On ‘Collusion’ by Luke Harding

Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump WinCollusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win by Luke Harding

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Ho.Ly. Shit.

I am certainly no fan of the 45th president’s administration. Their policies, let alone their continual vitriol and mockery of basic decency and decorum, leave much to be desired. That said, I’d like the office of the president to remain in tact and unscathed or untarnished beyond repair. I want my own country to succeed even if an administration I have very little respect for is at the helm.

But,… if even a fraction of this book is true, 45 and this entire moment in history will make Nixon and his cronies look like saints. It will make Watergate seem like spilled milk rather than a betrayal of the highest order by those with a Constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law and act in the best interest of their country with honour and integrity.

Luke Harding, already a respected investigative journalist and a hero of mine given his work with Edward Snowden, weaves together and unpacks an incredibly complicated tale of how the current occupant of the White House in DC represents the ultimate long-game played out by the KGB and now FSB and Putin. Taking Christopher Steele’s dossier apart bit-by-salicous-bit and carefully examining each layer as though it were a slowly rotting onion, leading inevitably to the demise of the US and the Western alliance as Putin’s ultimate revenge on the collapse of the Soviet empire, this piece of journalism reads like a spy novel. Unfortunately, it’s not reporting fiction, but actual events and describing real people. It’s hard to imagine the pieces, each one of them, being refuted at this point. And, to be honest, I’d like to think that some of it is proven untrue, if only because the truth is simply too chilling and awful.

If anything, this book and it’s portrayal of collusion by the now most powerful person on the planet who may merely play the role of the Kremlin’s puppet, along with members of his cabinet, senior staff and more than a few other Congressional and DC insiders, make clear that Mueller’s investigation must be protected. Whatever the outcome. And, at all costs. Should nothing come of it, then fine. So be it. But, there are too many convenient coincidences. Too many odd overlaps. Too many moments which might be explained away as innocent yet appear anything but. And, if true, those individuals must face the punishments — judiciously and publicly — they deserve.

I’m too young to really remember Nixon’s resignation or the death spiral of his administration. But, I’m wide awake and all-too-aware for the current shit show, and can only wonder how long it will take us to recover. Whatever rabbit holes this all leads us down, we can only hope that we come out of it better equipped to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.

View all my reviews

[Religious] liberty?

I don’t mind religion. Nor do I hate the idea of belief systems. Religion, of any sort, simply doesn’t work for me, and really hasn’t since I was 5. I’ve explored them, studied several rather intensely, and honestly I just do not get it. No offence intended.

To be honest, I don’t even really take offence at anyone’s religiosity or the teachings of a particular religion precisely because it’s not mine. Some ideas and notions are incredibly offensive to me—condemning homosexuality or gender nonconformity, subjecting women to positions of inferiority and essentially removing them from the possibility of holding positions of power or subjecting them to standards based on their worth defined by men, etc. I find these notions more a matter of interpretation rather than simply a matter of religion per se. Individuals will always find ways to justify their propensity for shittiness and attempt to maintain their positions of power. To my mind, doing so through religious dogma remains particularly effective as a method rather than necessarily a matter of religion alone.

Keep the masses uninformed or unexposed to different ideas and, of course, they’ll follow along blindly. Teach them to not question authority by using scare tactics ranging from punishment in the here and now to an eternity of misery and damnation, and likely they won’t critically examine the shaky foundations upon which those beliefs are based.

But, that’s not my problem with religion. I do question beliefs. And, I do question authority. My own, and those specifically I’m told I must believe. It did not make sense to me at 5, and it still baffles me.

Whilst I don’t mind the religion of others, I do mind being forced to adhere to and follow the beliefs and ideology of ANY religion. It matters not a jot if that religion is Protestantism, Baptism, Catholicism, Satanism, Hinduism, Islam or ANY other dogma that professes to be ‘The Truth’. Not just one capital T, but two. Unless there is verifiable, testable, replicable evidence to back up a claim, I’m not interested. Call it blasphemy, and call me a heathen. You will not be the first.

Believe what you need to in order to cope / manage / understand  / make sense of this crazy world around you. But, creating laws based on any religion is not evidence-based nor does it allow for religious liberty for ALL religions. Anywhere.

So, if we’re going to venture down the rabbit hole of creating a task force to ensure Christians are not persecuted due to their religion, will we do the same for those Muslims who associate with Daesh or who follow Sharia law? How about Rastafarians? (I’m fine with that, although I suspect Jeff Sessions won’t be.) How about the polygamous practices and child marriage practices of some sects of Mormonism?

In the United States, the framers of the US Constitution sought to ensure that no religion stood above any other, and that no religion was a part of the State or government. They felt it so important that they made it the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I’m looking specifically at Thomas Paine here, but they all had important points to make specifically in relation to this:

Religion