Back to Black
The US President may be more candid than his peers but, frankly, who needs it?
During a long career as a journalist, I have read some dreadful press releases. I have possibly even written some (though I hope not) during my few years working on the other side. However, I think it safe to say that I have never before seen a statement quite as shocking as the recent one from the White House entitled “America First!” which began,
“The world is a very dangerous place!”
One of the few points that can be said in favour of US President Donald Trump is that he shows little sign of being captured by bureaucrats. In most of the Western world, it is as though foreign-affairs officials undertake cognitive-behaviour therapy so that as soon as they witness aggression, they call for restraint.
It is a Pavlovian reflex for them to call for restraint no matter which parties are involved, where they are, or who did what to whom. And after all, it is not a bad message.
It is a “calm down, back off, let’s see if we can sort this out like grown-ups” tone. Too bad that the protagonists never heed it, which the diplomats who urged restraint knew full well would be the outcome even when they said it. But still, that is what they do. If you have a dog, it will bark. If you have a diplomat, he or she will call for restraint. It is the nature of the beast.
But if diplomats drafted Trump’s “America First!” statement, not much of their handiwork remained by the time it was released. It had every hallmark of being dictated by Trump. Iran was bad. Saudi Arabia, Trump implied, was good, or at least trying to be. These points were a preamble to saying that the murder of Saudi commentator Jamal Khashoggi was terrible but Saudi Arabia had agreed to spend “a record amount of money” in the US. “It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, tremendous economic development and much additional wealth for the United States.”
Nations, including New Zealand, are always doing deals with other nations that have appalling human-rights records. So it was something additional that made Trump’s release so offensive, even though arguably more honest than most. The offence was the naked calculation. Trump weighed on the one hand money, jobs and America First, and on the other, a commentator killed and chopped up, then said, “We’ll take the money, thanks.” There is a definition of “morally bankrupt”.
Walking around our pleasant, tree-lined neighbourhood, one house sticks out for its berm and front lawn being so deep in autumn leaves that no grass is visible, where most other properties have tidy front lawns.
The one covered in leaves is, ahem, mine.
I am half expecting a knock on the door from the local residents’ association politely asking if I know that I only have to rake the leaves on to the berm and the county will collect them. I diligently did that the first autumn we were here. I half-heartedly did it last year, but I obstinately am not doing it at all this year.
The nutrients that grew those leaves came from the soil in this yard, therefore, it seems to me, this is where the leaves should break down. I sweep the drive and sidewalk, having no desire to be sued by someone slipping, but on the grass, nature is doing what nature does. A lot more picking up of human litter and a lot less picking up of leaf litter would, I reckon, make the Earth a better place.