A Crap Death

Now far be it from me to condemn anyone's passing into the other world, but today's death of Scott Timmins (aka Stingray) on Neighbours was downright arse. I've nothing against stupid or freakish deaths (like the guy who died while clambering down a cliff face to shag a chicken, or the bloke who had a heart attack while watching a fight between a set of bagpipes and a black pudding on "The Goodies"), but this takes the freakin' biscuit.

Firstly, Neighbours is resolutely secular, even unto refusing Harold a prayer while Stingray committed himself to surgery to save baby Kerry; it is always going on and on about the benefits of secular values like promiscuous sex sans the consequences; but today....Jeez....

Right. Firstly, Stingray, feelin' fine, but saying he'd "sit this one [dance] out" went and sat down and looked lovingly at his family's party. Then, the camera angle swooped to over his head _and rising_, then from that pov the fmaily noticed he was slumped in his chair and they all went over and the credits rolled. For such a secular show to even suggest that some kind of soul or spirit or some such nonsense "rose" out of Stinger (why do religious images suggest that rising is good? We are natural to the lowest point available and being in the air is an abomination) is a massive, massive cop out to an audience, which they believe doesn't do God, but still wants some kind of reassurance that the default position of tv companies is that "souls" or whatever, rise out of dead humans upon their death. Pathetic. If they'd really thought their worldview through they'd've just shown him slump, or sent the screen blank. But not a rising camera angle. Neighbours does not do religion or God, even if Stinger said "say one for me", like my old atheist grandad used to, today in a ghastly, shitheaded act of foreshadowing. This was cowardice, a sop to a society which _still_ has not got past Nietzsche's point about George Eliot: that they have given up the belief, but not the ethics, or sort of, or something.

I mean, how crap was that? A rising camera! Why not go the whole hog and show little fucking angel wings coming up as well?


Yes, I know it isn't real. But still. For goodness' sake. It could be I'm reading too much into a camera angle ascending on someone's death, but I doubt it.



No Stingray, you must die. Die Stingray, die, Stingray, die, die!!!! Hah! Hah! Hah!!!

Blog Hiatus Continues

I'm still on hiatus BUT


1) In Doctor Who last night, "John Smith" gave his parents' names as Sydney and Verity.

Sydney Newman - inventor of Who, head of BBC Drama in 1963
Verity Lambert - the first producer of Who.

Truly, Doctor Who's mum and dad.

and

2) The highest score by an England batsman since 1990 with Pietersen's 226 yesterday. Does anyone know all the other test double hundreds by England players since 1990? Clue: there ain't many.

MMMmmmm....the 1981 Budget....

...is just a way of getting your attention. I'm still on hiatus, the previous piece of utterly harmless nationalism notwithstanding (anyone who disagrees with it can fuck off to France). I still have no way to express my infantile rage or my more considered anger at the self-serving habits of _any_ tosser who comes anywhere near power.

As if to prove it, I've just passed a law which states: "The financial dealings of Mr T Drummer Esq (MA (Oxon)) are herewith and hereby to be kept from the prying eyes of all and any agents of the state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Hey, it's a piece of piss, this lawmaking business, eh?


By the way, the 1981 budget was fucking amazing. Firstly, the inestimable Geoffrey Howe raised taxes, and then....


(contd 2007AD*)



*er..it turns out that "AD" is in fact offensive*: it is in fact, hencefuckingforth to be known as CE and BCE (for "Common Era" and "Before Common Era", what the fucking twatting makes it common is to be fucking well censored untill we're all parts of another fucking planet).


*it is in fact, furthermore, offensive to people who want to be offended, in the hope that it might, somehow end capitalist oppression of socialist academics, who have been under the yoke since...well, since they left Oxford anyway.

Hibernation Interruption

Jeeeesus, when _will_ the French and the intellectuals learn? When I hear phrases like "perfidious Albion" and all that fucking bullshit that the French come out with, it fucks me off big time. The _most_ offensive phrase in history - to me - is "The English fight to the last Frenchman".

Right.


Listen, you bunch of arrogant fuckwitted twats. We fought and died for _your_ country, you cunts. The British Empire lost 1 000 000 mainly _very_ young men in the Great War fighting for France or for ideas of France: and still they think we are selfish, Atlanticist (as if that were a bad thing) tossers.

When did France commit the lives of millions of young men to the defence of Britain? The fucking tenth of fucking never, that's fucking when, the gitannes smoking arsewipes.

I've just spent an hour looking drunkenly at photographs of British men - at the same age as me when I was listening agonisingly to tracks by Tony Wilson's bands - dying, dying, for fucking hell's sake, for France.

I've spent days looking at the immaculate cemeteries in northern France, full of British kids amid perfectly hewn grass and the magnificent smells of a northern European summer; and then watched the arrogant dismissals of French stallholders at the English accent.

Look.

I love France. I really do. Goshdarnit I love it so much I'd love to own it - just my little joke - but the French establishment's attitude that we're just a bunch of tossers, aided and abetted by an amazing u-turn by the British Left (from when Jacques Delors made lickspittle promises to the 1988 Labour Conference - before that pro-Eu-ism was just capitalist-clubbism or summat) - fucks me off big time.

We died, we really died, for France, and the cunts still think we're opposed to Europe. Well. When Frenchmen die in their millions, for, say, oooooh, idunnooww, Eng-er-land, - we'll see if they're really "Europeans", shall we?

UPDATE: Notsaussure points out the not very Gallic origin of the phrase "The English fight to the last Frenchman." However, I have heard French personages use it.

Blog Hibernation

Disgracefully, I have been offline for a while and have failed to post or explain myself. Well, as you might have guessed, I have run out of ideas. I am still frothing with anger at the incompetence and contemptuous attitude of our government, but I can find fewer and fewer ways of articulating it.

Hence I've decided to put the Tin Drummer on hold for a bit, until I can work out what it is supposed to be for. While I'm hibernating I will try to read everyone's stuff and leave more comments around than I've managed recently.

If anyone has any good ideas for me, do drop me a line....

(Takes tin drum strap off neck and places it on the ground, with little stick resting on the top).

Humorous Mis-Reading

Phew. The Yahoo news headline says "Queen flashes wit at dinner with Bush." Thank goodness for that.

Slander of the Day

Lacking any serious argument why it should be a criminal offence to display prices in lbs and ozs, the UK Metric Association today compare buying a pound of apples with slavery:

But Roz Denny, spokeswoman for the UK Metric Association, said maintaining the current system was "a nonsense" and that Britain should not be seen as "a heritage theme park" that did not change.

"We are now going to have this crazy double measurement system forever," she said.

She went on: "We are trying to put ourselves forward as a modern country putting our imperial past in perspective, like slavery, and here we are glorifying one element of it."

Nice. Being a modern country does involve, in their eyes, as it seems to for so many people now, associating people who don't agree with you with all manner of evil, depredation and murder. There's a real tone of violence, I think, underlying our modern inability to debate with another without assuming he's something dreadful, and a sense of contempt for others in the need to make laws, laws and laws for things we personally don't like. The more we parrot the hollow slogans of diversity, the less we really believe that people with different views and ideals should exist at all.

The tin drummer is 5' 91/2" tall. Oops. I've just glorified our imperial past and the shocking legacy of slavery. Again. Oh well, off for a pint then.

Not A Guest Posting by Alex

The following post is not written by Alex, on the basis that this is the best I can do.

UPDATE: the rest of this post has been deleted, on the basis that it was stupid, rambling, vaguely drunken and ridiculous. I really have to stop doing that.

You'll Soon Have Ample Scope To Indulge in Melodrama

An advanced liberal democracy somewhere in Europe near the millennium...two candidates for the presidency...one candidate predicts riots, upheaval and unrest if her opponent wins....

Mrs Thatcher? The Valeyard? The Master? The evil Tories exploiting widespread fears of decaying suburbs, immigration and casually demonising their opponents?

No. The compassionate, fluffly, cuddly, inclusive, Socialist candidate for the French presidential election. Just look at the elaborate lengths she's gone to already.

Aha. Of course. Only Tories and other assorted evil right wingers demonise. Left wingers sensibly draw attention to the failings of their opponents....

Oddly enough, the thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate British left has been silent on the appalling tactics employed by Royal in her utterly, totally and utterly failed attempt to win the presidency (that is a mere coincidental occurrence). They have elevated futility to a high art: if Britain had been collapsing into chaos, however, they would have spoken out with the bravery that only the academy can possess. God forbid that the left, anywhere, should engage in any underhand tactics - surely all that has happened is that Royal has clearly and rightly spoken on behalf of France (well, the France that matters, that is)... er...on the other hand, moments such as this should be savoured. There is nothing she can do to prevent the catharsis of spurious morality. She's triggered a ray phase shift.

To disregard Sarko's commands would be to invite summary execution...er...hang on...er...the election will have inflamed his bloated ego....er...

Well, at least the whole system might self-destruct. No. It's too late. And you said it couldn't be immobilised.

I'll tell you this for nowt...you don't catch me going near no more quill pens again...but if Sarko owes France an apology then it is almost certainly not offered...


Am I the first blogger EVER to mix the French Presidential Election and Doctor Who: The Trial of a Time Lord Part Fourteen in the same post? If not, then I am a bit disappointed. It's way better art than the blimming Sugababes and Gary Numan track or whatever rubbish it was.


Switch it off! Switch it off!!



Carrot Juice, carrot juice, carrot juice.

Guest Posting by Alex

One of my great blog pleasures over the last few months has been reading and tentatively participating in, the debates between Alex, (Christian) Matt (atheist) and some others on the subject of faith over at Alex's blog In Search of High Places. This is a subject which often entails abuse, ignorance and all manner of high-temperature low intelligence frothing. Alex's blog is an exception. He debates with people diametrically opposed to his worldview with humility, intelligence and a sense of "we are all in this together so let's see how we get on". The commenters have played their full part in this debate, making Alex's blog one of the most consistently thought provoking around.

Accordingly, some days ago I asked Alex to write up a guest post for The Tin Drummer on this subject, so without further ago, Alex in his own words writes:


A while back The Tin Drummer approached me to do a little write up on belief as part of the guest blogging initiative started by the Blog Power crew. Let me first say that I am honored that anyone would approach me with such a request. I hope I can bring a helpful perspective to this topic.

Let me start off with a little introduction. My name is Alex Blondeau. I am a follower of Jesus, whom I believe to be a visitation of God Himself into His creation. In the same breath I must also say that I don't know that I will ever fully understand what that means in this life. To be honest, I seem to have the heart of a skeptic. I also have this uncanny ability to surround myself with atheists. Not sure what that's all about, but I seem to attract them like moths to a flame. I should also mention that I wouldn't have it any other way. I have been pushed towards growth more from my interactions with skeptics and atheists than in all my prior education. Of the atheists I speak with regularly, I would count many of them as my friends.

Now when TD asked me to to write on the topic of belief, my first thought was: "What about it?" Being asked to write on the topic of belief seems similar to having someone ask an engineer to build a space ship, then toss him a pencil and paper on his way out the door. How big of a space ship? How far must it be able to fly? What's the goal we are trying to meet here? Instead of doing the logical thing and asking for a little more direction, I decided to just run with my thoughts. Because of that, this essay may be a bit stream-of-thought. Sorry about that.

But enough on disclaimers. To begin, I'd like to look at how I've seen atheists deal with belief and how I've seen them apply the term to their world-view. Atheists are often considered "rationalists", as well as people who are without belief. They want to affirm that they are at the very least more rational than their theistic counterparts. Is that actually the case? Depends on which one you are talking to. ;-) Rationalists would like to use the term 'belief' as seldom as possible. For that reason, most reasonable atheists quickly back away from the first generally understood definition of atheism, which is:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

The reason this is a somewhat unpopular position amongst the atheists is that it requires a strong dose of faith to hold such a position. You see, when you ask how one might be able to defend such a claim, it becomes readily apparent that atheism, in it's strictest sense, is untenable. How can a human who operates within a physical reality claim to know that a being who is outside of our physical reality does not exist? It's indefensible Ñ and for that reason I have yet to meet a person who attempts to operate in the realm of strict atheism. Most will instead opt for a for a sort of agnosticism with a bias towards atheism. Still, some will try to cling to the second common definition of atheism, which is:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Most commonly it will be stated: It's not that I believe there is no God. It's just that I lack the belief that there is a God.

Sounds a bit slippery, does it not? The person making this claim is attempting to demonstrate that they are not trying to sustain a negative belief, but they simply lack the positive belief. In a sense, they are trying to convince themselves that they have no belief at all.

I don't buy it. For the most part I don't think the average atheist does either. You see, nature abhors a vacuum. With the absence of belief in God you are left with belief in something else, namely, a Godless existence. If one wants to take the position that they simply do not have enough information to make a decision one way or another, let's just call it what it is: Agnosticism.

At least for the atheists that I run with, their title 'atheism' simply means: according to the best information I have I find it highly improbable that there is a God. However, I would argue that one's taking the position of atheism (in the mind as well as the heart) has little to do with the information they are looking at. A confession of atheism is not a logical conclusion, it's a posture of the heart. In fact, atheism is an irrational conviction that does not rely on empirically demonstrable facts.

But that's okay. I would say that Theism is no better.

I know, I know, good believer folk aren't supposed to say things like that. We are supposed to believe that reason is king! Many believers come off as if all they need to do to convert the infidels is to pull out some well reasoned arguments. However, I'm sad to say that if one relies on reason alone you're not going to get very far. There's more to our mind than pure reason.

Now don't take that to mean that I think belief, or lack of belief, in God is stupid or sub-rational. I mean that our belief regarding God, is beyond reason. I am also not, saying reason should play no part in our beliefs. In fact, I'm sorely tempted to start parading out several arguments that I personally consider on a regular basis, but that's really beyond the scope this essay. What I am saying is this: Whether you are an atheist or a theist you take that position based on factors that are beyond what pure reason can give you.

I would argue that each of us has a spirit that is going one of two directions. We are either turning inward and growing in concern for our own affairs, or we are growing in our realization that this life is not about us. Far from it. This life is a gift from one much larger than us. In light of that, we must realize the proper focus of our existence cannot be ourselves. There is nothing in us that warrants the attention we give ourselves. We are not here by our own merits. We do not sustain our own existence. The only proper response to source of our existence is one of fear and awe. Furthermore, if Christ was indeed a visitation of this divine reality, then we can know that our creator and sustainer is good, just, merciful and above all, love. He is worthy not only of fear and awe, but of our surrender and our love.

In closing I would like to ask a question that is aimed more at the heart than the mind. When presented with the reality that Christianity holds to be truth vs. the reality that Atheism posits as truth, which world view seems more worthy of belief?

On one hand you have a world view that says we are created by a God who is love, who means for us to love Him and for us love each other. He grants us the freedom that love requires and has been working since the beginning of time to win our love; even to the extreme of becoming one of us and suffering the consequence of our rebellion in our stead. Human life is honored. Justice is honored. Love is honored.

On the other hand, you have a world view that tells us we are the product of mindless matter, energy and chance. We came from nothing, by nothing, for nothing and soon we will return to the nothingness from which we arose. Freedom of will is abolished since we are simply one insignificant step in a chain of cause and effect reactions. Our very sentience is passed off as an odd fluke that matter may sometimes generate under the right circumstances. All of our ethics and morality are illusionary properties that our freak conscious experience generates. In the real (read physical) world there is no such thing as a moral 'good', or 'evil'. All you have is a mindless matter hurtling on towards heat-death. You have no ultimate value. Your life has no ultimate significance. Your most selfless expression of compassion is no more praiseworthy than indigestion.

As for me, my hope is in Christ.

Two Bright Guys

This is why the blogosphere is ace.

Not Saussure responds to Matt M on the subject of Richard Dawkins. Intelligent people, with different views, cogently argued.

Why can't the non-blogosphere be more like this?

Having Stuff is Stupid

Radio 5 have been making the point for the last few hours that robbery and mugging statistics are up because people will insist on carrying ipods and mobiles around with them. Clearly then, the possession of goods is wrong, and a temptation that others simply cannot resist. The solution is to pretend you have no goods, and then you won't be robbed. In a liberal democracy, as it supposedly approaches a peak of civilisation, with rights extended further to its citizens than ever before, the possession of goods constitutes an unavoidable temptation to other citizens. This argument, you will find if you listen to Radio 5 live often enough, only applies to robbery, which isn't very important, clearly, as the possession of property is no big deal in an open society; it does not apply to crimes against the person unless they happen to be in the "wrong area".

I am going to the pub after all.

Area Blogger Struggles for Inspiration

A local blogger today reported feeling "devoid" of inspiration, and so resorted to posting trivia based on misunderstandings or misprints, just to keep the sitemeter stats ticking over. The blogger,30, said "Despite the total and utter mess our country is in, the fact is I know nothing about economics or politics and live in fear of being tackled on a big subject by someone who knows what they are talking about. So I couldn't think of anything to post except a cheap joke at the expense of ceefax."
It is believed that the blogger, whose blog goes under a rubbish title,was keen to post something about Gordon Brown's pension raid but when asked about it he said "Look. The bottom line is, I don't know anything about anything, let alone the complexities of fiscal decision making. I'm more than happy just to read the Torygraph and tut occasionally instead."
His partner, who refused to give her age, said "I wish he'd stop all that bloody nonsense. He spends more time writing crap for a bunch of nerds than he does with me."
Another problem for the blogger is thought to be the need to sound original, as well as the need to sound furious. "The trouble with that is I just can't be bothered. I'm far beyond anger now and besides, other people are loads better at swearing than me," he said, to which his partner added:
"See how sad he is, he's even talking in html code now."

It is thought that the blogger might "go down the pub" instead of posting, or possibly "watch a bit of tv".

Ceefax

Spotted today on Ceefax's weather page:

WEATHER WARNING
----------------------
There are no weather warnings in the UK today.


Phew! That's lucky. But it's also indicative of the mindset of our leaders and also of what we expect from the buggers that we need to be warned that there are no warnings.*




*yes i know that isn't what the ceefax people meant but why let it spoil a cheap gag?

April Showers

We have just had the first rain of the month, and the place has been heavy with damp and blossom today, almost late-summer in its lethargy and its eyelid drooping misty light. The leaves, particularly the on chestnut trees, are so newly-green they make you think of innocence,purity and guitar based rock, while oaks and beeches are still budding and the light just hangs around in the perfumed evening. It's been an odd month; with only one day's worth of rain so far it's been more like Eliot (April is the cruellest month) than Chaucer (Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote) and the ground is already hard and parched with the edge of lawns yellow or thinning. As I mentioned in a previous post, I like rain: it makes me think, it colours the limestone and it gives life. A day without rain is like a day without alcohol - devoid of luxuriance, deep shades of love, refreshment and release. For me, rain gives a different view to the world and emphasises fertility - the late spring after a few days of rain greening the valley is almost post-coital in its stretched out, loved up colour. Weeks, months without rain make me feel claustrophobic and lifeless. Rain keeps us moving - the famous British climate is a source of tremendous pleasure, as well as comfortable life. Let's have more rain, and less burning sun.

On the Day of Yeltsin's Death

St G's Day or not I can't help feeling a touch of sadness at the death of Boris Yeltsin. He may have been whatever he was, but the image of him climbing onto the tanks was iconic for can't-be-arsed 90s teenagers like myself and galvanised some, perhaps many, of us here in the UK to believe that the world was changing and could change. Of course, we've since turned back to cynicism (let's face it, I'd learned everything I would ever know by 14, more or less), but Boris Yeltsin was, to quite a few young democrats in Europe in the early 90s, the very image of humanistic change and the promise of far brighter dawns. With the Wall coming down...we thought the march of democracy was unstoppable. Oh, the folly of youth.

By the way, James has a wonderful guest post up at Ellee's about life in Russia.

St George And the De-Festering of England

Today is the saint's day, and, predictably, the BBC have done their usual - Peter Allen is reporting from Glasgow asking about the end of the Union and Thought for the Day managed to libel the entire country with bullshit about Little Englanders (funny how when the French talk about "une certain idee de la France" or boast about their great achievements,we lap it up as evidence of our failings) - with our rulers chipping into to smear the flag-wearers and to emphasise St George's multcultural origins (Jack Straw on CIF, via Mr E but if you think I'm linking direct to that tosser, who years ago said on the radio that England had oppressed Europe and so was bad, you can think again).

Whatever.

I'm currently listening to World in Motion by New Order and it reminds me of two things: one, how England throughout my life has been either washed up, failing, divided, and violent; or, it has been the subject of constant attacks by its own elites and rulers. No-one can take an innocent pleasure in England, it seems (except XTC, maybe), whereas even Germany has managed to resurrect a kind of unthreatening national pride. Perhaps it comes down to comprehensive defeat, and whether England needs that before it can rebuild its legitimacy (via the end of the union, maybe) - I don't know.
But the song, World in Motion provides exactly that sense of innocent pride, despite popularising the expression "Eng-er-land", partly through John Barnes's rap, and partly through the lovely samples: "a beauty scored by Bobby Charlton"; "we want goals" etc - even if it is hopelessly naive for New Order to tie football to love, especially in 1990.

I cannot control my birth and I owe more to Ireland than England in ancestry. But England is my home and as such, I love it; rotting cities and corrupt elites notwithstanding. Here are some reasons: Shakespeare/cricket/Chaucer/Joy Division/rain/rolling hills/XTC/Bath/rugby football/the glory of failure/irony/ale/Chipping Campden/George Orwell/Viz/Oxford/kitchen sink drama and soap operas/the light/the abundance of the colour green/the CofE.

There are others, and there are British things I love too: Doctor Who being the most obvious. I don't claim that England invented any of the things in the list, except Shakespeare maybe, but I do claim that they make it wonderful.

If the price of recreating England as a self-confident, meaningful modern state which takes joy in its own culture and welcomes people from everywhere, loves its people rather than regards them with a sort of tired disdain, and tells people who hate it to fuck off, is to lose the union, then that's just what we have to pay.

No Instruments Required

The greatest, most iconic piece of electronic music since 1945, which needs a radical re-appraisal by music critics: I don't know why it isn't routinely recognised as the pioneering work of genius that is surely is.

Alas I've only been able to find an extract of it online. Or rather, only the opening sequence.

Tin Drum

James has asked me to explain the moniker. I have already done so, in the dim and distant past, but it's worth repeating. I love the Japan album "Tin Drum" but that is not how I chose the title, indeed I struggle to see the connection between the album and my inspiration. My inspiration comes from the Gunter Grass novel "The Tin Drum" in which a boy stops growing at the age of 3 and spends the rest of his life -among other fairly ghastly things- banging a tin drum at all and sundry. My idea was that I would compare myself to a poisonous Danzig dwarf in the 1920s, spewing out shit and filth; or rather, I know that is how I was often seen in the real world, so it was an ideal handle for the blogosphere. I *also* know that the tin drummer is seen as a metaphor for Hitler, and I am - sigh - *not* a Nazi; just that I liked the idea of seeing myself as a little scrote banging a drum to the annoyance of everyone else.

By comparison, Japan's album is lightweight, though it is very good indeed. It is really about isolation and travel, in a far more sensitive way, than either my blog or the novel.

Just in case Tim Ireland (shudder) is reading, yes I do, generally, keep this handle for all comments and posts.

Democracy Will Stagger On Nonetheless

DK has been pounding away at this for a while: it seems that EU ministers have finally agreed an anti-holocaust denial & racism law to apply, as usual, across the entire EU-belonging continent. As usual, a law is made with no public agitation or demonstrable need across the union, with no mention in national election manifestos, and, as usual, the consequences will be increased self-censorship and increased state control, together with, almost certainly, increased prison sentences for writing or saying things - and I bet that the noble Lord Philips will lose his traditional sceptism of prison sentences as well. Once the law is rubber stamped by the EU parliament after ministers have given their agreement, the UK parliament, will, as usual, have no practical choice but to wave it through - and another long standing liberty, another hard won right is signed off to the absolutist technocrats who now give their moral simplicities to all of our laws ("You can either be for discrimination or against it"*), leaving common sense and debate to string themselves up from the nearest lamposts in despair.
I am _not_ going to add the rider that "of course I'm not racist" - my readers know that by now either way. But just wait until the first prosecutions are made, and then the next wave, when things we will be told won't come under the law (immigration, say), suddenly do, and we are told "of course it comes under this law - are you racist or something?"

UPDATE: 11am
*This was a saying used during the Catholic adoption saga by some government apparatchik or other. Clearly, according to Radio 5 Live's discussion this morning on "positive discrimination" in the police (wanted by the police, incidentally), the statement is untrue.