Liberal Elite

Not that anyone's listening, but.....

2010-03-21T22:30:00.000Z

On the off chance that anyone ever comes here from time to time or still has an RSS feed or whatever, I'd like it to be known that I have a new blog called Mind Trumpet so if you'd like to head over that way, it would be just splendid.

http://mindtrumpet.blogspot.com/

Endtroducing...

2007-10-10T21:45:00.000+01:00

As previously intimated, I think this blog has come to a natural conclusion. Alas and alack. It's all been tremendous fun but I think it's time to wind the old girl down. Yes, heart wrenching though it is, it's time to say goodbye to Liberal Elite.

But, whenever a door is closed, somewhere else a window opens.

Indeed, I've set up a new blog over at WordPress. It's simply called Citizen Sane. I thought I'd have another crack at writing on a (semi) regular basis. So far, so good.

Please, click on the link below. Come join me and my new cyber-witterings. Bookmark it, pop by whenever you can and be sure to say hello. For there is still much to talk about!

http://citizensane.wordpress.com/

Speak later!

It's the nothingness. The whiteness. The endless...ness. Stretching on beyond the human imagination. Desolation of the soul.

2007-10-06T14:00:00.000+01:00

Two months! Two long months without so much as a whisper. Well, the intention has been there I promise you, just not the time.

I'm not even going to attempt to recap any issues from the last couple of months. I can barely remember anything anyway. On a personal note, my biggest news is that I am going to make an honest woman of Citizeness Sane. Yes, I finally proposed upon our return from a long weekend in Bordeaux over the August bank holiday weekend. (I recognise that a proposal would have been better actually in Bordeaux but, well... that's just the way it worked out.) We will get hitched on October 25th 2008.

With regards to this blog, I've been thinking about putting the old girl out to pasture for a long time now. It's been fun, but I think it might be time to move on to something else. I still plan to blog, but maybe in not the same way that I have over the last couple of years. It could be time to pop up again with something slightly different (and yet the same). I've loved writing this thing but it no longer feels right to be doing so under the Liberal Elite banner - the name just seems too restrictive and I want to just write about anything that takes my fancy.

I'm tinkering away on something at the moment and, if I decide to proceed with it, you can be sure that I will advertise the fact here. After all, I would hate to lose my five readers.....

Watch this space.

Back again, alas....

2007-07-29T21:20:00.001+01:00

I've been away for the last week with Lady Sane, taking some well earned rest in Ireland away from the noise, crowds and general irritation of London. I didn't have access to the interweb during this time, but I did write up a couple of posts which I've posted below under their original dates.

Samuel Johnson famously stated that "When a man is tired of London he is tired of life." He was wrong, as anyone who has woken up to the below view for the last week would also testify.

Reefer madness

2007-07-20T18:53:00.000+01:00

It appears to be fashionable once more for senior government members to disclose whether or not they smoked cannabis in their youth. Leading the way was new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith – now in charge of reviewing the 2004 declassification of cannabis from a Class B to Class C drug - who made her admission on GMTV yesterday. It was a stock politician answer: it was 25 years ago, I did it once or twice, I didn’t really enjoy it, I haven’t done it since, etc. What a big yawn. Harriet Harman did the same thing on the same programme this morning. It was a bland, forthright statement of fact. Even the interviewer John Stapleton couldn’t be bothered to probe much below the surface, his own indifference nearly equal to my own. A student? Smoking a joint? At university? I refuse to believe it! Next you’ll be telling me that students miss lectures, drink cheap beer, listen to indie music and have sex occasionally. The debauched animals!

Of course, the whole point of Smith, Harman, Darling, Kelly, etc, coming out of the cannabis closet is to once again put the spotlight on David Cameron and reopen the whole issue of whether or not he took drugs in his youth too. Cameron still refuses to play the game and increasingly one suspects that this is because his dalliances with illegal substances were perhaps a tad more extreme than the occasional toke of a joint at a student house party. Perhaps – and I’m trembling with trepidation at the mere suggestion of this – he smoked cannabis… regularly! And enjoyed it! Can you imagine? That is, after all, my own experience and, come to think of it, that of virtually everyone in my social network. So come on Dave, don’t be shy. Tell us about that good shit you smoked.

The whole affair underlines the rank hypocrisy and absurdity of the law surrounding the use of cannabis. Millions use or have used it on a regular basis, causing no harm to anyone but themselves, but become criminals in the process. And yet our own Home Secretary took it herself as did, it appears, a substantial number of the Cabinet. Of course, they all bleat now about the “folly of youth” and how they “regret it enormously” and all kinds of other platitudes that they feel duty bound to say, even though nobody outside of the offices of the Daily Mail or the Telegraph is in the least bit bothered by the revelations. (Speaking of the Telegraph, check out this reactionary rant by the deranged Simon Heffer.) The only real problem here is the fact that known ex-users of the substance will now decide the severity of the “crime” of future users as they redefine whether it is a Class C or Class B substance. They are determining how future users will be treated by the law even though it is patently obvious that the only sensible action is to decriminalise or even legalise the substance. When it’s legal it’s regulated, its supply is not determined by organised crime gangs, mobsters or terrorist organisations but, instead, licensed businesses. The strength and purity of the substance can be controlled, as can its availability. And, even better, it can be taxed and become a major source of income. At the present time and under the current legislation, none of the above is true. Instead we spend billions of pounds losing a war against a plant that grows naturally. The THC content is manipulated by the growers to dangerous levels, the content is mixed with other products, anyone of any age can buy the stuff pretty much anywhere. If they are caught in possession they risk a jail sentence and a criminal record for the crime of exercising their own choice over which poison they wish to consume. And it is about choice. Want to drink yourself to death? Go ahead - the choice and availability has never been greater. Want to smoke cigarettes? Oh, it might be forbidden in all public places now, but if you're over sixteen you can still take your pick from the various suppliers of the most addictive killer drug on the planet. Want to smoke a little weed and do no harm to anyone but yourself? Oh no, you deserve a criminal record or a custodial sentence.

Forget the ‘War on Drugs’, how about a war on nonsensical and downright hypocritical laws?

The cash for honours farce

2007-07-20T17:37:00.000+01:00

After sixteen months of investigation at a cost of nearly £1million yielded no convictions whatsoever in the ‘cash for honours’ claims, only two things appear plain to me. Firstly, the long overdue abolition of the entire honours system is now more necessary than ever. An embarrassing colonial throwback, it is entirely inconsistent with our claims to be a modern democracy. What possible reason could there be to ordain somebody with the title ‘Sir’ in this day and age? MBEs and OBEs are even more of an anachronism: the United Kingdom is barely a cohesive entity at the moment, never mind titles referring to the age of Empire! Let’s ditch these silly little ceremonies right away. The other outcome should be a serious overhaul of the party funding system. As I’ve argued elsewhere, we should look at introducing state funding of major political parties. While this does cut across my own liberal principles (I generally favour less state involvement), I find it less offensive than parties auctioning their policy formulation to wealthy private donors, big business, professional lobby groups and trade unions. Although nobody has been prosecuted, the whole affair reeks of the sewer and the stench now hangs, rightly or wrongly, over the entire political system, thus reinforcing the level of mistrust and apathy that the British public routinely feel for their political system. This is a tragedy because, despite what many might tell you, we actually have one of the best democracies on the planet. Indeed, one could mount a case that the very fact that the police were investigating the issue at all, even interviewing the prime minister in the process (as a witness, not a subject) is testament to that fact. That said, it is not hard to see how the lack of any real outcome to proceedings has been very damaging. I rarely find myself agreeing with Sir (there we go again) Menzies Campbell, but he is correct when he says:

“This whole affair has diminished politics and politicians in the eyes of the public. Never again must there be any question of any link between preferment and financial support.”

You didn't think I'd let this one slip by did you?

2007-07-17T20:45:00.000+01:00

As you can imagine, I was bitterly disappointed to learn that George Galloway might be facing an 18 day suspension from Parliament for "damaging the reputation of the house" with his comments following the inquiry into his Mariam Appeal charity. You see, I originally misread the story and thought the standards watchdog had recommended that he be barred for 18 months. So I was deeply saddened to learn the harsh reality. George Galloway not attending the House of Commons for 18 days? Who would notice? He's barely there anyway, busy as he is promoting his spoken word tours, hosting a radio talk show, appearing on trash television or praising suicide bombers.

He defended himself with the usual old bluster, highlighting the 'irony' that a 'pro-war' Parliament had attacked the leader of the 'anti-war' party. Except, of course (and we should never forget this) Galloway and the other contemptible clowns that make up the ~~Socialist Worker's Party~~ Stop The War Coalition are not anti-war at all. They are in fact very pro-war. They just happen to prefer the jihadist murderers that make up the other side.

What we really really don't want

2007-06-28T21:50:00.001+01:00

Meanwhile, the world needs a Spice Girls reunion like it needs an outbreak of scrofula. This is almost as bad as The Police reforming. Almost.

"For us it's about celebrating the past, enjoying each other and it's about our fans. It was kind of now or never." - Geri Halliwell, today.

Hmmm, never would have been preferable.

Shirley, you can't be serious?

2007-06-28T21:00:00.000+01:00

Gordon has only been PM for five minutes and already he's doing weird things. Like asking Shirley Williams to advise on the issue of nuclear proliferation. This is the same Shirley Williams who was a complete embarrassment on Question Time last week, especially on the question about Salman Rushdie's knighthood. In short, she depicted herself as a liberal who isn't prepared to defend the notion of free speech if it upsets a certain faction of Muslims. A pathetic, feeble response, characteristic of the Liberal Democrats who are wetter than a turbot's water tank. Why would we care what her views are on nuclear proliferation? I think we can probably guess anyway.

Big shoes to fill

2007-06-28T20:35:00.000+01:00

I can’t believe you’ve gone. After all the rumours, the hearsay, the “will you, won’t you go?” conversations, we now have to get used to you not being around. The country is a different and, I would argue, poorer place for you moving on. I suppose we took your excellence for granted, grew blasé about having you around, thought you would always be there. But it was not to be. You’ve moved on now, never to return and we just have to get used to it. You’ve get a big job to do in foreign lands and, although we wish you every success, we will also miss you enormously. Oh, your place will be filled, for sure, but how does one replace the irreplaceable? You were a one off, a preternaturally gifted individual, a once in a generation phenomenon. We will probably never see your like again.

Thierry Henry, we will never forget you.

Hell is 177,499 other people in a muddy field.

2007-06-24T16:26:00.000+01:00

I was just trying to think of something worse than paying £145 for the pleasure of spending a whole weekend camping in a bog in Somerset surrounded by thousands of people caked in mud and who knows what else.

But I couldn't, so I stopped.

Why would anyone do this?

Sometimes the BBC is worth every penny of the licence fee.

2007-06-21T22:02:00.000+01:00

The BBC has many critics. And deservedly so at times. But every now and then it comes up with something that more than justifies the price of the licence fee, and tonight's Question Time could well be such an occasion. Just look at this panel and tell me it's not going to be priceless: both of the Hitchens brothers in one place on national television. Should be lots of fun. Oh, and Boris Johnson is usually good value, too.

UPDATE:
Anyone who missed the show but wants to see it can watch the whole thing here on the BBC website (although it will only be up for a few days). Otherwise the entire show is on YouTube in seven parts. Below is part 1, parts 2-7 are linked underneath.

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

I'm not condoning sectarian violence, BUT....

2007-06-11T19:39:00.000+01:00

It wasn't me. I promise.

But what savagery. He was kicked, you know. In both ankles.

It was forty years ago today, etc, etc, etc, etc.

2007-06-01T12:43:00.000+01:00

As everywhere seems to be reminding us, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by The Beatles is 40 this weekend. Cue a barrage of nostalgic reverence and weepy eyed baby-boomer self-congratulation about "their" music and "their" era. It was the same ten years ago at the 30th anniversary and fifteen years ago at the 25th anniversary and twenty years ago at the... you get my point.

Let's be clear: I love The Beatles, and it would be absurd to deny the relevance of Sgt. Pepper in the canon of popular music's history. The iconic cover, the musical experimentation, the spirit of the age, the Summer of Love, flowers in your hair, make love not war, blah, blah, blah, etcetera, etcetera, yes, yes, yes. The fact is, for all the praise and significance heaped upon it, it really isn't a very strong album, either by general standards or The Beatles' own. They themselves bettered it before (Revolver) and after (The White Album, Abbey Road) and there have been hundreds of better albums made since, too, so I've never understood why Pepper continues to be showered with accolades and spoken about in such worshipful tones, much like that other incredibly over-rated album from the era, Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys.

To my mind, there is only one gold standard Beatles number on the album: A Day In The Life. And that only came about by fortunate accident, given that it was one unfinished Lennon piece intercut with an unfinished McCartney piece and spliced together by producer George Martin. What else do we have? The hideous music hall whimsy that is When I'm Sixty Four (McCartney at his most twee). The cod-Eastern sitar dirge of Within You Without You (light the joss sticks, maaaan). With A Little Help From My Friends: another relentlessly chirpy McCartney composition, thrown over to Ringo Starr much like one throws scraps of old meat to the family dog. Lovely Rita: Macca again with a another oompah-oompah music hall tune and a eulogy to a fucking traffic warden. Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds sounds like Lennon knocked it out in about two minutes, ditto Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite! - the lyrics to which were pinched from a Victorian-era carnival poster, as was the tune, which is largely circus music. Well, sorry, but circuses only make me think of one thing: gypsies.

Sgt. Pepper was The Beatles at their most indulgent. Yes, they were pushing boundaries for popular music by breaking away from the traditional guitar-drums-bass formula and yes, the production and recording techniques employed were revolutionary in their time. For this, Pepper deserves recognition. But the songs simply weren't up to much in the first place; it really sounds like they were just going through the motions.

I'll be celebrating the album's 40th anniversary by listening to Abbey Road instead.

It's goodbye from him....

2007-05-28T17:17:00.000+01:00

Oh, the fun we had in the early hours of May 2nd 1997. 22 years old, just a year out of university, still aglow with the enthusiasm/naivete of youth, staying up all night at a friend's house watching the hated Tories get booted out of power. How we laughed when David Mellor was defeated, how we cheered as Malcolm Rifkind and Norman Lamont succumbed, how we howled with uncontrollable glee when Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo lost his seat in Enfield Southgate. Happy times, great memories. It honestly felt like a huge cloud had lifted from the country, that some sort of re-birth was underway. But now it doesn't so much feel like a decade ago as an entirely different universe altogether.

So now Tony Blair has finally stopped prevaricating and has declared an official leaving date, I'm not really sure what I feel. Insouciance, mostly. Which is what I've experienced for much of his ten years in office anyway, so it's just business as usual. Wasn't that the whole point of New Labour anyway? The stage managed, on-message, self publicising machine that existed only to make Labour electable in the first place? Everything else was kind of tacked on as an afterthought and as far as I and many others were concerned, it was good enough that they simply Weren't The Tories.

Tony Blair's problem was that the expectation was too high and his government did too little in the first term, preoccupied as it was with ensuring a second term and having spent such a long time thinking about getting into power, they had few tangible policies to set into motion once they did. They inherited a buoyant economy - a first for a Labour administration who had previously inherited only mess, which they then proceeded to make worse - requiring little more than 'lights on' maintenance. It would have taken spectacular incompetence on an unprecedented scale to have thrown that away. Handing control of interest rates to the Bank of England was a shrewd move, single-handedly demonstrating to the City and to the left that they were not intending to deviate from monetarist policy. And it is pretty clear to even the harshest of critics that the last ten years have witnessed uninterrupted economic growth, low unemployment, stable inflation and historically low interest rates. Yet with that has come a barrage of stealth taxes and a swollen, inefficient public sector. I'm staggered at the amount of money that has been poured into the NHS and education, yielding only negligible improvements. Gordon Brown will now have the dubious honour of overseeing what happens next in the social arena and I suspect he will be weighed down by the baggage of being a key decision maker in an administration that has pumped billions of pounds into dilapidated infrastructure for next to no return.

Blair will undoubtedly be remembered most for his foreign policy decisions, the most divisive of which was the involvement in the Iraq war and the close partnership he forged with America, inviting critics to describe him as Bush's 'poodle'. An inaccurate criticism given that, with British involvement in Kosovo in 1999 and Sierra Leone in 2000, British forces had already been dispatched to halt genocide and topple vile regimes while Bush was still an isolationist governor of Texas. Blair and Bill Clinton had also ordered air strikes against Iraq in December 1998 when it was clear that Saddam Hussein was continuing to resist compliance with UN weapons inspections. An interventionist foreign policy was already a reality under this prime minister. Meanwhile, September 11th 2001 changed everything. Blair was one of the first to recognise this fact and the immediate decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US was without question the right thing to do - Republican president or not. Some battles trump ideological differences and the threat - actual and, more crucially, potentially - from Islamist terrorism is one such example.

A mixed bag for Tony Blair then. Disappointing to non-effectual on the domestic front, but a huge legacy in the realm of foreign policy, it's too early to say how he will be remembered. The peace process (hopefully) finally being settled in Northern Ireland also looks like another late victory that can stand as a genuine achievement, but will it be overshadowed by the allegations of sleaze and nepotism that also tarnished the Blair years?

What Tony Blair really demonstrated was that a gifted politician with something of the people's touch could forge a presidential style of leadership that encouraged the electorate to give less consideration to the party as a whole and vote instead for a populist individual. Something that the Conservative Party have finally twigged and whose current tactic of keeping quiet about policy and instead stressing their own reinvention is finally making them look electable again. Their entire strategy has been torn from the New Labour Guidebook To Electoral Success (1994-97).

As Nick Robinson, the BBC's political editor, put it: "Tony Blair's legacy? It comes down to two words: David Cameron."

Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged

2007-05-05T12:00:00.000+01:00

I am still here. Quite an extended absence – the longest, I believe, since the blog’s inception – but I have had neither the time nor the inclination to write anything of late. Put it down to starting a new job. A new job where, unlike the last one, I’m actually expected to work quite hard for my money, usually finishing at around 7pm every day and where I cannot even access Blogger as such sites are restricted by the company’s web filtering software. (This is actually quite a good thing for my job security.)

I don’t know whether to be pleased or perturbed at the fact that, despite having not written a thing for three and a half weeks, I still average more site visitors a day than I did six months ago. Most curious. Not that I think many of them are regular readers, I must add, mostly people looking for something else and finding this place. The most common referring link is still people looking for the lyrics to I Will Survive by Gloria Gaynor because of this post. I don’t think they stick around for long. Other frequent links are ‘cripple jokes’, that famous quote by Voltaire, ‘atheism is wrong’, ‘Cyprus Tavern Manchester’, loads of image searches for Agent Smith from The Matrix and, probably my favourite of late: ‘Elite Satan’.

Will try and write some bits of pieces over the long weekend….

Leaving New York, never easy

2007-04-11T14:33:00.000+01:00

So, we’re back from New York. Did I miss anything? Keeping up with real news is very difficult in the US. They covered the sailors being released, but since then their media seems to have been obsessed with this story. Why? Perhaps any American readers can elucidate? I’m only barely aware of who Don Imus is, why is this such big news? For the last two days of our stay CNN seemed to cover nothing else. For British readers who haven’t a clue what I’m talking about, cast your mind back to the fuss a few years ago when Robert Kilroy-Silk caused a stink with his ignorant comments about “Arabs” and his programme was taken off air. Now imagine that the mainstream media at the time talked about nothing else for days on end and you get the picture. Baffling.

Banal news coverage aside, we had an excellent time. Freezing cold weather all weekend didn’t help, but never mind. Being taken to hospital in an ambulance early on Monday morning wasn’t exactly in the itinerary, either. I was awoken at 6am with unbearable pain in my stomach, chest and back and had difficulty breathing. A further, more extreme, episode approximately one hour later resulted in Lady Sane calling 911. I didn’t know what was going on, but it felt rather like what I expect a heart attack would feel like. So fifteen minutes later we’re in an ambulance and headed for St. Vincent’s Hospital and Medical Center on West 12th Street. And here I stayed for the next twelve hours in their emergency room. A series of further bursts of agony occurred between 11am and midday, which was good in a way because up until that point I was beginning to think they didn’t believe me, seeing as I had exhibited no symptoms whatsoever since arriving. I have never been in so much pain in my entire life – it was kind of like all the muscles in my upper body had turned to concrete, rendering me immobile and on the verge of hyperventilation. Each attack would last two or three minutes but would feel like several hours. A couple of shots of morphine later and I was feeling much, much better. I was given a litre of red liquid to drink and was told that I was going for a CAT scan. Lady Sane was there with me throughout, a pillar of strength as always (although worried sick).

To cut a long story short, the CAT scan showed nothing sinister and they believe the episodes were caused by a viral infection in the bowel and an inflamed colon going into spasm. I was prescribed antacids and finally discharged at 8pm. Not exactly how I’d planned to spend our penultimate day in New York, but I was so relieved that there was nothing seriously wrong with me I didn’t care. Knowing now that it was something trivial, it seems rather silly to have spent the whole day in ER. But at the time, when I had no idea what was wrong, I was scared shitless. As was Lady Sane, her sister (also in NYC for the weekend) and my family back home.

It struck me how we take our health for granted and that you cannot appreciate the joy of not being in crippling pain until you’ve experienced a dose of it. Thankfully, mine was short-lived, but it’s certainly made me less complacent and thankful I am generally in good working order. The medical staff that treated me were brilliant (although the nurses in ER are a bit scary – I suppose they have to be) and it was interesting to contrast the experience with British hospitals. It seems to me that, regardless of whether the hospital is privately or state funded, it will be understaffed, over-stretched and its patients subjected to long delays. Still, I did enjoy that morphine….

I wanna wake up in a city that never sleeps...

2007-04-04T17:02:00.000+01:00

Busy times. Today was my last day in my current job, and I start a new one on April 16th. In between, Lady Sane and I are off to New York over Easter, just like we did last year. Oh yes, we do like it out there. Last year we stayed in a hotel right by Times Square, which was interesting, but not something we would care to repeat. So this year we're staying at a more sedate location in the heart of Chelsea village. Should be great fun.

So, expect the blog to be pretty quiet in the interim (and just as I was starting to get on a roll, too). Then again, there's free WiFi where we're staying, and I might take the laptop, so you never know, perhaps there will be a post from the Big Apple.

Back next Wednesday.

He's not a satirist, he's a very naughty boy

2007-04-01T20:32:00.000+01:00

Check out this piece by Terry Jones (he of Monty Python fame). It's a piss poor slice of satire about the situation with the kidnapped British sailors currently being illegally held by the deranged state of Iran for their own egregious propaganda purposes. Jones applies a particularly pernicious brand of moral equivalence that seeks to draw a parallel with the treatment of the sailors by the Iranian regime with some of the methods employed against terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

It's a shame, because I'm a huge fan of Python but I now have no other option than to consider Mr Jones a tosser of the highest order. If you feel like further lowering your opinion of certain members of human society, read some of the comments underneath wherein large numbers of the self-hating left lap up his poorly considered bilge like thirsty goats.

For the record, the abduction of the sailors is an act of piracy, pure and simple. They were operating in Iraqi waters, under the auspices of the United Nations, on behalf of the government of Iraq. Iran's kidnapping and public parading of their hostages serves no purpose other than to stick up two fingers to Britain and the west and to try and buy some sort of bargaining chip in the ongoing row over Iran's intention to enrich uranium. The only conclusion we can draw is that Iran remains a menace to the region, we cannot believe a single word they say about anything and we should double our efforts to ensure that this crackpot Islamic dictatorship never gets its hands on any nuclear material, no matter how innocent they claim their intentions to be.

An assault on freedom of expression

2007-03-31T11:48:00.000+01:00

The chocolate Jesus exhibit has been cancelled following an orchestrated campaign by the Catholic League, who called the piece an "assault on Christianity". The league, which boasts some 330,000 members, bombarded the hotel due to host the event with complaints, calls for a boycott and, inevitably, death threats. As I commented in yesterday's post, the exhibit looks poor: boring and devoid of meaning. It's not something I would choose to see, but the fact that it has been pulled in response to thug tactics is sickening.

The scary thing is the way such a response was so quickly generated, like some sort of SWAT team for religious sensibilities. From The Guardian:

On Thursday the league sent emails to 500 other religious groups - including Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist with a combined reach of millions - calling on them to boycott the Roger Smith hotel in which the gallery, the Lab, is based. Within 24 hours the hotel was so inundated with calls and visiting protesters that it pulled the exhibit.

I've written to the hotel myself, threatening to boycott them unless they put the exhibit back on. Alas, no response. One man cannot make a difference. Not unless he's Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, who went on to say, in something of a veiled threat:

"All those involved are lucky that angry Christians don't react the way extremist Muslims do when they're offended."

Perhaps, but the net result has been the same. A piece of art (bad art, in my opinion, but that is not the point) has been withdrawn to protect the feelings of a minority. Another smack in the mouth for freedom of expression from the proponents of fairy tales. It's like the Danish cartoons all over again. There may not have been riots, flag burning or calls for jihad, but it's still religious zealots playing the offence card to get their way; it's still setting a hideous precedent.

"We're delighted with the outcome," said Kiera McCaffrey, a spokeswoman for the League. Yes, I bet you are. It's a delightful small victory for you. But the question now is: where's next?

Sweet Jesus!

2007-03-30T13:08:00.000+01:00

An art gallery in New York City has stirred up controversy with its latest exhibit: a naked Jesus made entirely of milk chocolate. Predictably, some Christian groups are outraged by this stunt - conveniently happening over the Easter period - and have called for a boycott.

Why is it always Jesus? I’d say that’s a subject pretty well covered by the arts over the last couple of thousand years wouldn’t you? Not that I would consider this to be ‘art’, incidentally: more a hackneyed stunt designed to ‘provoke’. Well, it’s certainly provoked a response from me: an overpowering yawn. The ‘artist’, Cosimo Cavallaro, is known for making use of food in his work, and once famously decorated a hotel room with mozzarella cheese. What creativity! Da Vinci would be jealous. What is the likelihood that Cavallaro will also be depicting Mohammed using Halal meats during Ramadan? That would certainly push a few boundaries and create a stir. Highly unlikely though. Because while Christian groups are likely to complain and be offended, they’re not very likely to kill him for his art, are they? They’re generally a much softer target.

Lady Sane and myself are going to be in New York City over the Easter period ourselves…. I think we’ll give this one a miss though.

Oh, the Devil will make work for idle hands to do...

2007-03-30T11:46:00.000+01:00

Allow me to introduce you to Theo Hobson, an occasional contributor to the pigsty that is Comment Is Free. Theo announced in a post a couple of days ago, without a trace of irony, that he “believes in Satan”. How quaint.

I’ve never really understood the whole Satan thing. I suppose if you must believe in the existence of fictional characters then he’s as worthwhile as any other (up there with Zeus, Thor and, I don’t know, Champion The Wonder Horse). But how do Christians reconcile the existence of Satan with their belief in an omniscient, omnipotent God? The very existence of Satan contradicts the concept of an ‘almighty’ doesn’t it?

The medieval philosopher St .Anselm set out to prove the existence of God with his ontological argument. It’s rubbish: a question of semantics rather than anything demonstrative. Basically speaking, he posited that if you can conceive of (i.e. agree to the theoretical existence, but not the actual) some being “than which nothing greater can be conceived” and accept that such a being would be ‘God’, then nothing can be imagined that is greater than God. But if God does not exist, then you can imagine something that is greater than God – namely, a God that does exist. Ergo, God exists. Like I said: a rubbish argument. Couldn’t we perform the same mental exercise with anything? Sausage rolls, teapots, leopards, rocking chairs…

I wonder if Mr Hobson followed this reductio ad absurdum to come to the same conclusion about Satan? “I am capable of conceiving a being (or a beast!) so vile, so vicious, so dripping in pure undiluted evil. What could possibly be worse than that? Why, such a thing that exhibits all the same qualities but really does exist. Therefore, Satan is real! Eeek! Lock up your chickens! Hide the Black Sabbath albums!”

To quote from the article:

Christian faith, in my experience, is all about engaging with Satan, arguing with him, and, above all, trusting that God has defeated him, crushed him. Faith is knowing that, thanks to Jesus Christ, Satan is finished. He might be strong in the short term, but in reality, he is a spent force. Through faith, one can defy him.

Erm. So Christian faith is about engaging with somebody that has already been destroyed by the power of your faith? That can’t be easy. If Satan has been defeated and crushed, what is there to engage with? If, thanks to Jesus, Satan is finished, who are you arguing with? And if your faith is so very powerful, why did Satan ever exist in the first place? For Hobson, belief in evil is intrinsically linked to a belief in Satan – the personification of evil. Again, an argument without legs. I believe in the existence of ‘sleep’ – that crusty build up that forms in your eyes overnight. Am I therefore compelled to believe that the Sandman put it there? What a truckload of gibberish.

"It just works".... Mmm, I just wish I understood how

2007-03-28T21:53:00.000+01:00

So I've bought a Mac. A 20" Intel iMac to be precise. I'm not totally sure what made me decide to take the plunge. Maybe it was the adverts (although I really don't think so). It certainly wasn't this article by Charlie Brooker. No, it was just finally losing my patience with PCs. I've had my fair share of them and it seems that for every hour of use you get from a PC, you spend another hour tinkering with the damn thing to get it to work: scanning for viruses or spyware, or defragging the hard drive, or downloading yet another ton load of Windows security updates, or restarting it for the third time in an hour because somebody walked past it and sneezed, or trying to get your wireless router to talk to it until, eventually, there's just a weird clicking noise coming from inside and it stops working altogether. Enough! So, needing a new desktop computer and not fancying more of the same, I thought I'd see what these Apple devotees have been going on about.

Well, it looks great, and I'm really enjoying using it but by Christ it's confusing. Having been reared on Microsoft and knowing my way around the Windows environment as well as most people, suddenly making the change to an entirely different operating system has proven to be a bit daunting. No right click on the mouse? No CTRL short cuts? No Start bar menu system? Where is everything? What's the short cut to copy and paste, or italicise or make something bold? Confusing. All of a sudden I feel like an old woman using a computer for the first time, terrified that if I touch anything an air-raid siren is going to go off and the whole machine will just melt in front of my eyes. Even blogging proved a challenge: usually I write in Word, then past it all into Blogger. Obviously cannot do that. Then it turns out that Blogger doesn't work properly on Safari (the default browser on a Mac) either, so I've gone scurrying back to Firefox (having first downloaded the PC version in error, of course).

This is going to keep me busy for a while....

A Tale of Three Piggies and other horror stories

2007-03-19T12:58:00.000Z

It's encouraging to know that common sense still, occasionally, prevails in this country.

Honley Junior school in West Yorkshire are due to stage a performance of Roald Dahl's adaptation of Little Red Riding Hood and the Three Little Pigs. However, the committee responsible for the production decided that the swine should be replaced with puppies instead, in case the depiction of pigs ‘offends Muslims’.

Utterly ridiculous of course. And, once again, the only really offensive thing here is the idea of someone second guessing what might cause ‘offence’ to one particular group of society, as if some people are so sensitive they require constant protection from anything that might fire them into a tailspin of sheer outrage, then altering it to ‘protect’ them. Deeply patronising and inverted racism to boot: “Well, we’d better drop any references to pigs – it might offend, you know, that lot.”

Thankfully, the local council stepped in and reversed the nonsensical decision. In the words of the education spokesman Jim Dodds: “There is something barmy going on here.” Quite, quite. Reports that the sale of sausage rolls in the interval will also be banned in consideration of the Muslim community, the Jewish community and the vegetarian community could not be confirmed.

Meanwhile, at Leeds University, a lecture on ‘Islamic anti-Semitism’ by Dr Matthias Köntzel was cancelled at short notice on ‘security grounds’. A somewhat spurious decision considering that the talk, clearly a controversial subject, was planned sometime in advance. More likely, it seems that the university capitulated to a vocal minority of Muslim students who complained about the nature of the discussion. As Dr Köntzel himself remarked:

“I have lectured in lots of countries on this subject. I gave the same talk at Yale University recently, and this is the first time I have been invited to lecture in the UK. Nothing like this has ever happened before – this is censorship.”

It’s difficult to disagree. How dispiriting that a university of all places suppresses debate and discussion within the confines of its own buildings on the grounds of a subject being deemed too controversial to be offered for public dissection. This was meant to be a conversation about the extremes of Islamism and the origin of its inherent anti-Semitism, but at the first whiff of dissent and ‘offence’ the whole workshop is scrapped. Could there be a better way of doing extreme Islam’s work for it, when it is not even possible to identify and comment on the nature of its philosophy at the extreme end? Depressing in the extreme.

It was 750 days ago today.... the Liberal Elite biennial

2007-03-07T10:20:00.000Z

Can it really be a year ago that Liberal Elite celebrated its first anniversary? This can only mean one thing: today is the blog’s second birthday. Happy birthday to Liberal Elite, happy birthday to Liberal Elite, happy birthday dear Liberal Elite… and so on.

Reading back over the old posts makes me misty eyed. Ah, them were the days, when The Realist and myself could happily churn out a few posts each every week, when the pressures and demands of work and life allowed the time for such indulgence. When we were a bit younger and a bit more feisty. When the comments sections were alive (at least, by relative standards) with debate and disagreement.

Happy times, happy times.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder

2007-03-02T13:41:00.000Z

Hot Jiminy! Two weeks without a post! Empires have risen and fallen in less time. Some have even fallen then risen again. While others still have risen, fallen, risen a bit then fallen again before finally rising back to their former glory. It’s a long time. Fourteen days. A fortnight. Half a lunar month (give or take). A goddamm eternity in blogging terms.

It used to be customary on this blog to fill the vacuum created by a lengthy absence with a catch-up post, consisting of bullet points on various events that have occurred in the interim. Here then, in recognition of said custom, are some of the news nuggets of late, plus whatever else happens to be on my mind today.

Firstly, happy new year to you all. As you may be aware, I do not recognise January and February as components of the calendar. Instead, after December 31st, we descend into a two month period of ghastliness known as ‘Helluary’. This period has finally passed. We are now in March, the days are getting longer and the year can finally begin. Rejoice.
The official population of London is approximately seven and a half million people. Am I the only one convinced that it must have risen to ten million in the last year with an extra 2.5 million brought in to try and thrust free newspapers into my hand? You can’t walk more than about two metres in this city without someone shouting “London Lite!” or “London Paper!” into your ear. Here’s an experiment: walk out onto any street in central London with a brick in your hand. Close your eyes, spin around for thirty seconds to lose all sense of direction, then chuck the brick anywhere you choose. I guarantee it will hit somebody handing out a free paper. They’re everywhere! I often find myself taking one of the damn things just to roll it up and use it as a baton to keep the others at bay. Walking to Cannon Street station after work is like doing a news vendor slalom. Fuck off!
In breaking news today, Mohammed Al Fayed has been successful in his efforts to have the inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed be presented to a jury. If this is what it takes to put this whole tedious saga to bed once and for all, then let’s have it. But what a waste of taxpayer’s money and court time. And why, when the man is convinced that it was all a conspiracy by the ‘Establishment’, does he think that putting the case through one of the machines of said ‘Establishment’ is going to produce an outcome more to his satisfaction? Surely the jury would be handpicked by Prince Phillip and made up of agents from MI5, MI6, Mossad, CIA, The Elders of Zion, CI5, ITV, MTV plus perhaps Agent Smith from The Matrix? Deluded fantasist.
Speaking of deluded fantasists, did anyone else read these pieces by George Monbiot on Comment is Free taking on the pea brained, conspiracy peddling fuckwits who refuse to accept the actual version of events concerning 9/11? I don’t usually much care for Monbiot’s opinion pieces, but on this subject he is so obviously correct it’s barely worth listing the arguments. If you want to depress yourself, read through some of the comments. Whilst there are plenty of sane people amongst them, the number of commenters who actually believe all, some or even any of the ludicrous accusations is genuinely alarming. I’d put 9/11 conspiracy theorists in the same category as creationists who deny evolutionary theory: daydreamers who think that wheeling out a couple of contrarian ‘experts’ lends some validity to their specious and deluded fantasies. My favourites are the ones who list dozens and dozens of ‘sources’, as if the sheer volume of their reference points makes their case more convincing. Kind of like living in a palace made of poo, then adding a new poo tower and thinking that it makes the place more habitable when, in fact, it’s just adding to the sheer amount of poo that you’ve constructed.
Speaking of poo and Comment Is Free, our old friend George Galloway is currently generating the most comments with this piece about how everyone’s being so nasty to his good friend Hugo Chávez, the ‘president’ of Venezuela. The biggest section in Galloway’s address book must be under the heading of ‘Despots, Tyrants and Ideologues’. Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Bashar al-Assad, Chávez: do you think the day will ever come when George prostrates himself before a national leader who was, I don’t know, actually democratically elected? Neither do I. A plague on his house.

That is all.

Some might say that's rich coming from you

2007-02-15T20:46:00.000Z

Heavyweight cultural and political commentator Noel Gallagher has lashed out at the Prime Minister in an interview with Newsnight. Pulling no punches, the pugnacious Oasis leader was critical of Tony Blair's 'presidential' leadership and the Iraq war, both of which, the guitarist claims, have tarnished the Labour Party forever. There were no kind words for the leader of the opposition, either. David Cameron is "no different" and is "like a songwriter who's eternally ripping off someone else's song," said the songwriter who gave us tunes such as Cigarettes & Alchohol (basically a rewrite of T-Rex's Get It On [Bang A Gong]), Don't Look Back In Anger (which steals the piano riff from John Lennon's Imagine, before turning into Watching The Wheels - again by John Lennon), Hello (the ending of which is so similar to Gary Glitter's Hello, Hello, I'm Back Again he got a co-writing credit), Step Out (the chorus of which is so similar to Stevie Wonder's Uptight [Everything's Alright] he also got a co-writing credit), Shakermaker (essentially the same tune as I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing by the New Seekers), Fade Away (the first verse of which bears an uncanny resemblance to Freedom by Wham!), Wonderwall (the title of which was originally a George Harrison album) not to mention innumerable lazy references to Beatles lyrics, songs and albums scattered throughout the band's output. So it's easy to see where he got the analogy from.

Still, one has to admire his....chutzpah.

I haven't really paid any attention to Oasis since (eerily enough, in a spooky New Labour parallel) 1997, so seeing their performance at The Brits last night was something of a shock. They were horrendous, a grotesque parody of themselves. Liam stood with the posture of on orangutan. An orangutan with rickets. And his vocal 'delivery' was excruciating. It sounded like the rock and roll lifestyle has not so much caught up with him, but sped up behind him in a truck, run him down, reversed back over him again to make sure, then climbed out and twatted him with hammers.

You can see a clip of it for yourself here. Although I wouldn't recommend it.

Death, where is thy Sting?

2007-02-13T16:42:00.000Z

Ronald Reagan once postulated that the scariest words in the English language are: “Hello, we’re from the government, and we’re here to help.” But he was wrong, because the scariest words in the English language were in fact uttered last night by Sting at The Grammy Awards: “Ladies and gentlemen, we are The Police, and we’re back!” And not just as a one off horror show either, but (and we didn’t see this coming) a world tour and everything.

Bong! Hear the clanging chimes of doom! The end is upon us. The dead will rise up from their graves and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will start greasing their saddles as Sting and his merry cohorts haul their sorry arses around the globe playing their hideous brand of reggae tinged rock/pop. It’s all described in the Book of Revelation. We are officially living in the end of days. Global warming? Meteoric impact? Nuclear Armageddon? Pah. They are all nothing compared to the resurgence of the beast Gordon Sumner belting out Roxanne yet again (because, apparently, she doesn’t have to put on the red light, put on the red light, put on the red light).

Oh, the humanity.

Media try to drag up 'shady' drugs past. Entire nation yawns.

2007-02-12T17:11:00.000Z

Quick poll. Does anyone, anywhere, give a honking bum trumpet whether David Cameron smoked cannabis in his schooldays or not? Certain sections of the media seem unhealthily obsessed with this 'story', for reasons that I cannot fathom. If he didn’t smoke jazz cigarettes a quarter of a century ago, then there is no story. Whereas if he did smoke jazz cigarettes a quarter of a century ago... then there is still no story. None. Whatsoever. In the meantime I have yet to hear a single person respond with anything other than yawns – not even the Home Secretary is bothering to make political capital out of this. Even Norman Tebbit recommends that Dave simply make an official announcement to clarify the matter once and for all. That’s right: Norman Tebbit.

I wrote about this subject when it first came up during the Conservative Party’s leadership contest in October 2005. If only Dave had followed my advice, he probably wouldn’t have had to interrupt his Sunday schedule yesterday. As I said at the time:

It's a shame that he can't just release a statement along the lines of "In my youth, like many people in this country, I used some drugs on a recreational basis. Whilst it was fun at the time, it was a long time ago and bears no relevance to my life anymore. Now that we've got that cleared up, please can we move onto the real issues at stake here?" Just release that and kill the issue cold. Perhaps then we could finally engage in an intelligent conversation and free debate about drugs that doesn't immediately degenerate into a cacophony of hypocritical bluster at the very mention of the word.

And it is hypocritical, of course. Journalists whipping up a story about someone’s predilection for illegal substances is like a troupe of clowns starting a campaign to punish the wearing of big shoes and white face make up. Media folk everywhere: give it up, nobody cares. This must be the first recorded instance of lots of fire, but no smoke. In the meantime, Cameron should clarify one way or the other. "Yes, I did smoke cannabis. What of it?" or "No, I didn't smoke cannabis. What of it?" Either way, outside of tabloid press editorial meetings, nobody is remotely interested.

Daily Mail chief displays poor understanding of political ideology

2007-02-02T11:57:00.000Z

Catching up on old news, did anyone else see our old friend Paul Dacre’s bizarre rant last week about the BBC and the ‘assault’ on British values? (Dacre is, for anyone unaware, the editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail. He usually keeps a very low profile, rarely giving interviews. He’s like the Willy Wonka of the British newspaper industry, although more sinister.) Most curious of all was his comment that the BBC is “exercising a kind of cultural Marxism”. Which doesn’t make a lot of sense, really. I suppose what he really means is that there is a leftist slant in the BBC’s news coverage (although I have always thought that such a charge is overstated a lot of the time – considering the sheer volume of news that the BBC covers, it remains neutral for the most part in my opinion). Norm has counter-argued this point better than I could, but to describe the Beeb as ‘Marxist’ is intellectually incoherent. There is no textbook definition for the term ‘Marxist’ anyway, but the defining characteristic would be an economic interpretation of history, with particular emphasis on who controls the means of production and the subsequent inherent contradictions of capitalism. Now, I can’t claim to consume all of the BBC’s daily output, but I don’t think they do this very often. By all means, accuse the BBC of having a left-wing bias, but please, if you’re going to brandish the term ‘Marxist’ at least demonstrate a basic understanding of what that means. I suggest, Mr Dacre, that you sign up for a course covering basic political philosophy.

Honour hiding to nothing

2007-02-02T11:07:00.000Z

The cash-for-honours affair must be a crisis if Tony Blair is prepared to show up for Radio 4’s Today programme. Appearances by the PM on that show are as rare as hen’s teeth – he’s usually much happier to appear in stage managed, touchy-feely interviews with Richard and Judy. He’s still refusing to step down, despite pressure from all quarters, which is hardly surprising. He must be confident of his own innocence then – if charges were to be brought against him, and he was then forced to resign, his reputation would be tarnished forever. Meanwhile, if he were to stand down now, as many would like, it would be a tacit admission of guilt and the effect would be the same. Better (for him and his government, anyway) to hang on and ride out the storm – assuming, that is, the whole thing will eventually blow over.

Something clearly stinks though, and this is the sad outcome of a system of poorly regulated party funding and the continued existence of the honours system in the first place. The solution? Full state funding for major political parties, audited bi-annually by an external company. Private donations or ‘loans’ should be illegal. This is not an ideal situation – everyone should have the right to financially support a political organisation if they wish – but if it would rid us of shady backroom deals with party benefactors and ensure that no party has a vested interest with any outside individual, corporation or trade union, it would be a price worth paying. We should also abolish the ridiculous honours system. It’s 2007 – do we need ‘knights’? No, we do not. Although I might be prepared to tolerate it if such titles were dispensed on the condition that the recipient must, at all times, wear a full suit of armour and travel everywhere on horseback. They must rescue damsels in distress on a regular basis and, if called upon to do so, slay the odd dragon. That, at least, would be entertaining for the rest of us.

These things take time

2007-02-01T12:50:00.000Z

Oh dear blog, how I have neglected thee...

If only real life didn't have such a tendency to get in the way of my blogging intentions. And there is so much to discuss too. Rest assured, there will be a proper catch up tomorrow. Promise.

In the meantime, if anyone's reading this, suggestions for topics of discussion are gratefully received.

A carpet of white dung

2007-01-24T07:53:00.000Z

It says something about the clemency of our recent winters when we get a cold snap and a bit of snow in January and everyone seems surprised. Is it global warming? Perhaps. Whatever the root cause, winter has definitely changed in this country over the last ten years or so. I remember when a British winter meant freezing your tits off for a couple of months. Snow was guaranteed every year. Real snow, mind: deep enough that you couldn't see your cat when it was in the garden. Cold enough to freeze pipes and shut schools. Ah, them were the days. Nowadays we get half an inch of snowfall overnight that simply turns to grey sludge by 8am.

That suits me though, because I hate the stuff. Oh, it looks nice, but having to negotiate it is a massive pain in the backside. So let the milder winters continue. Climate change has its drawbacks, but at least there's less danger of slipping flat on your face on the way to work.

Update: The Onion, as ever, is also on the case.

Goody: bad and ugly

2007-01-19T13:14:00.000Z

For the second year running, Celebrity Big Brother has become a major news story. Last year it was George Galloway wearing a leotard and showing everyone what a pussy he is. This year it’s about the alleged bullying (considered by many to be of a racist nature) of Indian contestant Shilpa Shetty by fellow ‘celebrity’ Jade Goody and her pack of baying bitches. It’s everywhere: it was the lead news item on the austere Radio 4, questions have been asked in the Commons, David Cameron has denounced the show, so too has Tony Blair. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown, currently in India, has found himself fielding questions on issues of race in modern Britain (Shetty is a huge film star in her home country). Cue much soul searching in the media : ‘is there a problem with racism in this country?’, ‘what does this say about our attitudes to race?’, etc, etc.

To which the answers are: (1) no, not especially, no more than anywhere else in the world anyway and (2) it says that most people are intolerant of victimising someone because of their racial origin, or being derogatory about their race/nationality . So if anything, the whole grisly affair confirms that we do not like racists or bullies. And racist bullies are a real no-no. We Brits are famous for supporting the underdog, and I would not be surprised if Shetty wins. It seems certain that Goody will be evicted tonight, most likely to a chorus of boos. The bully shall be banished. Then perhaps the guilty introspection can end and we can all get on with our lives again.

Actually, the astonishing backlash against Jade Goody over the last week has served as something of a collective national ablution. At long last, perhaps we can be rid of this woman once and for all. The manner in which she shot to fame and fortune was little short of depressing: let’s be frank, it was for nothing more than being a colossal ignoramus on national television. Now it seems she has reached the end of the line, sacrificed by the very programme that created her. It’s an ending worthy of Shakespeare.

Fundamentalists on the march

2007-01-11T20:04:00.000Z

It’s always heartening to see a group of religious warriors – walking testaments to their God’s message of love, peace and tolerance, remember – up in arms lest a law be passed that would forbid them from discriminating against anyone whose lifestyle might 'offend' their 'beliefs'. They feel that a new law designed to forbid businesses from discriminating against homosexuals forces them to compromise their deeply held religious convictions. Well, if your deeply held religious convictions are little more than a excuse for deep seated bigotry then good. Bollocks to your convictions, quite frankly. In reality, the people demonstrating outside Parliament were fighting for the right to uphold prejudices held together by the flimsy notion that their beliefs stipulate that they are entitled – nay, required - to do so. Bummery = badness. Because it says so in the Bible. Oh, the Bible. The fucking Bible.

{Sigh}. Do we really have to go through this conversation again? Do we? Really? Yes, I suppose we do.

'Back The Bible' said one of the placards held up at the march. "I’m concerned that the Biblical laws should be upheld," said Ralph Brockman, a Baptist from London. "Christians... cannot and must not be forced to actively condone and promote sexual practices which the Bible teaches are wrong," said Thomas Cordrey of the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship. You're not being asked to, Tom. The purpose of the law is to ensure equality for everyone, in much the same way that it is rightly illegal to put up a sign saying 'No Blacks' in a restaurant window. The law is upholding the right of everyone to be treated in the same way, regardless of their sexuality which, for the record, is none of your concern, whatever the Bible might tell you.

This idea of strict adherence to the teachings of the Bible is an interesting proposition though, considering the mass of contradictions, anachronisms and downright gibberish contained therein. The long-departed Realist covered some of this ground many moons ago with this piece about the deranged ramblings to be found in Leviticus and some of the surreal commandments it contains. I was reminded recently of this classic viral email that did the rounds several years ago, wherein an anonymous correspondent wrote an open letter to 'Doctor' Laura Schlessinger, a conservative talk radio host in the USA, famous for dispensing 'no nonsense' advice to her callers. An outspoken critic of all of society's ills such as sex outside of marriage, contraception and (gasp) homosexuality, she has been known to invoke the Old Testament as a common sense guide for living.

I reproduce here the letter in its entirety. It's very funny. Even if you've seen it before, it is well worth reading again and could just as pertinently be posed to those marching religious fundamentalists who would have us live our lives according to the values of the stone age.

Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Genius. Right, I'm off to continue reading Richard Dawkins' brilliant treatise on atheism The God Delusion. It should be made compulsory reading in every school in the land.

And we're back!

2007-01-11T19:05:00.000Z

So, back to crushing reality then. Once more, we land headfirst in the cold, dark, featureless barren wasteland that is January. It's just awful. But you've got to laugh, haven't you?

The review of 2006 isn't going to happen now. It's too daunting a task, and I've forgotten everything that happened last year anyway. Let us press onwards.

P.S. For those who've been itching to know, The Liberal Elite Twat Of The Year Award for 2006 goes to..... George Galloway. Again. Who else was it ever going to be? For those of a betting nature, he's already looking a dead cert for 2007 too. Not that he's been in the news yet, but he will be. He will be.

Ta ta for now and Happy New Year

2006-12-30T11:59:00.000Z

Right, I'm off to spend the New Year in a cottage near Rye with Lady Sane and some friends. Unfortunately, I didn't get time to write that year end round up (that is to say, I spent any spare time playing this on this. Look, I may be 32, be there is part of me that is forever a twelve year old boy). Will be back in a week, so will stick something up then.

Happy New Year to anyone reading this.

So, that was Christmas. And what did you do?

2006-12-27T11:41:00.000Z

Well, Christmas has been and gone with its customary six month build up culminating in an orgy of commercialism and over-consumption. Not so much for me this year though, given that I was instead hideously ill all weekend and am still in recovery mode now. As luck would have it, I have gradually shaken off the virus just in time to be strong enough to return to work between now and New Year. So that’s good. I am probably the only person in the Western world to have lost weight over the last week, too, seeing as I had the appetite of a small gosling over the festive period and any calories I did consume were burnt up during bouts of fever.

Our household did not disappoint, however, in terms of consumer indulgence, and many fine presents were exchanged. I was particularly pleased with the gift of a Nintendo Wii from Lady Sane who somehow managed to get her hands on one. She even had the foresight to originally place an order back in September, which basically means she knew I wanted one before I knew I wanted one. Which must make her the best girlfriend in the world by anyone’s reckoning.

And if there was any justice in the world I would be at home right now putting the Wii to good use but, alas, I am at work. Not that there’s much going on. There are things I could be doing, but really. No. It’s not going to happen. Instead, I am writing this little post and will then start working on the Liberal Elite Review of the Year 2006. Look out for that little treat before the end of the week, dear reader, as we chew over the news cutlets of the last 12 months. The soaring highs, the hideous lows, the forgettable in-betweens. You name it. As is traditional, I will also be unveiling the Liberal Elite Twat of the Year. There’s been some stiff competition this year, but we do have a clear winner. Oh yes.

In the meantime, for those of you lucky enough to be at home, enjoy the break. For those of you unlucky enough to be at work, I feel your pain.

A boycott worth boycotting

2006-12-18T20:25:00.000Z

(Most of this post originally appeared as a comment at PP's blog, but I liked it too much to just let it linger in comments limbo, so I've stretched it out as a post in its own right. I am not treating the subject very seriously at all, instead taking it off on a surreal tangent. If you want to see an intelligent response to the issue, read the whole of PP's piece.)

John Berger (a writer of some repute, apparently - at least, that's what it says on his profile), has written an article on Comment Is Free, calling for a global cultural boycott of the Israeli state due to the 'illegal occupation of the Palestine territories of the West Bank and Gaza'. So far, so Comment Is Free. It's the sort of thing you'd be surprised not to see written on the site.

Anyway, he rambles on and on about who should be joining the boycott, and why, and how. But the most bizarre passage has to be this:

How to apply a boycott? For academics it's perhaps a little clearer - a question of declining invitations from state institutions and explaining why. For invited actors, musicians, jugglers or poets it can be more complicated. I'm convinced, in any case, that its application should not be systematised; it has to come from a personal choice based on a personal assessment.

Yeah, sounds great John. But, err, sorry, can we back up there for just a minute? Jugglers???? Is there a cultural exchange programme for jugglers going on that I wasn't aware of? I'm trying to understand why there would be much demand for jugglers being invited to Israel at all. But the idea of jugglers being invited, but declining for political reasons has flipped my Surreal-O-Meter into hyper mode. I can just picture it...

We proudly present JAZ: Jugglers Against Zionism. A two hour juggling extravaganza highlighting the plight of the Palestinians crushed under the military and ideological weight of Israeli occupation. From the people that brought you Sword Swallowers Against Israeli Aggression and the award winning Fire Breathers For Palestinian Freedom.

"Unquestionably the finest political juggling act I have ever seen." - John Pilger

"The way these jugglers captured the plight of the Palestinian people by throwing three squishy balls up in the air brought a tear to my eye." - Robert Fisk

"Bush and Blair should be forced to watch this brave juggling performance. At gun point." - George Galloway

COMING IN 2007: Midget Pyramids on Motorcycles will push Israel back to its pre-1967 borders. Book your tickets now!

'Pop stars none too bright' shock

2006-12-17T15:46:00.000Z

It’s the end of the year, so I’ve been reading a lot of music magazines to see the end of year polls, catch up on any good stuff I might have missed. I can’t keep up like I used to: I’m getting too old, too cynical and too uninterested to keep my finger on the ‘pulse’ of popular music culture these days. Somebody had to explain ‘emo’ to me the other day. I still don’t understand. Or care. As far as I can tell, it amounts to Green Day with a migraine.

Not that we’re exactly spoilt for choice when it comes to music mags these days. Back in my day (when it were all fields round here), there were plenty. Melody Maker was king for me. I would buy that every week without fail and marvel at the quality of the writing, which was usually far superior to much of the music they were heaping praise (or, more entertainingly, scorn) upon. My own writing style (such as it is) owes a great debt to the likes of Andrew Mueller, David Stubbs, Simon Reynolds, Simon Price, Taylor Parkes, et al. Most of them are still scribbling away somewhere or other. Alas, Melody Maker folded in December 2000, a pale shadow of its former self, with elements of its pages absorbed into its chief rival – the vastly inferior NME.

The NME is actually one of the magazines, along with Uncut and The Word that I bought this week for an annual overview. Much of each paper was filled with Q&A sessions with musicians regarding their thoughts on 2006 and their plans for Christmas. Scintillating stuff, I assure you. However, it was reading these that it struck me how stupid rock and pop stars really are. OK, this is not exactly a revelation, but I’m sure they weren’t this daft in my day. Or maybe they were, my eyes just weren’t open to it in the same way they are now. I thought I’d share some of the highlights with you.

Here’s Bobby Gillespie from Primal Scream in The Word, having been asked: What do you have a conscience about?

Man’s inhumanity to man. The annihilation of the Palestinian people on the Gaza strip. It’s genocide. There is murder and destruction going on and it’s being allowed. That’s shocking to me, that pricks my fucking conscience. The Jewish lobby is so powerful in the US government that nothing is being done and nothing will be done. There’s too much power, too much influence, it’s a Zionist Supremacist State – just the same as the Afrikaaners in South Africa.

Quick, somebody, give him a space on Comment Is Free. With opinions like this, he’ll be a natural at The Guardian. Then again, he wouldn’t pass their entrance exam on green issues:

Are you not worried about your carbon footprint?
My what?

Carbon footprint, global warming…
Oh, I don’t give a fuck about that. I have to travel, I’m in a band. I don’t have a conscience for things like that at all.

“I have to travel.” Actually, Bobby, you don’t. And as it’s purely to spread your own version of sub-Rolling Stones rock and roll boogie on an unsuspecting world, I’d rather you didn’t. Dimwit.

From the same magazine, here’s Matt Bellamy from Muse who, against all odds I have to say, made one of my favourite albums this year with the prog-tastic, rifforama rock fest that is Black Holes and Revelations:

You lot like your conspiracy theories about the world at large. What do you think about the state of international politics in 2006?
It’s pretty scary. That’s why we wrote City Of Delusion, expressing what it’s like to live in a world where you have no power or control. December 2000 was the turning point really, wasn’t it? When Bush was elected – well, he wasn’t elected, was he? I don’t think 9/11 would have happened if Bush hadn’t been in power. I think that was all part of a grander plan. We’re going to become a corporate fascist state where big companies define policy if we carry on like this. There are dark people in high power, dark forces out there. God, that sounds a bit Darth Vader.

The forces of intellectualism are weak with this one. Good album or not, he’s in with a shot at the Liberal Elite Twat of the Year competition this year on the strength of this drivel alone. (He won’t win, though. That was decided a long time ago.)

Over to Uncut, where Liam Gallagher (admittedly not renowned for his work in quantum physics) is talking about John Lennon.

There was a story going round that I thought (John Lennon) inhabited my body. I’ve had a couple of out-of-body experiences in my time, and this one I was in Manchester at a mate’s house having a kip. I got out of bed and all this stuff started happening – I remember getting up to turn the light on and feeling really weird, and I turned round and there I was, lying on the bed, and I sort of…fell back into my body. There was a presence there, and it was him. How do I know that? I just do, I just do.

Remember, kids: unless you want to end up as inarticulate and deranged as Liam Gallagher: Just Say No.

Elsewhere, in the same magazine, we come across the musings of Richard Ashcroft. Onetime frontman of The Verve, he released, with Urban Hymns in 1997, one of the albums of the decade. Unfortunately, he’s done nothing of any interest since. Here are some of his ‘thoughts’ on religion:

I believe that someone in the next century will get God through a number code that unites the whole universe. And it will be so incredible, we won’t be able to get around the fact that there is some kind of creator involved.

Well, that’s something for us all to look forward to. In case you were wondering when and how this tremendous breakthrough will occur, Mad Richard has helpfully clarified it for us there. It will be discovered by ‘someone’ in ‘the next century’. I can barely contain my excitement.

Honourable mention also for pop sensation Lily Allen who declares that:

For me, vanity about the way you look, that’s right up there with global warming and capitalism in terms of the evils of the modern world.

So says someone who, as a touring musician (see Bobby Gillespie, above) produces more than her fair share of carbon monoxide and, via the system of commerce, distributes her output to consumers who are free to swap their hard earned cash for her CD should they choose to do so. No doubt the considerable money she has made this year will be ploughed back into charitable causes because, after all, who wants to make money via the ‘evil’ capitalist system? Airhead.

Last, but by no means least, we have Amy Winehouse in the NME dropping into a conversation the following well known fact:

You know how crack and AIDS were generated by the white people to fuck black people up?

Err, say what now? Back to the library, Winehouse. You may do a pretty good impression of classic Motown, but try thinking before you open your mouth in future.

So there we have it: conclusive evidence that today’s pop stars are ideologically incoherent, conspiracy obsessed, new age preaching imbeciles. They might be able to knock out a half decent tune every now and then, but when it comes to the grey matter, they definitely don’t chart very high. Why have I bothered to record all of this and come to such a conclusion? Because I’m bored. And Lord Stevens was too busy.

Facts really are expensive

2006-12-17T13:16:00.000Z

So, after three years of exhaustive research, consuming £3.69 million pounds of public funds, Lord Stevens and his team have come to the remarkable conclusion that Diana, the People’s Princess™ and self-proclaimed Queen of People’s Hearts died because her chauffeur was speeding while under the influence of alcohol and neither Diana or Dodi whatsisface were wearing seatbelts when the car collided with a support beam in a tunnel in Paris.

What a monumental waste of time and money spent investigating a traffic accident. And ultimately futile, too. It merely underlines the bleeding obvious to most of us, while making no difference to half-wits convinced that they were murdered by British spooks under the orders of (I can barely bring myself to type this) Prince Philip.

People who choose to take conspiracy theories seriously are so up to their arse in half-truths, bullshit-masquerading-as-fact and internet chat room piffle they are not going to believe any other account that pricks the bubble of their little fantasy world. Instead, they will simply view the findings of this report as yet another part of the conspiracy; another state-funded layer in the cover up. Just like 9/11 conspiracy theorists, people who think The Da Vinci Code is based on historical fact and others still obsessed with the shooting of JFK, there is little we can do to reason with these people short of smiling, nodding and hoping that they go away and leave us alone.

Conspiracy theorists everywhere: the world is far more complex than you seem to realise and governments are simply not efficient enough to cover up anything for very long, especially events of this scale. You are vastly overestimating the capabilities of the powers that be. Now please, shut up.

If at first you don't succeed, Trident again

2006-12-06T22:09:00.000Z

I agree with the decision to renew Britain’s nuclear deterrent. I don’t know enough about nuclear warheads to make a convincing case for Trident itself - there seems to be a school of thought that the programme is out of date, expensive to maintain and unsuited to post-Cold War military strategy, and that land or ship-based cruise missiles would be better than a roving submarine fleet – but it seems particularly reckless to make the decision here and now that, come 2024, it will suit us to not be a nuclear power. I agree that it is an expensive decision (£20,000,000,000 isn’t exactly loose change), but it’s an insurance policy, plain and simple. Insurance policies are by nature expensive, but not in comparison to the cost of a worst case scenario becoming reality. Reducing the number of warheads by 20% and dropping from four to three submarines strikes me as being eminently sensible, and does not appear to be a breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (for those that care about such things).

“Oh, but it makes the world a more dangerous place!” shriek some. Bollocks. Nuclear weapons have kept the world free from major wars for sixty years. Live with it. What does makes the world a more dangerous place is unhinged totalitarian or theocratic states with access to a nuclear stockpile of their own (North Korea and, perhaps inevitably, Iran, whose deranged ‘president’ has expressed the desire to ‘wipe Israel from the map’ on a number of occasions). This is also, by default, the most convincing argument for us remaining a nuclear power ourselves. As somebody sensible wrote on a post on Comment Is Free yesterday (a rarity indeed, although I cannot find the link to it now): “Let me get this straight: you’re quite happy to live in a world where North Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons, but we don’t?” Exactly.

In fact, it was reading some of the ramblings on that very site that further entrenched my position on this subject – I instinctively needed to be on the opposite side of the argument to these people.

Here are two examples, so typical of the vast majority of comments one reads here every day (from this post):

Imagine if, instead of being motivated by fear, Blair was motivated by hope, and led Britian (sic) to become the first power ever to voluntarily give up nuclear weapons, thus setting an example for the world.

Imagine the boost that would give to non-proliferation. Imagine the energy and the hope from that example and the spread of the realisation that the abandonment of nuclear weapons IS possible.

Yes. And imagine if we lived in a world made of marshmallows where nobody ever got hurt and all our dreams came true the moment we thought of them and everyone had a lovely fwuffy bunny wabbit to play with all day. I mean, just imagine.

When analysing Tony Blair's motivations for an action it is always helpful to ask "How does this help the United States?" since Blair's primary desire in international politics is to strengthen US military and economic power (and concordantly weaken its rivals) whether because he simply has a messianic belief in US manifest destiny or because he is a US intelligence asset.

“A messianic belief in US manifest destiny”? Oh, for fuck’s sake. And heaven forbid that any action the UK decides upon should be in any way beneficial to or convenient for the United States! That marauding, imperialist, despotic nation! I mean, why would we want to be partnered with them, when there are so many other like-minded countries we can work with?

It’s official. Reading the thoughts of Guardian readers made me a committed advocate of nuclear weapons. If the majority of people there are against them, then it must be a good idea.

Bigmouth strikes again

2006-11-30T12:43:00.000Z

He may be a semi-literate, bulldog-faced pugilist who would probably be outwitted by a pair of socks. His stand-in role at prime minister’s questions may bring to mind a large strawberry cheesecake put into bat against skilled fast bowlers, who are using it as aiming practice. With hammers. But I had to smile at John Prescott’s outburst yesterday.

Having been royally wound up by William Hague (standing in for Big Dave), Prescott, alluding to the Conservative Party’s anti-debt ad campaign which compels young people to “ignore the tosser in you” (never understood this one, I must say. Presumably it’s a play on words, but to my mind there is only one real definition of the word ‘tosser’), said:

I do not know which person this man was modeled on from the Tory frontbench. But let me tell him, I always thought that party was full of them and that is why they lost three elections.

Touché. Is it unparliamentary language? Is this appropriate? Do we care? Well, the speaker didn’t intervene, so it seems that this word is now permissible and, to be frank, it’s a pretty fitting epithet for most of them, whatever side of the Commons they sit on.

Polly Ethylene

2006-11-28T21:41:00.000Z

The point is, ideology is dead and political labels are increasingly meaningless.

I wrote these words in the first ever post on this blog, in March 2005. I was reminded of them last week with the news that Greg Clark, a Conservative Party policy adviser, recommended that, when it comes to tackling poverty, the party should divorce itself form the absolutist ideas of Winston Churchill, and instead embrace the relativist philosophy of Polly Tonybee, Guardianista extraordinaire and fully paid up member of the real liberal elite (© Peter Hitchens). This really would be a u-turn for the “Nasty Party” under Cameron, as it suggests many of them are prepared to ditch their Thatcherite legacy and work instead towards a European social democratic model. My, don’t we live in a topsy turvy universe? I expected such a stance to split the party wide open on the subject – which it did, to an extent – but when I read that even John Redwood supported Mr Clark’s findings, I wondered if I’d been transported to some parallel universe where up is down, black is white and Compassionate Conservatism isn't a contradiction in terms.

Personally, I find Polly Toynbee’s champagne socialism rather wearisome. It is hypocritical in the extreme to extol the virtues of welfarism and state education while earning a really rather healthy salary as a Guardian columnist and sending your child to an exclusive private school. Especially when The Guardian could be paying ME that money instead. I guarantee I’d be more entertaining than Toynbee and her patronising platitudes.

Say It Loud: I'm Back And I'm Proud

2006-11-28T20:30:00.000Z

I’m back, and I’m as deadly as lunch at Itsu Sushi.

Actually, that’s not strictly true. It’s not even loosely true. In fact, I am forcing myself to write this, a gun held to my own head, lest I never write anything again. Every day I see my site’s visitor traffic flagging like an ageing Lothario’s libido. The few regular readers I have are becoming less and less likely to check for updates. That picture of the tumbleweed below has taken on an eerie resonance, as life imitates blog. It’s heart wrenching, like watching a family pet waste away. Rot is setting in and the longer I leave it, the more difficult it becomes to get back into the swing of things.

As recent blogging activity (the sum of fuck all over the last month) will testify, I have had zero appetite for writing of late, to the point that any attempt to do so produced nothing but an overwhelming wave of sleepiness. This could be seasonal: Citizeness Sane thinks I might suffer from SAD, but I’m not convinced. The fact that I have had a cold for something like seventeen years hasn’t helped, either. Or it might just be the ever-encroaching lethargy brought on by getting older and complacent. We have also been busy sorting out our house, which is currently being decorated, and the whole place is a complete pigsty. Chuck in numerous boozy nights and feeling like shite the next day, and you get the picture.

This is passing now and I hope to get back to it this week. Consider this post my first foray back into emptying my brain onto the screen and satisfying the resurgent need to mind-vomit at least a couple of times a week. Something akin to intellectual masturbation.

Anyway, few readers, your visits to the blog are appreciated. Readers are always good. Otherwise it's a bit like screaming in the dark. Therapeutic, but solitary and pointless.

But enough of this. Let us turn to other matters at once.

Donald Rumsfeld (Slight Return)

2006-11-13T21:46:00.000Z

I'm still suffering from Blogger's Block, so no real post from me. But I saw this and thought it was pretty funny, so thought I'd share it. If nothing else, it's a good opportunity to embed a You Tube clip into the blog for the first time. (Hat tip: mAc)

The sound of one hand clapping

2006-10-30T19:27:00.000Z

Haven't got a lot to say right now. Normal service will hopefully be resumed very soon.......

No Logo

2006-10-18T19:46:00.000+01:00

The Respect ‘Coalition’ is looking for a new logo and they are inviting submissions for consideration. Alas, I am not blessed in the artistic/design department so won’t be taking part myself. Although I do have some ideas. There would, of course, need to be a cat theme. Or perhaps a small graphic of Galloway noshing off Saddam Hussein, or being bagpiped by Uday and Qusay. The possibilities are… not quite endless, but there are plenty of options.

Why do they need a new logo anyway? Maybe Greenpeace’s lawyers gave them a call. There is more than a passing similarity.

Anyone else have any good ideas?

Discrediting The Lancet

2006-10-17T19:50:00.000+01:00

Medical journal The Lancet last week reported the number of dead in Iraq since the 2003 invasion as 655,000. I treated this figure with suspicion upon its release. I’m no expert on statistics, but a very similar study concluded that there had been 100,000 casualties as of October 2004 (which was itself a matter of great contention). So there's been 555,000 more deaths since then? It just doesn't sound plausible. Couple that with the fact that Richard Horton, the editor of this publication, is a prominent anti-war campaigner who has been known to share a platform with the likes of George Galloway and other leading members of the Defend The Baathists Movement (a far more apposite name for their beliefs than the Stop The War Coalition, I feel), and my suspicion radar was very much switched on.

Now Iraq Body Count, a campaign to accurately record civilian deaths since the invasion, and by no means whatsoever a supporter of the war (hell, even Michael Moore displays their figures on his website) has issued a rebuttal to The Lancet’s findings. It makes some very interesting points:

Summary

A new study has been released by The Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in The Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms.
Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.p>

If these assertions are true, they further imply:

incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;
bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.

In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy.

Iraq Body Count currently put the actual figure somewhere between 43,937 and 48,783, which seems more realistic. Moreover, from what I understand, they employ demonstrable number gathering techniques based on a combination of reputable media coverage and eyewitness reports. This is not to say that there is some kind of ‘acceptable’ death toll in such a situation – any number of civilian deaths is too high, and the way that Iraq has been managed since the successful toppling of Saddam’s regime has meant far more innocent deaths than anyone who favoured the invasion would have been prepared to ‘tolerate’ before we went in. (For more on this subject, I recommend reading this piece by Norm.) But the findings of The Lancet don’t seem to have a shred of credibility and it has been disheartening that this release received such widespread media attention with few, if any, publications questioning the validity of the data. Their target audience is clearly those who choose to believe that our presence in Iraq is nothing but an ongoing slaughter of innocent Iraqis (in other words, most contributors on Comment Is Free) rather than the reality: that we are there now to defend the majority of Iraqis who want quaint things like a working, democratically elected government and judicial system from being slaughtered by those who, to put it mildly, do not.

Our worst fears finally confirmed

2006-10-16T18:57:00.000+01:00

So what we all feared (but all knew anyway) has been officially confirmed today: North Korea has the nuclear bomb. Whatever lingering doubts anyone may have had about this lunatic state being part of the nuclear club have been permanently diminished. I wish I had something more insightful and erudite to say in relation to this story other than the following: oh bugger.

So ronery.... but now I have nucrear capabirity

Caveat lector. This is a rather rambling piece.

2006-10-15T17:51:00.000+01:00

As anyone who has ever tried to do so will attest, writing a blog can be hard work sometimes. You have to juggle the desire to write with other commitments and there are times when there is loads going on, you’re itching to say something about it, but you just don’t have the time. Other times, you feel like writing, but there are no stories around that really inspire you. Another scenario is when there are loads of things going on that would usually set you off, but you cannot summon up the energy for some reason. I’d say I’m experiencing the third situation now. This is a consequence of writing a mainly political blog: you’re really at the mercy of the current news agenda. I could write about other things I suppose, but I tend not to because I don’t think that’s why people come here and, secondly, I’m not terribly interested in writing about things going on in my personal life. I don’t treat this blog like a diary. Some people do, and that’s great, but it isn’t for me.

So why am I writing this at all? Because sometimes, as I’m sure other bloggers will agree, there is a clock ticking in your head, counting the days and hours since the last time you published anything, and after a while it can start to bug you. So here I am on a regular Sunday afternoon, reeling off thoughts purely to satisfy the little voice in my head constantly reminding me that I need to write something, anything, today.

But there are plenty of stories out there, mostly of a religious nature it seems. And perhaps that is putting me off writing about them: it just gets me worked up and, in any case, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. But what choice do I have?

So come with me while I load my shotgun and head for the nearest cylindrical container housing cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates.

News about veils continue to dominate, in particular the story of a teaching assistant suspended for refusing to remove it in class. Yet more evidence that this country is hell bent on persecuting Muslims at every opportunity. Because clearly, there are no practical considerations to be taken into account here. In a job where being able to communicate with young children is something of a prerequisite, it makes sense that the person be covered from head to toe. I’ve decided to wear a motorcycle helmet to work from tomorrow. Or maybe a Ku Klux Klan outfit. And who is my employer to dictate otherwise?

Elsewhere, the cabinet is split over new laws for gay rights, after protests from religious organisations terrified about sodomy in the streets, endless Judy Garland conventions in their churches or Graham Norton having the right to defecate in Westminster Cathedral. Or something. I stopped reading halfway through, so if anyone wants to tell me what it’s about, please do so.

Meanwhile, according to the Muslim Council of Britain, Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, is pandering to an ‘Islamophobic agenda’ following the government’s decision to cut funding and official ties with their organisation. Why was our government helping to fund this group in the first place? Or any other religious promotion group for that matter. Not in my name.

British Airways, meanwhile, have stoked controversy by sending home a worker for refusing to conceal a Christian cross while on duty; a contravention of their uniform code. A code that extends to all religious clothing and paraphernalia, with the exception of Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs. Ann Widdecombe has stated that Christians are “being persecuted” in the current environment. Which is patently as nonsensical as the claims from the Muslim Council of Britain or this opinion piece in The Sunday Times arguing that ‘Muslims are the new Jews’. Although I suspect that the stance by British Airways is driven by a misguided PC belief that one of their employees displaying Christian iconography might be deemed ‘insulting’ to non-Christian customers and co-workers. The only thing this policy insults is everyone’s intelligence. I expect that the vast majority of people could not care less and there is a world of difference between wearing a piece of jewellery and wearing a niqab in the name of your faith: namely that the former does not prohibit the wearer from doing their job effectively and the latter, if said job involves meeting and greeting with people, does. A fairly simple, common sense position to take on the whole issue.

And it is all about practicality rather than discrimination. If I were to wear a small cross around my neck to work tomorrow, my employers wouldn’t be concerned. They might, however, object if I were to commandeer the boardroom and slaughter an ox as an offering to the lord almighty. Both could be defended as representations of my personal religious affiliation, but the latter is clearly impractical in the workplace, not to mention incredibly messy. And I know this from bitter experience.

Meanwhile, that execrable little turd George Galloway stuck his snout into the trough at the Respect party’s annual conference yesterday, proclaiming that anti-Muslim comments are the last “respectable” form of racism in our society. This from a man whose party used Oona King’s mixed race, Jewish heritage as a race-baiting electoral tactic while competing for the seat of Bethnal Green and Bow in the 2005 general election. Money quote from his speech: “It's a disgusting, ugly sight and sound to see or listen to.” You certainly are George, you certainly are. Besides, Islam isn't a race.

I can’t think of anything else to say. Which brings me back to where I began. I’m going to bed.

The Hitch

2006-10-09T17:22:00.000+01:00

I went to see a conversation between Christopher Hitchens and Bernard-Henri Lévy yesterday, where the topic was the Iraq invasion. At least, that’s how it was billed: the actual motives, arguments and justifications for the war were barely mentioned. I was expecting combative, well argued exchanges between these two intellectual heavyweights, but it was more like a comfy fireside chat with port and cigars. I guess they agree with each other on more points than they don’t. Still, it was very entertaining stuff and it was great to see The Hitch in action. I even managed to meet him. Well, if brushing past him as I was exiting the men’s toilets and he was coming in counts as ‘meeting’ him. Which of course, it doesn’t. And again at the end when I was leaving the lecture hall, he was trying to get through the crowds, fag in mouth, desperate for a smoke. That doesn't count either, does it?

Anyway, he didn’t disappoint. Although I expected him to be taller.

Thinly veiled hysteria

2006-10-07T19:22:00.000+01:00

The hoo-hah caused by Jack Straw’s remarks about Muslim women wearing veils is perhaps the biggest storm ever to rage inside a tea cup.

The Leader of the House of Commons is an MP for Blackburn, where the Muslim population is estimated to be somewhere between 25 and 30 per cent. Writing in a local newspaper, he said that he now asks veiled women to show their faces when meeting them in person. Unsurprisingly, he finds it easier to communicate with a fellow human being if he can see their face. On the occasions when he has asked for this, the constituents have obliged. That’s it. That’s the story.

Judging by the reaction in some quarters, and the shameful hysteria being whipped up by the media, you’d think that he goes around Blackburn ripping the veils from women’s heads then setting fire to the cloth. Take this blustering headline from The Independent, for example: Straw fans flames by insisting he wants women to stop wearing veils altogether. From where have they got the word ‘insisting’? I’ve read what Jack Straw actually wrote in the Lancashire Telegraph and he doesn’t ‘insist’ on anything at all. He respectfully asks if they would mind removing their veil during what is meant to be a face to face conversation. So far, all have done so. But it’s their choice whether to do it or not, just as much as it is their choice (at least, it should be) to wear it in the first place. He is not refusing to speak to women who wear veils, nor is he telling anyone how they should dress, which some people have accused him of.

Asked on Radio 4’s Today programme whether he would prefer to see veils discarded completely, Jack Straw said: “Yes. It needs to be made clear I am not talking about being prescriptive but with all the caveats, yes, I would rather.”

That’s one of the great things about this country: Muslim women can choose what clothing they wear, and everyone else is free to have their opinion on it. That is Jack Straw’s opinion. I happen to share his view. I would go further and argue that a cultural requirement that all women cover themselves from head to toe amounts to subjugation (although whether or not the Koran explicitly requires that women wear these garments is a matter of conjecture). I would rather people did not dress this way but, as long as they choose to do so by their own free will (and I would be interested to know how many Muslim women dress this way out of community pressure rather than personal religious conviction) I don’t particularly care one way or the other. For the record, I would also prefer it if people didn’t wear gold jewellery, tracksuit bottoms with Reebok trainers, Chelsea shirts, hooded tops or baseball caps.

But that’s just my opinion.

Sometimes I really fear for the future of this country

2006-10-07T18:00:00.000+01:00

Every so often you come across a news story that is so wrong (not factually, but in the sense that what it is conveying is just wrong - in so many ways) you simply do not know where to begin. This is one of those stories.

It appears that some pregnant teenagers continue to smoke in the misguided belief that it will stunt their baby’s growth, resulting in a less painful birth. I am lost for words.

One can only hope that some of the other side effects of smoking (low sperm count, impotence) might stop some teenagers getting pregnant in the first place.

Abolition of limbo now in limbo

2006-10-07T17:40:00.000+01:00

I was highly amused to read this week that the Pope has decided, after lengthy investigation and consultation by the International Theological Commission, to consign the concept of ‘limbo’ to the dustbin of history. Limbo, commonly understood to be some sort of halfway house between ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’, has long been something of a headache for the Catholic Church. It is supposed to be the eternal resting place of unbaptised babies (because they would not have been cleansed of ‘original sin’ - of course.) and anyone unfortunate enough to have lived before Jesus. Which all seems a bit unfair doesn’t it? But that was the problem: the Church wants us to believe in the concept of a loving and forgiving god; yet this same god is apparently quite happy to condemn the souls of millions of innocents to an eternity in purgatory. How can we possibly reconcile these two different sides to the almighty? Hmmmm. It’s a real chin-stroker alright.

Prior to the 13^th century, it was taught that all unbaptised people went straight to hell when they died, but that was considered a bit harsh on babies who could not possibly have committed any sins yet. And so ‘limbo’ came to be. A place where people would suffer no pain, but neither would they experience the ‘Beatific Vision of God’. In 2004, Pope John Paul II commissioned an investigation with the task of coming up with “a more coherent and enlightened” way of dealing with the fate of innocent infants. The results of that investigation are now known and limbo, it seems, is going to be consigned to, well, philosophical limbo. It’s out. Passé. It was never official Catholic Church teaching anyway and, in the words of Pope Benedict himself: “It has always been only a theological hypothesis.” (Unlike the rest of the Church’s beliefs and teachings of course, which are all based on solid facts and hard evidence.) But isn’t it nice to know that there are people out there spending their time mulling these things over? That people are taking over two years of their precious lives to come to the conclusion that a concept patently made up to plug a theological gap (which has now become inconvenient), a place that clearly does not and could not exist, doesn’t exist?

What unmitigated, abominable nonsense of the highest order! Nonsense on stilts, to borrow Jeremy Bentham’s legendary phrase. Nonsense sent to Nonsense College and awarded a PhD in Advanced Nonsense with honours, presented by Professor Nonsense of the International Committee for the Advancement of Nonsense. Never mind the fact that there is just as much evidence for the existence of limbo as there is for the existence of heaven or hell: none whatsoever. A colossal waste of time.

But the matter is still not satisfactorily resolved. For it appears that official abolition of the concept of limbo will be held up for another year. A suspended sentence, if you will. So we now have a situation where the proposed consignment of limbo to philosophical limbo appears to be in, um, limbo.

I’m going for a lie down.

He doesn't exactly inspire conference

2006-10-01T16:50:00.000+01:00

I suppose I should make some sort of comment about last week’s Labour conference in Manchester. There was really only one story for me: the Machiavellian undermining (intentional or not) of Gordon Brown’s keynote speech.

Poor old Gordon Brown. So desperate to become prime minister, to stake his place in history, to step into the position that he sees as rightfully his. This was meant to be his week. He would make a rousing speech appealing to his own base, while reaching out to others, and at the same time demonstrate to the British public that he is not remote, aloof and socially awkward; that he can connect with them, see off that young upstart Cameron and march forward with the great Labour project, minus the spin-machine of the Blair administration.

So he pulled out all the stops in his speech, declaring outright that he would relish the chance to take on Cameron and his rejuvenated Conservatives. With regards to his fractious relationship with Tony, he paid tribute and admitted that they have not always agreed on everything (no shit). Conscious that people know little about him, he spoke of his Scottish upbringing and how his young experiences forged his political values – values that he holds to this day. Describing his vision of the Labour Party, he maintained that it should have more than just a programme, it should have a “soul”. He seeks political office not for fame or celebrity, but to make a difference, to make this country a better place. And so on.

His speech was generally warmly received, he got the obligatory standing ovation (even from Blair) and was probably feeling pretty pleased with himself. No doubt he retired from the stage to handshakes, warm smiles and back slapping from his most trusted colleagues and supporters. A job well done, they all no doubt felt.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg News broke a story that was clearly going to alter the expected headlines in tomorrow’s papers. One of their reporters claimed to have heard Cherie Blair say “well, that’s a lie” while watching Brown (on a TV monitor) talking about what a privilege it had been to serve under her husband. Downing Street immediately issued a denial, of course. But immediately this stole the top story from the beleaguered chancellor. Suddenly nobody was interested in the content of the would-be next prime minister’s speech, what mattered now was what the prime minister’s wife did or did not say.

Predictably enough, Cherie’s comment was on the front page of pretty much every newspaper on Tuesday morning. Was it intentional? We’ll never know. After all, it’s not the first time she’s said something controversial. But either way, it was a brilliant outcome for the Blairites and the “anyone-but-Brown” camps.

Then, as if Gordon’s week couldn’t get any worse, that bumbling cretin John Prescott gives the kiss of death by declaring that he will support Gordon Brown’s future leadership bid.

Coming up this week is the Conservative conference in Bournemouth. David Cameron consistently tops opinion polls when it is a straight choice between him or Gordon Brown, despite the fact that nobody really knows what Cameron’s policies are on anything. The less he says or does, the more popular he gets. If I were Cameron, I would just get up on stage on Wednesday and play my favourite songs on a kazoo. The way things are going, it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference to his political ambitions. It should be an interesting week.

The "Independent" and Afghanistan

2006-09-29T13:07:00.000+01:00

Speaking of Afghanistan and the Taliban, it was interesting to see The Independent run a front page (link now hidden behind a subscription firewall) on Tuesday highlighting the plight of women in that troubled country. Interesting in that the Indie has repeatedly taken an anti-war position through its news coverage, its editorials and its commentary (this is the paper that gives acres of space to Robert Fisk, remember). So this is something of a contradictory, if not downright hypocritical, news story to run with. I stopped respecting this particular publication some time ago as it gradually stopped being a newspaper and instead became a campaigning organ with every front page patronising its readers with bold graphics and statistics supporting whatever issue they feel is important today.

And as for its claim to be “independent”? Pah! You will not read a British broadsheet with a more skewed point of view (I would probably even include the Daily Telegraph in that). Its editorial position runs through every story like words through a stick of rock and I would rather read The Times which carries a demonstrably broader range of opinion (although I’m still partial to The Guardian, albeit more out of habit than for its opinion pieces).

Back to the story though, about Safia Amajan, a women’s rights campaigner shot dead in Afghanistan by Taliban gunmen. Her crime? Working. Even worse, working for the government. Worse still, she had also opened six schools in the town of Kandahar where local women were taught a trade. All grave offences to deranged Islamic fundamentalists who prefer their women illiterate, covered from head to toe, stuck in the home, raising children and doing the housework. As the Indie reported it:

Five years after the "liberation" of Afghanistan by the US and Britain, with promises of a new dawn for its downtrodden women, her murder was a bloody reminder of just how far the country is slipping back into a land of darkness.

We’ll ignore the hyperbolic prose (“land of darkness” indeed) and concentrate on the decision to put ironic speech marks around the word liberation instead. Because the rest of the article, and an accompanying comment piece (although as stated, with The Independent it’s difficult to tell where the comment ends and the news reporting begins and vice versa), goes into great detail about the plight of women in Afghanistan in lawless towns where the Taliban are resurgent and fighting ferociously against the NATO forces. NATO forces that The Independent has consistently argued should be withdrawn. Well, you can’t have it both ways can you?

The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 overthrew a diabolical and hideous regime. It was, without question, a good thing to do. While I can understand people objecting to the war in Iraq (although I would not agree with them myself), I think Afghanistan was a far more clear cut case. An isolated rogue state playing host to an armed and dangerous terrorist operation which, if left unchecked, and given the opportunity, would surely perpetrate far greater crimes than it managed on 9/11. We were right to go after al Qaeda and right to remove the Taliban while we were at it. In the process, Afghanistan got a new constitution and a new elected government (which people turned out in great numbers to vote for). Everyday life and conditions did improve for the majority of the population, and it was only the military intervention that ensured this.

But now the Indie seems to be saying that, in the light of a renewal of the Taliban’s strength and the suffering they are inflicting on Afghans, the invading forces have not done enough to create stability in the region. Thus taking a position of two-way criticism: we do not support the invasion or the presence of our troops; additionally, we are not happy with what they have done to safeguard the people (especially women) that live there. Never mind that the latter is conditional on the former. Yes, conditions have been deteriorating which, to my mind, is even more reason to stay there as long as is necessary, bolstering the military presence there if that is what it takes.

According to today’s Guardian, senior military officers are strongly of the opinion that British troops should tactically pull out of Iraq to strengthen our presence in Afghanistan, which is seen as a more worthwhile and winnable battleground. Even better would be a bigger international commitment to the cause, but that doesn’t seem to be happening either. Withdrawal now, as desired by the anti-war movement, would be to inflict an atrocity on the people living there. People who, after all that they have suffered, deserve better.

Beware the tide of marchers

2006-09-28T14:34:00.000+01:00

In addition to my esteemed visit, Manchester also played host on Saturday to an anti-war march. 60,000 protesters (at least, according to the organisers - the police put the figure more at 20,000) walked through the city to oppose, oooh, lots of stuff they don't like. Tony Blair for example (also in the city for the start of the Labour Party conference): they want him to go. Freedom For Palestine was another popular placard. Which is a bit of a conundrum, because Tony Blair also wants a Palestinian state and was a sponsor of the ill-fated peace plan spearheaded by Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. It was even starting to get somewhere until Yasser Arafat (probably something of a folk hero to many of these marchers) pulled the plug on the whole deal. Since then we've seen a second Intifada and the election of a terrorist group to their government. Hardly a great move forward.

Anyway, I digress. Where was I? Oh yes, the protesters protesting about things they want to protest about. As long as they're protesting, they're happy. Oh, how they like a good protest. Changes everything you see. Troops Out Of Iraq, of course, that was another favourite. Troops Out Of Afghanistan too...

This one I find particularly objectionable, seeing as our troops (and others) are currently there fighting back the Taliban: that reactionary, barbaric, philistinic force that would rather live in the Middle Ages, following a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of the Koran. And insisting that everyone else does too, on pain of death or disfigurement. And many of the protesters were university students. The idea of students - albeit perhaps unwittingly - arguing for action that would lead to the restoration of a regime that forbids education for women is beyond laughable. Norm wrote about this before me, and I agree with him wholeheartedly when he says:

But the marchers in Manchester, including members of the University and College Union it seems, are happy for the women of Afghanistan to be left to the benign attentions of the Taliban. Hold your heads up high, peaceniks, why don't you?

These are the progressive forces of this country, remember? They turned up in their thousands to listen to the likes of George Galloway, Tony Benn, Bianca Jagger and, erm, Lauren Booth, insist that Afghanistan be returned to a system of medieval feudalism: where women not adhering to the strictest form of Muslim dress can expect to have acid thrown in their face, or face a death squad if they want to be educated rather than just be baby-making chattel for their husbands; where music is forbidden, where free speech or independent thought are not allowed to exist. Oh, these people might not explicitly call for such a thing, but an argument for removing troops from Afghanistan is exactly what it amounts to.

A plague on their houses.

Incidentally, you'd expect them to have a bit of respect for the environment wouldn't you? Given the number of placards discarded on the pavements of Deansgate and Market Street, an awful lot of them don't. Still, they had their little walk and "die-in" to oppose the imperialist dogma of Bush and Blair, so I dare say they all went home happy.

Oh Manchester, so much to answer for

2006-09-28T11:15:00.000+01:00

I was in Manchester at the weekend, visiting a friend. Having graduated from Manchester University in 1996 but not having visited since 1998, it was quite an eye-opener walking around the old place now. The massive redevelopment programme that took place after the IRA bombing ten years ago, plus the considerable investment in preparing the city for the 2002 Commonwealth Games, has resulted in a city centre bearing little resemblance to the one that I remember. The grotty old Arndale Centre has been totally refurbished and extended with a fancy new atrium. Exchange Square is a totally new development: pedestrianised, with a big outdoor screen, water features, all overlooked by new residents Selfridges and Harvey Nichols. It's a bit like Covent Garden, but nicer, minus the tourists and tedious street 'artists'. When I was a student, Piccadilly train station stank of piss, lager and fag butts. The walk to the station would involve doing the 'tramp slalom', where you would try to avoid scary looking beggars with missing teeth and ginger hair hassling you for change so that they could "get their train fare home". (One chap in particular must have been very unfortunate with losing his train fare, because he was there every time I went to the station.) But now, with its glass exterior and abundance of shops, Piccadilly is more like a smart new airport terminal. Hulme has probably changed the most of all. In my day ("Aye, in my day, it were all fields round these parts"), it was like a cross between London's Elephant and Castle and Dresden after the bombing of 1944. Imagine a run-down council estate the size of a town, where virtually every deserted building has had all its windows broken and every wall is daubed with crude or illegible graffiti and you're starting to get there. But now, smart new low-level housing has sprung up all over. There are now bars, restaurants and delicatessens where, less than ten years ago, the only culture was that growing in the broken beer bottles dropped onto the pavement. Meanwhile, the University, my old alma mater, has ambitious plans to eclipse Oxford and Cambridge in terms of academic excellence. This is probably unrealistic, but they could certainly give them a run for their money.

So all in all, I was very impressed. It struck me as a confident and affluent city, quite European in style (but then it always was, with its canals, narrow winding backstreets, public squares and Gothic architecture). For so long Manchester had an inferiority complex. It would often make bold claims to being a great international city, on a par with London - claims that were once really quite laughable. But from what I've just seen, such proclamations are no longer ridiculous: it can offer pretty much everything that London has, but on a smaller and more manageable (not to mention affordable) scale.

It's oh so quiet

2006-09-28T09:19:00.000+01:00

By 'eck, it's been quiet around these parts lately. Let's rectify this situation at once!

Knock me down with a feather, Clever Trevor

2006-09-22T11:19:00.000+01:00

I had the pleasure this morning of listening to John Humphrys interviewing Abu Izzadeen on the Today programme. Abu Izzadeen (also known as Omar or Trevor Brooks) was the protester who on Wednesday heckled Home Secretary John Reid during a speech he was giving to a group of Muslims in East London. Izzadeen disrupted the meeting, shouted his fury about “state terrorism by British police” and proclaimed John Reid an “enemy” of Islam before being removed by police and security.

Izzadeen/Trevor is a former member of al-Ghurabaa, an Islamist militant group best known for praising the 7/7 London bombers as “martyrs” and being the chief organisers of the February protest outside the Danish Embassy in London during the furore about the publication of those “offensive” cartoons. They were founded by Omar Bakri Mohammad, who publicly praised the 9/11 hijackers/mass murderers as the “magnificent 19”. Mohammad has since been excluded from Britain, and al-Ghurabaa itself was one of the groups banned by British law in July 2006 for glorifying terrorism in addition to suspected links with other extremist and terrorist organisations.

Again, taste the delicious irony. Here was Izzadeen protesting about the police state and the “war against Muslims” yet he lives and moves freely in the country despite suspected links to terrorist groups and hate-preaching Islamist extremists. Moreover, he was able to get within shouting distance of one of the most powerful members of the British government. He was then removed from the premises but was free to continue his bizarre ranting outside the building. Then, two days later he is given a ten minute interview to state his case on the most popular news show on British (state-owned) radio. Clearly, we have become a fascist state of monstrous proportions. Somebody, please call Amnesty International. Even George Galloway wrote an open letter to John Reid on Wednesday, wondering how “such a well known extremist..... was allowed within punching distance of the British Home Secretary”. (To clarify, George was talking about Abu Izzadeen, not himself.)

The interview itself can be listened to here. It’s pretty much what you would expect. Bush and Blair are “Crusaders” who have declared war on Islam. Their intention is to murder Muslims, they have blood on their hands, the government is persecuting Muslims on a daily basis, democracy is a sham, we want Sharia Law, etcetera, etcetera. Personally, I think John Humphrys let him off quite lightly. When Izzadeen remarked that US/UK foreign policy is designed to inflame and persecute Muslims I would have liked to have asked him about Kosovo, where NATO intervened to halt Serbian slaughter of Muslim civilians: something that Tony Blair – that deranged Muslim hater - was instrumental in orchestrating. Or point out that military operations in Afghanistan are purely focussed on fighting the monstrous Taliban who were quite happy to kill, torture and deform any Muslim under their rule who did not adhere to their standards (women, mostly). It would have been good to counter-balance this interview by having a moderate Muslim involved too, to show that most British Muslims do not think in this way and - for once - not give the limelight to a deranged extremist. Humphrys did ask Trevor why, if he finds British life so objectionable, he does not simply choose to live in a country that does govern according to Muslim law. Funnily enough, Clever Trevor wasn’t too keen on that idea.

Trev, if it’s the air fare that’s putting you off, we can have a whip round. I’ll chuck in twenty quid towards a one-way flight to Kabul. You’ll like it there. You can meet up with other like-minded types and fight off the bloodthirsty Western Crusaders yourself.

This is an outrage! The Pope, Islam and perpetual offence.

2006-09-17T16:06:00.000+01:00

So, to recap. The Pope makes a speech in Germany and, touching upon the concept of violence within religion, repeats a quote made by Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus in 1391: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Cue hysteria and outrage across much of the Muslim world. Cue shock, disgust and despair. Cue thousands of Muslims taking to the streets in India, Pakistan, Turkey and Gaza burning effigies of the Pope, clashing with the police and attacking Catholic churches, outraged that their religion has again been associated with intolerance and violence. I mean, where does this undeserved reputation come from?

Some Muslim gentlemen turn up to engage in a
philosophical debate about their belief system.

Andrew Sullivan here reproduces a quote from a spokeswoman for the Pakistan Foreign Ministry which perfectly summarises this response: "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.” Beautiful. This is right up there with the one I quoted from someone protesting against the Danish cartoons in Afghanistan: “They want to test our feelings. They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers.”

Bonfire of the Inanities

Islam strikes me as a particularly childish faith. Of course, all religions are childish with their superstitions, anachronisms and rituals; their reverence of ‘sacred’ texts, rocks, buildings and animals. But Islam in particular is so rigid and inflexible, so unopen to dialogue, reasoning or criticism, so unchanged since the Middle Ages, it sets itself up for strife. It is the Daily Mail of religions: stuck in another age, frozen rigid in a permanent sense of outrage, preternaturally conditioned to take offence at the slightest opportunity. Prepared to kill in defence of its beliefs. Beliefs that are not open to debate under any circumstances.

And so the Pope, quoting from an ancient text and making it very clear from the outset that these were not his own words, has been forced into making an apology for words which he is not personally responsible for in the hope of nullifying the anger that has erupted – again – through the Islamic world. (Question to Muslims everywhere: is there anything you don’t get offended about?) Of course, one might question the Pope’s motives for highlighting this particular text, and one could also point out that the Catholic Church is in no position to criticise or comment on any faith that seeks to enforce and perpetuate its belief system through violence, as it worked well enough for them for hundreds of years. A pot-kettle-black situation if ever there was one. But it’s little short of depressing that for days the biggest news story has been caused by the leader of one redundant belief system quoting some words spoken 615 years ago by somebody most people have never even heard of, criticising the philosophy of another redundant belief system.

Non-theists like myself can only howl in despair and rage. I think I might take to the streets in protest. Would anyone like to join me?

I brand thee a twat

2006-09-14T20:40:00.000+01:00

You may have seen a story in various sources about a chap called Neil Boorman, a club promoter, style magazine editor and fashion victim who has decided to burn every item of branded merchanise he owns in an exercise he has dubbed the Bonfire of the Brands. He plans to publicly set fire to almost everything he owns in an attempt to start his life over, free from the trappings of brand status and material covetousness, in a quest to find his "true self". Coincidentally, there is also a book of the same name coming out later this year, written by Mr Boorman, about the whole experience. Thus rendering the entire event meaningless and hollow. Or, as I remarked in the comments section of his piece on Comment Is Free:

Wasteful, pretentious, self-indulgent exercise in futility. Cynical, self-serving art wank. Sub-Nathan Barley toss. As pointless as someone taking a vow of silence, but first spending a couple of months publicising the fact that they have taken a vow of silence.

Disclosure: I used to vaguely know this person. We went to the same A level college and he is part of an extended circle of Lady Sane's friends and acquaintances. I never liked him very much and this bias does, of course, come through in what I have to say. But trust me, he's an arse of the highest order. A real life Nathan Barley.

I do have some grudging respect for him, however. He has come up with a stunt (albeit one almost identical to something that Michael Landy did about five years ago), and got a book deal and substantial media coverage for it in the process. What niggles with me is his straight-faced insistence that this is some sort of post-No Logo "statement", when it is clearly nothing more than a means to an end. If he really wanted to perform such a "cleansing" exercise, he would have gone about it quietly then got on with his life. Instead, he's going to try to launch a career off of it, cashing in on the exercise with a book that is, in itself, a brand. Meanwhile, the whole event is being managed by Idea Generation who are... wait for it... a PR company.

Along with many other commenters, I think it would be better to give the items away to charity as there are plenty of worthy recipients who desperately need clothing and couldn't care less if it has a label on it or not. But if he insists on the bonfire option, I'd personally recommend that, after putting everything in the fire, he has himself thrown on soon after. FCUKing idiot.

Bonfire of the Brands will be published in the autumn. I'm sure there will be plenty of copies available.

Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer

2006-09-14T19:12:00.000+01:00

Next door, in fact.

Gordon Brown, being interviewed on Sky News yesterday, declared that Tony Blair is his friend, and always will be, despite the recent skirmishes in the Labour Party. He also denied having any involvement in the recent plots and resignations designed to weaken the prime minister.

Yes Gordon, and I'm Archduke Hercules Orangutan VII, patron saint of geese.

Remembering 9/11

2006-09-10T18:05:00.000+01:00

Like most people, I vividly remember the events of 9/11. At the time, I was working on the trading floor of a large American investment bank (Merrill Lynch, if you’re interested) at their new premises in London, near St. Paul’s. I had just returned from a lunchtime gym session and, upon returning to my desk, saw on television images of the World Trade Center on fire. I asked a colleague what had happened, and was told that a plane had flown into one of the towers. Weird, I thought, figuring that it was some kind of micro-plane, perhaps one that does traffic reporting, not for a second imagining it was a large passenger craft. I sat down to get back to work, keeping one eye on one of the many TV screens placed around the floor. When it was finally confirmed what kind of plane had hit the north tower, I immediately suspected that this was no accident. That kind of thing just does not happen. The trading floor I worked on was the size of a football pitch, holding several hundred people, and by now hardly anyone was sat at their desk working anymore; instead everyone was standing around a TV screen, trying to get more information. It was then that the second plane flew into the south tower, from what seemed like out of nowhere, immediately shattering any hope that this was just a dreadful accident. This couldn’t be anything other than a deliberate, orchestrated attack. A collective gasp went across the floor, and one woman in particular screamed as the second plane hit – a noise that I will never forget, and still makes the hairs on my neck stand when I think about it.

Everything that followed simply felt surreal. News of another plane hitting the Pentagon; reports of another plane hijacked, whereabouts unknown (which would later turn out to be United Flight 93); images of people trapped in the towers jumping to their deaths. Then the south tower fell and, within half an hour, the north tower too. I could barely comprehend what I was seeing. It felt apocalyptic. The Merrill Lynch global headquarters are at the World Financial Center, parallel to the site of the twin towers. When the north tower went down, it looked like the entire thing had landed on our colleagues. As it turned out, all but three of the 9,000 staff had been evacuated in time and made it home safe.

Along with the rest of London, we were all sent home early, still in shock at the events we had seen, feeling very vulnerable. It turned out that Canary Wharf had already been evacuated. Was London also going to be targeted? Not for today, at least. But that vulnerability is more acute than ever now, as the prospect of a major terrorist incident is a daily reality for everyone.

I remember remarking to a colleague that this will be our generation’s JFK moment. Yes, this is a cliché now, but it’s true. This was a day that seared itself on our collective conscious, still a vivid memory now, five years later. It may have all happened over 3,000 miles away, but it all felt very close to me, and it was clear that the world was never going to be the same again. And indeed it hasn’t been.

I’d always been fascinated with New York ever since I was a young boy, when I would spend ages looking at my book of NYC skyscrapers, memorising their names and locations. I had always wanted to visit and always expected that the highlight of any trip would be visiting to the World Trade Center - something that could never happen now. As it happens, I have since been to New York twice and went to Ground Zero on each occasion. Both times I have been shocked by the sheer size of the site and the thought of just how big those buildings really were. Even five years later it’s still incredible to recollect the events of that day: watching helplessly as those monolithic structures - which once stood like two fingers stuck up at the rest of the world - were attacked and obliterated in less than two hours.

9/11 changed everything forever, alerting us all to a war that we were already involved in. We just didn’t know it yet.

Thus spake Blairathustra

2006-09-07T15:14:00.000+01:00

Well, Blair has retorted, in a pre-recorded statement of blandness during a visit to a school in north London. It started with an apology on behalf of the party, which was an interesting way to begin. Trying to distance himself from all the in-fighting, obviously, and put the blame squarely on that nasty, manipulative Brown camp. By the end of it, we were still none the wiser: this year will be his last TUC and party conference - that's as close he came to specifying any stand down date. Any date will be named at a time in the best interests of the country and the party. The public comes first, etc, etc. Other than that, there were a few opportunities to highlight a few policy achievements (although I can't remember which). And that was it. No questions, no answers.

Just over an hour ago Gordon Brown committed himself to supporting whatever decision Blair makes with regards to standing down. So now what?

Gordon Brown, texture like sun

2006-09-07T14:05:00.000+01:00

Just watched Gordon Brown live on BBC News 24. Interesting that he got his word in before Blair's scheduled announcement. The gist of his statement was basically: "I have worked with the prime minister for over twenty years now, in good times and bad, and we are both committed to the same principles and beliefs, blah, blah, blah (smiles). I will support the prime minister whatever decision he makes (smiles), because it is his decision to make (smiles), and he must decide what is best for the country and the party. And this gun that I'm holding to his head should not make any difference to his decision."

End of speech. Blair coming up soon.

The crap that comes through my letter box

2006-09-07T13:35:00.000+01:00

I'm off work today with some kind of man virus, trying to stave off cabin fever by blogging and overdosing on news. Where I live, we are fortunate enough to be deluged with all manner of junk mail, usually leaflets for local takeaways, cleaning services or mini cab firms. But something came through the post today that I thought I'd share with you. For the sake of something to do, if nothing else.

It's from a Mr Conde who is, according to his literature, an "African Marabout you can trust". At last! I'm fed up with those untrustworthy marabouts giving the profession a bad name. Clairvoyant, spiritual healer and medium, there seems to be no end to this man's talents. "Call now - He will help you. He will break curses and protect you and destroy the powers of Witchcraft, Black Magic and Bad Luck."

Anyway, I'm going to give him a call and see what he can do for this cold. I've got a bit of a headache too, so maybe there's something he can do for that.

In a fast German car, I'm not surprised you died. An airbag didn't save your life.

2006-09-07T13:12:00.000+01:00

Apparently there is to be a new inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales commencing in 2007. Can anyone explain to me why? Outside of Daily Express editorial meetings, who cares? Where’s the conspiracy? They were in a car being driven by a man high on drink and drugs, involved in a high speed race to get away from photographers. The car crashed. Neither of them were wearing seat belts. I’d say the chances of death under such circumstances are good to even, wouldn’t you? Why are we still picking over this corpse?

Blairites and Brownites hit the mattresses

2006-09-07T12:30:00.000+01:00

So today’s the day. Sometime between 2pm and 3pm Tony Blair will announce to the world the day he intends to stand down as prime minister. Or so we all thought. Breaking news suggests that, in fact, he won’t specify a day at all, but will confirm that he will stand down sometime before next year’s party conference.

Brownites are desperately pushing for clarification, and would love for Blair to just stand down today, avoiding what could otherwise be the longest leadership contest in history. According to reports, Gordon Brown has demanded that he goes by Christmas. If Blair were to say, for example, that he’ll go on May 31^st, we’d be looking at eight months of machinations and political manoeuvres in a party that is clearly not united on anything. With no real leader in the interim (who’s going to care about the consequences when they already know that he’s leaving?) this could make the Conservative Party squabbles under John Major in the mid 1990s look like a children’s tea party. Gordon Brown will most likely be the victor in any contest, but may first face a battle from John Reid, Alan Milburn, perhaps even Jack Straw or Charles Clarke. None of whom would be particularly attractive to me – but at least we know something about them. Gordon Brown is an unknown quantity. Who knows what he thinks about any of the major issues facing Britain today? What does he think about British involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan? About our role in Europe? Our relationship with the United States? About Muslim fundamentalism?

In any case, any euphoria about Blair leaving is going to be relatively short lived. The left of the party still aren’t going to see Labour return to anything like its socialist roots. And Brown’s backers will soon have to face up to a certain reality: their new leader will have to battle David Cameron, who is younger, more charismatic and more voter friendly than Brown, the Silent Chancellor. It’s almost laughably ironic: after giving way to Tony Blair in 1994, then spending twelve years as a frustrated leader-in-waiting, Gordon Brown could well find himself as prime minister for just a couple of years, before being unseated in a general election to a Conservative Party led by a replica of the man who held him back for so long.

The Guardian today quotes Labour MP John McDonnell as describing the events of the last few weeks as being like an episode of The Sopranos. I think that does our favourite Mafia family a disservice. There is at least a concept of honour amongst thieves in their world: what’s going on in the Labour Party right now makes the mob look quite civilised. Perhaps Gordon should have had Blair clipped - that usually speeds up leadership contests in La Cosa Nostra.

Stepping aside with dignity. Or perhaps not.

2006-09-05T22:27:00.000+01:00

As the pressure mounts on Tony Blair to step down, or at least name a date when he intends to do so, The Daily Mirror has published an excruciating and, frankly, hilarious memo which, they claim, originates from the prime minister’s advisors. This memo details the action plan that will kick in during the build up to his handover of power. The BBC has summarised the main points of the leak and it is a veritable mine of comic gold.

So without further ado, let’s go through some of the best pieces of this document, offering advice and comment as we do so. Because it’ll be fun, and I’ve got little else to do this evening…

Time is not an unlimited commodity. His genuine legacy is not the delivery, important though that is, but the dominance of new Labour ideas ... the triumph of Blairism.
Unbelievable pomposity. My jaw is agape. Very astute observation about time, though. For it is, indeed, not an unlimited commodity. At least, not in politics. Although it is infinite, according to Einstein. But we won’t nit pick.

As TB enters his final phase he needs to be focusing way beyond the finishing line, not looking at it.
And don’t forget to think outside the box while you’re at it, TB. Then stop to pick the low hanging fruit. Ah, platitudes. Platitudes and clichés. You can’t beat them.

He needs to go with the crowds wanting more. He should be the star who won't even play that last encore. In moving towards the end he must focus on the future.
I can’t improve on this one.

As much as possible a farewell tour, looking to the future, making sure the party is in the right place and the public remember him as he should be.
Looking to the future. Again. And it should be like a farewell tour – perhaps with Elton John? But remember the point above: no encore.

He needs to embrace open spaces, the arts and businesses, he needs to be seen to be travelling on different forms of transport. He needs to be seen with people who will raise eyebrows.
How, exactly, does one embrace an open space? Actually, let’s not linger on that one. Different forms of transport... A bus, a moped, a skateboard? How about a camel? Be seen with people who will raise eyebrows? Peter Sutcliffe, perhaps? That would certainly raise a few eyebrows. Roller blading with Osama Bin Laden. A candlelit dinner with Gary Glitter, followed by dancing. These would all be remembered, I assure you.

He needs to travel around the UK to be carefully positioned as someone who while not above politics, is certainly distancing himself from the political village.
By all means travel around the UK, but don’t forget that earlier commitment to embracing open spaces while you’re at it. But while you’re embracing those open spaces you have to distance yourself from the political village. Got that? Good.

He should be dropping references in all that he does which reflect his energy and enthusiasm.
OK Tone, to summarise thus far: you need to embark on that farewell tour (but no encore!), travelling by camel in tandem with Peter Sutcliffe (must raise eyebrows!). All the while, you have to embrace open spaces while distancing yourself from the political village. But is the political village surrounded by embraceable open spaces? We'll check that out. Anyway, when you’ve done all that, drop some references that demonstrate your commitment to the future. While not forgetting the past. And perhaps a quick nod to the present, too. But then back to the future. Hang on, that was a film. Scrap that. Oh, and keep those energy levels up, especially as you’re looking beyond the finishing line. Jesus, this is getting confusing.

While we need to do what is required to defend the government and ensure a clarity of message, we should not be drawn into hand-to-hand combat.
Oh, I disagree. I think hand-to-hand combat is the way to go. Remember: you want to raise eyebrows. So be seen with Osama Bin Laden, then take him on in hand-to-hand combat. When you’re done there, you should twat Gordon Brown live on television, then walk off camera. But don’t walk back on – must remember that “no encore” rule...

Another gem is the proposal to have Mr Blair appearing on high profile shows: Blue Peter, Songs of Praise, the Chris Evans radio show. This is the problem: these advisors appear to be trapped in a time where Tony Blair and Chris Evans are both popular. I believe most people would agree that such a time was…. 1996.

How genuine this leaked memo is, I have no idea. It reads like something Gordon Brown’s camp has put together for a laugh. The scary thing is, I would be no more or less surprised to know that it is completely authentic. Still, it gave us a few laughs, whatever its origin.

Dear oh dear Tony. Who are you surrounded by? When you do go, don’t listen to any of this tosh. Remember: all farewells should be sudden and if you follow this advice you will be a laughing stock for the rest of your days. Just say goodbye, and walk away with some remnants of dignity. You don’t really care about the Labour Party anyway, especially now that even your own loyalists are turning on you like wolves. This is all going to be Gordon Brown’s problem soon and you should leave him to it. Given that he’s going to inherit a country in recession, facing a resurgent Conservative Party rejuvenated under Cuddly Dave Cameron, he doesn’t stand a chance anyway. Leave, write your memoirs, be a grumpy backbencher, earn a fortune on the speeches circuit. Just don't let yourself be stage managed like a fading boy band.

All quiet on the blogging front

2006-09-05T21:11:00.000+01:00

I do hate those blogging gaps that just creep up on you. A week and a half passes with not a thing written - and not because of a lack of suitable material either, I might add. The lack of anything around these parts is really down to two things. Firstly, a lack of opportunity to write anything during work hours. This is my favourite way of blogging because, let’s face it, it’s a damn sight more interesting than doing real work and I’m getting paid for it. But no more, for a mixture of paranoia and a newly found work ethic have put paid to that. To be precise, the paranoia has created a work ethic because I’m terrified of the day when my boss calls me into his office and says, “Now, what’s this ‘Liberal Elite’ website we see you visit for at least two hours every day?”

*shudders*

The second reason can be attributed purely to the fact that I bought the first season of Lost on DVD approximately two weeks ago and Lady Sane and I have been totally addicted to it. We came to this one a bit late – I can’t really be bothered to diarise screenings of TV shows, and then have to sit through the adverts and wait another week to see the next one – but it is, to be frank, fucking excellent. Totally absorbing, quality television just like The Sopranos, The West Wing, Desperate Housewives, 24 and (so I’m told although I’ve never watched them) CSI and The Wire. Programmes of this quality only ever come out of the US. Why can’t WE make something like this? We just get unambitious toss like Doctor Who, The Bill and Holby Bastard City.

Anyway, we got to the end of season one last night, which should free up a bit of time in the evenings; time to spend a bit more time writing this here blog. That is, until I buy season two...

Welcome to Hitler's. Would you like to see today's specials?

2006-08-25T11:24:00.000+01:00

A newly opened restaurant in Mumbai has decided to change its name after a mass of complaints. Understandably, the local Jewish community (and, I suspect, most right thinking people) obejcted to the name "Hitler's Cross".

One of the managers acknowledged that naming a restaurant after Hitler was "most inappropriate". Really? Do you think so? What was the thought process at work here? "OK, we're opening a new restaurant. We need a name that's catchy, one that will really bring the punters in. Oh, I've got it! Let's name it after Hitler. You know, because of that whole restaurant-food-Nazi connection. Perfect!" Sack the marketing company I reckon.

I'm eager to know what name they come up with as a replacement. Hitler's Cross is kind of a tough one to follow. Stalin's Diner perhaps? Pol Pot's Brasserie?

Putting the 'mad' in Madonna

2006-08-22T21:46:00.000+01:00

As pop icons go, Madonna is hard to beat. Pretty much at the top of her game for over two decades now (creatively barren spell in the mid 1990s notwithstanding; nor will we mention the hideousness of Don’t Cry For Me Argentina – we all cried, Madge. We all cried.), she has a veritable cannon of pop classics for the casual listener to choose from. I, for one, have very fond memories of driving down to Brighton with Citizeness Sane a few years back listening to Immaculate Collection. Borderline was always my favourite. Even now, after a few nips of cooking sherry, I am occasionally known to bellow “Madge!” when asked what we should listen to next. Because there are times when only some quality Madge will suffice. And I speak as an unreconstructed, overgrown indie-boy.

But she should definitely stick to music, as anyone who has watched any of her films would surely agree. And she definitely shouldn’t get involved in political lobbying for, alas, it seems she has. As adherents of the ‘religion’ known as Kabbalah, Madge and husband Guy Ritchie are reported to have approached the government and nuclear industry a couple of years ago, proposing an initiative to rid the world of nuclear waste by the wonderful magical powers of Kabbalah fluid. Apparently, this special elixir has successfully neutralised dangerous nuclear waste in Ukraine. According to one official party to the conversation: “It was like a crank call… the scientific mechanisms and principles were just bollocks, basically.” Surely not?

The Kabbalah Centre (based in California – of course – and founded by former insurance salesman Philip Berg in 1984) believes that water is a uniquely important substance (which, to be fair, cannot be denied. Should their followers ever doubt this, I recommend they try to live without it for a week or two. No, really. Try.) that can be given magic healing powers (oh dear) through “meditations and the consciousness of sharing”. The consciousness of sharing? This makes no sense. Not even semantically.

It gets funnier. According to insider reports at Kabbalah Centre meetings, Berg leads with chants of “Chernobyl” and other nuclear power plants, which other cult members believe is instrumental in healing the problem of nuclear waste. Both Madge and Guy have been seen taking part in this event, incanting the name while facing east. Which makes sense: it would never work if you faced the other way. That would just be a waste of time.

Oh mercy!

Madge, please stop trying to save the world with this horseshit and stick to what you do best: making pop music and irritating the church. And Guy? Ditto. Although I’m not sure what that is, now the bottom has fallen out of the market for ‘geezer’ gangster films. Perhaps you should get Phillip Berg to lead a chant of “Guy” from Kabbalah HQ whilst looking over the Hollywoood hills? Perhaps that will drum up enough positive energy to reinvigorate your flagging directing career? Oh, to be rich, famous and stupid.

How to halve your blog's readership in one swift move

2006-08-22T21:39:00.000+01:00

Transfer over to the new Blogger Beta.

It seems that since making the change, all the traffic that used to come via Google has disappeared. Until last week, searching for "liberal elite" on Google.com would be the top result. But now? Not a sign. The same goes for any other search that was previously bringing people here. Dammit.

The Euston Manifesto

2006-08-19T15:30:00.000+01:00

I have just signed up to the Euston Manifesto. Launched to considerable fanfare in April, it is an organisation of leftist academics, journalists and activists committed to re-stating the principles of the democratic left. It is an attempt to distance themselves from the quagmire of much of what passes for left wing 'thought' these days, which is so often consumed with blind hatred for America, Israel and the West generally, not to mention the more insidious recent alignment with the forces of extreme Islamism which, as I have argued many times, is an abhorrent and un-natural marriage of convenience between two movements that, opposition to US and UK foreign policy aside, share no common ground whatsoever.

Amongst the Manifesto's statement of principles are commitments to spreading democracy, refusal to apologise for tyrants, human rights for all, equality, development for freedom, opposing anti-Americanism, a two state solution for Israel and Palestine, combating racism, opposition to terror, fostering internationalism, critical openness, historical truth and freedom of ideas.

Which all sounds good to me and I like to think that much of what I write here covers similar ground.

Norman Geras and Nick Cohen were among the founding members. Other signatories include Oliver Kamm, Francis Wheen and Harry Hatchett of Harry’s Place, so I consider myself in good company. Suffice to say, George Galloway has not signed up.

You can read the manifesto for yourself here.

Is the unthinkable becoming more likely?

2006-08-16T22:51:00.000+01:00

Last October I wrote a piece postulating on the possibility of ever voting for the Conservative Party one day. The conclusion was that, in all probability, this would not happen, because of the unlikelihood of that particular animal being attractive to me. Since then, of course, the party has elected David Cameron as its leader (one of the conditions for me ever being able to stomach them in the first place), who has embarked on a major charm offensive. Recognising that his party has, for many years, made stomachs turn, he has gone to great lengths to re-engineer the entire Tory (even that is now a dirty word) ethos, and drag them to the centre. So much so that he is now going toe-to-toe with Tony Blair in virtually every way.

It’s the summer, so most politicians are meant to be on holiday somewhere, enjoying the enormous break they all receive at this time of year courtesy of us, the generous taxpayers. But not Big Dave. He’s doing the rounds, trying to keep himself in the papers and the public eye. Yesterday he was criticising the government’s efforts at combating Islamic terrorism in the UK. Today, he’s gone to the trouble of revealing a mini-manifesto. Which was nice of him. Let’s go through the key points and see how they measure up to the wish list I put together last year:

"Flatter and simpler" taxes and deregulation for industry
Yes, I have long liked the idea of a flat tax. Simplification of our sprawling and complex tax system, reducing the need for an army of overpaid bureaucrats at the Inland Revenue and closing tax loops exploited by the rich and their clever accountants? Definitely worth investigation.

Reducing means testing for pensioners, paid for by raising the retirement age
A great vote winner for the Tories. After all, most of their base is over sixty. Raising the retirement age is, unfortunately, a requirement for whoever gets in power. The pension deficit isn’t getting any smaller.

A "huge increase" in drug rehabilitation places for young offenders
Part of Cameron’s infamous “hug a hoodie” initiative I suppose. But I agree. Sending drug abusers to prison is like sending gamblers to Las Vegas.

"Binding annual targets" for carbon emissions
Easily said, not easily done. But again, I can’t fault the logic.

Ending the "culture of top down centralisation and targets" in the NHS
Ironic, seeing as his party introduced the idea in the first place, but still…

More "streaming and setting" in schools
Nothing wrong with pushing smarter kids up the ladder. As long as the others aren’t completely given up on of course. Nothing wrong with testing kids either and (gosh) occasionally failing them if they’re not up to standard.

Creating a "unified border police" and a homeland security minister
Like, whatever.

A New Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act
I like the idea in principle – I’ve always supported constitutional reform and an enshrined Bill of Rights would be a part of that. Getting out of the European Human Rights Act wouldn’t be an easy task though.

Scrapping the government's proposed ID card scheme and unelected regional assemblies
Definitely scrap the ID card. It will cost billions, go over budget, then cost billions more. It would be cheaper to simply let the benefit fraud that it would supposedly eliminate continue. It wouldn’t make any difference in fighting terrorism. As we’ve seen in the last year, our biggest threat comes from naturalised British citizens.

It has to be said, the blueprint set out here comes closer to matching the sort of liberal policies I would like to see our government represent than anything else I have seen recently. There is nothing here that would offend me. Of course, he’s got to sell the idea to the rest of his party – and there are still some hoary old monsters in there – not to mention their elderly membership, for the transformation to continue. But so far, so good. Big Dave, you’ve got me listening. It will be interesting to see where you go from here. My vote is very much up for grabs, I have little regard for any of the parties these days. If you could just take another look at your party’s name. The Conservatives. I just don’t like it. Would you consider changing it to something more agreeable? The Liberal Party, perhaps? Then you’d really have my attention.

Terrorism, foreign policy and accountability

2006-08-13T20:15:00.000+01:00

The events of Thursday served as a timely reminder that there will probably never again be a time where the threat of a major terrorist incident is not a routine part of British life. Although you could argue that we have never lived in such a world: after all, it wasn’t so long ago that London and other UK cities were frequent targets for the IRA. But the threat we face now is an altogether different animal. The IRA, at least, had a political face (of sorts), a stated, tangible objective and, more often than not, gave an advance warning to clear the targeted area of civilians before detonating their bombs. Now the biggest domestic threat we face is predominantly home grown and wishes to inflict the highest death count possible in the name of medieval religious fanaticism. Was anybody surprised to learn that the people arrested in those police raids are all British citizens? After 7/7, I certainly wasn’t.

What is attracting young British Muslims to such murderous ideology? Many speak of the ‘alienation’ they feel, but why should it be more acute in this particular minority? Where are the Sikh suicide bombers? The Hindus? The Buddhists? The Mormons? There are fewer barriers to integration in British society than ever before and racism, while still undoubtedly a problem, is far less common in the UK than in many other countries in Europe. Look at France, where racism manifests itself in many more pernicious ways than here (they only got their first black TV newsreader this year – it was a huge national story), and they have the largest Muslim population on the continent. Last year saw the huge outbreaks of riots by a frustrated and dispossessed underclass, but still no suicide bombers in their midst. Moreover, a far higher percentage of French Muslims place their national identity before their religious affiliation than here in Britain. According to a recent Pew poll of Muslims worldwide, 81% of Muslims in the UK identify themselves by their religion above their country of residence; in France the figure was 46%. Only in Pakistan was this figure higher than the UK, AT 87%.

Meanwhile, British Muslim groups (among them, three Muslim MPs) have written to the Prime Minister calling for a reassessment of British foreign policy towards the Middle East which, they claim, is exacerbating unrest and putting British lives in danger. Well, British foreign policy over the last five years has been predominantly a response to post-9/11 reality, so this would appear to be a cart-before-horse situation. I’d take this letter a lot more seriously if it unequivocally condemned the actions of Muslim extremists who see the murdering and maiming of civilians as a divine mission. If it showed some sort of commitment to tackling the cancer within their own faith. But there is no mention of this, other than the bland platitude that “Attacking civilians is never justified”. Moreover, while urging the PM to “do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens”, it doesn’t occur to them that the Prime Minister believes he is pursuing such a strategy. They clearly disagree with the methods employed, but offer no alternative vision, nor any clarification of how a change to British foreign policy might make any difference to the civil war that is raging within the Islamic faith between the forces of moderation and the deranged fantasists intent on killing all non-believers. Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has responded to the letter, calling it ‘facile’. I’d go one further and say they are making a casual assumption and dressing it up as fact that there is a direct link between government policy and young men blowing themselves up. Such an argument is dangerous and counter-productive. This critique of British foreign policy seems to be based purely on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan too, both comparatively recent events. This leader in The Observer was a surprise to read, arguing (correctly) that there is no ‘war against Islam’ being raged by Britain and the United States and that, in fact, two of the highest profile international policies of the last ten years were undertaken to protect Muslims: the NATO interventions in the Balkans to protect Muslims from genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo (something that Tony Blair was instrumental in, to his credit); and the ongoing diplomatic efforts of the Clinton administration to forge a workable peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Neither of which made any difference to the planning and implementation of 9/11, so where is the evidence of a link between foreign policy and Islamic terrorism there? Such acts have occurred and will continue to occur regardless of British and American foreign policy. Any claim to the contrary is specious in the extreme.

Going back to that Pew poll, another interesting statistic is shown: only 22% of the British Muslims polled want to adopt national customs, 64% wish to remain distinct from society. This is the real problem here. Far from being ‘alienated’ from the rest of the country, nearly two-thirds of Muslims in the UK wish to live exclusively in their own communities amongst followers of their own faith, and to resist the characteristics of life in a modern liberal democracy. Another failing of the orthodoxy of modern multiculturalism.

Lord Stevens, the former commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has today written in the News of the World that the issue of Islamic terrorism is a problem for the Muslim community to deal with, and that it is time to take some ownership. These words will undoubtedly provoke cries of anguish from politically correct mandarins, but there is a lot of truth to his argument. This is not to condemn the entire Muslim community in this country – far from it. But the best way to stamp out this kind of extremism is within the very communities from which they emerge. Based on the hand-wringing letter sent to the prime minister by senior members of the Muslim community, we are a long way from seeing that happening.

Hezbollocks

2006-08-09T14:55:00.000+01:00

I had no idea anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic sentiment ran so high beyond the confines of the hard left and the extreme right (what an interesting coalescence that is). Not to mention that toxic dwarf Mel Gibson. In the last week I’ve experienced (well, endured would be a more accurate description) several conversations, with people I consider to be reasonable and intelligent human beings, about the current conflict in Israel and Lebanon and found myself aghast at their position on the subject. One argument was functional: "the Israeli response is disproportionate to the threat they face, too many innocent people are being killed and nobody has ever been successful in a campaign against a guerrilla army". Another was, quite frankly, disgusting: "the Israeli response is disproportionate and, in any case, the country has no right to exist."

The latter isn’t even worthy of response, but for the first I would ask this: how, exactly, should a country respond when a terrorist organisation committed to your eradication starts firing hundreds of rockets at your civilians from beyond your national borders? Rockets provided mostly by Iran – a theocratic dinosaur with nuclear ambitions - whose fanatical leader has also expressed his wish to see your country removed from the map? Then, to compound matters further, said terrorist organisation blend their weapons and 'soldiers' amongst their host nation’s civilian population? You certainly cannot negotiate – the people you are fighting do not even recognise your right to exist – and there are no military targets to specifically go after because they have purposefully integrated into residential areas to both hide themselves and ensure as high a death count as possible in the hope that it will trigger a pan-Islamic response.

Israel has unquestionably made some tactical errors, and innocent lives have been tragically lost, but I lay all blame squarely at the feet of Hezbollah and their Iranian/Syrian backers. And these people who see equivalence between the actions of the state of Israel and those of a terrorist organisation essentially bankrolled by a fascist dictatorship are seriously deluded.

“We are all Hezbollah now”, read one of the placards on the anti-war demo in London last weekend. Oh, how low some on the left have sunk. There’s a huge debate raging over at The Guardian’s Comment is Free blog right now, prompted by a post from Harold Evans criticising those who are comfortable to share a platform with these people. It’s worth a read, if only for the rarity value of a comment piece in The Guardian that doesn’t instinctively take an anti-Israel position.

Getting away with murder

2006-07-26T22:15:00.000+01:00

Eltham, London, SE9 is a ghastly place. I speak from first hand experience: I grew up very near those parts, drank there regularly in my teens, one of my sisters lives there still. It is famous for very little of worth. Bob Hope, Frankie Howerd and Boy George hailed from there. Kate Bush used to live nearby. There is a royal palace. That’s about it. Since 1993, however, it has been infamous for only one thing: the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Like everyone in South East London, I remember the time of this event very well. It happened only a few hundred metres from where my friends and I used to drink and, on an even more personal note, it transpired that one of the group of racist scum implicated in the murder used to go to the same primary school as me (Gary Dobson – the one with the fat, bovine face).

I say implicated because they were, of course, never found guilty of the crime, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It was unspoken knowledge in the area at the time that they were guilty, but police corruption had protected them. David Norris was the son of a small time gangster and drug smuggler: rumours abounded that he’d paid somebody off. Dobson was (I think, though I cannot find anything to support this right now) the son of a policeman. Something stank, that was pretty obvious.

The story is once again back in the news owing to a BBC documentary being screened tonight (as I write these very words, in fact), which alleges corruption by Detective Sergeant John Davidson, who was handling the murder enquiry at the time. As a consequence, there is talk of the Metropolitan Police launching a new inquiry into the affair. Which would be good, but it still won’t bring these people to justice. But they’re guilty alright. Guilty as hell. This was a position also taken by the Daily Mail of all papers who, in February 1997, printed the names and pictures of all five suspects under the headline “MURDERERS: The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us.” One of the few times I’ve approved of a Daily Mail front page. As for the paper’s challenge, it has so far not been taken up…

It's true. We British only ever talk about the weather.

2006-07-20T11:48:00.000+01:00

Coughing on a pubic hair. Getting a splinter under one of your fingernails. Having an insect fly into your eye (happened to me this morning, actually). Eating some breakfast cereal without realising the milk has gone off. Getting really bad cramp in your calf. Listening to the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

All deeply unpleasant experiences.

But not as bad as this heat we’ve been having. Awful. I’m not one for hot weather really. Sweating profusely and not being able to sleep properly? Not really my idea of a good time. Oh, it’s not so bad if you’re in the Mediterranean somewhere, sat by a pool with a cold drink. I can live with that. But living and working in London, using public transport, working for one of the few companies left in the City that enforces business dress? No. This is terrible.

Thankfully, it’s a bit cooler today. There’s a strange thing called a “breeze” which helps too. But really, bring on autumn.

And we thought Michael Jackson was sinister. . .

2006-07-18T22:05:00.000+01:00

Some news stories just make your jaw drop. A Dutch court has upheld the right of the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party to stand in their upcoming general elections. The PNVD, as they are known, wish to lower the age of consent from 16 to 12 and to legalise child pornography. They also want to legalise bestiality, although abuse of animals would remain illegal. Not sure how that works. Presumably it’s OK as long as the animal in question gives its consent, perhaps after first being suitably wined and dined. Then maybe some slow dancing, steal a kiss in the moonlight, “can I come back to your barn for coffee?” You know how these things evolve. Also on their platform is a policy to legalise all drugs, lower the voting age (again to 12) and, in something of a surreal twist, provide free train travel for all. I think they stuck that lost one on there as a joke. As if anyone would take that seriously.

As the esteemed Richard Littlejohn has been known to opine: you couldn’t make it up. Although I’m pretty sure Chris Morris already did, in the infamous Brass Eye 2001 Special, which depicted a paedophilia advocacy group known as MILIT-PEDE. But no, these people are for real, and seriously aim to “break taboos and fight intolerance”. Because apparently, public perception of paedophiles has worsened over the last ten years or so. Ever since Marc Dutroux kidnapped two young girls and starved them to death in nearby Belgium. Yes, because before that, you were all considered upright members of society. I suppose you all just get a bad press, in the same way that hooligans give all football supporters a bad reputation, perhaps?

This throws up a liberal dilemma of enormous proportions, but I don't think banning them from standing would have achieved anything. These people are repugnant by anyone's standards, but the fact is they present less of a threat to society by running for parliament than they do as unknown citizens. By standing for election, it gives voters the chance to reject what they stand for by ignoring them completely at the ballot box. Their chances for electoral success are zero. In order to participate in the elections in November, the PNVD must register a list of candidates and the signatures of at least 30 supporters. I doubt they will be able to muster even that – it would be tantamount to creating their own sex offenders register. Far more likely is that anyone who makes their support public will find themselves on the receiving end of a lynch mob.

Yo! MC Bush on da mic!

2006-07-17T20:41:00.000+01:00

Popular consensus holds that George W. Bush is something of a simpleton. An illiterate buffoon. A doofus. It’s not a theory I have generally subscribed to myself, despite some fairly convincing evidence to the contrary. I suppose I’m just not prepared to believe that someone of such inferior intelligence could make it to the highest political office in the world. Perhaps I’m misguided. Many hold that, although Bush is far from being a great orator, he possesses a keen political mind and a shrewd grasp of issues: the ditherer image is pure schtick. Contrast this with the image of John Kerry in the 2004 elections – New England aristocrat, adept political thinker and statesman - the American electorate hated him. Bush, meanwhile, pushed all the right buttons of his supporters and pretty much breezed to a second Presidential victory. So who’s the stupid one?

But then you read these transcripts of a conversation between Bush and Tony Blair, surreptitiously recorded at the G8 conference, and you really have to wonder. Some bizarre moments here. Check out Bush’s initial greeting: “Yo, Blair. How are you doing?” What is this? Bush and Blair’s Excellent Adventure? Dude, Where’s My WMDs? The exchange about the knitted sweaters was also particularly surreal. But most astonishing of all was Bush’s statement that: “You see, the irony is, what they (the United Nations) need to do is to get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over”.

That’s all they need to do? Why did nobody else think of this? Not sure what’s “ironic” about this actually. The only irony I can see is that Bush, whose administration has been such a vociferous critic of the UN, now sees a crucial role for them in the Middle East peace process.

But really, this is a stroke of genius. A unique way of looking at the world, with universal applications. Iraq? All you need to do is get the jihadists to stop doing this shit and it’s over. Global warming? All you need to do is get the weather to stop doing this shit and it’s over. Organised crime? All you need to do is get the mafia to stop doing this shit and it’s over.

At last, someone has come forward with a practical solution to all the world’s problems. All you need to do is get those problems to stop, and the problems end. Conversely, if you want the problems to end, you've just got to stop the problems from happening. Who would have thought it?

Good to know that the great leaders of our world have it all under control. Sleep tight, everyone.

We're not scaremongering, this Israeli happening

2006-07-17T12:33:00.000+01:00

There’s really only one story of major significance at the moment, and that’s the situation in the Middle East, where Israel is now engaged in military operations on two fronts following the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers – one in Gaza and two by Lebanese based Hezbollah. The Israeli reaction has been unrelenting and many civilian lives have been lost in a number of air raids. Meanwhile, rockets continue to be fired from Lebanon into Israel.

I would like to write something about this but. . . I just don’t feel qualified to do so.

H? Parrot? Perhaps one of you could summarise the situation for us? Although I suspect you’re probably struggling to make sense of it all too.

If one of you has the time or inclination to do so, I’d like to put up a guest post from one – or both – of you. You’ll find my email address under my Blogger profile. Alternatively, write something in the comments section and I’ll publish it.

And history is made: my first wireless posting

2006-07-16T17:47:00.000+01:00

It would appear that I've finally fixed the problems I was having with the wireless router. I changed the security settings and, huzzah, it connects seamlessly and stays connected. Belkin, all is forgiven. But your helpdesk is still crap.

So I'm ready to do my first ever wireless post and. . . I don't have a tremendous amount to say. The rotten hangover is hardly helping, either. So here's a throwaway piece about how some people find their way to this blog.

Like any blogger, I have an unhealthy obsession with tracking visitors to my site. In particular, it’s interesting to see how people arrive here via search engines and what they were actually looking for. Strangely enough, the most common one is people looking for the lyrics to I Will Survive by Gloria Gaynor, owing to a post I wrote in January that quoted some of the words in the title.

Recently there has also been a trickle of traffic from people looking for information on the Respect Coalition. Thankfully, they don’t seem to stick around for long, the wooly minded tossers.

Other notable recent searches that have led people here include ‘dictatorial impunity’, ‘Thinking the unthinkable: selling kidneys’, Libertines lyrics, ‘partridge netenyahu’, ‘martine mccutcheon celtic’ and, over the last couple of days, ‘Hezbollah mission statement’.

But my favourite has to be the one I saw the other day: 'cocaine wanking'. It's good to know I can attract readers of such calibre.

A couple of midweek rants

2006-07-12T15:01:00.000+01:00

I really should have more important subjects on my mind right now. The bombings in Mumbai, Britain committing more troops to Afghanistan, new skirmishes on the Israel-Lebanon border, etc. However. . . .

Don’t you just hate it when you get a song in your head and, no matter what you do, it’s there, subtly eroding your sanity with its unrelenting repetition? That’s what I had all morning. A quick Google search of the lyrics revealed it to be a number called Everybody’s Gone To War by Nerina Pallot (me neither). It’s an irritating song combined with gormless, sub-sixth form poetry ‘meaningful’ lyrics. Imagine Sheryl Crow getting political and you’re almost there. Bloody awful. It’s like being fucked in the ears.

If, like me, you harbour plans to install a wireless broadband router, don’t get anything made by Belkin. I spent a large portion of my weekend trying to get the bastard thing to work properly. Without success I might add. But if you do ever find yourself struggling with some of their equipment, don’t bother calling their help line: you will simply waste another precious half an hour of your life on hold to a call centre in India and, when your call is eventually taken, the person at the other end will be helpful but, alas, utterly hopeless at diagnosing a solution to your problem. You might as well ask the toaster. The battle continues tonight.

Sweet, sweet schadenfreude

2006-07-06T17:59:00.000+01:00

As anyone’s mother will tell you: it’s not nice to make fun of other people’s misfortune. This creates something of a dichotomy because it is also a fact that other people’s misfortune is the basis of all comedy. What are we to do?

In this case, laugh like drains. Because racist, popular-in-the-80s, Tory Boy ‘comedian’ Jim Davidson has been declared bankrupt. At last, good taste has caught up with him.

Of course, we all remember fondly such comic gems as Up The Elephant And Round The Castle (about as funny as burst piles). And who could forget his hilarious ‘Chalky’ character, where good old Jim pretended to be a West Indian with criminal tendencies, replete with comedy accent. Oh! My aching sides! Let’s also acknowledge his fantastic work on high calibre programmes such as Big Break and The Generation Game.

Truly, the man was a great.

I’ve decided to start a collection to help the poor man out. Email me if you want to make a contribution. So far I’ve received two milk bottle tops and a bag of excrement.

England Expects. . . too much

2006-07-02T16:15:00.000+01:00

In the end, it was the forces of sheer inevitability that sent England crashing out of the World Cup. This supposed ‘Golden Generation’, our greatest hope since (yawn, yawn, yawn) 1966, defeated once more by the script for our national team in major tournaments. You all know how it goes: a key player is sent off, 10 men then fight a ragged battle to the bitter end, but are ultimately dispatched by a terminal inability to win penalty shoot-outs. That’s five times now we’ve had to sit and watch an England side lose in this way, and it never really gets any easier.

So that’s the last we’ll see of Sven-Goran Eriksson heading up our national team (there will be no ‘Swede Victory’ now, etc, boom boom! © Every British Tabloid), which would be a good thing if it weren’t for the fact that his replacement is Steve McClaren. Sweet Jesus. David Beckham has also stood down as England captain, so another era draws to a close.

Still, life goes on.

Fun-Da-Mentally hypocritical

2006-06-29T16:32:00.000+01:00

As an avid reader of the UK weekly music press in the 1990s, I remember Fun-Da-Mental from way back. They were part of a wave of dreary politico-rap/Asian-hybrid bands that were vaguely popular circa 1992-1994 (see also: Credit to the Nation – who were anything but – and Cornershop, way before they had a big hit with Brimful of Asha).

So it’s bizarre to see them back in the national news in 2006 (as opposed to a half-page interview in Melody Maker), with group leader Aki Nawaz defending their new album All Is War (The Benefits of G-Had) which, some have claimed, glorifies terrorism. Nawaz, who used to perform using the stage name Propa-Ghandi (geddit?), says he is prepared to be imprisoned under anti-terrorism laws and, if need be, promote the album from Belmarsh Prison. And what’s this? Two executives from the record label have threatened to resign if this record is released? Sniff. Sniff. I smell an enormous publicity stunt.

The story in yesterday’s Guardian goes into a little more detail about some of the lyrical themes of this album, which makes for an interesting read. One song, Che Bin, draws parallels (unsurprisingly, given the title) between Che Guevara and Osama Bin Laden. I suppose the point that Mr Nawaz is trying to make here is that, to some Muslims, Bin Laden is a revolutionary icon just as Guevara is treated like some kind of deity by many on the left. Sure, but Che Guevara was a psychopathic bandit who said that he would have no hesitation in dropping a nuclear bomb on the United States if given the opportunity. So the parallel runs deep – they are both deranged lunatics and would-be murderers of millions of innocent people. Another song predicts the demise of America at the hands of Islam, one chronicles the inner dialogue of a suicide bomber and another condemns the immorality of the west. Toe tapping stuff, I’m sure.

Interesting that he should consider the west to be immoral though. Nawaz was born and raised in Bradford, so is a fully fledged citizen of a country that tolerates the opinions of just about everybody, even hypocrites like himself. And let’s be clear about this, he is a hypocrite of the highest order: while perfectly happy to label the west as ‘immoral’ and ‘disgusting’, I bet he wouldn’t dream of ever actually leaving somewhere that allows him to be critical of the country he lives in and to make a living from it too. Try doing the same in Iran or Saudi Arabia, Aki. I suspect you would soon find yourself with one less hand with which to write your polemic or, perhaps, one less head with which to vocalise your inner rage.

Music, of course, was forbidden under Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Having been treated to a snippet of this album on the Today Programme this morning, one can only have sympathy for such action. Not for political reasons, you understand, but for reasons of quality. Controversy aside, it’s not particularly good music and since when has British rap ever been worth listening to anyway?

In addition to playing an extract from the album, Nawaz was also interviewed about the controversy. He’s clearly not a stupid man and I daresay may even be making some valid points somewhere, although I suspect I would disagree with him on nearly everything. I sincerely hope he is not charged with ‘glorifying terrorism’ - it would be illiberal and counter-productive to do so. More importantly, by allowing him to speak openly about these issues, no matter how wrong he might be, it undermines the very points that he is trying to make. Far from being immoral, western traditions of tolerance and free speech reinforce our civility. Again, that quote from Voltaire sums it up best: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” (Even when it’s presented as piss-poor Agit-Pop.)

In any case, the only person who can possibly benefit from all this fuss is Aki Nawaz himself. Let’s face it, without this national coverage, you could probably have counted the number of sold copies of this album on Abu Hamza’s fingers.

Midweek review

2006-06-21T14:45:00.000+01:00

We’re halfway through the week. Let’s sit back and reflect on some of the issues of the moment.

I must say, I’ve been enjoying this immensely. The US Episcopal Church has ‘stunned’ Christians around the world by electing something called a ‘woman’ as a primate in the Anglican Church. I have no idea what a ‘primate’ is in this context - I thought they were apes? Ironic, given the aversion of much of the American Christian movement to evolutionary theory (or any type of theory, save for that which involves shutting their eyes and talking to the sky), that the leaders of their church are named after our simian ancestry. Anyway, it’s caused a right rumpus because, err, um. Nope, I cannot get my head around it either. A woman? A representative of 50% of the planet? In the upper echelons of the church? Outrageous. They’ll be appointing homosexuals next! What’s that, you say? Oh. Let’s just sit back and watch them squabble over this pointless debate, perpetually reinforcing their own utter irrelevance to the rest of us.

Speaking of utter irrelevance, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, has called on ministers to review the existing abortion law and to lower the upper threshold from 24 weeks. An emotive subject, for sure, and there are probably very good reasons for reviewing this in the light of medical and technological advances. Two important things to remember here though. Firstly, the number of terminations carried out at this late stage is statistically minimal and nearly always performed for a valid medical reason. Secondly, when the time for the debate is appropriate, it will be based on the reasoning and expertise of the medical authorities, not the wishes of the Vatican. The day that the good Cardinal himself can carry a baby to term is the day we should listen to his opinions on the subject.

Watching England in the World Cup has so far been a painful experience. Last night’s game against Sweden was particularly frustrating. Sure, both of England’s goals were great, but what’s happened to the defence? That second Sweden goal couldn’t have been more comical if Harold Lloyd was in the six yard box on roller skates heading towards two men carrying a big sheet of glass. Against the likes of Argentina or Brazil, we are going to be humiliated. Oh, and England fans? Please stop singing the tune to The Great Escape. It’s just embarrassing.

It’s June 21st, summer solstice, the longest day of the year. From now on the days are getting shorter, the nights are rolling in. Winter begins here, ladies and gentlemen. Christmas cards will be in the shops before you know it. Enjoy!

You're the one for me, fatty

2006-06-16T15:43:00.000+01:00

It was Ronald Reagan who said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I’m from the government and I’m here to help'". Then again, he also said that trees cause more pollution than cars and once raised a toast to "Prince Charles and Princess David", so you can’t go along with everything he said. But on the point about the government, I tend to agree.

So alarm bells have been ringing this week as our government again acts beyond its remit and starts trying to (s)mother us with parental concern. They know best, you see. We’re all far too stupid and poorly educated to make our own decisions. No matter! Let the government do our thinking for us!

First there was the 'Dad Pack'. Distributed by a group called Fathers Direct, but funded with taxpayer money, it’s a guidebook aimed at new dads, dispensing some truly invaluable advice: never drop your baby into a tub of hot fat, don’t leave your offspring unattended with wolves, don’t bring up your child with Latin as their first language, tell them to steer clear of houses made of gingerbread, etc. Patronising rubbish, a waste of money and, to paraphrase Basil Fawlty, an exercise in the bleedin' obvious.

Now, in an effort to curb Britain’s growing obesity crisis, Super Government™ is stepping in again, with plans to restrict when and where certain food products can be advertised, and proposing a 9pm watershed for the advertising of junk food. Sounds unworkable, expensive and endlessly bureaucratic (who defines what is and what isn’t "junk" food anyway? A government department, presumably. The Ministry of Meddling Do-Gooders, perhaps?). A perfect government initiative then. Ironic, too, that the people bleating about the abundance of fat children are the very same people who have sat back and allowed local authorities to sell off vast amounts of school playing fields over the last nine years.

I don’t want to be too cynical. I’m sure that their motives are essentially good. However, I would make two points. Firstly, it is not the government’s business what we eat, drink or smoke; nor when, why, how or where we do it. Secondly, when it comes to any sort of public initiative, the government are about as effective as a one-legged man at an arse kicking competition.

Fix the health service, fight crime, sort out the prisons, give us better schools. But don’t tell us how to live our lives or raise our children. You are the government and you are removable. You are not our mother.

As George Orwell said in 1984: If you want a vision of the future, imagine an over-protective nanny wagging a finger in your face and saying "you can't do that, you shouldn't drink this, you mustn't watch that" - forever.

At last, something good happens in Iraq

2006-06-08T13:41:00.000+01:00

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the serial beheading, Islamofascist barbarian leader of the Iraqi franchise of al-Qaeda, has been killed in a US air strike. This is great news for the Iraqi people, their fledgling government and anyone who wants to see democracy take root in that region.

Also taken out in the attack were several of his closest aides, including his ‘spiritual advisor’. Oh, the irony. Clearly, Allah is great. Just not as great as an Exocet missile careering towards your safe house.

Whilst this will not in itself end the insurgency (remember the short lived euphoria when they dragged Saddam out of his stench pit?), it is undoubtedly a good thing to remove the figurehead of the ‘movement’ in this way. Doubtless there will be a queue of deranged fanatics forming an orderly queue to succeed this thug, but for the time being, they are certainly weakened.

So long then, Abu. I hope your 72 virgins are Ann Widdecombe look-alikes. Riddled with syphilis.

Update: I'm not sure how virgins would manage to contract syphilis in the first place, mind. And it wasn't an Exocet missile that did the deed, either. But whatever. . .

Sith Happens

2006-05-31T22:28:00.000+01:00

Bumbling deputy prime minister John Prescott has decided to relinquish one of the perks of his job. After initially insisting he would stay, he has, after the controversy it provoked, announced he will leave Dorneywood, his official country home in Buckinghamshire. So where will he go now?

Well, judging by the picture The Guardian have used, he's off to a galaxy far, far away to master the dark side of the Force.

Daft Prescott, anyone?

Galloway watch and the left's continuing love of tyrants

2006-05-29T19:30:00.000+01:00

The Rt. Dishonourable George Galloway was in the news again this weekend, this time for comments he made in an interview with GQ magazine (question to GQ: why?) stating that it would be “morally justified” to assassinate Tony Blair and that it would be morally equivalent to Blair “ordering” Iraqi deaths. Not that GG would personally favour such an action, you understand:

“Such an operation would be counterproductive because it would just generate a new wave of anti-Muslim, anti-Arab sentiment whipped up by the press. It would lead to new draconian anti-terror laws, and would probably strengthen the resolve of the British and American services in Iraq rather than weaken it.”

So basically, he doesn’t advocate the assassination of democratically elected leaders on the basis that it would be bad PR.

Speaking of draconian, Galloway subsequently defended his comments from Cuba, where he has been schmoozing with Fidel Castro, the unelected dictator who personally oversees the dismal totalitarian communist regime that his nation’s 11.3 million inhabitants are forced to endure. This communist dystopia where opposition parties are forbidden, basic human rights are ignored and pro-democracy campaigners are thrown into prison for life is so often held up as a beacon of 'working socialism'. Never understood that one at all. Just because of the state-funded health and education system provided by the bankrupt (ideologically and economically) government? Wowee.

Yet another great example of leftists taking sides with monsters (I’m saying that Galloway is the leftist and Castro is the monster here – although there’s a strong case for the reverse also). Galloway, of course, has a well documented track record in this area. He has described Castro as the living person he most admires, but of course it wasn’t that long ago he was giving Saddam Hussein and his butcher sons colonic irrigation with his tongue and fingers. Combine all this with his appearance on Celebrity Big Brother earlier this year and the evidence is more overwhelming than ever: there is no barrel this man will not scrape, no backside he will not kiss, no indignity he will not endure as long as he is in the public eye.

Equally atrocious were the recent comments of London’s very own fuckwit-in-chief Ken Livingstone who, on a visit to Beijing in April this year, compared the Tiananmen Square massacre to the Poll Tax riots. Contemptible. More recently, courtesy of Mayor Ken, we have been subjected to a visit from bandit-turned-socialist, self-styled saviour of Venezuela Hugo Chávez (it wasn’t an official state visit either – our esteemed mayor arranged and passed the cost onto us lucky taxpayers). Chávez was received by a drooling mass of soft-headed admirers at London’s City Hall. Why? As far as I can tell, for little reason other than the fact that he nationalised his country’s oil industry and hates George Bush. Chávez, like Castro, presents a ‘man of the people’ image whilst simultaneously crushing dissent and free expression in the name of socialist revolution. He also considers Robert Mugabe to be an ‘ally’ and a 'true freedom fighter'. Enough said.

Why do the hard left laud these tyrants? Castro, Chávez, Che Guevara, Lenin. As role models go, this lot are no better than Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin or Pol Pot.

Everyone should see this

2006-05-29T14:41:00.000+01:00

Like The Beatles? Like juggling? I wasn't too sure about the latter until I saw this, but it's amazing to watch this fella in action. You need sound to appreciate it though, as it's set in time to the finale of Abbey Road (arguably the finest work The Beatles ever did).

The view from my window

2006-05-29T14:28:00.000+01:00

For the last couple of weeks, Andrew Sullivan has been running a feature where readers send in a picture of the view from their window, and he puts them on his blog. A sort of experiment in humanising the blogosphere, it's actually been quite interesting seeing the diversity of places where his readers live, work and surf the web from.

So in the spirit of that exercise, here's mine. Check out the lovely draining. Also in the background are some of my shirts drying in the breeze. Ooh, the excitement!

Return of the mack

2006-05-25T21:38:00.000+01:00

Rejoice! Rejoice!

My broadband has been switched on. And a day earlier than they told me, too. So I’m back, with an 8.1mbps connection speed. A real bastard. It’s like shit off a shovel (never did understand that phrase – surely shit, propelled only by gravity, would still be very slow? Can anyone clarify?).

Anyway, it’s good to be back and I intend to make up for lost time. For there is much to talk about. I suspect.

Where shall I begin?

There are times when silence has the loudest voice

2006-05-19T17:44:00.000+01:00

A combination of moving house, temporarily losing broadband and waiting to get my PC repaired has made blogging very difficult. Basically, my only access to the internet is at work. And much as I would like to spend all my working hours blogging away, my employers would probably have a very different view.

So unfortunately things are going to be a bit quiet around here for the next week or so. But I hope to return with a vengeance in the very near future.

GlaxoSmithKline, basic stock market principles and atrocious grammar

2006-05-10T13:45:00.000+01:00

Über pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline has been successful in obtaining an injunction against animal 'rights' campaigners, who have been targeting GSK shareholders and threatening to publish their names and addresses on the internet unless they sell their holdings in the company within two weeks. The campaigners object to GSK’s business dealings with Huntingdon Life Sciences - a long-term target of the bunny cuddling, animal-worshipping fundamentalists - who conduct animal research for medical purposes.

I saw some protesters near where I work a couple of months ago, hoisting their placards in impotent rage outside a branch of HSBC. I was tempted to make some signs of my own with names and pictures of people I know who would most likely be dead if it were not for sophisticated pharmacology derived by animal experimentation. Presumably the animal ‘rights’ movement would prefer that.

As for this feeble intimidation campaign of GSK shareholders, well, where do we begin? Clearly these people spend far too much time in the company of small furry animals and forgot to engage their brain before embarking on this. They threaten to publish details of targeted shareholders unless they sell their investments within a fortnight? Well, sell them to whom? Here’s how the market works: holder of GSK shares instructs to sell. Interested party pays cash for shares. Interested party becomes new holder of shares and therefore new investor in GSK. So all you’ve really done is transferred the investment to somebody else. Somebody else you’ve got to research, and then presumably write to, informing them that if they don’t sell their shares within two weeks you will publish their details on the internet. You’re just making more work for yourselves! You’re also making money for the brokers who take a commission on every transaction. Yes, your intention is to intimidate people into selling, thus driving down the share price and hitting GSK where it hurts, but it’s not going to work is it? There’s always a buyer for every seller. There’s always going to be people putting up cash for a stake in the company.

Perhaps not the smartest people in the world. As if to illustrate this point, The Guardian has quoted an extract from the letter that was sent out (in crayon, I suspect):

“The only way to hold GlaxoSmithKline to it’s [sic] PROMISE is to target it’s [sic] financial vulnerability. We are therefore giving you this opportunity to sell your shares in GlaxoSmithKline.”

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) describe animal research as ‘animal torture’. Never mind that, what about the above torture of the English language? “It?s” promise? “It’s” financial vulnerability? I have a rule: never trust the words or intentions of grown adults still unable to use an apostrophe in its (did you see that?) correct context.

Talk about dumb animals. Maybe we should experiment on these people instead?

Political meltdown

2006-05-05T13:33:00.000+01:00

Local elections should, of course, be contested over local issues (“This is a local election, for local people. There’s no place for you here!”); they should not be an indication of popularity for the current government. But then, bungling and incompetent home secretaries should resign when they oversee a state department that has spectacularly failed to enforce its own policy regarding deportation of immigrants released from prison – something that caused the biggest stink since Le Pétomane followed through. The point is, things don’t often work the way they’re supposed to. Therefore, the people that bothered to vote in yesterday’s local elections (and I must confess, somewhat shamefully, that I wasn’t one of them) were inevitably going to treat it as an opportunity to pass judgement on Tony Blair and his government. Not surprisingly, engulfed as they are by a seemingly never-ending litany of disasters and embarrassments, Labour were given a swift, hard kick in the ballots.

Blair’s response this morning was to reshuffle the cabinet (that old adage about moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic comes to mind), in an attempt to reassert his rapidly dwindling authority. Unsurprisingly, Charles Clarke has been booted out as home secretary to make way for John Reid. Embarrassing, because Clarke was originally brought into the third most important position in government in place of David Blunkett, who stepped down over the infamous fast-tracked visa scandal. Meanwhile, John Prescott has been stripped of his ‘super ministry’ (responsible for, erm, ‘super’ things), but keeps his title of deputy prime minister, effectively making him the country’s most prominent eunuch.

I’m personally finding it difficult to care about any of this. Interesting events, to be sure, but I’m so indifferent to all the political parties these days, their relative fortunes and dips in public opinion are of very little consequence to me. It seems clear that Tony Blair is fast coming to the end of his days as PM: the problems of the last week or so have underscored this. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a vote of no confidence sometime later this year, followed by a quick transition to Gordon Brown.

Of course, I may be wrong. I don’t know. What do you think?