Further to the mention of Polly by Tim Worstall today, I found this concise and true comment on The Joy of Curmudgeonry, in response to Deogolwulf's post about the state. akaky writes:
One of the reasons that Ms Toynbee and others of her statist disposition do not fear the power of the state is because they intend to be on the commanding heights of that state, looking down on the poor helots they get to lord it over. If you intend to be a master, then, by definition, you are for increasing the power of masters, even if you tell yourself that what you are doing is for the helots' own good.
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
The Science of Viz
It seems that the "beer goggles" effect, well known to drinkers everywhere, in fact has a scientific basis and an equation.
The BBC report I've linked to here goes on to say:
Nathan Efron, Professor of Clinical Optometry at the University of Manchester, said: "The beer goggles effect isn't solely dependent on how much alcohol a person consumes, there are other influencing factors at play too.
"For example, someone with normal vision, who has consumed five pints of beer and views a person 1.5 metres away in a fairly smoky and poorly lit room, will score 55, which means they would suffer from a moderate beer goggle effect."
Fair enough.
It concludes by saying:
A poll showed that 68% of people had regretted giving their phone number to someone to whom they later realised they were not attracted.
A formula rating of less than one means no effect. Between one and 50 the person you would normally find unattractive appears less "visually offensive".
Non-appealing people become suddenly attractive between 51 and 100. At more than 100, someone not considered attractive looks like a super model.
It really does read like a Viz spoof article, but without any of the swearing. I bet the research was fun and "cost effective".
The BBC report I've linked to here goes on to say:
Nathan Efron, Professor of Clinical Optometry at the University of Manchester, said: "The beer goggles effect isn't solely dependent on how much alcohol a person consumes, there are other influencing factors at play too.
"For example, someone with normal vision, who has consumed five pints of beer and views a person 1.5 metres away in a fairly smoky and poorly lit room, will score 55, which means they would suffer from a moderate beer goggle effect."
Fair enough.
It concludes by saying:
A poll showed that 68% of people had regretted giving their phone number to someone to whom they later realised they were not attracted.
A formula rating of less than one means no effect. Between one and 50 the person you would normally find unattractive appears less "visually offensive".
Non-appealing people become suddenly attractive between 51 and 100. At more than 100, someone not considered attractive looks like a super model.
It really does read like a Viz spoof article, but without any of the swearing. I bet the research was fun and "cost effective".
Monday, 20 November 2006
Another Great Blog
Just discovered another cool blog: The Joy of Curmudgeonry
Any blog that quotes Old English in its header is good enough for me.
Any blog that quotes Old English in its header is good enough for me.
BA are a Bunch of Discriminatory Idiots
I have to admit, when I heard that the woman in this case was going to appeal, I thought that common sense might actually prevail.
Au contraire. BA are maintaining that crucifixes are to be hidden at all times.
So let's look at the logic, shall we? Again?
She said during Monday's meeting, British Airways told her it respected her faith and accepted the cross was not jewellery, but would be standing by its original decision.
"The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform. Other airlines have the same policy."
Fine. She must be lying then, because BA cannot both recognise that the crucifx is not jewellery and insist that it is. If they do treat the cross as jewellery, why say this:
"The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality. There is no discrimination between faiths."
So. You do recognise that the crucifix is a religious symbol, you allow other faiths to wear visible symbols, but you do not allow Christians the same privilege. Either that or the above statement is totally irrelevant to this case.
Given that you do allow other faiths to wear visible symbols of faith, you cannot be offended by the appearance of religious symbols per se. Given that you have admitted that the crucifix is being treated as such, why is it to be hidden and other symbols are not? Just because they can't be hidden? What kind of spurious reasoning is that? Why would you need to hide one religous symbol anyway, if you are happy to see others?
As I and His Grace and many others pointed out first time round, if she came into work wearing a bishop's mitre, or priestly vestments, or a foot long crucifix, would she be allowed to wear them openly, because it would not be practicable to hide them?
BA's defence of their illogical position is non-existent, but relies solely on their authority as bosses. Why aren't the unions jumping up and down about this? They are not quoted in the BBC website report at all. Surely they should be in the forefront of fighting discrimination?
I'm pleased to say that I can give in to my fear, save the planet, and boycott BA -all without doing a stroke of work. Life can be extremely comfortable sometimes.
Au contraire. BA are maintaining that crucifixes are to be hidden at all times.
So let's look at the logic, shall we? Again?
She said during Monday's meeting, British Airways told her it respected her faith and accepted the cross was not jewellery, but would be standing by its original decision.
"The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform. Other airlines have the same policy."
Fine. She must be lying then, because BA cannot both recognise that the crucifx is not jewellery and insist that it is. If they do treat the cross as jewellery, why say this:
"The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality. There is no discrimination between faiths."
So. You do recognise that the crucifix is a religious symbol, you allow other faiths to wear visible symbols, but you do not allow Christians the same privilege. Either that or the above statement is totally irrelevant to this case.
Given that you do allow other faiths to wear visible symbols of faith, you cannot be offended by the appearance of religious symbols per se. Given that you have admitted that the crucifix is being treated as such, why is it to be hidden and other symbols are not? Just because they can't be hidden? What kind of spurious reasoning is that? Why would you need to hide one religous symbol anyway, if you are happy to see others?
As I and His Grace and many others pointed out first time round, if she came into work wearing a bishop's mitre, or priestly vestments, or a foot long crucifix, would she be allowed to wear them openly, because it would not be practicable to hide them?
BA's defence of their illogical position is non-existent, but relies solely on their authority as bosses. Why aren't the unions jumping up and down about this? They are not quoted in the BBC website report at all. Surely they should be in the forefront of fighting discrimination?
I'm pleased to say that I can give in to my fear, save the planet, and boycott BA -all without doing a stroke of work. Life can be extremely comfortable sometimes.
Sunday, 19 November 2006
Drinking
I posted a little comment on Devil's Kitchen today boasting about my intake of Pol Roger over the weekend. The thing about that was that Ms Drummer and I did the drinking at home and it wasn't beer.
I tend to think that actually, the great centrepiece of English civilisation is the pub. It is the pub where most political chatter (however ill-informed) takes place, which is why Guardian columnists despise the kind of talk that goes on there - precisely because it is a real democratic forum. It is in the pub that communities find their soul, in homely, safe, environments with buildings that have lived through the wars, the unemployment, the dislocation of the last century and more. It is in the pub where we drink together, meet new people, disagree with friends, and fight. Yes, pubs can be aggressive and difficult places. We mind our manners, queue appropriately - sometimes under pain of a beating, which is fair enough - and help out fellow drinkers, as a chap I was profoundly scared of did for me tonight, just by calling the barman for me. The ethic of the queue is nowhere stronger than in the pub; and the last time I was physically threatened was when I attempted to challenge that, some years ago. The ethic of closing the door from the winter wind, out of sheer consideration, is nowhere stronger than in the pub, where unless you are lucky enough to sit by the fire, the biting chill can take your bones even when far from the window seats. We drink real beer, local beer, living beer, as well as Stella and good wines. We eat crappy crisps and chips with cheese; beef wellington and beefburgers; death by chocolate and the lightest sorbets.
The pub is not the bar: I have been in too many bars in Australia, or "cafes" in France, not to know the difference. French cafes have a reputation for philosophy, but only in the English pub have I heard philosophy, religion, politics, football, cricket, television, radio and the toad work being discussed. The French cafes that serve booze serve only crap lager or Stella, very little in the way of real, quality, small time local produce (for which the French are supposed to be famous) and there is nowhere to be social and unsociable at the same time. France is also uneasy with the concept of going to the bar and demanding service, often insisting that you wait until the waiter is ready, and then handing you a receipt for two halves of crap lager.
And the pint - glorious measure of perfection, oh you tribute to irrationality breeding success, you are the correct amount for beer and lager, for sustenance and not-yet-full bladders, you are reasonably priced and you come at excellent intervals.
The half - you imp, you cheeky devil, you promise of riches and glory, you temptress - you are just too sexy to be called "250ml" or whatever.
Crisps! Oh blessed accompaniment to the hungry work of drinking! You fill me with salt and make me regretfully need more drink. Peanuts, you slightly healthier and chunkier means to the same end!
Here's to the pub - whatever New Labour's health fascists think. Cheers!
I tend to think that actually, the great centrepiece of English civilisation is the pub. It is the pub where most political chatter (however ill-informed) takes place, which is why Guardian columnists despise the kind of talk that goes on there - precisely because it is a real democratic forum. It is in the pub that communities find their soul, in homely, safe, environments with buildings that have lived through the wars, the unemployment, the dislocation of the last century and more. It is in the pub where we drink together, meet new people, disagree with friends, and fight. Yes, pubs can be aggressive and difficult places. We mind our manners, queue appropriately - sometimes under pain of a beating, which is fair enough - and help out fellow drinkers, as a chap I was profoundly scared of did for me tonight, just by calling the barman for me. The ethic of the queue is nowhere stronger than in the pub; and the last time I was physically threatened was when I attempted to challenge that, some years ago. The ethic of closing the door from the winter wind, out of sheer consideration, is nowhere stronger than in the pub, where unless you are lucky enough to sit by the fire, the biting chill can take your bones even when far from the window seats. We drink real beer, local beer, living beer, as well as Stella and good wines. We eat crappy crisps and chips with cheese; beef wellington and beefburgers; death by chocolate and the lightest sorbets.
The pub is not the bar: I have been in too many bars in Australia, or "cafes" in France, not to know the difference. French cafes have a reputation for philosophy, but only in the English pub have I heard philosophy, religion, politics, football, cricket, television, radio and the toad work being discussed. The French cafes that serve booze serve only crap lager or Stella, very little in the way of real, quality, small time local produce (for which the French are supposed to be famous) and there is nowhere to be social and unsociable at the same time. France is also uneasy with the concept of going to the bar and demanding service, often insisting that you wait until the waiter is ready, and then handing you a receipt for two halves of crap lager.
And the pint - glorious measure of perfection, oh you tribute to irrationality breeding success, you are the correct amount for beer and lager, for sustenance and not-yet-full bladders, you are reasonably priced and you come at excellent intervals.
The half - you imp, you cheeky devil, you promise of riches and glory, you temptress - you are just too sexy to be called "250ml" or whatever.
Crisps! Oh blessed accompaniment to the hungry work of drinking! You fill me with salt and make me regretfully need more drink. Peanuts, you slightly healthier and chunkier means to the same end!
Here's to the pub - whatever New Labour's health fascists think. Cheers!
Police and Paedophilia
I was kind of sympathetic to the police chief, linked to above, who said that young men who have sex with 13 year olds should not be treated as paedophiles automatically. The reason is that the maturity of 13 year old girls varies enormously. Some will actively look for relationships with older boys, and some will developmentally be 10 or 11. I know, I've taught plenty.
On the other hand, this statement:
He told the BBC the "grey area" related to situations where "the girl is 13, 14, 15 and the boy is 16, 17, 18, 19, possibly 20".
belies the seeming rationality of the view. 18-20 year olds are adults, in every possible sense of the word, and 13 year olds are not, in any sense of the word. A 20 year old having sex with a 13 year old is clearly doing it for a reason, ie that she is 13 and not 16 or 17, and is therefore a better boast, more pliable, more vulnerable, or whatever. There can be no excuse for an adult having sex with a 13 year old. A 16 year old might only be a class or so above a 14 year old, and they might both be confused teenagers, or whatever. But from 18 you acquire full legal rights, and therefore full legal responsibilities. It might be somewhat arbitrary, but then so are 30mph speed limits, and the police think people who drive at 33mph in these zones should be prosecuted. It doesn't help either that despite this great variety in mental and physical maturity, sex education and ethics education is aimed squarely at the "jocks", the ones with active sex lives, leaving everyone else to think that is what they should be doing, and there is something wrong with them if they aren't. It is causing the pressure that politicians think it will relieve.
Don't let us forget that among the many things Ian Huntley was ignored doing was having sex as a 22-23 year old with 14 and 15 year old girls.
For me at least, whole debate reminds me of where we have gone as a society:
And you say you’re protecting society and its way of life? You think this is a good way of life - your 13 year old daughter having intercourse, you friggin’ moron? So 13 is the new Barely Legal, is it? Tell me one thing a 13 year old could offer you which a hot 29 year old couldn’t? Tell me how she could sexually and socially satisfy you? Yes, exactly - no demands, does exactly what you want. And this is what we’ve come to. Stop the earth. I want to get off.
(James Higham today)
James is right that increasingly parents think they have no right to comment on their teenagers' sex lives. It is by no means unusual for teenagers to sleep together with parental consent. I am reminded of the "responsible" 16 year old interviewed a few months ago in (shock horror) the Daily Mail. she had had two abortions at 14, and for the life of her could not see she had done anything wrong, because there was no way she could be expected not to have sex given that she went to parties and met gorgeous boys. In those situations, it "just happened" - evenafter her first abortion, she still put herself in those same situations. Why? because she was a kid. And that is was kids do. So despite progressive authorities telling us teenagers can manage sex lives, in fact, all too often, they can't. She was now 16 years old and had only just started having sex again, with her new boyfriend. In tawdry, amoral stories like these, no-one emerges with any credit (least of all the boys who've had a consequence-free shag), and the child, with her postmodern ethics learned in school and through the media, has no guidance and no protection, not even from her parents. They are not encouraged to get involved, by schools, or "health authorities", and children are expected to behave like adults. Once again I make the point that I am not allowed to give a 13 year old curled up in a sick chair with a headache calpol without parental consent, but I can assist her in getting an abortion without it.
The trouble is, as James points out: when adults behave in such pathetic, cowardly ways, what else are children like the girl in that story supposed to do? Develop a protective and self-responsible ethic out of thin air?
On the other hand, this statement:
He told the BBC the "grey area" related to situations where "the girl is 13, 14, 15 and the boy is 16, 17, 18, 19, possibly 20".
belies the seeming rationality of the view. 18-20 year olds are adults, in every possible sense of the word, and 13 year olds are not, in any sense of the word. A 20 year old having sex with a 13 year old is clearly doing it for a reason, ie that she is 13 and not 16 or 17, and is therefore a better boast, more pliable, more vulnerable, or whatever. There can be no excuse for an adult having sex with a 13 year old. A 16 year old might only be a class or so above a 14 year old, and they might both be confused teenagers, or whatever. But from 18 you acquire full legal rights, and therefore full legal responsibilities. It might be somewhat arbitrary, but then so are 30mph speed limits, and the police think people who drive at 33mph in these zones should be prosecuted. It doesn't help either that despite this great variety in mental and physical maturity, sex education and ethics education is aimed squarely at the "jocks", the ones with active sex lives, leaving everyone else to think that is what they should be doing, and there is something wrong with them if they aren't. It is causing the pressure that politicians think it will relieve.
Don't let us forget that among the many things Ian Huntley was ignored doing was having sex as a 22-23 year old with 14 and 15 year old girls.
For me at least, whole debate reminds me of where we have gone as a society:
And you say you’re protecting society and its way of life? You think this is a good way of life - your 13 year old daughter having intercourse, you friggin’ moron? So 13 is the new Barely Legal, is it? Tell me one thing a 13 year old could offer you which a hot 29 year old couldn’t? Tell me how she could sexually and socially satisfy you? Yes, exactly - no demands, does exactly what you want. And this is what we’ve come to. Stop the earth. I want to get off.
(James Higham today)
James is right that increasingly parents think they have no right to comment on their teenagers' sex lives. It is by no means unusual for teenagers to sleep together with parental consent. I am reminded of the "responsible" 16 year old interviewed a few months ago in (shock horror) the Daily Mail. she had had two abortions at 14, and for the life of her could not see she had done anything wrong, because there was no way she could be expected not to have sex given that she went to parties and met gorgeous boys. In those situations, it "just happened" - evenafter her first abortion, she still put herself in those same situations. Why? because she was a kid. And that is was kids do. So despite progressive authorities telling us teenagers can manage sex lives, in fact, all too often, they can't. She was now 16 years old and had only just started having sex again, with her new boyfriend. In tawdry, amoral stories like these, no-one emerges with any credit (least of all the boys who've had a consequence-free shag), and the child, with her postmodern ethics learned in school and through the media, has no guidance and no protection, not even from her parents. They are not encouraged to get involved, by schools, or "health authorities", and children are expected to behave like adults. Once again I make the point that I am not allowed to give a 13 year old curled up in a sick chair with a headache calpol without parental consent, but I can assist her in getting an abortion without it.
The trouble is, as James points out: when adults behave in such pathetic, cowardly ways, what else are children like the girl in that story supposed to do? Develop a protective and self-responsible ethic out of thin air?
Christian Unions
Don't get me wrong. I don't really have much time for University Christian Unions: I still remember the look on the guy's face who knocked on my door one evening in college when I told him I was not a Christian, just a Catholic. I know they can be intolerant and can veer towards fundamentalism: but I am opposed to this attempt to disaffiliate the CU at Exeter and indeed elsewhere (as noted today by Tom Paine).
The main reason given seems to be this:
The CU said it appeared that unless it disassociated itself from the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowships, and stopped asking committee members and speakers to sign a declaration, it could be permanently banned from the guild.
The declaration includes the phrase: "In joining this union, I declare my faith in Jesus Christ as my Saviour, my Lord and my God".
Guild of Students President Jemma Percy said the requirement to sign the declaration meant "participation in the society was not open to every student".
She said: "We have a duty to represent them and uphold equal opportunities."
I don't really know where to start with the intolerance and bigotry of this justification. The Guild of Students is saying that no organisation can exist under their umbrella which asks people to believe in something. So how do the Gay and Lesbian, Humanist, Islamic and Doctor Who socs get away with it then? They are suggesting that Christians should not be able to freely associate at the university or on its grounds, on the basis that it excludes people who are not Christians. Well, they don't have to join then. There are humanist societies too, which would not take kindly to Christian infiltration, where you can go if you wish.
In other words they want to proscribe the Union because people who would not want to join cannot join unless they sign a statement of belief in something they don't believe in. Meanwhile organisations do exist where they can go.
So how is anyone excluded here?
The Guild of Students representative, quoted above, neatly provides a fine instance of slavish adherence to an abstract principle, to the clear detriment of actual people. No suffering or harm is caused by the exclusion of people who do not want to join the CU from the CU. But the principle itself is offended, and that is enough. It is a good example of extremism, in fact.
It is in fact, example of people in power forcing their narrow views onto others, and abusing their position.
But I am not so naive as to think that the stated reason is the real one. The real one is "we hate the CU because we think they are a bunch of loudmouth ignorant bigots". Fine. So argue your point on that basis, instead of lying about it.
The main reason given seems to be this:
The CU said it appeared that unless it disassociated itself from the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowships, and stopped asking committee members and speakers to sign a declaration, it could be permanently banned from the guild.
The declaration includes the phrase: "In joining this union, I declare my faith in Jesus Christ as my Saviour, my Lord and my God".
Guild of Students President Jemma Percy said the requirement to sign the declaration meant "participation in the society was not open to every student".
She said: "We have a duty to represent them and uphold equal opportunities."
I don't really know where to start with the intolerance and bigotry of this justification. The Guild of Students is saying that no organisation can exist under their umbrella which asks people to believe in something. So how do the Gay and Lesbian, Humanist, Islamic and Doctor Who socs get away with it then? They are suggesting that Christians should not be able to freely associate at the university or on its grounds, on the basis that it excludes people who are not Christians. Well, they don't have to join then. There are humanist societies too, which would not take kindly to Christian infiltration, where you can go if you wish.
In other words they want to proscribe the Union because people who would not want to join cannot join unless they sign a statement of belief in something they don't believe in. Meanwhile organisations do exist where they can go.
So how is anyone excluded here?
The Guild of Students representative, quoted above, neatly provides a fine instance of slavish adherence to an abstract principle, to the clear detriment of actual people. No suffering or harm is caused by the exclusion of people who do not want to join the CU from the CU. But the principle itself is offended, and that is enough. It is a good example of extremism, in fact.
It is in fact, example of people in power forcing their narrow views onto others, and abusing their position.
But I am not so naive as to think that the stated reason is the real one. The real one is "we hate the CU because we think they are a bunch of loudmouth ignorant bigots". Fine. So argue your point on that basis, instead of lying about it.
Saturday, 18 November 2006
Matthew Taylor
I realise I am slow on the uptake on this one, and that Mr Eugenides and Iain Dale among others have excellent posts up about it, but I can't resist having my twopennorth as well.
Here is a man - an unelected government advisor, no less - complaining about the baleful influence of blogs. Here is what he has to say on the subject of citizens of the United Kingdom saying what they wish to say:
But it [the web] was too often used to encourage the "shrill discourse of demands" that dominated modern politics.
But he said more needed to be done by the web community in general to encourage people to use the internet to "solve problems" rather than simply abuse politicians or make "incommensurate" demands on them.
-incommensurate!!! I love it! This coming from a representative of an organisation which confiscates money and creates criminal offences! I, for one, think creating a criminal offence of "leaving the wrong stuff in a recycling box" is an incommensurate demand upon citizens; but we are instead guilty of actually expecting our rulers, our leaders, the guys who send men to their deaths, create or destroy jobs, and ration healthcare, to do their jobs properly.
Speaking at an e-democracy conference in central London, he said modern politics was all about "quality of life" and that voters had a "very complex set of needs".
Well, perhaps that is true. Not me though, I want to live in relative security, keep as much money of mine as is possible, and not be told what to do by crooks, swindlers, incompetent buffoons, and the purely malicious.
"We have a citizenry which can be caricatured as being increasingly unwilling to be governed but not yet capable of self-government," Mr Taylor told the audience.
Like "teenagers", people were demanding, but "conflicted" about what they actually wanted, he argued.
They wanted "sustainability", for example, but not higher fuel prices, affordable homes for their children but not new housing developments in their town or village.
If you would like to see a wonderful example of the contempt today's ruling class has for the people, there it is. We are all political adolescents, psychologically conflicted, selfish and unrealistic. I am interested as to how exactly the good Mr Taylor thinks that "sustainability" equals higher fuel prices. Well, for me at least, I would like a good and healthy world, but I don't agree that the way to achieve it is to punish and bully working class and other not-massively-well-off people out of using transport, leaving it exclusively for the likes of him, like it used to be.
But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or "mendacious" by the media, which he described as "a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage".
How can a loose network of inidivually run and self supported blogs, with no power or hold over anyone, consitute a "conspiracy"? How can citizens getting together informally to discuss their views - with however much swearing - be on the same level as shadowy meetings of the powerful? I suppose the subtext is that of Hilary Clinton's "vast right wing conspiracy". Incidentally, politicians, especially the socialist or progressive kind, supply an excellent line in "self righteous rage" themselves, forever wanting to "smash", "destroy", or "break" things they see between themselves and power. And if Mr Taylor thinks that "self righteous rage" is not appropriate for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, the destruction of our constitution, and corruption in the highest levels of government, then he is either as cynical as they are, or as irredeemably stupid as they are.
He went on: "At a time at which we need a richer relationship between politicians and citizens than we have ever had, to confront the shared challenges we face, arguably we have a more impoverished relationship between politicians and citizens than we have ever had. It seems to me this is something which is worth calling a crisis."
and I don't need to be the Devil, Iain Dale or Mr Eugenides to point out that it is the lying mendacious bastards you have been serving, Mr Taylor, who are wholly and utterly responsible for that crisis. Not the public.
"I want people to have more power, but I want them to have more power in the context of a more mature discourse about the responsibilities of government and the responsibilities of citizens," Mr Taylor told delegates.
Part of the problem, he added, was the "net-head" culture itself, which was rooted in libertarianism and "anti-establishment" attitudes.
Translation: I don't think there should be room for a vigorous, open debate without restriction, and certainly no room for serious and profound attacks on the people who have given me lots of work and money. It is particularly distressing that the most successful blogs often seem to be the right wing ones. I had nothing to say about media crucifixion of the last Tory government but the people attacking this one are beyond the pale.
Here is a man - an unelected government advisor, no less - complaining about the baleful influence of blogs. Here is what he has to say on the subject of citizens of the United Kingdom saying what they wish to say:
But it [the web] was too often used to encourage the "shrill discourse of demands" that dominated modern politics.
But he said more needed to be done by the web community in general to encourage people to use the internet to "solve problems" rather than simply abuse politicians or make "incommensurate" demands on them.
-incommensurate!!! I love it! This coming from a representative of an organisation which confiscates money and creates criminal offences! I, for one, think creating a criminal offence of "leaving the wrong stuff in a recycling box" is an incommensurate demand upon citizens; but we are instead guilty of actually expecting our rulers, our leaders, the guys who send men to their deaths, create or destroy jobs, and ration healthcare, to do their jobs properly.
Speaking at an e-democracy conference in central London, he said modern politics was all about "quality of life" and that voters had a "very complex set of needs".
Well, perhaps that is true. Not me though, I want to live in relative security, keep as much money of mine as is possible, and not be told what to do by crooks, swindlers, incompetent buffoons, and the purely malicious.
"We have a citizenry which can be caricatured as being increasingly unwilling to be governed but not yet capable of self-government," Mr Taylor told the audience.
Like "teenagers", people were demanding, but "conflicted" about what they actually wanted, he argued.
They wanted "sustainability", for example, but not higher fuel prices, affordable homes for their children but not new housing developments in their town or village.
If you would like to see a wonderful example of the contempt today's ruling class has for the people, there it is. We are all political adolescents, psychologically conflicted, selfish and unrealistic. I am interested as to how exactly the good Mr Taylor thinks that "sustainability" equals higher fuel prices. Well, for me at least, I would like a good and healthy world, but I don't agree that the way to achieve it is to punish and bully working class and other not-massively-well-off people out of using transport, leaving it exclusively for the likes of him, like it used to be.
But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or "mendacious" by the media, which he described as "a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage".
How can a loose network of inidivually run and self supported blogs, with no power or hold over anyone, consitute a "conspiracy"? How can citizens getting together informally to discuss their views - with however much swearing - be on the same level as shadowy meetings of the powerful? I suppose the subtext is that of Hilary Clinton's "vast right wing conspiracy". Incidentally, politicians, especially the socialist or progressive kind, supply an excellent line in "self righteous rage" themselves, forever wanting to "smash", "destroy", or "break" things they see between themselves and power. And if Mr Taylor thinks that "self righteous rage" is not appropriate for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, the destruction of our constitution, and corruption in the highest levels of government, then he is either as cynical as they are, or as irredeemably stupid as they are.
He went on: "At a time at which we need a richer relationship between politicians and citizens than we have ever had, to confront the shared challenges we face, arguably we have a more impoverished relationship between politicians and citizens than we have ever had. It seems to me this is something which is worth calling a crisis."
and I don't need to be the Devil, Iain Dale or Mr Eugenides to point out that it is the lying mendacious bastards you have been serving, Mr Taylor, who are wholly and utterly responsible for that crisis. Not the public.
"I want people to have more power, but I want them to have more power in the context of a more mature discourse about the responsibilities of government and the responsibilities of citizens," Mr Taylor told delegates.
Part of the problem, he added, was the "net-head" culture itself, which was rooted in libertarianism and "anti-establishment" attitudes.
Translation: I don't think there should be room for a vigorous, open debate without restriction, and certainly no room for serious and profound attacks on the people who have given me lots of work and money. It is particularly distressing that the most successful blogs often seem to be the right wing ones. I had nothing to say about media crucifixion of the last Tory government but the people attacking this one are beyond the pale.
Friday, 17 November 2006
Drummer's Birthday
I don't like to blow my own trumpet, being more accustomed to banging on a drum pointlessly to no-one in particular, but it is the tin drummer's 30th birthday today. It is something to be proud of in that I've made it this far, and I'm delighted to have done so. I don't like the thought of getting older, but it's infinitely preferable to the alternative. Lying awake in the dark this morning I tried to think of my achievements, but I gave up and thought of the future instead, and of the great line from one of Ian Dury's tracks: All I want for my birthday is another birthday.
Thursday, 16 November 2006
Into The Mind of Evil
This post has nothing to do with the Doctor Who story of the same name; nor is it going to attempt to prove or explain the existence of evil. I'm just going to take it for granted for the moment that it exists, and that Hitler and Stalin are it.
It is simply that I'm reading Michael Dobbs's book "Churchill's Triumph", which is quite entertaining; but there is a page early on which seems to be inside Stalin's head, explaining his motivation. I was struck by this, because it seems to be a massive literary conceit (in both sense of the word). As someone who dabbles in verse in another side of his life, such an enterprise would always strike me as in terrible taste, invariably trite and inaccurate, and arrogant. I'm not accusing Dobbs of this - that is how I would feel attempting the same thing. Recently I've read Ron Rosenbaum's book (Explaining Hitler) which surveys with varying degrees of sympathy, the historians and psychologists who have tried to produce an explanation of Hitler's evil. Throughout the book he keeps returning to the fear that to explain is to excuse, and so the most vivid passages are those recounting his discussions with Claude Lanzmann, who makes the insistent point that resort to explanation is itself utterly inappropriate. Rosenbaum refuses to make a final judgment, perhaps dazed by the consequences of getting into that kind of mind.
To pass, in the course of a page, lightly through the mind of a man who committed such atrocities, whose behaviour was so inexplicable - in the Dobbs book at least, seems to render Stalin just a cheesed off bloke with an axe to grind, downplaying the intent-to-suffering-and-power that must have lurked - how? where? why? - in him. But even if this explanation accounted, in however exaggerated a form, for his actions; to skate so superficially across it is to me worse than pointless. A character like Stalin cannot be given depth or background by a page purporting to be in his head: he is only minimized, cariacatured, his victims dehumanized.
It returns me to my initial question: is this endeavour possible, let alone desirable? I say it seems in poor taste because it seems like a great reduction of suffering. Perhaps the minds of such people should be left to die with them. This is not to say that a work of history, say Ian Kershaw's Nemesis, cannot tease out threads of thought from events, speeches, diaries - to propose an overarching "motivation", like you would with a soap opera character, is to say more than that these are just humans (which we must say at every available moments) - it is to say there is an easily-acounted for continuum between everyday experience and great evil. A good but not really complex book like Churchill's Triumph cannot do this, even if it were possible. If it were, we would need a Tolstoy to attempt it. I am not sure I can see any.
It is simply that I'm reading Michael Dobbs's book "Churchill's Triumph", which is quite entertaining; but there is a page early on which seems to be inside Stalin's head, explaining his motivation. I was struck by this, because it seems to be a massive literary conceit (in both sense of the word). As someone who dabbles in verse in another side of his life, such an enterprise would always strike me as in terrible taste, invariably trite and inaccurate, and arrogant. I'm not accusing Dobbs of this - that is how I would feel attempting the same thing. Recently I've read Ron Rosenbaum's book (Explaining Hitler) which surveys with varying degrees of sympathy, the historians and psychologists who have tried to produce an explanation of Hitler's evil. Throughout the book he keeps returning to the fear that to explain is to excuse, and so the most vivid passages are those recounting his discussions with Claude Lanzmann, who makes the insistent point that resort to explanation is itself utterly inappropriate. Rosenbaum refuses to make a final judgment, perhaps dazed by the consequences of getting into that kind of mind.
To pass, in the course of a page, lightly through the mind of a man who committed such atrocities, whose behaviour was so inexplicable - in the Dobbs book at least, seems to render Stalin just a cheesed off bloke with an axe to grind, downplaying the intent-to-suffering-and-power that must have lurked - how? where? why? - in him. But even if this explanation accounted, in however exaggerated a form, for his actions; to skate so superficially across it is to me worse than pointless. A character like Stalin cannot be given depth or background by a page purporting to be in his head: he is only minimized, cariacatured, his victims dehumanized.
It returns me to my initial question: is this endeavour possible, let alone desirable? I say it seems in poor taste because it seems like a great reduction of suffering. Perhaps the minds of such people should be left to die with them. This is not to say that a work of history, say Ian Kershaw's Nemesis, cannot tease out threads of thought from events, speeches, diaries - to propose an overarching "motivation", like you would with a soap opera character, is to say more than that these are just humans (which we must say at every available moments) - it is to say there is an easily-acounted for continuum between everyday experience and great evil. A good but not really complex book like Churchill's Triumph cannot do this, even if it were possible. If it were, we would need a Tolstoy to attempt it. I am not sure I can see any.
Wednesday, 15 November 2006
Comments
The no comments policy is hereby lifted, for a trial period only!
But I'm using comment moderation.
But I'm using comment moderation.
Freedom and Whisky
Purely on the basis of this comment about the guy who runs it by Cllr Terry Kelly, I am adding a link to Freedom and Whisky:
When you write a political web page you expect feedback, some of it hostile, some supportive and some disturbing. I was told that some guy had written about me on his blog in a very uncomplimentary way, this complete eejit ( David Ferrens from memory ) writes very well which makes him even more sinister because he's a barking far right nutter. He uses Burns's phrase "whiskey & freedom gang the gither" as his title which I'm sure would have the second rate old Ayrshire plagiarist spinning in his grave, his views however and the views of the incestuous sycophants who write to him are capable of making your skin crawl. These people peddle very dangerous and disturbing views, they come across as being capable of almost anything which doesn't require courage, they describe themselves as libertarians of the right to which I have to say, I've never met or heard of a right wing libertarian who wasn't well off and self obsessed.
While I certainly wouldn't call myself a libertarian, I don't like bossy know-nothing politicians either. I do like the thought that idiots like the Cllr reckon right of centre bloggers "peddle very dangerous and disturbing views".
If no-one is going to take issue with your views, why bother blogging?
What sort of a post is:
Scratched My Jacksie Today
This morning I got a bit of an itch in the arris while playing Age of Empires. So I scratched it but I didn't smell it, instead I washed my hands.
I suppose the good Cllr thinks that actually only posts like:
Redistribute All Wealth Now
I think all wealth belongs to everyone, there is no such thing as wealth creation and people with more than nothing are purely lucky, it is just a myth that work and talent can bring anything to anyone.
...are valid.
At least the Cllr allows people to comment on his blog though, whereas I don't (though I may change this, encouraged by the great James Higham). So I am a hypocrite. There are worse things to be. Like Cllr Terry Kelly, for example.
When you write a political web page you expect feedback, some of it hostile, some supportive and some disturbing. I was told that some guy had written about me on his blog in a very uncomplimentary way, this complete eejit ( David Ferrens from memory ) writes very well which makes him even more sinister because he's a barking far right nutter. He uses Burns's phrase "whiskey & freedom gang the gither" as his title which I'm sure would have the second rate old Ayrshire plagiarist spinning in his grave, his views however and the views of the incestuous sycophants who write to him are capable of making your skin crawl. These people peddle very dangerous and disturbing views, they come across as being capable of almost anything which doesn't require courage, they describe themselves as libertarians of the right to which I have to say, I've never met or heard of a right wing libertarian who wasn't well off and self obsessed.
While I certainly wouldn't call myself a libertarian, I don't like bossy know-nothing politicians either. I do like the thought that idiots like the Cllr reckon right of centre bloggers "peddle very dangerous and disturbing views".
If no-one is going to take issue with your views, why bother blogging?
What sort of a post is:
Scratched My Jacksie Today
This morning I got a bit of an itch in the arris while playing Age of Empires. So I scratched it but I didn't smell it, instead I washed my hands.
I suppose the good Cllr thinks that actually only posts like:
Redistribute All Wealth Now
I think all wealth belongs to everyone, there is no such thing as wealth creation and people with more than nothing are purely lucky, it is just a myth that work and talent can bring anything to anyone.
...are valid.
At least the Cllr allows people to comment on his blog though, whereas I don't (though I may change this, encouraged by the great James Higham). So I am a hypocrite. There are worse things to be. Like Cllr Terry Kelly, for example.
"Merry Christmas" is not swearing
Normblog has a humane and amusing defence of Christmas. Some years ago I used to hang out on the Christian website Ship of Fools. They had some good discussion boards, but I came to realise that most people who posted there were white, middle class liberals (academics or social workers it seemed) - thjat was when they had a long discussion about the exclusivity and offensiveness of Christmas. It seemed that in the opinion of some that you should assume Christmas is offensive, unless told otherwise, like signing a sort of verbal pre-nup, when you greet someone in the street. I'd always believed it was only cynical secularists hijacking the "multiculti" agenda who went in for that kind of bullshit, but no. It's not as simple as that. It's much more like "Insofar as I am a white male striving to overcome my innate prejudices and to atone for the evils on which my privileges were built, I would like to ascertain whether you would be reminded of the heinous legacy of slavery, oppression and homophobia of the church, not forgetting the crusades of course,if I were to venture that I wished that in the event of your being of broadly Christian sympathies, or even simply a conscientious atheist who likes getting presents, whether you would enjoy a felicitous solstice..."
and so on. Lesson: when academic socialism is mixed with flannel-like Christianity, disaster inevitably ensues.
A final word on Elton John's recent thoughtful call for organised religion to be banned. This has been left hanging on the BBC website for days now, as if someone thinks it has something powerful to say. I'd like to ask Mr John how he proposes to achieve this. Presumably people holding services at home as their churches have been closed, would be subject to raids, as this is clearly "organisation". Presumably the great cathedrals would be left to rot, as they are remnants of this evil thing. Perhaps also people reading Bible stories to their children would also be subject to the full force of the law, pace the law drafted by someone on Harry's Place a while ago( it's in their archives for October). I am not quite sure why some people think that it would be a more tolerant and humane world if only their views were allowed in the public sphere, but there you have it. It's always indoctrination when it's someone you don't like, and education when it's someone you do. It's always intolerance when it's someone you don't agree with and ethical when it's someone you do. Other people's views always lead, naturally, to war and carnage, when you don't share them, and build harmony and peace when you do.
Update: I meant to say...."and I am no different" at the end here, but purely due the pressures of time, if not space, I didn't.
and so on. Lesson: when academic socialism is mixed with flannel-like Christianity, disaster inevitably ensues.
A final word on Elton John's recent thoughtful call for organised religion to be banned. This has been left hanging on the BBC website for days now, as if someone thinks it has something powerful to say. I'd like to ask Mr John how he proposes to achieve this. Presumably people holding services at home as their churches have been closed, would be subject to raids, as this is clearly "organisation". Presumably the great cathedrals would be left to rot, as they are remnants of this evil thing. Perhaps also people reading Bible stories to their children would also be subject to the full force of the law, pace the law drafted by someone on Harry's Place a while ago( it's in their archives for October). I am not quite sure why some people think that it would be a more tolerant and humane world if only their views were allowed in the public sphere, but there you have it. It's always indoctrination when it's someone you don't like, and education when it's someone you do. It's always intolerance when it's someone you don't agree with and ethical when it's someone you do. Other people's views always lead, naturally, to war and carnage, when you don't share them, and build harmony and peace when you do.
Update: I meant to say...."and I am no different" at the end here, but purely due the pressures of time, if not space, I didn't.
Tuesday, 14 November 2006
Dazzling Praise
As you can see on the sidebar, I have received some gratifying and ego boosting praise from a blogger who knows his stuff, James Higham (whose new blogfocus is now up). He slightly criticises me for the no comments policy, but I am rethinking this. There is only one reason for my not having one: and that is that setting this blog up, I was terrified of getting slated by my readers. Now I am not sure I care so much!
Iain Dowie Sacked as Palace Boss
I don't often post about football, but this got my attention today.
What Simon Jordan, Crystal Palace chairman, really meant to say was this: "I've always found Iain Dowie to be very professional and Charlton have treated him badly and ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha"
What Simon Jordan, Crystal Palace chairman, really meant to say was this: "I've always found Iain Dowie to be very professional and Charlton have treated him badly and ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha"
Beta Madness
Sorry if the blog looks a bit crap, or crapper than before, I've just moved to beta and I'm messing about with it. Any suggestions for improvements, do let me know.
Justice/Bananas
What better to spend my 100th post for this blog than by mentioning Laban Tall's excellent recent form. As well as giving me a plug on his blog he has carried out a huge investigation into the BBC's lack of interest in the Kriss Donald murder until recently for Biased BBC, and pointed out some dazzling inconsistencies in justice for his own blog. I like the idea that a 66 year old man who has kept firearms for years without hurting anyone is a danger to the public and goes down, but a young man who attacks a boy in a toilet stays free.
As an aside on the above subject, why, given that the judge decided that the murder of Kriss Donald was racially motivated after all, did the 3 men receive tariffs of between 20 and 25 years, given that they'll be eligible to come out in their early to mid 40s after a crime whose callousness, brutality and cruelty is without peer in recent times? Surely a "hate crime" extra should have been tagged on? Maybe someone can enlighten me on this. It would surprise me greatly if the socialist republic of Scotland didn't have similar hate crime provision to England (where two men got 30 years for the murder of a gay man a few months ago).
More frankly indifferent news: instead of working, I've just noticed that Trescothick is to miss the Ashes series with "a recurrence of a stress related illness". I have no idea what is going on in his head, but Marcus is one of the most attacking and gifted openers in world cricket. Whatever he is going through, I hope he'll be back.
As an aside on the above subject, why, given that the judge decided that the murder of Kriss Donald was racially motivated after all, did the 3 men receive tariffs of between 20 and 25 years, given that they'll be eligible to come out in their early to mid 40s after a crime whose callousness, brutality and cruelty is without peer in recent times? Surely a "hate crime" extra should have been tagged on? Maybe someone can enlighten me on this. It would surprise me greatly if the socialist republic of Scotland didn't have similar hate crime provision to England (where two men got 30 years for the murder of a gay man a few months ago).
More frankly indifferent news: instead of working, I've just noticed that Trescothick is to miss the Ashes series with "a recurrence of a stress related illness". I have no idea what is going on in his head, but Marcus is one of the most attacking and gifted openers in world cricket. Whatever he is going through, I hope he'll be back.
Sunday, 12 November 2006
Living History
This should make you think.
The children I occasionally teach were astonished that these old boys are still alive all the way from a bit of ancient history.
I was as well.
Well done you old buffers, for making it this far after what you went through.
The children I occasionally teach were astonished that these old boys are still alive all the way from a bit of ancient history.
I was as well.
Well done you old buffers, for making it this far after what you went through.
Saturday, 11 November 2006
Drummer Mentioned
Laban Tall has a post up introducing this blog, and is right about the swearing and need to reduce Devil-post intake. The thing is this: swearing is actually very difficult to do properly, and is usually best left to the experts. I learned everything I know about swearing from Viz, but I haven't really absorbed the lessons well. Good swearing is borne of anger but executed coldly with precision, rhythm and vivid imagery. Poor swearing is a bunch of rude words thrown together. So I ought to leave it alone.
My post on Polly as if she were keen on cricket has also been linked to by Tim Worstall. It is people like Polly who persuade me that I cannot stop swearing altogether.
My post on Polly as if she were keen on cricket has also been linked to by Tim Worstall. It is people like Polly who persuade me that I cannot stop swearing altogether.
The Hatreds of Elites
I've never understood why the people who work for the state, paid for by taxpayers, donations, or entrance fees, seem to hate this country so much. I picked this up from Nanny Knows Best:
English Heritage have been recently doing their bit to expunge history, they are working on a project to highlight the links between landmark buildings and slavery.
Researchers will scour the history of stately homes and other sites looking for connections to the slave trade, which was banned in Britain 200 years ago next year.
FYI, Britain was the first country in the world to ban the slave trade. Oddly enough, it still continues in some parts of Africa and has experienced something of a modern renaissance in the spawning of the sex slave industry in Eastern Europe and the Far East.
However, we must never allow facts to get in the way of one of Nanny's "bright ideas".
One of the English Heritage's commissioners, Maria Adebowale, claimed that the project would help people recognise how much of Britain's historical wealth was built on "human misery".
It isn't that I don't want to recognise Britain's past, but tell me a country whose wealth isn't based on the oppression, enslavement, or defeat in war of its enemies. What do EH think will happen when people "recognise" this truth? That no-one will go to the stately homes anymore? That people will shake their heads in contempt for Britain's past? How is that good?
In what way does this project have anything positive to contribute to the past? Why aren't EH studying how many of Britain's stately homes have connections to people who ended slavery?
Enough questions already. I wonder why we put up with constantly being told that our country's past (and therefore its present) is evil and why there are so many people willing to take the country's money to pursue this. Probably because people such as Maria Adebowale don't give a flying fuck what most people think, as long as the Guardian would approve; and as long as it brings their personal views into the public sphere.
Jon Snow is another one. Unashamed to wear a Make Poverty History band on tv(according to today's Torygraph), he feels that a poppy is too much..."making a statement" - more like making a statement that self-righteous, self-absorbed and utopian-minded lefties don't agree with.
I've just done the two minute silence by the way, and thought sadly of the terrible waste of life in war. Yeah, poppies and Remembrance Day really glorifies war, doesn't it? I mean, I'm just itching to get my head blown off hundreds of miles from home. And I bought a poppy so that the old buffers can be cared for with a little more, erm care. I am still unsure how white poppies actively support these old guys; far from being a statement of peace, they're primarily a statement of hatred and contempt, an adolsecent pacifist wank. Radio 5 Live interviewed one of the anti-poppy tossers on Friday morning and he made his case extremely well (ho ho). The main plank of his argument was that Britain has interfered too much in other countries' affairs....like in 1939. Struggling to keep my car on the road, I waited for him to expound on this. Ncky Campbell asked him about the Holocaust. "Oh that only started later" - tell that to the Poles and Polish Jews being murdered and herded into ghettos in 1939-40.
I know the British Govt didn't act with honour in the 30s. But "interfering" on the invasion of Poland was the right thing to do. Obviously.
Of course, it's Iraq that has done so much to delegitimise Remembrance Day. But that doesn't mean we should forget the millions we sent to their deaths in the defence of France (1914-1918); or in the defence of anything that is civilised (1939-45). They were asked to accept filth, privation, blood, and death every day of their service. They were told to die. They did.
In 2001 I heard on Radio 5Live of an old boy who had just died in a mental hospital. He had been sectioned since 1921 and had dreams of explosions and murder and mayhem every night of his life, from 1917 to 2001.
That's why the red poppy is good and the white poppy is just a middle class moralistic group shag.
English Heritage have been recently doing their bit to expunge history, they are working on a project to highlight the links between landmark buildings and slavery.
Researchers will scour the history of stately homes and other sites looking for connections to the slave trade, which was banned in Britain 200 years ago next year.
FYI, Britain was the first country in the world to ban the slave trade. Oddly enough, it still continues in some parts of Africa and has experienced something of a modern renaissance in the spawning of the sex slave industry in Eastern Europe and the Far East.
However, we must never allow facts to get in the way of one of Nanny's "bright ideas".
One of the English Heritage's commissioners, Maria Adebowale, claimed that the project would help people recognise how much of Britain's historical wealth was built on "human misery".
It isn't that I don't want to recognise Britain's past, but tell me a country whose wealth isn't based on the oppression, enslavement, or defeat in war of its enemies. What do EH think will happen when people "recognise" this truth? That no-one will go to the stately homes anymore? That people will shake their heads in contempt for Britain's past? How is that good?
In what way does this project have anything positive to contribute to the past? Why aren't EH studying how many of Britain's stately homes have connections to people who ended slavery?
Enough questions already. I wonder why we put up with constantly being told that our country's past (and therefore its present) is evil and why there are so many people willing to take the country's money to pursue this. Probably because people such as Maria Adebowale don't give a flying fuck what most people think, as long as the Guardian would approve; and as long as it brings their personal views into the public sphere.
Jon Snow is another one. Unashamed to wear a Make Poverty History band on tv(according to today's Torygraph), he feels that a poppy is too much..."making a statement" - more like making a statement that self-righteous, self-absorbed and utopian-minded lefties don't agree with.
I've just done the two minute silence by the way, and thought sadly of the terrible waste of life in war. Yeah, poppies and Remembrance Day really glorifies war, doesn't it? I mean, I'm just itching to get my head blown off hundreds of miles from home. And I bought a poppy so that the old buffers can be cared for with a little more, erm care. I am still unsure how white poppies actively support these old guys; far from being a statement of peace, they're primarily a statement of hatred and contempt, an adolsecent pacifist wank. Radio 5 Live interviewed one of the anti-poppy tossers on Friday morning and he made his case extremely well (ho ho). The main plank of his argument was that Britain has interfered too much in other countries' affairs....like in 1939. Struggling to keep my car on the road, I waited for him to expound on this. Ncky Campbell asked him about the Holocaust. "Oh that only started later" - tell that to the Poles and Polish Jews being murdered and herded into ghettos in 1939-40.
I know the British Govt didn't act with honour in the 30s. But "interfering" on the invasion of Poland was the right thing to do. Obviously.
Of course, it's Iraq that has done so much to delegitimise Remembrance Day. But that doesn't mean we should forget the millions we sent to their deaths in the defence of France (1914-1918); or in the defence of anything that is civilised (1939-45). They were asked to accept filth, privation, blood, and death every day of their service. They were told to die. They did.
In 2001 I heard on Radio 5Live of an old boy who had just died in a mental hospital. He had been sectioned since 1921 and had dreams of explosions and murder and mayhem every night of his life, from 1917 to 2001.
That's why the red poppy is good and the white poppy is just a middle class moralistic group shag.
Friday, 10 November 2006
More Lickspittle from the Drummer
I've often asked myself these questions:
Who is going to take them on?
Who is going to expose for the self-righteous cunts they are?
Who is going to expose their lies and their manipulation of a compliant media?
Who is going to demonstrate their utter ignorance of anything but the mechanics of taking power?
The fact is, when confronted by power, or the lure of power, even people with stellar Oxbridge degrees (unlike stella degrees, like mine....mmmm...stella...)become brain-dead fuckwitted twats. If they are Labour, they say what they think academics want to hear (beause it guarantees another generation of students and another load of "reports" that just happen to recommend socialist happy remedies). If they are Conservative they say what they think anyone answering opinion polls wants to hear, and if they are Lib Dems, they spend their time accusing the Tories of racism while promoting some pretty nasty views themselves.
(Not to mention Menzies (("Ming" - how I love to hear the familiar version) Campbell giving Mohammad Khatami an honorary degree - an event which has, incidentally, caused zero comment in the MSM.)
So - erm, what was I saying?
Oh yes - the answer: the Devil. He's brighter, more daring, and, maybe, a week or two younger than me.
Who is going to take them on?
Who is going to expose for the self-righteous cunts they are?
Who is going to expose their lies and their manipulation of a compliant media?
Who is going to demonstrate their utter ignorance of anything but the mechanics of taking power?
The fact is, when confronted by power, or the lure of power, even people with stellar Oxbridge degrees (unlike stella degrees, like mine....mmmm...stella...)become brain-dead fuckwitted twats. If they are Labour, they say what they think academics want to hear (beause it guarantees another generation of students and another load of "reports" that just happen to recommend socialist happy remedies). If they are Conservative they say what they think anyone answering opinion polls wants to hear, and if they are Lib Dems, they spend their time accusing the Tories of racism while promoting some pretty nasty views themselves.
(Not to mention Menzies (("Ming" - how I love to hear the familiar version) Campbell giving Mohammad Khatami an honorary degree - an event which has, incidentally, caused zero comment in the MSM.)
So - erm, what was I saying?
Oh yes - the answer: the Devil. He's brighter, more daring, and, maybe, a week or two younger than me.
I Never Did Catch Fish
Four Tracks that made me think, at different times in my life, that "you do not need to live life that way; do it like this instead".
In chronological order (of my hearing them)
1. The Jam - Going Underground
2. XTC - Senses Working Overtime
3. Joy Division - Love Will Tear Us Apart
4. Underworld - Jumbo
I know that No.3 makes me feel that life shouldn't be lived at all; but that is all part of being 18 and leaving home & friends.
No.2 just made me feel like there was so much wonder and beauty in the world, all of it utterly inexplicable and all the more valuable for that.
No.4 I just thought was cool in a way you sometimes think when you then end up playing the same track for weeks. And months.
No.1 actually did change my life, in a permanent way. I went from thinking: "Jesus, I really have to do what I'm told" to "Shit, I really have to do what I'm told but fuck me, I'm not going to like it very much". It set me apart from a generation and a class ( I mean - cover your ears - the middle class - yuk!) whose tastes were for shit with sugar on; it made me think that because something is from now it doesn't mean it's good and it made me think at a time when everyone I knew was saying "history is bunk", that history is in fact the dog's bollocks. It also made me have the piss taken out of me by a generation so arse fucking ignorant they actually thought Going Underground was a crap song.
Go and sit down, and then return after no less than 5 (five) minutes.
Even 13 year olds I've taken on school trips know it's a classic, even if they listen to that stupid parody ("You useless bunch of fucking cunts/I want my fucking money back/Going Underground" or something).
Attlee - Churchill- Eden - Macmillan - Home - Wilson - Heath - Wilson (again)- Callaghan - Thatcher
I learned about all of these from the Going Underground video (once I'd bought it on VHS) and learned to sweep them all away from the same video.
I had to deal with Major and Blair on my own terms. Major - fine. He was a twat*. Blair - how does satire account for 500 000 deaths in Iraq? How does satire really measure the extent to which he hates his own people?
Jeez - in the generation since Going Underground was #1 (I love the #) in 1980 we only have Major and Blair to deal with afterwards. At least the Americans have Reagan (elected Nov. 1980), Bush x2 and Clinton. Then again, the French only have Mitterand and Chirac.
So much mediocrity and so much time in which to endure it.
Bring back the Cold War and incipient nuclear destruction, I say.
* - Yes I know lefty historians write frighteningly about "Thatcher-Major" or "Thatcherism 1979-1997" as if it were some kind of monolithic genius for evil. Real people, however, know that Major was a gimp and not a master of a vast right wing conspiracy.
In chronological order (of my hearing them)
1. The Jam - Going Underground
2. XTC - Senses Working Overtime
3. Joy Division - Love Will Tear Us Apart
4. Underworld - Jumbo
I know that No.3 makes me feel that life shouldn't be lived at all; but that is all part of being 18 and leaving home & friends.
No.2 just made me feel like there was so much wonder and beauty in the world, all of it utterly inexplicable and all the more valuable for that.
No.4 I just thought was cool in a way you sometimes think when you then end up playing the same track for weeks. And months.
No.1 actually did change my life, in a permanent way. I went from thinking: "Jesus, I really have to do what I'm told" to "Shit, I really have to do what I'm told but fuck me, I'm not going to like it very much". It set me apart from a generation and a class ( I mean - cover your ears - the middle class - yuk!) whose tastes were for shit with sugar on; it made me think that because something is from now it doesn't mean it's good and it made me think at a time when everyone I knew was saying "history is bunk", that history is in fact the dog's bollocks. It also made me have the piss taken out of me by a generation so arse fucking ignorant they actually thought Going Underground was a crap song.
Go and sit down, and then return after no less than 5 (five) minutes.
Even 13 year olds I've taken on school trips know it's a classic, even if they listen to that stupid parody ("You useless bunch of fucking cunts/I want my fucking money back/Going Underground" or something).
Attlee - Churchill- Eden - Macmillan - Home - Wilson - Heath - Wilson (again)- Callaghan - Thatcher
I learned about all of these from the Going Underground video (once I'd bought it on VHS) and learned to sweep them all away from the same video.
I had to deal with Major and Blair on my own terms. Major - fine. He was a twat*. Blair - how does satire account for 500 000 deaths in Iraq? How does satire really measure the extent to which he hates his own people?
Jeez - in the generation since Going Underground was #1 (I love the #) in 1980 we only have Major and Blair to deal with afterwards. At least the Americans have Reagan (elected Nov. 1980), Bush x2 and Clinton. Then again, the French only have Mitterand and Chirac.
So much mediocrity and so much time in which to endure it.
Bring back the Cold War and incipient nuclear destruction, I say.
* - Yes I know lefty historians write frighteningly about "Thatcher-Major" or "Thatcherism 1979-1997" as if it were some kind of monolithic genius for evil. Real people, however, know that Major was a gimp and not a master of a vast right wing conspiracy.
Thursday, 9 November 2006
How Polly Might See Things (If She Liked Cricket)
Giles plays in Ashes tour opener
England fans last saw Ashley Giles bowl in a Test 12 months ago
Ashley Giles will play for the first time in a year as England begin their Ashes tour in Canberra.
The spinner, who has played no cricket in 2006 after undergoing two hip operations, said: "We all want to impress and none more than me.
"I want to be playing in the Test team but we also play as a squad, so I'll back whoever is picked."
England face a Prime Minister's XI which features fast bowler Shaun Tait and leg-spin all-rounder Cameron White.
England captain Andrew Flintoff, who has bowled just five competitive overs since recovering from ankle surgery, will look to increase his workload in the one-day match.
Marcus Trescothick, Alastair Cook, Matthew Hoggard, Geraint Jones, Monty Panesar and Liam Plunkett - all of whom missed the Champions Trophy - are also set to play.
White, who will lead the invitational side, said he understood the significance of Tait's appearance as he is on the fringes of Australia's Test squad.
White said: "I'll be giving him as much freedom as he has in state cricket."
Australian Prime Minister John Howard is a lifelong cricket fan and believes the Ashes series is set to be the most compelling he can remember.
"I think every cricket lover would like to see it close. I expect Australia to regain the Ashes. I'm not only hopeful, I'm confident," he told BBC Sport.
"But I don't take the view that it will be anything other than keenly fought and I hope it is."
The first Test is in Brisbane and begins on 23 November.
The discussions surrounding the selection for the first Test show the cricket world up for what it is: white middle class men making sure their own nests are feathered. What could be more outrageous than a privileged man like Ashley Giles actually claiming a spot back in the England side ahead of the courageous Monty Panesar? Some people say Giles can bat and Panesar can't: but that is just typical of the quality-obsessed world of cricket. It is a disgrace if Panesar doesn't play. Why is ability to bat more important than ethnic origin? And if Panesar does play it is a disgrace too: we have had more than enough religion in this benighted world of ours and to allow a man who actually flaunts his belief in public is offensive to the world's 5 billion atheists, who will be alienated from cricket as a result. For Giles to say that he will be "looking to impress" after his hip operation is a slur on the good men and women of the NHS - it should be obvious that his operation was impressive; unless he went private, in which case it is appalling that a man who betrayed his National Health Service should be representing England (an offensive enough concept as it is). The suggestion that the only working class man in the side, Andrew Flintoff, will be "looking to increase his workload" is another example of the rich exploiting the poor. In the end, as usual, it's all about class. And I am left speechless about the call to militarism expressed at the end: words like "fought" have a long history of being used as excuses for battle and inhumane treatment of fellow persons. It just shows the psychological state of these middle class white men, or it shows that they are just not examining their prejudices. Either way, I am disgusted.
(goes and lies down in a light-decreased room, until the absence of light makes her think of the dark days of Thatcherism/Majorism).
England fans last saw Ashley Giles bowl in a Test 12 months ago
Ashley Giles will play for the first time in a year as England begin their Ashes tour in Canberra.
The spinner, who has played no cricket in 2006 after undergoing two hip operations, said: "We all want to impress and none more than me.
"I want to be playing in the Test team but we also play as a squad, so I'll back whoever is picked."
England face a Prime Minister's XI which features fast bowler Shaun Tait and leg-spin all-rounder Cameron White.
England captain Andrew Flintoff, who has bowled just five competitive overs since recovering from ankle surgery, will look to increase his workload in the one-day match.
Marcus Trescothick, Alastair Cook, Matthew Hoggard, Geraint Jones, Monty Panesar and Liam Plunkett - all of whom missed the Champions Trophy - are also set to play.
White, who will lead the invitational side, said he understood the significance of Tait's appearance as he is on the fringes of Australia's Test squad.
White said: "I'll be giving him as much freedom as he has in state cricket."
Australian Prime Minister John Howard is a lifelong cricket fan and believes the Ashes series is set to be the most compelling he can remember.
"I think every cricket lover would like to see it close. I expect Australia to regain the Ashes. I'm not only hopeful, I'm confident," he told BBC Sport.
"But I don't take the view that it will be anything other than keenly fought and I hope it is."
The first Test is in Brisbane and begins on 23 November.
The discussions surrounding the selection for the first Test show the cricket world up for what it is: white middle class men making sure their own nests are feathered. What could be more outrageous than a privileged man like Ashley Giles actually claiming a spot back in the England side ahead of the courageous Monty Panesar? Some people say Giles can bat and Panesar can't: but that is just typical of the quality-obsessed world of cricket. It is a disgrace if Panesar doesn't play. Why is ability to bat more important than ethnic origin? And if Panesar does play it is a disgrace too: we have had more than enough religion in this benighted world of ours and to allow a man who actually flaunts his belief in public is offensive to the world's 5 billion atheists, who will be alienated from cricket as a result. For Giles to say that he will be "looking to impress" after his hip operation is a slur on the good men and women of the NHS - it should be obvious that his operation was impressive; unless he went private, in which case it is appalling that a man who betrayed his National Health Service should be representing England (an offensive enough concept as it is). The suggestion that the only working class man in the side, Andrew Flintoff, will be "looking to increase his workload" is another example of the rich exploiting the poor. In the end, as usual, it's all about class. And I am left speechless about the call to militarism expressed at the end: words like "fought" have a long history of being used as excuses for battle and inhumane treatment of fellow persons. It just shows the psychological state of these middle class white men, or it shows that they are just not examining their prejudices. Either way, I am disgusted.
(goes and lies down in a light-decreased room, until the absence of light makes her think of the dark days of Thatcherism/Majorism).
Wednesday, 8 November 2006
Spot the Difference
Radio 1 apologies for race gaffe
and
Tory suspended over racist email
One is a sensitive portrayal of an innocent DJ who is never accused of being racist in the slightest, she just didn't know what she was saying; and the other is a series of damning indictments of a Conservative councillor from her political enemies, who is assumed to be racist (note the lack of scare quotes around the r word).
Something must account for this difference...er...um...no, sorry it's no use, I can't think of what it might be.
and
Tory suspended over racist email
One is a sensitive portrayal of an innocent DJ who is never accused of being racist in the slightest, she just didn't know what she was saying; and the other is a series of damning indictments of a Conservative councillor from her political enemies, who is assumed to be racist (note the lack of scare quotes around the r word).
Something must account for this difference...er...um...no, sorry it's no use, I can't think of what it might be.
Whinging Aussies (part 42)
Bloody whinging poms, eh? They take one little punch on the head and have to start bloody whining about it, I mean, it's not as if it was a big punch, it just laid him out flat, that's all, and I was provoked, because he was sledging me. And it's not just me, lots of other people have done it.
Tuesday, 7 November 2006
Magnificent Post by Tom Paine
Linked to above is a superb post on the subject of faith by Tom Paine at The Last Ditch. He is an atheist, and discusses what he thinks is the legacy and value of religion in our society, together with a view of how this fits into a multicultural society.
In many ways he expresses things I agree with, except that I have failed to become an atheist: not because I am stupid, or because I can't see rational argument, but because I see it as a temptation that I really don't want to follow. It isn't that I want to go to heaven, or anything like that: it is that I want, like the Victorian agnostics, there to be purpose in the universe. I know that people can create purpose for themselves, but I find it difficult to rationalise the process of somehow inhering coherence ("injecting"? how do you describe the idea of creating inherency?)or meaning into an object which does not possess those qualities per se. As I have commented before, I want there to be more to creation than just what I can see, or what I can understand, because I am a limited, fallible being, and I am no basis for a theory of everything. This is why I've also long been interested in UFOs and the paranormal, although I've become more inclined towards total disbelief in these. It isn't because I don't want death to be the complete end, although I don't;more, perhaps, that I don't understand the process of becoming a non-existing thing, though I've seen it many times. I still don't truly know which is worse: judgment or annihilation. Elements of each are contained in the other. I understand the postmodern creation of value and life, I think, I just don't believe that it holds, either philosophically, or personally.
I know this makes me stuck somewhere in the 1870s, but I can live with that. The wonderful post I've linked to above shows that its author is stuck somewhere in the 1930s or 40s, before postmodern atheism, aggressive and intolerant, pretending to be civilised secularism, took root in our public institutions. Who really thinks, that when the Charities Bill becomes law, the religious charities will not be the first to be told to conform to that kind of secularism, or lose their status? How long before the Charities Commission becomes full of the kind of idiots who populate the Lottery fund, with wonderful records in progressive activism, and decides that the state cannot be seen to support financially any religious body at all?
In many ways he expresses things I agree with, except that I have failed to become an atheist: not because I am stupid, or because I can't see rational argument, but because I see it as a temptation that I really don't want to follow. It isn't that I want to go to heaven, or anything like that: it is that I want, like the Victorian agnostics, there to be purpose in the universe. I know that people can create purpose for themselves, but I find it difficult to rationalise the process of somehow inhering coherence ("injecting"? how do you describe the idea of creating inherency?)or meaning into an object which does not possess those qualities per se. As I have commented before, I want there to be more to creation than just what I can see, or what I can understand, because I am a limited, fallible being, and I am no basis for a theory of everything. This is why I've also long been interested in UFOs and the paranormal, although I've become more inclined towards total disbelief in these. It isn't because I don't want death to be the complete end, although I don't;more, perhaps, that I don't understand the process of becoming a non-existing thing, though I've seen it many times. I still don't truly know which is worse: judgment or annihilation. Elements of each are contained in the other. I understand the postmodern creation of value and life, I think, I just don't believe that it holds, either philosophically, or personally.
I know this makes me stuck somewhere in the 1870s, but I can live with that. The wonderful post I've linked to above shows that its author is stuck somewhere in the 1930s or 40s, before postmodern atheism, aggressive and intolerant, pretending to be civilised secularism, took root in our public institutions. Who really thinks, that when the Charities Bill becomes law, the religious charities will not be the first to be told to conform to that kind of secularism, or lose their status? How long before the Charities Commission becomes full of the kind of idiots who populate the Lottery fund, with wonderful records in progressive activism, and decides that the state cannot be seen to support financially any religious body at all?
Cheltenham Fireworks
I went to a pretty good fireworks display at my old school in Cheltenham on Saturday. There wasn't really any trouble apart from a few girls who insisted on swearing too close to me and didn't like my opinions of their language.
I was safely tucked up in bed early on Sunday night, so I missed all of this:
THUGS GO ON RAMPAGE IN A NIGHT OF MADNESS
10:30 - 06 November 2006
Cheltenham erupted into chaos as 200 rioting thugs rampaged through the streets armed with thousands of fireworks last night.Yobs stormed through Hester's Way, throwing lit rockets at cars and passers-by.
Dozens of police in riot gear fought running battles with the rioting mob who tore through Princess Elizabeth Way in a six-hour orgy of violence.
The drama began at 6pm when the fire service was called to New Zealand House where a bonfire was too close to the flats.
After the blaze was put out, police turned up and seized a horde of fireworks in a shed.
After the police and fire crew left, teenagers took to the streets armed with hundreds of display fireworks.
full story: Gloucestershire Echo
Now I know the Echo is prone to overstating things, it's a sort of provincial Daily Mail (I think they own it in fact), but even so this is remarkable.
The full article, and the context of it, ie Princess Elizabeth Way, goes to back up a point about the town I've been making for years. It's a nice place,Cheltenham, built as a summer resort a couple of hundred years ago. But after the war the council estates and private estates had to be tacked onto the edge of the town, far from the tiny, clogged town centre. Familiar story, eh? No amenities, far from the town itself, and design which suggests the contempt the planners held for the people who were going to live there. It's even on the doorstep of GCHQ, so when the 2 1MT weapons fell on it (Peter Hennessy, The Secret State) in the event of war, it would have been utterly, utterly flattened, while some nice bits of the town might at least have had ruins.
Don't get me wrong here - I'm more of a water cannon bloke than a hand-wringer: but you get what you put in. And the planners put nothing at all into the design of postwar Cheltenham. Even now they're working around these cockups, except that now it suits the likes of Tesco and other huge companies to have massive stores built in the drab outskirts of the town, cutting it in half again. There are now two, distinct Cheltenhams: one is very nice and is mainly offices and flats; the other is huge, sprawling, ugly and is where people actually have to live and shop.
This isn't meant to be an explanation of Sunday's riot, only to say that I am not entirely surprised. I'd still like to have seen a water cannon shoot some of those arrogant tossers off the roofs though.
I was safely tucked up in bed early on Sunday night, so I missed all of this:
THUGS GO ON RAMPAGE IN A NIGHT OF MADNESS
10:30 - 06 November 2006
Cheltenham erupted into chaos as 200 rioting thugs rampaged through the streets armed with thousands of fireworks last night.Yobs stormed through Hester's Way, throwing lit rockets at cars and passers-by.
Dozens of police in riot gear fought running battles with the rioting mob who tore through Princess Elizabeth Way in a six-hour orgy of violence.
The drama began at 6pm when the fire service was called to New Zealand House where a bonfire was too close to the flats.
After the blaze was put out, police turned up and seized a horde of fireworks in a shed.
After the police and fire crew left, teenagers took to the streets armed with hundreds of display fireworks.
full story: Gloucestershire Echo
Now I know the Echo is prone to overstating things, it's a sort of provincial Daily Mail (I think they own it in fact), but even so this is remarkable.
The full article, and the context of it, ie Princess Elizabeth Way, goes to back up a point about the town I've been making for years. It's a nice place,Cheltenham, built as a summer resort a couple of hundred years ago. But after the war the council estates and private estates had to be tacked onto the edge of the town, far from the tiny, clogged town centre. Familiar story, eh? No amenities, far from the town itself, and design which suggests the contempt the planners held for the people who were going to live there. It's even on the doorstep of GCHQ, so when the 2 1MT weapons fell on it (Peter Hennessy, The Secret State) in the event of war, it would have been utterly, utterly flattened, while some nice bits of the town might at least have had ruins.
Don't get me wrong here - I'm more of a water cannon bloke than a hand-wringer: but you get what you put in. And the planners put nothing at all into the design of postwar Cheltenham. Even now they're working around these cockups, except that now it suits the likes of Tesco and other huge companies to have massive stores built in the drab outskirts of the town, cutting it in half again. There are now two, distinct Cheltenhams: one is very nice and is mainly offices and flats; the other is huge, sprawling, ugly and is where people actually have to live and shop.
This isn't meant to be an explanation of Sunday's riot, only to say that I am not entirely surprised. I'd still like to have seen a water cannon shoot some of those arrogant tossers off the roofs though.
Monday, 6 November 2006
Justify All Surveillance
I stole this from Samizdata. It is the clearest, most articulate statement of the refusal of the Drummer and many others to be observed; whether in the name of "climate change", or "preventing crime", or "enabling access to services", or my personal favourite, "because it's about saving lives". Incidentally, how did "think of the children" become a leftist dog whistle, while "it's about saving lives" is still some kind of moral trump card?
Quote follows:
Tom Wright of wrightwing.net wrote the following as a comment but it is simply too splendid to languish in the comment section...
I have said this before and in other venues:
I will support public [CCTV] cameras only if they are first placed in those areas where the worst and most egregious crimes occur:
In every room and every hallway of every police station in every nation.
In every room and every hallway of every legislative body in every nation.
In every room and every hallway of every executive and judicial branch of every nation.
And, as a condition of employment, upon taking the oath of office, permanently bolted to the head of every elected official, every appointed official, and every official authorized to carry arms in the course of duty.
Turned on, broadcasting, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in a manner I, and every one else, can monitor and record.
Then I will support cameras on me.
Not since "Eric Hobsbawm is a mendacious Stalinist" (myself) have I heard anything I more completely agree with. Let those fuckers be watched.
Let us watch Lord Goldsmith's abuse of the constitution to save his mate from justice over cash for peerages. Let us watch the meetings at which the Charities Commission is henceforth going to close down all civic charities and bodies that work selflessly for some, or all, of the population which don't fulfil the basic criteria of modern, secular organisations (ie all Christian bodies). Let us watch Madeleine Bunting while she writes her columns for the Guardian about the surfeit of personal freedom in the west, just so we can see the way a twisted conscience lives with itself. Let us watch the policemen who say they will target people who are acquitted of traffic offences.
We might find it illuminating.
Quote follows:
Tom Wright of wrightwing.net wrote the following as a comment but it is simply too splendid to languish in the comment section...
I have said this before and in other venues:
I will support public [CCTV] cameras only if they are first placed in those areas where the worst and most egregious crimes occur:
In every room and every hallway of every police station in every nation.
In every room and every hallway of every legislative body in every nation.
In every room and every hallway of every executive and judicial branch of every nation.
And, as a condition of employment, upon taking the oath of office, permanently bolted to the head of every elected official, every appointed official, and every official authorized to carry arms in the course of duty.
Turned on, broadcasting, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in a manner I, and every one else, can monitor and record.
Then I will support cameras on me.
Not since "Eric Hobsbawm is a mendacious Stalinist" (myself) have I heard anything I more completely agree with. Let those fuckers be watched.
Let us watch Lord Goldsmith's abuse of the constitution to save his mate from justice over cash for peerages. Let us watch the meetings at which the Charities Commission is henceforth going to close down all civic charities and bodies that work selflessly for some, or all, of the population which don't fulfil the basic criteria of modern, secular organisations (ie all Christian bodies). Let us watch Madeleine Bunting while she writes her columns for the Guardian about the surfeit of personal freedom in the west, just so we can see the way a twisted conscience lives with itself. Let us watch the policemen who say they will target people who are acquitted of traffic offences.
We might find it illuminating.
Sunday, 5 November 2006
Iraq, etc
Saddam is to hang: well I can't say I am surprised and I can't say I am too pleased either. It is politically stupid and will serve no interest other than the insurgency's. Apart from that I am still not sure about executing war criminals. Watching the BBC's Nuremburg series the other day I wondered if I would have been happy to see Himmler hang; the answer, probably, is yes. And I felt only relief when I first read of the execution of Rudolf Hoss, commandant of Auschwitz. Despite this I generally say I am against the death penalty. It's not consistent; but then I am large and contain multitudes.
I try to avoid commenting on Iraq, mainly because I don't know that much about it, but also because like a lot of people I am compromised by ambivalence about the original mission and horror at what has unfolded, or what seems to have unfolded.
Over at Nourishing Obscurity there's a huge and very thorough roundup of the blogosphere's views, including my own somewhat intemperate comment about John Kerry. I must have just got back from the pub.
I try to avoid commenting on Iraq, mainly because I don't know that much about it, but also because like a lot of people I am compromised by ambivalence about the original mission and horror at what has unfolded, or what seems to have unfolded.
Over at Nourishing Obscurity there's a huge and very thorough roundup of the blogosphere's views, including my own somewhat intemperate comment about John Kerry. I must have just got back from the pub.
Friday, 3 November 2006
Nick Pope Still Twat &c
I am gutted by the lack of net interest in my last post debunking Nick Pope of "I really don't know that much about UFOs" fame. I have received nearly 0 hits since that post.
Look (as the Rev ARP Blair would say). I don't give a monkey's dangleberry whether any of you think UFOs are a load of cock; maybe I do too. The fact is, it kind of interests me, and Nick Pope making piles of money out of it pisses me off especially given that I debunked the tosser a decade ago.
Graham Salisbury - where are you now? We - I - need your incisively sarcastic (but also drolly dry) sense of humour and knowledge to get rid of this waste of u-bend space.
Anyhoo: wuz're fookin off the poynt like.
I've initiated this post to say this: Simon Barnes of The Times fame is also a twat. Anyone who thinks that 1988 (when Ben Johnson tested positive for drugs) is when sport "lost its innocence" is either ignorant or is a wanker. What does he think that Heysel represented? Or Ibrox 1971, or even Peru 1964? What kind of idiot thinks that a guy with stuff in his veins is the end of sport, when people have been killed because of the club they support?
Also, much as I respect Roger Bannister, only a total fuckwit thinks that 1954 is important because it's when sport became about making the impossible possible, breaking the barriers of the physical, etc,etc.
What the fuck did he think Sherpa Tensing and Edmund Hillary were doing on the top of Everest in 1953? Swapping Association Football trading cards? Jeeee-sus!
What did he think the 1948 Olympics were for? Thrashing your poor pathetic opponent? Or showing that hard competition could co-exist with the ideals of liberal society and indeed were part of them - despite or because of the participation of the totalitarian states - then dragging itself out of the starving ashes?
And what kind of nob thinks that 1966 is important? You might as well ask an Italian fan whether 1934, 1938, 1982 have held Italian football back; or ask a (west) German fan whether winning against the odds in 1954 and 1974 and with the odds in 1990 have held back their sport? What the bloody hell does 1966 mean? Nothing, apart from a flukey world cup win and a lucky win (given the outlook) for Harold Wilson.
At least Wislon lost in 1970 (like England).
Anyway it's all fucked. I know this because all intelligent people have risen to the defence of John Kerry, who reckons that people who fail in school "get stuck in Iraq".
Oh, sorry - you meant Bush? You mean the guy who had a higher grade point average at Yale than you? Him? God, what a fuckwit!*
*This is not meant to be a defence of Bush per se.
I am not Norman Geras,
nor was meant to be;
just a Kamm on the net,
one that will do
to swell the failure of a scene or two.
Look (as the Rev ARP Blair would say). I don't give a monkey's dangleberry whether any of you think UFOs are a load of cock; maybe I do too. The fact is, it kind of interests me, and Nick Pope making piles of money out of it pisses me off especially given that I debunked the tosser a decade ago.
Graham Salisbury - where are you now? We - I - need your incisively sarcastic (but also drolly dry) sense of humour and knowledge to get rid of this waste of u-bend space.
Anyhoo: wuz're fookin off the poynt like.
I've initiated this post to say this: Simon Barnes of The Times fame is also a twat. Anyone who thinks that 1988 (when Ben Johnson tested positive for drugs) is when sport "lost its innocence" is either ignorant or is a wanker. What does he think that Heysel represented? Or Ibrox 1971, or even Peru 1964? What kind of idiot thinks that a guy with stuff in his veins is the end of sport, when people have been killed because of the club they support?
Also, much as I respect Roger Bannister, only a total fuckwit thinks that 1954 is important because it's when sport became about making the impossible possible, breaking the barriers of the physical, etc,etc.
What the fuck did he think Sherpa Tensing and Edmund Hillary were doing on the top of Everest in 1953? Swapping Association Football trading cards? Jeeee-sus!
What did he think the 1948 Olympics were for? Thrashing your poor pathetic opponent? Or showing that hard competition could co-exist with the ideals of liberal society and indeed were part of them - despite or because of the participation of the totalitarian states - then dragging itself out of the starving ashes?
And what kind of nob thinks that 1966 is important? You might as well ask an Italian fan whether 1934, 1938, 1982 have held Italian football back; or ask a (west) German fan whether winning against the odds in 1954 and 1974 and with the odds in 1990 have held back their sport? What the bloody hell does 1966 mean? Nothing, apart from a flukey world cup win and a lucky win (given the outlook) for Harold Wilson.
At least Wislon lost in 1970 (like England).
Anyway it's all fucked. I know this because all intelligent people have risen to the defence of John Kerry, who reckons that people who fail in school "get stuck in Iraq".
Oh, sorry - you meant Bush? You mean the guy who had a higher grade point average at Yale than you? Him? God, what a fuckwit!*
*This is not meant to be a defence of Bush per se.
I am not Norman Geras,
nor was meant to be;
just a Kamm on the net,
one that will do
to swell the failure of a scene or two.
Thursday, 2 November 2006
Nick Pope is a Twat
I watched some programme or other last night on Five about UFOs and who do I see on it, leading the investigation, but Nick Pope!
I debunked this shameful excuse for a ufologist in a magazine article nearly a decade ago. Unfortunately only myself and the article's co-writer ever got to read it.
but briefly: here is a man who did a desk job for three years, ending in 1994 at the MOD, receiving ufo reports. That's it. He spent much of his time being ignored by people who matter and openly admits he didn't get all that much in. Yet he has written books and had appeared on loads of tv shows over the last 10 years. Now he is telling us about letters he received (or obtained - I wasn't listening carefully for obvious reasons) from high ups in the US government asking us about "black projects" we might be running, when we thought they were flying Aurora over our airspace.
Firstly, Nick, you ignorant tosser, the USA knows perfectly well we cannot afford black projects, which is why we've bought all our nuclear weapons off them for the last 45 years.
Secondly, Nick, you dickhead, a person high up in the US military or government is not going to let you, the guy behind the desk at Secretariat As(2a) or whatever it was, read about sensitive information. The same goes for UK generals, Air Marshals and so on. The reason is clear. It is because you were an office temp, while they had work to do.
Nick Pope had, and has, nothing to say that the likes of Jenny Randles cannot say more lucidly and knowledgeably and he is still trading on his own ignorance.
But I do have one question for this "serious" investigator:
Are you still motivated by "the desire to explain some anomalous events in my past", Nick?
I debunked this shameful excuse for a ufologist in a magazine article nearly a decade ago. Unfortunately only myself and the article's co-writer ever got to read it.
but briefly: here is a man who did a desk job for three years, ending in 1994 at the MOD, receiving ufo reports. That's it. He spent much of his time being ignored by people who matter and openly admits he didn't get all that much in. Yet he has written books and had appeared on loads of tv shows over the last 10 years. Now he is telling us about letters he received (or obtained - I wasn't listening carefully for obvious reasons) from high ups in the US government asking us about "black projects" we might be running, when we thought they were flying Aurora over our airspace.
Firstly, Nick, you ignorant tosser, the USA knows perfectly well we cannot afford black projects, which is why we've bought all our nuclear weapons off them for the last 45 years.
Secondly, Nick, you dickhead, a person high up in the US military or government is not going to let you, the guy behind the desk at Secretariat As(2a) or whatever it was, read about sensitive information. The same goes for UK generals, Air Marshals and so on. The reason is clear. It is because you were an office temp, while they had work to do.
Nick Pope had, and has, nothing to say that the likes of Jenny Randles cannot say more lucidly and knowledgeably and he is still trading on his own ignorance.
But I do have one question for this "serious" investigator:
Are you still motivated by "the desire to explain some anomalous events in my past", Nick?
Watch Me
A few people have picked up on this story on the BBC today, about Britain being heavily under surveillance (Samizdata being one). I don't doubt its truth; nor do I doubt the willingness of this particular government and the left generally to extend that surveillance: whether it is monitoring your rubbish, tagging your car to charge you by the mile, making huge fines payable if you refuse to let Council Tax inspectors see your conservatory to charge you more money, encouraging academics to spy on Muslim students, extending the CRB check system to encompass 1/3 of the population, or encouraging, even, vets to keep tabs on pet owners they think might be likely to abuse their pets.
To name a but a few.
I don't doubt either the sincerity with which the left believes we should be watched: we cannot be trusted because of our innate selfishness or our innate stupidity, and so therefore we must be watched by the agents of the state,who don't make mistakes.
I do worry that in some increasingly deep sense, we want to be watched. Years ago most of us relinquished the idea that we were being watched by an omnipresent divine spirit who could see every time you had one off the wrist, but instead of freeing us a la Dostoyevksy, we seem all the more to be wishing to be seen. Celebrity culture, the obsession with image and appearance (yes alright I'm bitter because I'm short, overweight and losing my hair), the desperation of governments to look as if they are doing things - even, sort of, the popularity of radio phone ins - we want to be noticed.
The point is this: we want to be approved. That isn't going to change, god or no god. We want to be validated. Submitting to surveillance is one easy way to achieve that.
To name a but a few.
I don't doubt either the sincerity with which the left believes we should be watched: we cannot be trusted because of our innate selfishness or our innate stupidity, and so therefore we must be watched by the agents of the state,who don't make mistakes.
I do worry that in some increasingly deep sense, we want to be watched. Years ago most of us relinquished the idea that we were being watched by an omnipresent divine spirit who could see every time you had one off the wrist, but instead of freeing us a la Dostoyevksy, we seem all the more to be wishing to be seen. Celebrity culture, the obsession with image and appearance (yes alright I'm bitter because I'm short, overweight and losing my hair), the desperation of governments to look as if they are doing things - even, sort of, the popularity of radio phone ins - we want to be noticed.
The point is this: we want to be approved. That isn't going to change, god or no god. We want to be validated. Submitting to surveillance is one easy way to achieve that.
Wednesday, 1 November 2006
Lib Dems to Lose Election
Ming Campbell is on good form at the moment, presenting an honorary degree to Mohammad Khatami of Iran government fame and refusing to return the £2.4m donation from a "convicted criminal" as Stephen Pollard puts it.
At least the LibDems can say they stick up for equality, as their pretty nasty campaign to remove Ruth Kelly from office shows (oh so you don't mind if Catholics are in govt, as long as they don't act on their beliefs at all. Well I'd like to see you apply that rule to gay, socialist and atheist ministers then).
Get this - Khatami's degree is an honorary doctorate of laws. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
Harry's Placehas been spitting blood about it for a while.
At least the LibDems can say they stick up for equality, as their pretty nasty campaign to remove Ruth Kelly from office shows (oh so you don't mind if Catholics are in govt, as long as they don't act on their beliefs at all. Well I'd like to see you apply that rule to gay, socialist and atheist ministers then).
Get this - Khatami's degree is an honorary doctorate of laws. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
Harry's Placehas been spitting blood about it for a while.
Tuesday, 31 October 2006
Stern Report
Unfortunately I am almost completely ignorant about climate change science. I am not so ignorant about socialist governmental techniques and it comes as no surprise to me that the Stern report seems to recommend serious state action immediately.
Tim Worstallhas some excellent posts up on the subject.
Incidentally I heard George Moonbat on the radio on Sunday saying how people should not become involved in carbon neutralising schemes because they distract from the urgent serious state action needed. His message is simple: we destroy the earth, governments will save it. Individuals are pointless and destructive, states are glorious. A clearer summary of the red/green mind would be difficult to locate.
Tim Worstallhas some excellent posts up on the subject.
Incidentally I heard George Moonbat on the radio on Sunday saying how people should not become involved in carbon neutralising schemes because they distract from the urgent serious state action needed. His message is simple: we destroy the earth, governments will save it. Individuals are pointless and destructive, states are glorious. A clearer summary of the red/green mind would be difficult to locate.
Monday, 30 October 2006
Not so Much Angry as Drearily Unsurprised
Here's a funny article from the BBC Website: "England "retain World Cup Belief".
In other news: "Pigs 'retain flight belief'"; "Dawkins 'retains supernatural being belief'" and "Bears 'retain egesting food in a lavatorial situation belief'".
In other news: "Pigs 'retain flight belief'"; "Dawkins 'retains supernatural being belief'" and "Bears 'retain egesting food in a lavatorial situation belief'".
Charlie Falconer is a Winnit in the Crack of Democracy
The Devil's Kitchen has a brief post up about a man I have posted about before too: Charlie Falconer. This time he is saying that the Human Rights Act contains rights which are as British as "the BBC" (how I laughed) and "a pint of bitter" (not Boddington's then).
This fat tosser really does think Britons did not have any rights at all until his munificent government granted them to us. He really does not think there is any common law tradition, or that people in this country have ever enjoyed any freedoms, before New Labour. He really does not see how the abolition of double jeopardy, jury trial, habeus corpus and the presumption of innocence in some kinds of trial seem to be perfectly compatible with all these wonderful rights granted in the HRA. That's because he regards, like Blair, everything in English and UK law pre-1997 to be utterly irrelevant to a codification of rights that can be subverted, adapted, or reinterpreted at the will of a government or a judge.
But this is not even the real outrage here. It is that a man who has never been elected to anything in his life, ever, but is a long standing mate of the PM, goes around telling us about rights and democracy. Whatever you think of the arguments around an English Parliament it stretches the limits of hypocrisy for an unelected member of a supposedly radical government to lecture us on whether it would be good for democracy or not. Whatever you think of Britain's constitution an unelected fuckwit like Falconer should not be allowed within several million miles of it. The man is an affront to democracy, an old style feudal lord dispensing nuggets of received wisdom and truth to the ignorant masses on behalf of his own liege lord.
Fuck off, Falconer. Nobody wants you.
This fat tosser really does think Britons did not have any rights at all until his munificent government granted them to us. He really does not think there is any common law tradition, or that people in this country have ever enjoyed any freedoms, before New Labour. He really does not see how the abolition of double jeopardy, jury trial, habeus corpus and the presumption of innocence in some kinds of trial seem to be perfectly compatible with all these wonderful rights granted in the HRA. That's because he regards, like Blair, everything in English and UK law pre-1997 to be utterly irrelevant to a codification of rights that can be subverted, adapted, or reinterpreted at the will of a government or a judge.
But this is not even the real outrage here. It is that a man who has never been elected to anything in his life, ever, but is a long standing mate of the PM, goes around telling us about rights and democracy. Whatever you think of the arguments around an English Parliament it stretches the limits of hypocrisy for an unelected member of a supposedly radical government to lecture us on whether it would be good for democracy or not. Whatever you think of Britain's constitution an unelected fuckwit like Falconer should not be allowed within several million miles of it. The man is an affront to democracy, an old style feudal lord dispensing nuggets of received wisdom and truth to the ignorant masses on behalf of his own liege lord.
Fuck off, Falconer. Nobody wants you.
Apologies (again)
My post on an old article appears below; I have been trying to post it since Saturday morning, but only now is blogger working enough to allow it go up.
Last night ITV screened Mysterious Creatures, another compelling drama for grown ups (the RTD* version would have shown the central character in nightclubs, attempting to pull, with hilarious - but tragic and inevitably bisexual - consequences), but with a curious end.
The entire drama revolves around how the parents of this 30something clearly unbalanced girl try to rid themselves of her. She is sectioned, and released. The parents try to commit suicide, and only one succeeds. Then the mother goes out to Tenerife and tries again, and fails. The end shows mother and daughter shopping. And the caption flashes up "Lisa has a new flat on Merseyside. Her mother still teaches in Birmingham" (or something very similar).
But how the hell has anyone persuaded her to live somewhere else? How has this fundamental problem, which has cost her father his life, been resolved, such that her mother suddenly has the freedom she has craved? It's like a war film that goes up to 1940 and then says "By 1945, Britain had won the war." I suppose the end only serves to further justify the title, though.
This problem, though, shouldn't detract from a powerful drama which is shot in a semi-contemporary style (shaky cameras etc) and a semi-gritty "Play for Today" or Threads style, with lingering shots of people crying or staring into space. Human misery has rarely looked more detailed on British TV since about 1984.
Some fine tv on lately then.
But not Torchwood. Obviously.
*= Russell T Davies, re-creator of Doctor Who, killer of Jesus (both played by Chris Eccleston, curiously enough), "genius" behind Torchwood. Actually RTD does have a lot of genuis in him, if only for Who and his long forgotten 1991 children's drama Dark Season, which I watched as an enthralled 14 year old. Yes I know I should have been having sex, but I preferred telly.
Last night ITV screened Mysterious Creatures, another compelling drama for grown ups (the RTD* version would have shown the central character in nightclubs, attempting to pull, with hilarious - but tragic and inevitably bisexual - consequences), but with a curious end.
The entire drama revolves around how the parents of this 30something clearly unbalanced girl try to rid themselves of her. She is sectioned, and released. The parents try to commit suicide, and only one succeeds. Then the mother goes out to Tenerife and tries again, and fails. The end shows mother and daughter shopping. And the caption flashes up "Lisa has a new flat on Merseyside. Her mother still teaches in Birmingham" (or something very similar).
But how the hell has anyone persuaded her to live somewhere else? How has this fundamental problem, which has cost her father his life, been resolved, such that her mother suddenly has the freedom she has craved? It's like a war film that goes up to 1940 and then says "By 1945, Britain had won the war." I suppose the end only serves to further justify the title, though.
This problem, though, shouldn't detract from a powerful drama which is shot in a semi-contemporary style (shaky cameras etc) and a semi-gritty "Play for Today" or Threads style, with lingering shots of people crying or staring into space. Human misery has rarely looked more detailed on British TV since about 1984.
Some fine tv on lately then.
But not Torchwood. Obviously.
*= Russell T Davies, re-creator of Doctor Who, killer of Jesus (both played by Chris Eccleston, curiously enough), "genius" behind Torchwood. Actually RTD does have a lot of genuis in him, if only for Who and his long forgotten 1991 children's drama Dark Season, which I watched as an enthralled 14 year old. Yes I know I should have been having sex, but I preferred telly.
Saturday, 28 October 2006
CofE handwringing and causing offence
I love it when lefties say that they are in favour only of being compassionate, and in social justice (see my post about Polly Toynbee below); and I also love it when they say that "Political Correctness" is a term made up by nasty right wingers desperate to discredit what is only an attempt to be polite.
So this is politeness then? To whom?
For decades, smartly dressed veterans and servicemen and women in Wood Green, north London, have proudly packed their parish church for the traditional Remembrance Sunday service.
But this year there will be no such solemn ceremony at St Michael's - because the vicar felt it was not multicultural enough.
Father Colin Coppen decided it was unfair on non-Anglicans to make them attend a church of England service.
Instead he has decreed that soldiers who fought and died for their country will only be remembered during Parish Mass.
If the borough wants to remember its fallen than it should do so outside the church, he says.
(linked to above)
It sounds more like a combination of patronising lefty bullshit and of a genuine dislike of the traditions we have built up in this country. Fine, if you don't like it; but why use your authority to impose your views on everyone? A vicar, this man should hardly need reminding, does not own his church: it belongs to the parish, of which he is only a temporary incumbent. He is saying, in effect, "As I don't like this very much, I cannot possibly be expected to hold this service, for going against my instincts would entail being untrue to myself, and this is what is important here."
Of course, the standard response to articles like this, is to claim that the people involved were misquoted, or it was all made up, or they read something in the Guardian that proves that it wasn't true. Or that if it is true, then that is fair enough, as we have to move with the times, blah blah....
Hat Tip: comments in Biased-BBC
So this is politeness then? To whom?
For decades, smartly dressed veterans and servicemen and women in Wood Green, north London, have proudly packed their parish church for the traditional Remembrance Sunday service.
But this year there will be no such solemn ceremony at St Michael's - because the vicar felt it was not multicultural enough.
Father Colin Coppen decided it was unfair on non-Anglicans to make them attend a church of England service.
Instead he has decreed that soldiers who fought and died for their country will only be remembered during Parish Mass.
If the borough wants to remember its fallen than it should do so outside the church, he says.
(linked to above)
It sounds more like a combination of patronising lefty bullshit and of a genuine dislike of the traditions we have built up in this country. Fine, if you don't like it; but why use your authority to impose your views on everyone? A vicar, this man should hardly need reminding, does not own his church: it belongs to the parish, of which he is only a temporary incumbent. He is saying, in effect, "As I don't like this very much, I cannot possibly be expected to hold this service, for going against my instincts would entail being untrue to myself, and this is what is important here."
Of course, the standard response to articles like this, is to claim that the people involved were misquoted, or it was all made up, or they read something in the Guardian that proves that it wasn't true. Or that if it is true, then that is fair enough, as we have to move with the times, blah blah....
Hat Tip: comments in Biased-BBC
Friday, 27 October 2006
Longford
Now this was tv for grown ups, with twists of ethical view, complications, and a genuine attempt to see into the heart of a real human being (Longford, rather than Hindley). It was a thoughtful presentation of Lord Longford's involvement with Myra Hindley, from shortly after she was imprisoned to a couple of years or so before they both died.
The bad things about it first: sometimes Longford is drawn in strokes that are really too broad. This is a problem at the start, as the director seems to grapple with the idea that Longford has personal ambition as well as spiritual beliefs; later on this dissolves into much finer portraiture (to extend the worn out metaphor). Ian Brady gets all the best lines, and there is a twenty minute stretch of the film where the eponymous character barely gets a mention and we get involved rather too deeply for my liking in Myra Hindley's personality. But then I suppose, without that, Longford's commitment to the woman makes less sense, or has less pathos.
Jim Broadbent gives a performance of depth, quite unlike the other old man for which he won an Oscar, John Bayley (Iris). His speech mirrors his soul: doubting, uncertain, but determined to press on, inventing conviction as he proceeds. Broadbent's Longford is naive, and knows it, but he sees himself as part of a wider spiritual truth, that of forgiveness; and he makes it his task to secure forgiveness for someone seen as one of the most evil people alive. We don't get very long to try and get to grips with the sense that he has wasted his life after Hindley's reversion in the 1980s - for though he insists that he does not regret anything, the pain of personal betrayal is there - because the narrative skips to 1997 and a more genuine relationship founded in mutual experience and something resembling truth between the two (in the face of death - whether this is the easy option or not I don't know).
This is one of the great subtleties of the film: Longford grapples with a sense of betrayal that he knows is self-absorbed, or self-pitying, and at the same time it is this sense of betrayal that almost pathetically opens his eyes to the real suffering Hindley had caused - which he realises he had not given enough thought to. It retrospectively justifies his actions and faith in her, but allows him to forgive on a more realistic level - ie it is a process, not an act, and is more difficult to do than to say.
On a less portentous note, that bloke who played Goering in the recent BBC2 Nuremburg documentary is at it again, playing Harold Wilson as a cross between a bluff Yorkshireman and scheming southern politician,which made me smile. I do think the bloke out of May to December would have made a better Denis Healey than Willie Whitelaw.
This shows what tv can do when it isn't written or produced by people who think adults are just teenagers with a slightly lower sex drive and shorter attention spans.
The bad things about it first: sometimes Longford is drawn in strokes that are really too broad. This is a problem at the start, as the director seems to grapple with the idea that Longford has personal ambition as well as spiritual beliefs; later on this dissolves into much finer portraiture (to extend the worn out metaphor). Ian Brady gets all the best lines, and there is a twenty minute stretch of the film where the eponymous character barely gets a mention and we get involved rather too deeply for my liking in Myra Hindley's personality. But then I suppose, without that, Longford's commitment to the woman makes less sense, or has less pathos.
Jim Broadbent gives a performance of depth, quite unlike the other old man for which he won an Oscar, John Bayley (Iris). His speech mirrors his soul: doubting, uncertain, but determined to press on, inventing conviction as he proceeds. Broadbent's Longford is naive, and knows it, but he sees himself as part of a wider spiritual truth, that of forgiveness; and he makes it his task to secure forgiveness for someone seen as one of the most evil people alive. We don't get very long to try and get to grips with the sense that he has wasted his life after Hindley's reversion in the 1980s - for though he insists that he does not regret anything, the pain of personal betrayal is there - because the narrative skips to 1997 and a more genuine relationship founded in mutual experience and something resembling truth between the two (in the face of death - whether this is the easy option or not I don't know).
This is one of the great subtleties of the film: Longford grapples with a sense of betrayal that he knows is self-absorbed, or self-pitying, and at the same time it is this sense of betrayal that almost pathetically opens his eyes to the real suffering Hindley had caused - which he realises he had not given enough thought to. It retrospectively justifies his actions and faith in her, but allows him to forgive on a more realistic level - ie it is a process, not an act, and is more difficult to do than to say.
On a less portentous note, that bloke who played Goering in the recent BBC2 Nuremburg documentary is at it again, playing Harold Wilson as a cross between a bluff Yorkshireman and scheming southern politician,which made me smile. I do think the bloke out of May to December would have made a better Denis Healey than Willie Whitelaw.
This shows what tv can do when it isn't written or produced by people who think adults are just teenagers with a slightly lower sex drive and shorter attention spans.
Thursday, 26 October 2006
State of the Union
Conservative Home has an interesting discussion up about how to resurrect the Tories' support in Scotland, which also carries some thought on the future of the Union. I've always been an instinctive unionist, as I think what unites the 4 countries of the UK is more than what divides it; but I think increasingly unionism cannot be sustained. The blogosphere recently has been awash with rumours that the SNP are about to take power in Scotland; Iain Dale and chums are pressing for an English Parliament; a sort of mutual misunderstanding, even loathing is developing on the streets when you talk to people about England/Scotland relations.
The fact might well be that the UK is finished. The Empire, which it built, is long gone, and with it the raison d'etre of the Kingdom. England is developing its own new nationalism (though at the moment it seems limited to football), partly in reaction to Scots and Welsh devolution, and it could simply be that all 4 parts of the UK would be better off given their own decision on the Union.
Despite being a Unionist, I just can't feel too sorry about it. I think it's time that the ancient kingdom of England was brought back to life, in a new cosmopolitan, multicultural way that still nodded all the way back to the Anglo Saxons who shaped this brilliant language of ours, to recapture the continuity of culture that I can't help thinking with our obession with Empire and global influence and sucking up to the uninterested USA we have lost. Yes, it might become a way of refusing to recognise our responsibility for empire and its consequences, but there are plenty of people around to challenge that. For every Lawrence James there are several Johann Haris. Or is he a Scot?
England of course would then have to re-negotiate membership of the EU and its contribution would decrease if it stayed - I can't really say its influence would decline, as the UK has very little influence in the things that matter (namely CAP). We could establish the new kingdom as a liberal constitutional monarchy with a Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act, something that would nod to the English tradition of seeing liberties as automatic (an idea with a lot going for it, despite the fact that this rarely worked in practice - it took French govts a while to really cotton on to Liberte etc too), not as benefits handed down or taken away by the state. We would need to replace the House of Lords of course - well it could then be fully elected, and stuff the whinging MPs who worry about their primacy, they would just have to negotiate with the Second Chamber, as happens in other countries with two elected chambers. It would force England, through lack of ownership of power, both to reclaim coal and nuclear power, and be at the forefront of renewable technologies.
We could make something that people, even lefties, actually like, are vaguely pleased with, and are happy to stand up for its beliefs.
And XTC would be the national band; as you can probably guess this semi-nostalgic political wishful thinking is inspired by my latest listening of Mummer.
The fact might well be that the UK is finished. The Empire, which it built, is long gone, and with it the raison d'etre of the Kingdom. England is developing its own new nationalism (though at the moment it seems limited to football), partly in reaction to Scots and Welsh devolution, and it could simply be that all 4 parts of the UK would be better off given their own decision on the Union.
Despite being a Unionist, I just can't feel too sorry about it. I think it's time that the ancient kingdom of England was brought back to life, in a new cosmopolitan, multicultural way that still nodded all the way back to the Anglo Saxons who shaped this brilliant language of ours, to recapture the continuity of culture that I can't help thinking with our obession with Empire and global influence and sucking up to the uninterested USA we have lost. Yes, it might become a way of refusing to recognise our responsibility for empire and its consequences, but there are plenty of people around to challenge that. For every Lawrence James there are several Johann Haris. Or is he a Scot?
England of course would then have to re-negotiate membership of the EU and its contribution would decrease if it stayed - I can't really say its influence would decline, as the UK has very little influence in the things that matter (namely CAP). We could establish the new kingdom as a liberal constitutional monarchy with a Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act, something that would nod to the English tradition of seeing liberties as automatic (an idea with a lot going for it, despite the fact that this rarely worked in practice - it took French govts a while to really cotton on to Liberte etc too), not as benefits handed down or taken away by the state. We would need to replace the House of Lords of course - well it could then be fully elected, and stuff the whinging MPs who worry about their primacy, they would just have to negotiate with the Second Chamber, as happens in other countries with two elected chambers. It would force England, through lack of ownership of power, both to reclaim coal and nuclear power, and be at the forefront of renewable technologies.
We could make something that people, even lefties, actually like, are vaguely pleased with, and are happy to stand up for its beliefs.
And XTC would be the national band; as you can probably guess this semi-nostalgic political wishful thinking is inspired by my latest listening of Mummer.
Tosswatch
Last night BBC2 showed the first episode of Torchwood for us barbarians who haven't got digital yet (I didn't hang around to see if they showed the second as well). For a start, it justifies the Onion headline of years ago: "High-Definition Tv Promises Sharper Crap".
It was awful. I mean it was really poor. Firstly, John Barrowman cannot act. When he thinks he is being sardonic or subdued, really he is just monotoning his lines. His character, lacking depth, any explanation of its continued existence, or interest, is as dull as Blackburn Rovers on a rainy Wednesday.
Secondly the premise is stupid, boring and not at all postmodern or ironic. An organisation of 4 people "beyond the united nations" working from a Cardiff shed and doing its thang in coincidentally many of the same places Doctor Who recently has? Get me an imagination transplant, and fast.
Thirdly I found it really difficult to believe this simple minded crap was written, directed and acted for grown ups. Sure, some people said "bastard" and even "fuck", but swearing does not an adult programme make (unless it is done with conviction, and an overarching sense that this is how adults behave in the programme itself). It had all the moral and ethical complexity of an episode of Neighbours. Russell T Davies, as is his wont, shoehorned in his little philosophy that everyone is naturally bisexual in a completely irrelevant sequence where one of the Torchwood twats pulls a girl - and her boyfriend! How I laughed at the grown up attitude to sexuality and the hymn to the wonderful power of lust. But what was the plot? Where was the narrative drive? What kind of a character is this policewoman? Everyone seemed just shadows in a Cardiff alleyway.
On the other hand, it is wholly natural that this was made for grown ups in a world where "adult" means porn, and where a Cheltenham shopping arcade has to put a little robot out saying "Be Careful. This floor is wet" all day long.
I really like RTDs Doctor Who, with a few reservations mainly to do with tone, but this piss-poor offshoot should be consigned to the toilet. Bring back K9 & Company.
It was awful. I mean it was really poor. Firstly, John Barrowman cannot act. When he thinks he is being sardonic or subdued, really he is just monotoning his lines. His character, lacking depth, any explanation of its continued existence, or interest, is as dull as Blackburn Rovers on a rainy Wednesday.
Secondly the premise is stupid, boring and not at all postmodern or ironic. An organisation of 4 people "beyond the united nations" working from a Cardiff shed and doing its thang in coincidentally many of the same places Doctor Who recently has? Get me an imagination transplant, and fast.
Thirdly I found it really difficult to believe this simple minded crap was written, directed and acted for grown ups. Sure, some people said "bastard" and even "fuck", but swearing does not an adult programme make (unless it is done with conviction, and an overarching sense that this is how adults behave in the programme itself). It had all the moral and ethical complexity of an episode of Neighbours. Russell T Davies, as is his wont, shoehorned in his little philosophy that everyone is naturally bisexual in a completely irrelevant sequence where one of the Torchwood twats pulls a girl - and her boyfriend! How I laughed at the grown up attitude to sexuality and the hymn to the wonderful power of lust. But what was the plot? Where was the narrative drive? What kind of a character is this policewoman? Everyone seemed just shadows in a Cardiff alleyway.
On the other hand, it is wholly natural that this was made for grown ups in a world where "adult" means porn, and where a Cheltenham shopping arcade has to put a little robot out saying "Be Careful. This floor is wet" all day long.
I really like RTDs Doctor Who, with a few reservations mainly to do with tone, but this piss-poor offshoot should be consigned to the toilet. Bring back K9 & Company.
Wednesday, 25 October 2006
Those Damn Auditors At It Again
The EU's auditors have caused trouble yet again by refusing to sign off the EUs accounts in their totality. My eyes were drawn to this defence of the EU's spending habits by "The European Commissioner for Administration, Audit and Anti-fraud, Siim Kallas" in the article on the BBC website, linked to above:
"You lost your wallet and you get it back with some money inside, but you still consider it a catastrophe. This is our main debate with the Court of Auditors."
Somewhere in Hitchhikers Guide Peter Jones says: "for Arthur, surprise is no longer adequate, and he is forced to resort to astonishment."
Still, at least the EU are admitting that they are stealing our wallets, illegally removing money and then handing us back somewhat less money than we had before.
Hat-Tip: Biased BBC.
"You lost your wallet and you get it back with some money inside, but you still consider it a catastrophe. This is our main debate with the Court of Auditors."
Somewhere in Hitchhikers Guide Peter Jones says: "for Arthur, surprise is no longer adequate, and he is forced to resort to astonishment."
Still, at least the EU are admitting that they are stealing our wallets, illegally removing money and then handing us back somewhat less money than we had before.
Hat-Tip: Biased BBC.
Tuesday, 24 October 2006
Polly only put the kettle on for people who would benefit
I picked this up today from Tim Worstall. It is a quote from Polly Toynbee:
But it isn't as simple as that. Faced with patients clinging to any last straw, the big questions remain. What is a life worth? How good a quality of life should be saved, at what price, for how long? Nice has a rule of thumb using QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years. A year of life in a reasonable condition is worth £20,000-£25,000. Anything over £30,000 needs to be an exceptional case: that's not personal circumstance but a rare condition with absolutely no other treatment. Nice has to consider what better treatments could be bought for how many others for the cost of holding off death for a few more painful months? Never easy, it will always depend on how much cash there is in the pot. And politicians need to ask if an NHS pound really buys more wellbeing than other services?
Never let it be said that the left are lacking in compassion. As Polly makes clear, people who have paid taxes (presumably for a stake in services) but who are dying should just damn well die. They are gone, finished, and money spent enabling them to extend their lives is a waste.
Never let it be said either that a solely taxpayer funded system leads to utilitarian rationing and the state handout of life and death. Tim asks: Is Polly really ready to go to one of those people with multiple myeloma, look them in the face and say, no, you must die in the name of equality? The answer, of course, is "yes" or "no, but then I don't have to. A doctor can do that". Their lives are meaningless and they are a waste of money. Well done Polly, you've just exposed the bankrupt ethics of the secular left: Come on all you dying people, what are you waiting for? Fuck off and die before you cost us any more money.
But it isn't as simple as that. Faced with patients clinging to any last straw, the big questions remain. What is a life worth? How good a quality of life should be saved, at what price, for how long? Nice has a rule of thumb using QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years. A year of life in a reasonable condition is worth £20,000-£25,000. Anything over £30,000 needs to be an exceptional case: that's not personal circumstance but a rare condition with absolutely no other treatment. Nice has to consider what better treatments could be bought for how many others for the cost of holding off death for a few more painful months? Never easy, it will always depend on how much cash there is in the pot. And politicians need to ask if an NHS pound really buys more wellbeing than other services?
Never let it be said that the left are lacking in compassion. As Polly makes clear, people who have paid taxes (presumably for a stake in services) but who are dying should just damn well die. They are gone, finished, and money spent enabling them to extend their lives is a waste.
Never let it be said either that a solely taxpayer funded system leads to utilitarian rationing and the state handout of life and death. Tim asks: Is Polly really ready to go to one of those people with multiple myeloma, look them in the face and say, no, you must die in the name of equality? The answer, of course, is "yes" or "no, but then I don't have to. A doctor can do that". Their lives are meaningless and they are a waste of money. Well done Polly, you've just exposed the bankrupt ethics of the secular left: Come on all you dying people, what are you waiting for? Fuck off and die before you cost us any more money.
Monday, 23 October 2006
Apologies
I've just realised that I haven't posted for nearly a week. There is no reason for that, except that time flies when you're not having fun.
Despite the shade of triumphalism I expressed over the defeat of the GPA by the Advertising Standards Agency, I noticed yesterday that the Liberal Democrats are calling for Ruth Kelly to resign for bringing her religious beliefs to her job. I would be interested to hear if they think that gay people who bring their beliefs about human sexuality to their political jobs should also resign. I would also like them to affirm that they would be opposed to Muslims in government, since they think Catholics are beyond the pale.
We are steadily, and deliberately, narrowing the public sphere, excluding different views and ways of life. The public sphere will, eventually, be completely homogenous, with all alternative views held only in secret. Some people, like Richard Dawkins, are pretty open about this; others, like gay rights groups, hide behind an exclusionary concept of "diversity". As a consequence of such principles, as has happened in some parts of the USA, Catholic adoption agencies, unable to take gay couples, will close, when the new equality laws are passed. Hence whole swathes of the public sphere will be destroyed and this is fine, because the alternative views are all based on "hate", pure and simple. This word has become so debased and cynically manipulated as to be almost meaningless now. But it's good for one kind of diversity, pretty awful for another.
Despite the shade of triumphalism I expressed over the defeat of the GPA by the Advertising Standards Agency, I noticed yesterday that the Liberal Democrats are calling for Ruth Kelly to resign for bringing her religious beliefs to her job. I would be interested to hear if they think that gay people who bring their beliefs about human sexuality to their political jobs should also resign. I would also like them to affirm that they would be opposed to Muslims in government, since they think Catholics are beyond the pale.
We are steadily, and deliberately, narrowing the public sphere, excluding different views and ways of life. The public sphere will, eventually, be completely homogenous, with all alternative views held only in secret. Some people, like Richard Dawkins, are pretty open about this; others, like gay rights groups, hide behind an exclusionary concept of "diversity". As a consequence of such principles, as has happened in some parts of the USA, Catholic adoption agencies, unable to take gay couples, will close, when the new equality laws are passed. Hence whole swathes of the public sphere will be destroyed and this is fine, because the alternative views are all based on "hate", pure and simple. This word has become so debased and cynically manipulated as to be almost meaningless now. But it's good for one kind of diversity, pretty awful for another.
Wednesday, 18 October 2006
Gay Police Association, BBC Wrong
Make the most of it, it's only a setback for those who wish to use the law, along with outright deliberate lies (the use of Gay History, in which children are taught that historical persons are gay despite the fact that we know there is no evidence whatsoever for the claim), to ensure complete "discipline" in the publicly expressed views of human sexuality.
Curiously, (or not), the BBCs account (linked to above) is somewhat anaemic. The BBC merely quotes the GPAs defence of itself without challenging it:
The GPA said the majority of the 250 calls relating to homophobic incidents its helpline received in the year up to March 2006 were "weighted against Christianity" while 25 referred to Islam.
As both His Grace and the account on Yahoo (www.yahoo.co.uk) news make clear, but the BBC does not, some of the helpline calls that were included in their "74%" rise in homophobic incidents were "general inquiries, requests for help, and allegations of discrimination in the workplace."
The BBC is also wrong to say "25" calls referred to Islam. The figure they meant to use was "25%", which is also quoted by His Grace and by Yahoo.
Still, I am glad to see the BBC is continuing to pass on a libel against Christians, when that libel has been nicely discredited.
The watchdog said there was an implication, without evidence, that Christians were the main cause of homophobic incidents.
In fact it was a lot more than this: it was that the GPA had arrived at the 74% figure itself without being able to substantiate it with evidence. The BBC account does not question the GPAs statistical measurements, which the ASA did.
On the off chance that the BBC does a stealth edit of the article, I'm going to save it along with the timestamp: 0120.
The Yahoo article ends with the GPA saying that they wanted to be "challenging". Nice one, guys. Challenging still, just about, works both ways. But it won't do for long.
Curiously, (or not), the BBCs account (linked to above) is somewhat anaemic. The BBC merely quotes the GPAs defence of itself without challenging it:
The GPA said the majority of the 250 calls relating to homophobic incidents its helpline received in the year up to March 2006 were "weighted against Christianity" while 25 referred to Islam.
As both His Grace and the account on Yahoo (www.yahoo.co.uk) news make clear, but the BBC does not, some of the helpline calls that were included in their "74%" rise in homophobic incidents were "general inquiries, requests for help, and allegations of discrimination in the workplace."
The BBC is also wrong to say "25" calls referred to Islam. The figure they meant to use was "25%", which is also quoted by His Grace and by Yahoo.
Still, I am glad to see the BBC is continuing to pass on a libel against Christians, when that libel has been nicely discredited.
The watchdog said there was an implication, without evidence, that Christians were the main cause of homophobic incidents.
In fact it was a lot more than this: it was that the GPA had arrived at the 74% figure itself without being able to substantiate it with evidence. The BBC account does not question the GPAs statistical measurements, which the ASA did.
On the off chance that the BBC does a stealth edit of the article, I'm going to save it along with the timestamp: 0120.
The Yahoo article ends with the GPA saying that they wanted to be "challenging". Nice one, guys. Challenging still, just about, works both ways. But it won't do for long.
Tuesday, 17 October 2006
Constructivism
Natalie Solent has a post up about the educational theory known as constructivism:
Re-naming it every ten years hasn't made it work. Read Joanne Jacobs linking to Ken DeRosa linking in turn to an article in Educational Psychologist magazine called Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work by Paul Kirschner, John Sweller and Richard Clark.
These three links all have worthwhile stuff to read in them, so I'm telling you to read all three. OK, I'm also admitting that I have only skim-read the paper itself - but I've always said that "Do as I say not as I do" has a lot more going for it as a teaching strategy than it is given credit for.
Anyway. It's been called discovery learning, experiential learning, problem-based learning, inquiry learning and now (heaven help us) "constructivist instructional techniques".
I can tell Natalie that it has been called that for at least the last decade, since I trained as a primary teacher in England 6 years ago and it was well established then. It is high time a thoughtful criticism was made of it, and the article certainly gives some.
If you read the links you notice that a common thread in the discussions about it is constructivism's denial of the concept of reality, which is handed down to it from postmodern philosophy. This I found odd, because if they were challenged about their theories or methods, my tutors always replied in ways that indicated definite belief in some things being true, and valid, always and everywhere, and other things not (ie "shut up") - the true things were mainly theories, ethics, and so on (such as a certain view of multiculturalism, equal opportunities, politics). The things that were not really existing things were facts, you know, the little nuggets of information that teachers are commonly supposed to pass on to pupils (or "learners" as they have been renamed in all government material).
The reason there is no such thing as reality, we are told, is because we all "construct" our own reality. Leaving aside the clear contradiction in someone saying this to a group of people, and the group, by and large, understanding the person rather than all thinking they heard something completely different, like "the sky is a nice shade of pink this morning", I found it a sinister attempt to discredit learning, communication, culture and knowledge: you assume reality is imagination, then you set about moulding that imagination. All else is irrelevant or nonexistent.
As one of the arguments in one of Natalie's links shows, constructivists often turn to an absolutist view of reality and of knowledge as soon as they are challenged, which makes them hypocrites as well as underminers of education.
By way of a final whinge about it, I remember very few, if any, taught sessions on the PGCE which actually followed the constructivist ideal. Most were good old fashioned "chalk and talk" sessions, in which we made copious notes and then afterwards went and learnt the notes. We were rigorously assessed, our learning was not "scaffolded", some of our tutors were very harsh, and we all worked damn hard, often doing a day at school and then four or five hours work in the evening, which might be preparing an assignment, doing the reading, or just preparing more lessons.
And do you know, it worked....myself and some of my colleagues passed out with all A Grades...
Re-naming it every ten years hasn't made it work. Read Joanne Jacobs linking to Ken DeRosa linking in turn to an article in Educational Psychologist magazine called Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work by Paul Kirschner, John Sweller and Richard Clark.
These three links all have worthwhile stuff to read in them, so I'm telling you to read all three. OK, I'm also admitting that I have only skim-read the paper itself - but I've always said that "Do as I say not as I do" has a lot more going for it as a teaching strategy than it is given credit for.
Anyway. It's been called discovery learning, experiential learning, problem-based learning, inquiry learning and now (heaven help us) "constructivist instructional techniques".
I can tell Natalie that it has been called that for at least the last decade, since I trained as a primary teacher in England 6 years ago and it was well established then. It is high time a thoughtful criticism was made of it, and the article certainly gives some.
If you read the links you notice that a common thread in the discussions about it is constructivism's denial of the concept of reality, which is handed down to it from postmodern philosophy. This I found odd, because if they were challenged about their theories or methods, my tutors always replied in ways that indicated definite belief in some things being true, and valid, always and everywhere, and other things not (ie "shut up") - the true things were mainly theories, ethics, and so on (such as a certain view of multiculturalism, equal opportunities, politics). The things that were not really existing things were facts, you know, the little nuggets of information that teachers are commonly supposed to pass on to pupils (or "learners" as they have been renamed in all government material).
The reason there is no such thing as reality, we are told, is because we all "construct" our own reality. Leaving aside the clear contradiction in someone saying this to a group of people, and the group, by and large, understanding the person rather than all thinking they heard something completely different, like "the sky is a nice shade of pink this morning", I found it a sinister attempt to discredit learning, communication, culture and knowledge: you assume reality is imagination, then you set about moulding that imagination. All else is irrelevant or nonexistent.
As one of the arguments in one of Natalie's links shows, constructivists often turn to an absolutist view of reality and of knowledge as soon as they are challenged, which makes them hypocrites as well as underminers of education.
By way of a final whinge about it, I remember very few, if any, taught sessions on the PGCE which actually followed the constructivist ideal. Most were good old fashioned "chalk and talk" sessions, in which we made copious notes and then afterwards went and learnt the notes. We were rigorously assessed, our learning was not "scaffolded", some of our tutors were very harsh, and we all worked damn hard, often doing a day at school and then four or five hours work in the evening, which might be preparing an assignment, doing the reading, or just preparing more lessons.
And do you know, it worked....myself and some of my colleagues passed out with all A Grades...
Sunday, 15 October 2006
BA's Religious Discrimination
His Grace (linked to above) has an excellent post on the hypocrisy of British Airways and the rather funny way their policy on religious garb or ornamentation reduces to: if you have a huge ornament or item of clothing, you can wear it openly. If you have small one, you must conceal it or not wear it.
I think they should take his Grace up on his suggestion that the suspended Christian lady wear a huge crucifix that could not possibly be covered up.
Unfortunately for me I am terrified of flying so I won't be boycotting BA, but it is tempting to deliberately fly using another airline just to register the extent of my annoyance with them. However, my terror would be such that any pleasure I would gain from it would be swiftly countered.
I think they should take his Grace up on his suggestion that the suspended Christian lady wear a huge crucifix that could not possibly be covered up.
Unfortunately for me I am terrified of flying so I won't be boycotting BA, but it is tempting to deliberately fly using another airline just to register the extent of my annoyance with them. However, my terror would be such that any pleasure I would gain from it would be swiftly countered.
Sion Simon's Arrogance and Stupidity
I know I'm well behind the times on this story, and that Mr Simon (for all his anti-Tory hate, a former Daily Torygraph comment writer) has since apologised, but the breathtaking presumption of the man has been making me fume silently all week.
I have posted on satire before. What has never occurred to me, in years of reading and occasionally writing it, is that members of the government of a country could be satirists. That is, that people with all the power, lampoon people without power (and references to Cameron's Etonian schooling does not count as power, not when you are actually making the rules we all have to live by). I've always thought that when a government or ruling party attacks other people with vicious, aggressive statements that are meant to impute that the targets are devoid of humanity, it was just propaganda, or agit-prop, even.
Mr Simon's impassioned defence of his pathetic satire on Radio 5 Live on Thursday, when, to be fair, he was given a right going over by Jane Garvey, was appalling. The man leapt to his target like a starving lion, accusing Cameron of everything under the sun, and then, bizarrely, saying that if he thought Cameron was offended, he would take it off the YouTube website it was posted on.
Hang on.
You expressive virulent hatred of a man, and his ideas, and policies, and then say "of course, if he were to be offended, I would take it down".
(Of course, he did take it down, but only after the entire world called him a total nobhead).
This might be because of our cultural anxieties over offence, of course (wouldn't want to be associated with something normally the province of Tory bigots, eh?), but it just seems downright weird to me.
Anyway the Tories have lapped all this up, so I guess all we can hope for is that more stupid NewLabour MPs decide to give personal kickings to the Lib Dems. Now that might be worth watching. Come on, Mr Simon, let's see your impression of Ming Campbell.
I have posted on satire before. What has never occurred to me, in years of reading and occasionally writing it, is that members of the government of a country could be satirists. That is, that people with all the power, lampoon people without power (and references to Cameron's Etonian schooling does not count as power, not when you are actually making the rules we all have to live by). I've always thought that when a government or ruling party attacks other people with vicious, aggressive statements that are meant to impute that the targets are devoid of humanity, it was just propaganda, or agit-prop, even.
Mr Simon's impassioned defence of his pathetic satire on Radio 5 Live on Thursday, when, to be fair, he was given a right going over by Jane Garvey, was appalling. The man leapt to his target like a starving lion, accusing Cameron of everything under the sun, and then, bizarrely, saying that if he thought Cameron was offended, he would take it off the YouTube website it was posted on.
Hang on.
You expressive virulent hatred of a man, and his ideas, and policies, and then say "of course, if he were to be offended, I would take it down".
(Of course, he did take it down, but only after the entire world called him a total nobhead).
This might be because of our cultural anxieties over offence, of course (wouldn't want to be associated with something normally the province of Tory bigots, eh?), but it just seems downright weird to me.
Anyway the Tories have lapped all this up, so I guess all we can hope for is that more stupid NewLabour MPs decide to give personal kickings to the Lib Dems. Now that might be worth watching. Come on, Mr Simon, let's see your impression of Ming Campbell.
Wednesday, 11 October 2006
England
...really are comically rubbish. Gary Neville scores, his first for England, - an own goal, passing back to Paul Robinson who misses it completely and watches it go into the net.
Hooray for England.
Hooray for England.
Horizon
So Danny Wallace, the noted naturalist and biochemist, was on horizon last night trying to persuade us that the arguments of nutters like Peter Singer (who has called for infanticide) are essentially right. Well I hope he is prepared to pay more tax, because clearly if chimps are people, with the same powers of reason, then we will need to build more prisons to cope with the rates of chimp crime. As clearly they are able to reason through their actions and to take responsibility for them. Yes, I know the chimp population of the UK is as near to 0 as makes no odds, but there must be a case for increased chimp immigration, which can only benefit the economy, given all the amazing skills they have.
Given Danny's figure of 99.4% for shared DNA between humans and chimps (which is slightly different, incidentally, from the figures given if you googlewhack the subject), I wonder if his being 60% the same as a banana will lead to his calling for the integration of bananas into human society; we could make a start by putting a banana into Danny's place on the crap Radio 4 comedy show he hosts (Genius, or something). It would be wittier, more intelligent, and would have the additional benefit of smoothing the process of giving bananas the rights they are due. It might even make Danny think that, since he is a quarter identical to a dandelion, he should go and stand in a field, swaying occasionally, until being eaten by a cow.
Given Danny's figure of 99.4% for shared DNA between humans and chimps (which is slightly different, incidentally, from the figures given if you googlewhack the subject), I wonder if his being 60% the same as a banana will lead to his calling for the integration of bananas into human society; we could make a start by putting a banana into Danny's place on the crap Radio 4 comedy show he hosts (Genius, or something). It would be wittier, more intelligent, and would have the additional benefit of smoothing the process of giving bananas the rights they are due. It might even make Danny think that, since he is a quarter identical to a dandelion, he should go and stand in a field, swaying occasionally, until being eaten by a cow.
Sunday, 8 October 2006
Possessed by the Devil
I don't mean it literally, or even metaphorically. I just find that his atheism aside, I agree with everything the Devil (of Kitchen fame, linked above) says. I particularly enjoy his well crafted and sharp swearing, especially when addressed at self righteous lefties as in the above post. While I don't intend to become a swearblog, I love the term "fuckwit", which I first read in Viz and which is the only word to describe a certain kind of person who simply cannot relate to the real world. Terry Fuckwitt is the progenitor of the type of course: in the latest strip, upon his frank admission that he really has no idea what is going on in the world, a Radio 4 producer gives Terry a job as a contributor to Thought for the Day. Well, it made me laugh.
I look forward to the Devil resuscitating the terms "dickhead", "knobwipe", "knobcheese", "dangleberry" and "that's him fuckin' telt".
I look forward to the Devil resuscitating the terms "dickhead", "knobwipe", "knobcheese", "dangleberry" and "that's him fuckin' telt".
Crap Irony in Torygraph Ad
In today's Sunday Torygraph there is a full page advert for something called www.unlimited-spurt.org, which is a supposedly pro-flying pressure group. Clearly of course the ad and the website are put up and paid for by Friends of the Earth or some such group; the sheer hatred and contempt both show for ordinary people, linking them, with no attempt to make a proper, causation based argument, to the deaths of people in Africa, is breathtaking, but I suppose, no longer suprising. "Working-class Britons kill Africans" is the subtext, and it makes a good deal of sense, since the likes of George Moonbat and others have been arguing for ages that the great unwashed should not be flying around the world, while they have enjoyed their trips around the world a lot, thank you very much.
It is, needless to say, no problem for the environmentalists to jet around the world to their conferences, or, like Al Gore, to show rubbish films. After all, there's only a few of them, isn't there, and they're going for all the right reasons, compared to the millions of ignorant peasants who just want to go somewhere nice on holiday.
It is, needless to say, no problem for the environmentalists to jet around the world to their conferences, or, like Al Gore, to show rubbish films. After all, there's only a few of them, isn't there, and they're going for all the right reasons, compared to the millions of ignorant peasants who just want to go somewhere nice on holiday.
Saturday, 7 October 2006
Stop the War march
Why is Radio 5 Live reporting that the Stop the War coalition has held a demo to protest against Jack Straw's comments on the veils? What on earth does that have to do with the war? It couldn't be that the coalition is a front organisation, could it? If the reason is solidarity with religious sensitivities, then I expect them to take up the case of Fiona Bruce, whose wearing of a cross while reading the news has caused plenty of controversy within the BBC and led to instructions that it shouldn't happen again. There do seem to be people who are professionally offended at the moment. Perhaps we should just, shock horror, not report their taking offence, and hence ignore it completely.
Friday, 6 October 2006
Jesus
As a pathetic and out of place teenager, one of my musical heroes - in an age of SL2, Altern8, Chemical Brothers, etc (basically, between 1992-1996); one of my total heroes was the magnificent, late, Ian Dury, whose Blockheads hits I am listening to right now (sex and drugs and rock and roll...sex...and drugs...... ).
This is what we find....that Gilad Atzmon, of Norman Geras and Oliver Kamm posts passim, revolting anti-everything to do with Jews and Israel (see Normblogs passim to about 1971).....is a Blockhead.
I cannot explain how sad I feel to realise that such a shit is hanging onto my heroes. What next? David Irving to join the Jam? Nick Griffin to take up rhythm guitar in XTC? Anjem Choudary to join New Order as lead vocalist? I've gotta stop this post before it gets out of hand.
This is what we find....that Gilad Atzmon, of Norman Geras and Oliver Kamm posts passim, revolting anti-everything to do with Jews and Israel (see Normblogs passim to about 1971).....is a Blockhead.
I cannot explain how sad I feel to realise that such a shit is hanging onto my heroes. What next? David Irving to join the Jam? Nick Griffin to take up rhythm guitar in XTC? Anjem Choudary to join New Order as lead vocalist? I've gotta stop this post before it gets out of hand.
Wednesday, 4 October 2006
Glenn McGrath...
...should keep his bloody mouth shut. But he cannot resist shooting his gob off, whether it's predicting a 5-0 greenwash, threatening to rip Sarwan's throat off, or calling Monty Panesar "ridiculous" and "soft" as he has done today. Monty's crime is to prepare himself for Australia by seeing a psychologist. The man, McGrath, is a great bowler. No-one would doubt that. But he will be one of those players remembered around the world with respect, rather than affection or love, such is his belief that the world really wants to hear his ignorance. England fans saluted Steve Waugh on his retirement and Shane Warne last year. But who, apart from Australia fans, will really be sorry when Glenn McGrath retires? A great player, but not a great ambassador for the game.
Tuesday, 3 October 2006
Tax
Great post on taxation by the Devil linked to above. I am not sure I entirely agree about the whole flat tax thing, but one benefit of the scheme he outlines would be the raising of the tax threshhold to £9000 and the taking of 4.5million low earners out of taxation. Our high tax economy is affecting the poorest most, and such a measure is at least a decade overdue. If they do nothing else, the Conservatives must find a way to take more low income people out of tax altogether. It would both cut taxes and contribute to "social justice", and have the Guardian in a bit of a spin, especially if the top rate were raised by a % or two. It does surprise me that a party which prides itself on its working class origins and commitments has done so little to help its people - bar, of course, making them apply for tax credits with tortuous forms, that make the whole process more akin to begging than an entitlement. Meanwhile George Osborne, who does not look or sound much like a chancellor, but more like a smart sixth former, is promising not to cut taxes but little else. Of course he needs to appeal outside of core Tory voters; but he needs to hold onto something the Tories believe in too. He did say "I want lower taxes", but in a way that reminded me of George Bush Snr saying "Read my lips, no new taxes". Still, it's early doors, as football managers say, and Osborne might come up with something interesting before 2009.
Monday, 2 October 2006
Odd sentence from the BBC
Like Natalie Solent, from whom this is copied, I thought this was odd, at best, and downright sinister at worst:
"The question everyone is asking is has Denmark learned its lesson?"
Someone should ask Thomas Buch-Anderson of the BBC exactly which lesson he had in mind. (Via Ed Thomas at Biased BBC.)
I wonder what Thomas Buch-Anderson really means with that sentence. It would be great to hear an explanation, but despite this being picked up by a few bloggers, I've yet to hear a good reason for it. I would also love to know who the "everyone" are.
"The question everyone is asking is has Denmark learned its lesson?"
Someone should ask Thomas Buch-Anderson of the BBC exactly which lesson he had in mind. (Via Ed Thomas at Biased BBC.)
I wonder what Thomas Buch-Anderson really means with that sentence. It would be great to hear an explanation, but despite this being picked up by a few bloggers, I've yet to hear a good reason for it. I would also love to know who the "everyone" are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
