly 160 years ago. This would come under heavy legal scrutiny and would almost certainly be challenged in the courts. However, there is another legal obstacle that will clash with the morality of reparations.
After the Nuremburg trials in 1947 it was agreed upon that the notion of "collective guilt" and moreover the consequences of "collective punishment " is wrong and that legislation should be enacted that can provide legal protection for the individual and groups of people is one of the most fundamental principles in human rights. This has been incorporated into the UN charter of human rights, Geneva conventions as well as international law. But I'd go further and argue that a modern government have no legal authority to declare or impose collective guilt and ultimately punishment on its population for something that happened hundreds of years ago. Governments should not violate the social contract between the individual and the state which under pins social democracy and accountable government.
The biggest obstacle would be the state trying to impose or declaring a moral obligation on the people for things that happened that they had no control over. Bearing in mind we are talking about decades and centuries ago when the world was very far away from behaving like the modern social and liberal democracies that we know of today. Modern politicians and law makers have no right or legal authority to do this and any attempt to do so should also be challenged in the courts. In addition, they have no right to speak on behalf of everybody or of any individual for things in the past that they personally are ashamed of. Just because some people can't come to terms with the historical past, they shouldn't be allowed to force collective atonement on innocent people. The notion that the people have to face up to it and then be forced to pay compensation in essence is collective punishment. Just because white on black slavery is now seen as the gold standard of historical injustices is no reason to violate these legal understandings and basic principles in human rights.
The Trials of Henry Kissinger (2002)
In the light of recent decades of disastrous US foreign policy this movie seems dated and irrelevant
Henry Kissinger died last tear and finally got round to watch this 2002 film which was made about 25 years after the height of his prominence. After watching this in many respects it's perhaps not surprising that Henry Kissinger would still receive criticism in his obituary in 2023. Yet his record needs to be reexamined in the light of the disastrous three decades of US foreign policy (much of it promoted by 21stC internationalists including Christopher Hitchens) nearly 25 years after this documentary was made.
However, any historical event around the Nixon years isn't just a nostalgic trip down memory lane, moreover it's because the US media regard Watergate as the blue-ribbon event of journalism as the scrutiny and investigation of the Nixon administration eventually led to the criminal prosecution of government official's impeachment hearings and the eventual resignation of a sitting President. Henry Kissinger was around during that turbulent period, so it's perhaps one last opportunity to revisit those times as everybody else that was in Nixon's inner circle has long since gone.
Ardent critics who were Kissinger's contemporaries never accused him of being involved in Watergate, but it was his role in shaping US foreign policy, particularly the later years of the Vietnam war that they were concerned with, so Kissinger's presence over the next 50 years or so only served to encapsulate a feeling that he alone tiptoed away accountability for an administration that many historians have argued was secretive and corrupt.
Richard Nixon the only sitting president forced to resign in the 20th century was not somebody who fell from the lofty heights of popularity within the media. He wasn't particularly liked by them and made no secret of his disdain for the press. It might go some way to explain why the Vietnam war is today hung around his neck when it was first President Kennedy (1961-1963) and later President Johnson (1963-1969) that got the United States firmly enmeshed in Vietnam. By the time Richard Nixon and then national security adviser Henry Kissinger inherited the war there were over 500,000 US military personnel in the region. Kissinger is accused of being at the very heart of the decision making that expanded and unnecessarily prolonged the war in Indochina and embarked on a balance of power foreign policy that took little consideration of human rights.
Amongst some of grievances is that in 1973 Kissinger was behind a military coup in Chile that resulted in an elected government being ousted as well as providing aid to Argentina's military government in 1976. They were an anti-Marxist Junta that took a heavy-handed approach to their political opponents which was known as "the dirty war" which led to the disappearance of thousands of people. Foreign policy in the Nixon and Ford administrations under Kissinger's stewardship were purely for the benefit of the USA, "the ends justify the means", which is something the American left despised. Kissinger laid the groundwork for the overture to China which was known as "triangulation". Critics on the left viewed this as a cynical maneuver purely for domestic political gain, that only took advantage of the tensions between China and the USSR, and the conservatives saw it as abandoning its anti-communist policy.
There is a charge that Nixon while a candidate tried to sabotage a peace deal in Vietnam seems on the surface weak. It's unclear what this would have entailed and how as a candidate what he could have been done. Nevertheless, it was reported that this happened and if it did, Henry Kissinger wouldn't have been far behind. Although it is only fair to point out that any peace proposals by Johnson were running on a timeline for the presidential election in November of that year. As a candidate for that election there was every justification to be concerned at what the landscape would have looked like with a rushed peace deal or even a bad one had been offered. Not only for Richard Nixon but for Hubert Humphry Johnsons vice president who was the democratic party nomination.
What is overlooked was that any peace overtures by the USA via South Vietnam were meaningless. The war was unpopular at home and the and the North Vietnamese were in a much stronger bargaining position. The USA knew this, as so did the North Vietnamese. One of the biggest crimes he was accused of was the secret bombing of Cambodia that critics point out violated its neutrality. If North Vietnam and the Viet Cong were using it as a staging area for attacks on ARVN and US forces, the USA and South Vietnam could regard Cambodia as a legitimate target. If a country is unwilling or unable to repel combatants that are operating in a state that has declared its neutrality, then under international law neutrality becomes null and void.
However, Kissinger should get top grades for his efforts during the Yon Kippur war, he's credited for helping Israel from being overwhelmed and then restraining Israel as they turned tables on Egypt and Syria. This "shuttle diplomacy" stopped the conflict from escalating and kept the soviet union's influence at bay and led to a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel in 1977.
After the Carter administration (1977-1981) a new republican presidency led by President Reagan embarked on the theme of national renewal which among other things involved a massive military buildup after the malaise of the post-Vietnam years and a determination to confront the USSR and communism at every opportunity. The doctrine of being able to fight two major conflicts, Korea, Europe and a smaller conflict in the middle east was as much as a reemphasis of the Truman doctrine after the democratic party abandoned it in 1972. Also, there was a more proactive and aggressive assertion of the Monroe doctrine in Latin America with particular emphasis on confronting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Reagan administration, while also very anticommunist regarded the USSR as the evil empire and pursued a different approach to Kissinger on global affairs. This was a decisive break from Kissinger's balance of power politics and co-existence with the USSR. Therefore, it's no accident that during the republican presidencies of the 1980's under both Reagan and Bush, Kissinger played no active role. Although often courted by presidents and other secretary of state's, his most influential days were well behind him.
Henry Kissinger first as national security advisor then as the higher profiled position of secretary of state nobody comes under greater criticism decades after leaving office.m Warren Christopher doesn't get called out over his failures to prevent the Rwanda genocide or the massacres in Bosnia, neither do Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice for their initial roles in the decisions about Afghanistan and Iraq any more than Hillary Clintons pushing for the war in Libya and Syria that destabilized that region. Millions of people have been killed, maimed and displaced over the last two decades. It exposes the fact that if your face fits, any mistakes or shortcomings can be overlooked. I wonder what historians and journalists will be saying about some of the officials I've named 30 years from now. In a way it's ironic that he outlived all his contemporaries, reaching 100 in a way only reinforces the view that in some respects he had the last word on them, much to the chagrin of hostile Journalists, many of them who are now deceased.
Kissinger (2011)
Kissinger - the complex but realist official of his time
Henry Kissinger died last tear and finally got round to watch this 2011 documentary which was made about 35 years after the height of his prominence. After watching this in many respects it's perhaps not surprising that Henry Kissinger would still receive criticism in his obituary in 2023. Yet his record needs to be reexamined in the light of the disastrous three decades of US foreign policy (much of it promoted by 21stC liberals and internationalists) fifteen years after this documentary was made.
However, any historical event around the Nixon years isn't just a nostalgic trip down memory lane, moreover it's because the US media regard Watergate as the blue-ribbon event of journalism as the scrutiny and investigation of the Nixon administration eventually led to the criminal prosecution of government official's impeachment hearings and the eventual resignation of a sitting President. Henry Kissinger was around during that turbulent period, so it's perhaps one last opportunity to revisit those times as everybody else that was in Nixon's inner circle has long since gone.
Ardent critics who were Kissinger's contemporaries never accused him of being involved in Watergate, but it was his role in shaping US foreign policy, particularly the later years of the Vietnam war that they were concerned with, so Kissinger's presence over the next 50 years or so only served to encapsulate a feeling that he alone tiptoed away accountability for an administration that many historians have argued was secretive and corrupt.
Richard Nixon the only sitting president forced to resign in the 20th century was not somebody who fell from the lofty heights of popularity within the media. He wasn't particularly liked by them and made no secret of his disdain for the press. It might go some way to explain why the Vietnam war is today hung around his neck when it was first President Kennedy (1961-1963) and later President Johnson (1963-1969) that got the United States firmly enmeshed in Vietnam. By the time Richard Nixon and then national security adviser Henry Kissinger inherited the war there were over 500,000 US military personnel in the region.
There is a charge that Nixon while a candidate tried to sabotage a peace deal in Vietnam seems on the surface weak. It's unclear what this would have entailed and how as a candidate what he could have been done. Nevertheless, it was reported that this happened and if it did, Henry Kissinger wouldn't have been far behind. Although it is only fair to point out that any peace proposals by Johnson were running on a timeline for the presidential election in November of that year. As a candidate for that election there was every justification to be concerned at what the landscape would have looked like with a rushed peace deal or even a bad one had been offered. Not only for Richard Nixon but for Hubert Humphry Johnsons vice president who was the democratic party nomination.
What is overlooked was that any peace overtures by the USA via South Vietnam were meaningless. The war was unpopular at home and the and the North Vietnamese were in a much stronger bargaining position. The USA knew this, as so did the North Vietnamese. One of the biggest crimes he was accused of was the secret bombing of Cambodia that critics point out violated its neutrality. If North Vietnam and the Viet Cong were using it as a staging area for attacks on ARVN and US forces, the USA and South Vietnam could regard Cambodia as a legitimate target. If a country is unwilling or unable to repel combatants that are operating in a state that has declared its neutrality, then under international law neutrality becomes null and void.
Kissinger is accused of being at the very heart of the decision making that expanded and unnecessarily prolonged the war in Indochina and embarked on a balance of power foreign policy that took little consideration of human rights. Amongst some of grievances is that in 1973 Kissinger was behind a military coup in Chile that resulted in an elected government being ousted as well as providing aid to Argentina's military government in 1976. They were an anti-Marxist Junta that took a heavy-handed approach to their political opponents which was known as "the dirty war" which led to the disappearance of thousands of people. Foreign policy in the Nixon and Ford administrations under Kissinger's stewardship were purely for the benefit of the USA, "the ends justify the means", which is something the American left despised. Kissinger laid the groundwork for the overture to China which was known as "triangulation". Critics on the left viewed this as a cynical maneuver purely for domestic political gain, that only took advantage of the tensions between China and the USSR, and the conservatives saw it as abandoning its anti-communist policy.
However, Kissinger gets top grades for his efforts during the Yon Kippur war, he's credited for helping Israel from being overwhelmed and then restraining Israel as they turned tables on Egypt and Syria. This "shuttle diplomacy" stopped the conflict from escalating and kept the soviet union's influence at bay and led to a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel in 1977.
After the Carter administration (1977-1981) a new republican presidency led by President Reagan embarked on the theme of national renewal which among other things involved a massive military buildup after the malaise of the post-Vietnam years and a determination to confront the USSR and communism at every opportunity. The doctrine of being able to fight two major conflicts, Korea, Europe and a smaller conflict in the middle east was as much as a reemphasis of the Truman doctrine after the democratic party abandoned it in 1972. Also, there was a more proactive and aggressive assertion of the Monroe doctrine in Latin America with particular emphasis on confronting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Reagan administration, while also very anticommunist regarded the USSR as the evil empire and pursued a different approach to Kissinger on global affairs. This was a decisive break from Kissinger's balance of power politics and co-existence with the USSR. Therefore, it's no accident that during the republican presidencies of the 1980's under both Reagan and Bush, Kissinger played no active role. Although often courted by presidents and other secretary of state's, his most influential days were well behind him.
Henry Kissinger first as national security advisor then as the higher profiled position of secretary of state nobody comes under greater criticism decades after leaving office. Warren Christopher doesn't get called out over his failures to prevent the Rwanda genocide or the massacres in Bosnia, neither do Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice for their initial roles in the decisions about Afghanistan and Iraq any more than Hillary Clintons pushing for the war in Libya and Syria that destabilized that region. Although the comparisons are probably not even, nevertheless it does expose the fact that if your face fits, any mistakes or shortcomings can be overlooked. In a way it's ironic that he outlived all his contemporaries, reaching 100 in a way only reinforces the view that in some respects he had the last word on them, much to the chagrin of hostile Journalists, many of them who are now deceased.
Muhammad Ali (2021)
Muhammad Ali
Muhammad Ali is probably the most well-known sports star of the late 20thC having numerous books, documentaries and films made about him. I'd already seen films such as "Champions Forever" and "Facing Ali" but Ken Burns updated PBS series that chronicles Muhammad Ali's life and career is definitely worth a watch. It's well done and for anybody that remembers Ali it's a nostalgic trip down memory lane with interesting commentary and analysis from journalists, family members, other boxers and
trainers. It wasn't just nostalgia about boxing or his personality, Burns clearly wanted to conflate this with the civil rights struggle in the USA during 1960's and 1970's that Ali got enmeshed in.
It was the first time an American athlete had become an international sports personality, a celebrity and a showman all at the same time. His party piece was supreme confidence, brashness, incredible boxing skills and bravado which included disparaging nick names towards his opponents. He was loved in many quarters and people who didn't particularly like boxing tuned in to see him win, although others who disliked him tuned in to see him lose. At his peak years he fell afoul of the US government with his refusal to be drafted into the US army during the Vietnam war.
I have to point out that he was very popular in the UK and his close friendship and praise towards British fighter Henry Cooper who he fought twice did a lot to endear him to the British public as all his fights were broadcast on tv. He was Americas most well-known sports star. All four of the USA's major sports were not available on UK tv so people never knew the likes of Hank Arron, Bobby Orr, Terry Bradshaw or Bill Bradley who were huge stars in North America. Although golf stars such as Lee Trevino and Jack Nicklas as well as tennis stars Billie Jean King and Jimmy Connors were well known... they'd appear for a couple of weeks in the summer and then you wouldn't see them till they returned the following year. Ali was always on tv, either being interviewed or in the Boxing ring. He was generally well like by the British media and there is probably no doubt that he liked being in the UK as he had less scrutiny there that he did from some media outlets in the USA.
The world heavy-weight boxing champion was the jewel in the crown of boxing and coverage of this was very much in the national consciousness. There are four episodes of this documentary which is appropriate as you could easily divide Ali's boxing career into four phases.
The first one is from the Olympic games in 1960 up to 1967 when he was stripped of his titles and had his boxing license revoked. The second phase was the comeback in 1970 to the third Joe Frazier fight in 1975 where he was very active. Ali's third phase was from 1975 to 1978 where he was matched with some weak fighters and wasn't as impressive or dominant as he had been in the past, nevertheless, was good enough to get the decision with the exception of the first Leon Spinks fight. After losing to the ordinary Spinks in February 1978, he was able to avenge that loss by winning the WBA belt from Spinks later in the year. The last phase was his two fights in 1980 and 1981 where he was easily out pointed and were both difficult to watch.
In his prime Ali was clearly the better boxer than his contemporaries he was just too quick on his feet and had fast reflexes, however after the suspension for three and a half years which were prime years he seemed to lose a step. He probably got into the ring with Joe Frazier too soon as the layoff clearly affected him. However, despite his cockiness and his massive ego and quick wit, it has to be said that he was incredibly tough. After the Frazier loss Ali was very busy for the next two years as he fought 11 times which must have been incredibly difficult and draining on him. Ali was gifted that he could avoid punches like no other heavy weight but if he did get caught, he could certainly take a punch. He even recovered from a broken jaw in 1973 to win the world heavy weight title the following year against the heavily favored and fearsome George Foreman.
Something I didn't fully appreciate was that Muhammad Ali was born in raised in a part of Louisville in what was regarded then as a middle-class black neighborhood. He went into boxing for something to do rather than to defend himself against bullies. Joe Frazier, George Forman and Ken Norton for example took up boxing as to defend themselves on the tough streets of their neighborhoods in places like Philadelphia, Houston and New York. In a strange way Ali changing his name from Cassias Clay to Muhamad Ali and joining the radicle nation of Islam didn't seem like a good fit. Did he really believe in what he was saying and supported the cause or was he just doing it for some form of publicity stunt that backfired and didn't work out for him??
Muhammad Ali, a character, a great fighter, yet not a perfect person lived life to the full during his prime years, unfortunately had his life turned upside down due to a Parkinson's diagnosis in 1984. I personally didn't find it inspiring or great to see him lighting the Olympic flame in 1996 in Atlanta but found it unfortunate and awkward to see this former prime athlete, trembling, seemingly unsteady, bewildered and appearing much older than he was, yet despite that, I'll always remember him as he was, and to me he will aways be known as "the greatest". I'd certainly recommend this series.
The Fight of Their Lives (2011)
The last fight of their lives!!
Whenever you think of any boxing tragedy its always Muhammad Ali that springs to mind, probably the most well-known and recognized fighter, the self-proclaimed "greatest" who ended up not just a shadow of his former self but was diagnosed with the debilitating Parkinson's syndrome from the early 1980's until his death in 2016. It's generally accepted that Ali fought on well past his best, but often it's one particular fight that can dramatically affect a boxer and this is certainly the case in the February 1995 super-middle weight title fight between Nigel Benn and Gerald Maclellan.
What is often overlooked is that although the loser of a fight may be floundering on the canvas after being counted out, the winner of a fight can often be in a bad condition too. This was certainly the case with the last Joe Frazier v Muhammad Ali bout in 1975 when Ali described feeling near to death after Frazier never came out for the last round. Another example is the John Mugabe v Marvin Hagler fight in 1986 where despite Mugabe being counted out in the 11th round, the swelling, the size of a watermelon on one side of Hagler's face was a sure testament to the beating he'd taken. Hagler fought once more about a year later against Sugar Ray Leonard which at the time was billed and hyped as a super fight but to me in all intensive purposes resembled an exhibition as Hagler's heart didn't seem in it.
Other notable tragedy's include Johhny Owen dying weeks after collapsing in the ring during his fight with Lupe Pintor in 1980. Duc Koo Kim died five days after being KO'd in a title fight in 1982 and in the UK in 1991 Michael Watson was stopped in the 12th round by Chris Eubank and spent weeks in a coma (although eventually made a recovery and was able to complete the London Marathon some years later).
Somehow the Maclellan v Benn contest seems to have had the worst outcome. Both fighters had two losses each on their ledger but went into the fight with a string of impressive victories. Nigel Benn held the prestigious WBC super-middle weight title and McClellan who was the WBC middle weight champion was moving up to 168 Ib to challenge Benn had some noticeable wins over the likes of power punchers John Mugabe and Julian Jackson.
At stake was a financially lucrative winner take all super bout showdown with Roy Jones to unify the super middle weight division. This bout was co promoted by Don King and Frank Warren and televised live by ITV in the UK and Showtime in the USA.
There were things that happened in the fight that I'd never seen before. Firstly, the buildup and hype between both camps was as nasty and disrespectful I'd ever seen, and this was obvious from the outset where both fighters who obviously disliked each other were clearly trying to hurt the other. Secondly the patriotic fervor in the arena resembled something out of a Nuremburg rally and thirdly the crowd were baying for blood. Boxers Frank Bruno and Nassem Hamid who were sitting in the front row either side of the humorless, yet dignified Frank Warren seemed to be choreographing the mood of the crowd as they were seen on live tv yelling, leaping out of their seats and banging the floor of the ring after every punch Nigel Benn threw. Fourthly, although the fight was exciting and compelling, technically it was a terrible fight, as l mentioned, both fighters were trying to load up all the time and there was very little ring craft and defense. McClelland after his initial success in the first round seemed to be undisciplined and his defense was unimpressive. Rather than keeping his gloves up to protect himself seemed determined to go toe to toe with Benn and as a consequence took a lot of clubbing round house punches to the side and back of the head. This was incredibly reckless to do this and probably go's some way to explain McClellan's post-fight injuries.
Lastly, the referee couldn't speak English therefore he never should have officiated that fight. Although he was right to allow Benn more time to climb back into the ring after being knocked through the ropes in the first round, he was clearly allowing Benn to duck far too low in the ring and was also unnecessarily stepping in and breaking up both fighters which obviously benefitted the stunned Benn. This was picked up by the British commentary on ITV but the American commentators on Showtime were incensed at what the referee was doing, he was clearly out of his depth. By the later rounds McClellan could be seen having difficulties with his gum shield, which indicated breathing problems and was blinking a lot, both of these issues should have got the attention of the referee.
Mcclellan was counted out after taking a knee (an American football gesture) and then collapsed in the corner. The aftermath of the bout had McClellan suffering severe brain damage which left him mostly blind, deaf and difficulty walking and needing constant care. As for Nigel Benn the big fight with Roy Jones never materialized and he was never the same fighter again. Although he returned to the ring and won his next two fights, they were unimpressive affairs against mediocre opponents and eventually lost his title after being outpointed in a boring fight and then was beaten twice by Steve Collins in lackluster efforts and swiftly retired from boxing. Benn was quite likely traumatized by the events of that night, a sad end to probably Britain's most exciting and talented fighter of that period.
Colditz (1972)
Where Eagles Dare meets The Great Escape
When the very popular and succesful "Family at War" series finished a new wartime drama was made about the stories and exploits of British prisoners of war being held at Oflag 4c known as Colditz. This BBC production ran two seasons from 1972 to 1974 and although repeated, perhaps twice, it wasn't shown again after it's final airing in 1975 until it was broadcast on UK Gold many years later. The series mostly centered around the British contingent and was filmed mostly on video which only added to the claustrophobic feel of being incarcerated. This castle deep inside Germany was used as a POW camp to house highly decorated or prominent captured service men as well as troublesome officers who were well known escapers. Other nationalities included French, Dutch, Polish as well as Americans.
The German captures were headed by the Kommandant a veteran of WW1 and strictly by the book man. Straight backed a committed patriot but dignified, took his responsibilities very seriously and felt that observing the Geneva convention was vital in helping German POW's deal with their captivity in allied POW camps, therefore, he was tough but fair. This was clearly on display when he finally understood Colonel Preston's predicament after the death of his wife in England and the compassionate act of not returning a letter with other personal effects to a dead serviceman's wife, giving the impression he'd never received the last letter.
He was supported by the very imposing Hauptmann Ulmann his security chief who was also committed to his duties but nevertheless earned the respect of the POW's as he too observed the Geneva convention. This was in sharp contrast to the Second in command Major Mohn who came in the second season. He was committed to the cause but arrogant as well as being a strong party member who had connections with the hierarchy in the Nazi movement. Although decorated and wounded in combat because of his underhanded methods towards his duties and his constant provocation towards the prisoners he eventually became despised.
The series found its feet in the 4th episode of the first season which centered on the arrival of Colonel Preston who became the senior British officer. After some initial resistance from the British prisoners, he soon gained the respect of them. Through his ability to command he brought a sense of purpose and discipline to the officers by initiating a rotation of officer of the day, daily orders being posted and the forming of an escape committee. The other main senior British officers were Captain Pat Grant the head of the escape committee, Flight Lieutenant Carrington, submariner Lieutenant Dick Player and the short tempered and moody flight Lieutenant Carter.
Despite the first series climaxing on a two-part episode with an attempted break out of four British officers, I think that season two was just slightly better, probably benefiting from the presence of the nasty Major Mohn. Two seasons were probably enough for the series and ended with the war coming to an end with the United States and Russian forces closing in on the castle. I think that a short 2-3-part miniseries a few years later centering around a reunion of some of the officers with the intention of tracking down Horst Mohn and trying to bring him to justice would have been satisfying. It didn't happen, nevertheless a great series to watch, I'd highly recommend Colditz.
Buccaneer (1980)
Perhaps should have been titled "Blair's Way"..
I remember this show, it was broadcast on Sunday nights early evening starting in the spring of 1980. I just recently saw a couple of episodes on YouTube and immediately remembered it. Many of the cast were household names such as the attractive and easy on the eye Shirley Ann Field plus the very impressive and smart looking Pamela Salem with her wonderful voice to boot. Also recognizable was Bryan Marshall who l remembered from "Warship" playing the mostly likable Captain Blair and Clifford Rose from "The Secret Army" whose character was the main protagonist.
It's important to note that at that in 1980 "Dallas" was the biggest show on tv and the writers of "Buccaneer" obviously formulated the story line around a ruthless businessman embarking on a hostile takeover of a struggling airline and riding roughshod over the employees and stakeholders.
Apparently "Buccaneer" was cancelled after the aircraft shown on the opening and closing credits crashed in real life and resulted in a number of fatalities. Whether that was the real reason l don't know??
Maybe the shenanigans of a small air haulage business weren't compelling enough compared to a multimillion-dollar oil company because the genre of this type of show was the way tv was going. ATVs "Crossroads" was given a makeover the following year and the series "Triangle" which also came out in 1981 moved in the direction of backstabbing and boardroom struggles. Yet it was "Howard's Way" which was also broadcast on Sunday nights that seemed to hit the sweet spot albeit a 5-6 years after "Buccaneer" was broadcast.
Not a bad early evening program and a nostalgic trip down memory lane watching a number of British actors in their prime who are sadly are not with us any more.