Dead footballers' wives

For the past few weeks, there seem to have been non-stop news reports on the failing health of an alchoholic former footballer. Now he has finally died, the eulogies are pouring in. However, I have yet to hear a quote from his first wife (Angie, I believe). Perhaps, in the midst of all the fawning and sycophancy, the words of someone on the receiving end of his drunken violence might provide an, ahem, sobering perspective?
Nah. Let's airbrush it out of history, and just talk up the playboy lifestyle, right?

Education, education, education....

Let's start with an anecdote. I was in the pub tonight. I often am. However, tonight, whilst there, my friend - let's call him N. - told me a tale. He was out last Friday, watching a pop concert (The Bluetones at Shepherds Bush Empire, if you're interested) with his friend - let's call him X. X.was in the mood for heavy drinking - he's a teacher, in a rather deprived school in East London, and which had just had its Ofsted inspection. The results had depressed him greatly. He was told by the inspectors that they didn't believe social background had any influence on SATs scores (I did ask N. at this point in the tale which planet the inspectors were from. "Planet Woodhead", was his response). The inspectors also weren't interested in "value added" results - the differences in scores between the students when they arrive, and after they'd been in the school for a year. No, they wanted the raw data. Unsurprisingly, the school did badly. It is being marked down for privatisation in Mr Tony's brave new world of education. X.'s wife is also a teacher, although in a rather more affluent school. She had a very pleasant experience with her inspectors - they took a much broader picture and gave the school good marks.
Question - how sinister is that? Failing schools in deprived areas for ideological reasons, whilst passing those in more affluent areas. And once again, we need to consider who's taking over these schools. Businessmen and faith-based groups, mostly. In other words, religious nutters. Let us recall Mr Tony's reaction when asked by Liberal Democrat MP Jenny Tonge for his opinion on Emmanuel College, Gateshead, and their teaching of Creationism: "In the end, a more diverse school system will deliver better results for our children". I may have written about this before, but it's important, so I'll ask again - how much fucking diversity can "our" children stand? Teaching flat-earth hypotheses would be diverse, wouldn't it? Teaching Holocaust denial would add to the diversity of the education children receive. Would Mr Tony applaud schools which taught that flavour of bullshit?
And let's not kid ourselves that religion is nice and fluffy. Last week, a Northern Irish DUP Councillor declared, seriously, that Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans because God wanted to punish the people there for their sin - evidenced by the fact that there was a Gay Pride parade due to take place the week after the hurricane hit. Are these the sort of people that Mr Tony wants passing their poisonous bigotries on to children, in the guise of some half-witted superstition? Or would he prefer suicide bombers, people who blow up abortion clinics or any of the other multitude of murderous theists out there? Who's going to regulate these schools? Not you or me, because they've been taken out of democratic control. So, erm, no one, then. Complete freedom to tell whatever lies you like. Marvellous. That, ultimately, is what "education, education, education" seems to mean.

What? Eh? What?

I did read in the paper, today, about a new class of political pundits. Bloggers, apparently. Marvellous. Good for them. Except that most of them seemed to be idiots. Ranging from the fools you find normally in America, who pretend to be libertarians, but instead seem to forget the liberty bit, and not realise that far more liberty is lost though large, multinational corporations dominating our lives than governments, who we can at least hold accountable, through to a more British species of idiot. The pro-war left. Eh? Which fucking war are you pro? All wars? The first world war? You think it was a good idea for the various royal families to squabble that much over who governed which bit? Although I suspect it was more pro the recent, indeed currently ongoing, war in Iraq. You thought it was a good idea? Glad you're not in charge at the moment, and the pro-war right can continue ruling...
The point of this all is, however, that most blogs, including this one, are written by moderately intelligent chaps. The problem is that others are written by people who think they're more intelligent than that, and that people are interested in them, whereas here at whatwouldpuskasdo we're all fully aware that no one gives a fuck what we write, and that, if you want someone to tell you what to think, you'd not be here in the first place. This is simply a place for some drunk bloke and his cat to sound off. And argue with anyone who'll stop by...
And my final proof? If blogs were really as important as was claimed, would the writers have to accept condescending pats on the head from the fucking Guardian?

Comments

And I still have all the comments at haloscan, I just need to work out what to do with 'em.
And redo my links. And so on.
But first the pub beckons.

New Look - New Danger

I may have absolutely nothing to say, but at least I can look flashy whilst doing it.

One question....

In listening to Mr Tony Blair's desire to see innocent people locked up for 90 days without trial (since they haven't been proven guilty, they are innocent, and many of
them will be innocent anyway...), I have but one question. How, exactly, will it help
the "fight against terrorism", or whatever it's dubbed these days? All I've heard is the brazenly repeated statement that "it's necessary", and the ridiculous claim that anyone who opposes it is "soft on terrorism". But, before we strip away yet another basic human right, and take further steps down the road towards dictatorship, can we have some evidence please? Or is Mr Tony's contempt for evidence in this case reflective of a more general feeling that it isn't necessary - hence locking people up without trial, on the whim of the police/security services/government?

And where do we go...?

I speak as a UK citizen here. A member of my country's government - basically, a man who has been elected to serve me - has resigned. Why? Well, so far as I can understand, he ignored the rules on taking up non-parliamentary jobs by not asking for advice from the Parliamentary Committee. Advice that he could have, according to the rules, ignored. But the very fact he didn't even ask for it shows the sort of man we're dealing with, here. In any event, he took a directorship with a DNA-testing company. What exactly are his qualifications for such a role? Academically, I imagine, less than mine. Practically, well, he knows his way around governement, and can help them win various lucrative contracts. So that makes him worth the money. It also makes him corrupt, and willing to sell himself, and his contacts, for a smally sum of money. And yet, he has the nerve to say he's done nothing wrong. He's broken parliamentary rules about taking jobs after leaving governmentm despite those rules being almost unbelievably lax. He's used the fact that he was once in the cabinet to line his own pockets, despite the fact he was meant to be serving the people of the country, not himself. He is, to be blunt, criminally corrupt. Like his Prime Minister. Like most of the cabinet. But, because such corruption is almost universal, the government get away with it.
And that is a sickening scandal.