Poppy or no Poppy

Scotland and its tartan horde will descend on Wembley next weekend. I have no doubt there will be an abundance of poppies on show, if not on the player's kit, certainly amongst the supporters of both countries.

Most, if not all of the supporters wearing poppies will no doubt bear that imitation flower on their breast every year at this time. I would also suggest that the poppy worn by them will be worn in remembrance and the wearer will have no political thoughts.

Also have no doubt however that successions of Governments have 'politicised' the poppy and somehow altered what it was all about, shame on them.

My old aunt has absolutely no political thoughts, in fact she has no time for any politician. She will wear a poppy and attend the remembrance service in her village. Her brother was seventeen years of age when he perished in 1942. She is not imbued with 'pride', no it is simply her way of remembering her brother.

The whole thing is farcical. Eufa recently fined Celtic Football Club when some of it's supporters waved Palestinian flags whilst an Israeli team played at Parkhead in a Eufa competition. Did not Eufa indulge in politics by inviting a team from a country outwith Europe to compete in a European competition? In that case it was supporters who caused the fine, however illogical and unjust.

Back to Wembley, if the Associations succumb to the Fifa ruling about the political symbolism of poppies being displayed and play innocent of said emblem.  Do they then confiscate the supporters poppies. Because, based on the Celtic Football Club experience, supporters are just as guilty of bearing political symbols and getting their club, or in this case their association fined.

Lest we forget, the poppy is not only about remembrance, it is a vital plank in fund raising for a seriously worthwhile cause.

This publicity may well result in an increase of poppy sales. Good.

Sunday Herald 6 November 2016

Don't do it America

If it was not so serious, in terms of the influence the incumbent can and will wield over a huge chunk of the world, it would be laughable, pantomime like. He's behind you, oh no she isn't. No point in rehearsing their many good points. I have failed to find any. Suffice to say, in my opinion, neither is fit for office.

However I see the Sunday Herald picks on Trump as the pantomime baddy and by default that Clinton should be elected. All pantomimes have a baddy, an evil doer of wrong. Usually a man in drag playing a woman. So is it the woman who is evil, not the man? The plot is normally based on some fairy tale or other, although I find it hard to equate this farce of a Presidential election to any fairy tale, although it certainly is grim.

The Sunday Herald pitches it's weight behind Clinton by castigating Trump mostly.

I actually think the Sunday Herald has got into a fankle and has fallen into the trap of not being honest. It takes up a populist position. “Trump is a buffoon, not a lot of our readers will disagree with that so let us hammer him.” They have followed the internal emotionalist line. What can we say that will make me feel good about myself and make others feel good about me.

They show no evidence of rational thinking or external objectivism. They do not seek to understand the problem and properly articulate it honestly, no matter how others perceive them.

I question their values. Are they asking us to agree that tax evasion, misogyny and being a sexual predator, outrageous though they are and certainly enough to have Trump debarred, are somehow worse that mass killing, overthrowing governments and killing children by the thousand and bombing people out of their countries.

In her case, lies, deception, not just in terms of electronic devices and emails. The Clinton Foundation, based in Canada to prevent USA investigation, the acquiring of many million dollars from all over the world, including a whole raft of questionable donors. What are they promised in return? The foundation headed for Haiti at the time the USA effectively invaded that poverty stricken country. The aim of the Foundation to bring aid to the population. Well, have a look at the tens of thousands still in tents, living in squaller. Where is the evidence of aid? What is clear is that many millions were collected by the Clinton Foundation and precious little made it any where near Haiti.

She is one of the elite, part of a political system that has no truck with the ordinary person. Clinton, in 2008 said she would obliterate Iran with nuclear weapons. When Secretary of State she was involved when the USA threw out the democratic Government of Honduras. Later when she was involved in the destruction of Libya, in my opinion akin to a war crime, she gloated over Gaddafi's death in the words, ' we came, we saw, he died. ' One of her closest allies Madeleine Albright once said on live television, about the the death of tens of thousands of children in Iraq, ' it was worth it.' Her, Clinton's, performance over the deaths of the US Ambassador and Embassy staff in Benghazi shown a callous incompetance. She should have been dismissed, as Senator Rand Paul clearly thinks and stated when he filleted her at the subsequent hearing.

Trump, for the faults he has and he has many, is a maverick intent on opposing the 'system'. I am no supporter of Trump either and like Clinton he should, in my opinion get nowhere near the White House. Not that I think he will.

No, the headline should have read, ' Don't do it America.' However there should have been a photograph of Clinton beside Trump.