Skip to main content


In the late 1930s, poets and intellectuals in Britain discussed and were concerned with the prospects of war with a tyrannical state known for its regional importance and anti-Semitism; many resisted the terrible implications of the conflict.  Others, such as Churchill, predicted that such a war would have to come, and Britain should be prepared.  In the end, after a phony war, it came, and evil was finally defeated.  Now, in 2012, the West faces a similar shadow over our daily lives: What To Do About Iran?  It is not enough to simply say that all war, especially all wars in the Middle East, are wicked - we know war is dreadful, but some wars are necessary.  Nor is it I think sufficient to take a sort of multicultural-nuclear approach, and accept that, if Israel and indeed Pakistan, as well as India, America, France, Russia, Britain and China, have nukes, then what is the harm of Iran joining this ominous club.  The fact of the matter is, Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, in word and deed.  Iran does not accept that the greatest crime in human history, The Holocaust, happened.  And yes, the slave trade, imperialism, and the potato famine were also forms of genocide.  However, the cruel truth is that Israel came into rebirth with the help of the Allied powers (and their hindrance) because and despite of the Holocaust, and centuries of deplorable European racism and anti-Jewish violence.  Israel learned to protect itself.  Now, that right to protection infringes on a weary world, who do not want an arms race or a war in Iran.  And that is understandable.  Such a war would leave thousands, perhaps millions, of people, dead.  The question now must be - what can the people of Iran do to renounce the direction of their leadership, renounce their nation's Holocaust denial, and denounce the phantasy of a nuclear Iran.  Iran is not Sweden.  It is not a neutral state.  It supports Syrian terror and despotism.  It seeks to destabilise Iraq.  Eyewear does not know what the answer to all this is, but what would like to hear what poets think.  Are they concerned?  I opposed the last war, in Iraq.  This one seems more problematic.  Less clear-cut.  The West must defend itself and its allies from nuclear threat, surely?  And yet, last time, we were told Iraq had the weapons.  And we saw the disaster therein.

Popular posts from this blog


According to the latest CBS, ABC, etc, polls, Clinton is still likely to beat Trump - by percentile odds of 66% to 33% and change. But the current popular vote is much closer, probably tied with the error of margin, around 44% each. Trump has to win more key battleground states to win, and may not - but he is ahead in Florida...

We will all know, in a week, whether we live in a world gone madder, or just relatively mad.

While it seems likely calmer heads will prevail, the recent Brexit win shows that polls can mislead, especially when one of the options is considered a bit embarrassing, rude or even racist - and Trump qualifies for these, at least.

If 42-45% of Americans admit they would vote for Trump, what does that say about the ones not so vocal? For surely, they must be there, as well. Some of the undecided will slide, and more likely they will slide to the wilder and more exciting fringe candidate. As may the libertarians.

Eyewear predicts that Trump will just about manage to win th…


Like a crazed killer clown, whether we are thrilled, horrified, shocked, or angered (or all of these) by Donald Trump, we cannot claim to be rid of him just yet. He bestrides the world stage like a silverback gorilla (according to one British thug), or a bad analogy, but he is there, a figure, no longer of fun, but grave concern.

There has long been a history of misogynistic behaviour in American gangster culture - one thinks of the grapefruit in the face in The Public Enemy, or Sinatra throwing a woman out of his hotel room and later commenting he didn't realise there was a pool below to break her fall, or the polluted womb in Pacino'sScarface... and of course, some gangsta rap is also sexist.  American culture has a difficult way with handling the combined aspects of male power, and male privilege, that, especially in heteronormative capitalist enclaves, where money/pussy both become grabbable, reified objects and objectives (The Wolf of Wall Street for instance), an ugly fus…


The Oscars - Academy Awards officially - were once huge cultural events - in 1975, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr, Shirley MacLaineandBob Hope co-hosted, for example - and Best Picture noms included The Conversation and Chinatown. Godfather Part 2 won. Last two years, movies titled Birdman and Spotlight won, and the hosts and those films are retrospectively minor, trifling. This year, some important, resonant films are up for consideration - including Hidden Figures and Moonlight, two favourites of this blog. Viola Davis and Denzel Washington will hopefully win for their sterling performances in Fences. However, La La Land - the most superficial and empty Best Picture contender since Gigi in 1959 (which beat Vertigo) - could smite all comers, and render this year's awards historically trivial, even idiotic.

The Oscars often opt for safe, optimistic films, or safe, pessimistic films, that are usually about white men (less often, white women) finding their path to doing the right thin…