Living in a Chameleonic World
Published: 22 August 2013 By Abiodun Giwa
Bradley Manning
You must have heard the news of Bradley Manning's sentencing to 35 years in jail for aiding Wikileaks. He was seeking a change, and he believed that by giving information to Wikileaks, he could help engineer a change in the world. But he was wrong, and he joined the list of people who had sought to change the world but ended in the shark's belly.
Manning has allies. The Wikileaks publisher, Julian Assange is still holding up in Ecuador's embassy in London that has become a home for him, far away from his home, where he will naturally wishes to be. The powers have conspired that if Assange is invisible on charges of publishing what they consider damaging to their own interests, they can get him using his shortcomings for the love of the flesh, the only avenue available for them after combing through his life's file.
The powers too got allies in women who said they had a case against Assange in Sweden, and the battle to have him extradited from London to Sweden led to a hole in a compassionate Ecuadorian embassy, where the British Police have been on the watch day and night to arrest Assange if he dared to step out. Assange's drama and that of Edward Snowden seems similar. But Snowden and Manning are more similar in that both Snowden and Manning obtained information and fed the press. It does mean that if one is in the media and dares to publish anything disapproved by the world powers, one may eventually become an Assange.
By now, Assange must have learnt of the 35 years imprisonment handed to Manning. He would no doubt cast Manning as a hero. He knows why he is being haunted and that the charge brought against him is a smokescreen to lure him back to Sweden from where he will be made to travel the track to where he is wanted for publishing a bundle of information given to him by a guy who would now have to spend 35 years in jail after a plea for leniency. Assange would be thinking of what would happen to him if the powers who want him lay hands on him. He, like Snowden, would be in a frame of mind for being free still, though in a precarious situation. Assange is in an embassy that has become to him home far away from home; and Snowden, much against his will, is marooned in Russia.
Change is easy to proclaim, but difficult it is to achieve. Imagine all the literature that have been produced on Utopian life, seeking a change for a world with human face but without tangible results. Imagine what it caused to cause a confusing change in Libya and what it is causing freedom fighters mixed trouble makers for needed change in Syria. Now, come to Egypt where the Saudis don't want a change, and Israel also believed a change there that will affect its own well-being is unwanted, and the reason America is said to be foot-dragging in how to deal with the Egypt army over its temerity against democracy. Whatever change that must happen must be the one that powers adjacent to Egypt must approve. It is why the Saudis is telling Egypt it will open its vault for the money needed to thwart the change it seeks to drown, and America can do whatever it will with its aid. General Al-Sisi and his co-travelers will be glad, unaware that they have only postponed an inevitable change.
"Change has come to America," President Barack Obama was beamed heralding on the night of his election before a thunderous crowd in Chicago before he moved into the White House. But many Americans are confounded today that there has been no change since the president's moving from Chicago into the White House. The president wanted a change quite alright, and he hits the road from Chicago to Washington to work on the change he has promised to Americans. But when he arrived in Washington, he found that the politics in Washington was different from what he had thought and bargained in his mind. And that as a senator before he became a president, he was still a stranger to Washington's style. After he has settled down in the White House, he realizes there are powers he has to interact to get things done and that he cannot, unlike a military man, command a change.
Barack Obama as an individual and a private citizen, is different from Barack Obama the president of the United States. The United States for which President Obama is number one citizen has laws based on the letters of a constitution, which he must obey like every other citizen. Even the powers in Washington cannot act outside the constitution. The constitution is the instrument the powers use to deal with an elected official among themselves dreaming of a whirlwind change. And no man of refined and ethical education will turn against the letters of a constitution. Mild Changes anyone can effect in Washington are the ones the dramatis personae must agree upon or the ones the president can get his party to approve if they are in majority. Being in majority does not guarantee unconditional agreement since each elected official will have to protect the interest of voters in their districts if they want reelection.
Apparently no president will open his eyes and watch classified documents turn into fish wrapping papers in the market as a way of effecting an incomprehensible change in Chameleonic world designed by an unknown creator same have described as an enviable artist. And for those who think collecting bundle of documents and publishing without the discretion as to the usefulness of publishing such documents can change the world in a whim, explains a new world of indiscretion and a journey in contradiction of the lesson Sir Gawain and the Green Knight teaches about the collision of two powers, and where reliance on ethics should be an arbiter.
What change does anyone expect in the U.S, a country where the founding fathers have given an enduring foundation, and successive leaders have been building upon to ensure equity. If anyone expects any change, its should be in countries like Egypt and Syria and others like them, where citizens still live in bondage in the absence of equity. t is effecting a change in a country like Egypt and inability to sustain the change made leaders in civilized countries that should help sustain such change, but have chosen to look the other way for the protection of other interests questionable. Would they now be rushing to save lives in Syria, when they have failed to save same lives in Egypt.? And should not leaders leave whistleblowers and pursuit of a classical prior restraint to face much serious work of advancing humanity?
Manning has allies. The Wikileaks publisher, Julian Assange is still holding up in Ecuador's embassy in London that has become a home for him, far away from his home, where he will naturally wishes to be. The powers have conspired that if Assange is invisible on charges of publishing what they consider damaging to their own interests, they can get him using his shortcomings for the love of the flesh, the only avenue available for them after combing through his life's file.
The powers too got allies in women who said they had a case against Assange in Sweden, and the battle to have him extradited from London to Sweden led to a hole in a compassionate Ecuadorian embassy, where the British Police have been on the watch day and night to arrest Assange if he dared to step out. Assange's drama and that of Edward Snowden seems similar. But Snowden and Manning are more similar in that both Snowden and Manning obtained information and fed the press. It does mean that if one is in the media and dares to publish anything disapproved by the world powers, one may eventually become an Assange.
By now, Assange must have learnt of the 35 years imprisonment handed to Manning. He would no doubt cast Manning as a hero. He knows why he is being haunted and that the charge brought against him is a smokescreen to lure him back to Sweden from where he will be made to travel the track to where he is wanted for publishing a bundle of information given to him by a guy who would now have to spend 35 years in jail after a plea for leniency. Assange would be thinking of what would happen to him if the powers who want him lay hands on him. He, like Snowden, would be in a frame of mind for being free still, though in a precarious situation. Assange is in an embassy that has become to him home far away from home; and Snowden, much against his will, is marooned in Russia.
Change is easy to proclaim, but difficult it is to achieve. Imagine all the literature that have been produced on Utopian life, seeking a change for a world with human face but without tangible results. Imagine what it caused to cause a confusing change in Libya and what it is causing freedom fighters mixed trouble makers for needed change in Syria. Now, come to Egypt where the Saudis don't want a change, and Israel also believed a change there that will affect its own well-being is unwanted, and the reason America is said to be foot-dragging in how to deal with the Egypt army over its temerity against democracy. Whatever change that must happen must be the one that powers adjacent to Egypt must approve. It is why the Saudis is telling Egypt it will open its vault for the money needed to thwart the change it seeks to drown, and America can do whatever it will with its aid. General Al-Sisi and his co-travelers will be glad, unaware that they have only postponed an inevitable change.
"Change has come to America," President Barack Obama was beamed heralding on the night of his election before a thunderous crowd in Chicago before he moved into the White House. But many Americans are confounded today that there has been no change since the president's moving from Chicago into the White House. The president wanted a change quite alright, and he hits the road from Chicago to Washington to work on the change he has promised to Americans. But when he arrived in Washington, he found that the politics in Washington was different from what he had thought and bargained in his mind. And that as a senator before he became a president, he was still a stranger to Washington's style. After he has settled down in the White House, he realizes there are powers he has to interact to get things done and that he cannot, unlike a military man, command a change.
Barack Obama as an individual and a private citizen, is different from Barack Obama the president of the United States. The United States for which President Obama is number one citizen has laws based on the letters of a constitution, which he must obey like every other citizen. Even the powers in Washington cannot act outside the constitution. The constitution is the instrument the powers use to deal with an elected official among themselves dreaming of a whirlwind change. And no man of refined and ethical education will turn against the letters of a constitution. Mild Changes anyone can effect in Washington are the ones the dramatis personae must agree upon or the ones the president can get his party to approve if they are in majority. Being in majority does not guarantee unconditional agreement since each elected official will have to protect the interest of voters in their districts if they want reelection.
Apparently no president will open his eyes and watch classified documents turn into fish wrapping papers in the market as a way of effecting an incomprehensible change in Chameleonic world designed by an unknown creator same have described as an enviable artist. And for those who think collecting bundle of documents and publishing without the discretion as to the usefulness of publishing such documents can change the world in a whim, explains a new world of indiscretion and a journey in contradiction of the lesson Sir Gawain and the Green Knight teaches about the collision of two powers, and where reliance on ethics should be an arbiter.
What change does anyone expect in the U.S, a country where the founding fathers have given an enduring foundation, and successive leaders have been building upon to ensure equity. If anyone expects any change, its should be in countries like Egypt and Syria and others like them, where citizens still live in bondage in the absence of equity. t is effecting a change in a country like Egypt and inability to sustain the change made leaders in civilized countries that should help sustain such change, but have chosen to look the other way for the protection of other interests questionable. Would they now be rushing to save lives in Syria, when they have failed to save same lives in Egypt.? And should not leaders leave whistleblowers and pursuit of a classical prior restraint to face much serious work of advancing humanity?
Comment Box is loading comments...
