What would Puskas do?

Hibernation

2008-02-08T18:14:00.000Z

Yes. Awake, again. After a long sleep. Only to find what? The Archbishop of Canterbury saying that some form of Sharia Law is "inevitable". Only, being a nice liberal, he doesn't mean those bits about stoning women to death. No. He just wants , apparently, some nice arbitrtation panels. So, what's the point? The current laws don't stop people from asking others for advice. Or, indeed, arbitration, if that's what they want. Where's the need for a legal change? Such a thing would only enable people whose moral code comes from their imaginary friend to ignore laws that the rest of us have to obey. I, for instance, don't feel comfortable with the law that states I can't chin the Archbishop of Canterbury, for being a lying fuckwit who convinces the gullible to part with their money and reasoning powers. But I'm not allowed to. And no one's suggesting the law is changed for rationalists - why should it be for superstitious idiots?

School uniform debacle...

2007-06-22T17:46:00.001Z

Meanwhile a schoolgirl has been told she can't wear some silly ring certifying she isn't going to have sex until she's married. Apparently this is an infringement on her human rights. Eh? Is she being tortured? Has she been forced to recant her beliefs under threat of violence? No. So where's the human rights issue? Apparently it isn't fair that Sikhs can wear turbans and yet she can't wear her jewelry. Hmm. Surely the issue of school uniforms is one for the school to decide. If they decree she can't wear jewelry, why doesn't she just do what her teachers tell her?
Her lawyer is also objecting to the school claiming that the ring isn't an integral part of Christian faith. Which it obviously isn't as most Christians don't wear them. But he's questioning their right to make doctrinal claims. Why, exactly? Given that the whole subject is one of superstitious nonsense, then all claims are equally absurd.
And I managed to write all this about a ring without once slipping in an anal sex joke. Albeit not for want of trying...

And now for something completely different

2007-06-22T17:16:00.000Z

Lunacy of a more amusing kind is found, as so often, in Glastonbury. A man - Ross Hemsworth - a self styled "scientific investigator of anomalous phenomena" is apparently attempting to prove the existence of an afterlife. Erm, quite. How, exactly? Surely there would be difficulties in finding willing volunteers, for example. And using unwilling ones would almost certainly be ethically questionable. Furthermore, what, exactly, would constitute proof? And would you have a control group of people still alive? Making it double blind, so that neither the testers nor the control group know who is alive? That, again, would be tricky to pull off.
Sadly, all Mr Hemsworth would come out with was that scientists and doctors are working around the clock, and that he was keeping the details under wraps. Hmmm....yes....
See http://www.itv.com/news/index_6432ae71525db686d5403a2c16ece39f.html
Or don't, if you've got better things to do with your life.
Meanwhile, since I am in direct communion with the modern god of knowledge, Google (Praise Be His Name), I made the correct sacrifices and ceremonially typed Ross Hemsworth into the sacred search engine. Apparently he presents a radio show (well, a net-broadcast show) entitled "Well, that's weird". Last year, just before the world cup, they tried to "heal" Wayne Rooney's broken foot by concentrating on it. Some days later (after, coincidentally, approximately the amount of time it would take such a break to heal), Wayne Rooney played. If that doesn't prove Ross's greatness, I don't know what does.

But, more seriously....

2007-06-21T22:04:00.000Z

I am allowed to be serious. It's my blog, after all. It's not all pies versus pasties, you know.
Is it possible to debate rationally with theists? We can nit-pick over the bible, and point out flaws in their moral code, and so on, but, ultimately, there is an unbridgeable divide. They assert, on the basis of no evidence, the existence of some all-powerful being. Regardless of the fun of all the rest of it, until they can present some evidence for this rather ridiculous claim, there's no point in even debating the rest. Irrationality cannot be debated rationally. It doesn't accept the rules.

God Hates Fags

2007-06-21T21:42:00.001Z

This is true - Keith Allen is currently on Channel Four talking to Fred Phelps's mob. But, more than this, that great Christian, Mr Tony Blair, is introducing a smoking ban on the 1st July. He wouldn't do this without God's blessing. God truly does hate fags.
Which makes this all the more blasphemous:
http://www.godsmokesfags.com/heaven/
Don't look at it.

On and on and on they go

2007-05-31T23:46:00.000Z

What does it take to make them stop? The current head of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland is telling people what to think, again. Cardinal Keith O'Brien has threatened Scotland's democratically elected representatives that they could be thrown out of his club for morons if they accept that women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. This from the man who promotes the view that condoms shouldn't be used in Africa, with its blossoming AIDS crisis. From a man whose boss took a picture of a kidnapped child and recited a few magic words over it, to the adoration of thousands. Why? It won't bring her back, and it won't help her parents, who were negligent enough to leave her on her on own in the first place.
It needs to be stated clearly - taking moral advice from your imaginary friend is a sure road to psychopathy. Forget the condom issue. Forget the abortion issue. Forget even Peter Sutcliffe being told by god to murder women; the tube bombers, who were told by god to blow up commuters and Abraham who was told by god to murder his infant son. Simply consider the difference between an act which is good and an act which is evil. An act which is good is one which helps other people's lives, an act which is evil either harms other people or prevents a good act from being performed. If all your moral advice comes from your imaginary friend, then you're more than likely to perform evil acts, simply by not stopping and considering the consequences. And that's without considering all the evil being done by not allowing scientific research, for example, using stem cells. The more we know about the human condition, the easier it becomes to determine good actions and evil ones - because we know more about what is good and what is harmful for people. But that involves a careful study of evidence, not conversations with yourself...

Confused

2007-04-26T00:22:00.000Z

I have a small question. I am confused about one little aspect of life at the moment. There seems to be a private members bill going through parliament, brought by David McLean - a Tory MP - but supported by such staunch Labour Ministers as Tessa Jowel; Tony McNulty, police minister; Andy Burnham, health minister; Ian Pearson, climate change minister; John Healey, financial secretary to the Treasury; and Keith Hill, parliamentary private secretary to Tony Blair (thanks to the Guardian, for that cut and paste of their jobs...), which will exempt both the House Of Commons and The House Of Lords from the freedom of information act. Now, I may be missing somethng, but, despite everything, aren't we supposed to live in a democracy? Aren't the theiving, lying, corrupt pieces of shit who sit in parliament supposed to be accountable to us? And yet they want to hide even more information from us? Is this not the yet another nail in the coffin of so-called parliamentary democracy?
These people are scum. We knew it all along, they merely do their best to confirm the facts.

Snivelling cowardice

2007-03-18T19:02:00.000Z

The Independent On Sunday today splashed a typically over-the-top headline across its front page, apologising for the newspaper's previous stance on cannabis legalisation. It has decided, apparently on the basis of new evidence, that it was wrong to call for decriminalisation. Unfortunately, its argument falls down on numerous levels. Firstly, the medical evidence - yes, further data does seem to have come to light showing excessive cannabis use is more harmful than was previously believed - but so what? Adults should be allowed to make the choice themselves as to what toxins they put in their bodies, after being provided with as much information as is available. Furthermore, this seems to be the current stance with alcohol - are the Sindie calling for prohibition of that? And yet far more people injure or kill themselves or others whilst abusing alcohol than do under the influence of cannabis.
Secondly, they make the claim that stronger varieties of cannabis are more widely available than previously. Yet, if anything, this is an argument for legalisation, so that production can be regulated, and people can be fully informed about what they are taking - something that isn't possible when buying it illegally.
It would seem that the newspaper has taken this backward step more from moral cowardice than any other reason, and is falling under the puritanism of so many of the ruling class, believing that they alone should tell the rest of us how we can and can't spend our free time. For a further example of this, read the Observer, just about every fucking Sunday, when some half-wit will explain why everyone should give up alcohol/meat/sex/whatever, simply because they and Tarquin have, and have found their lives improved no end. The twats.

Respect, etc

2007-03-18T18:38:00.000Z

According to a NOP poll, commissioned for a BBC television programme, Christians feel themselves "discriminated against". In what way? People don't respect them? Well, why should they - they believe in fairy tales, and will try to convince you that it's OK to murder prostitutes or blow up tube trains if their imaginary friend tells them to.
And there's always the suspcicion that they're a bit stupid - after all, they believe in some truly astounding things, contradicting all known physical laws, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. At the very least, this indicates their inability to think rationally and clearly about subjects.
Obviously, I wouldn't want people to think this applies purely to Christians - it applies equally to all theists.
But, whichever way it's posed, if they want people to take them seriously and treat them as rational human beings, they have to start acting like rational human beings. Which means being able to justify their beliefs through evidence. Unlikely to happen, isn't it?

More intolerant ranting...

2007-03-05T19:55:00.000Z

Having been described as intolerant, I was planning to ask what's so great about tolerating things that are not merely stupid and plainly wrong, but also lead to great acts of evil. After all, philosophy has no requisite for tolerence - if it tolerated any idea at all, how could it progress? And, in a practical sense, why would it need peer-reviewed journals? But then I became irritated by yet another cretinous fuckwit crossing my path. In the supermarket. Standing happily in a queue, basket in hand, waiting for the cashier, I was asked "Are you in this queue?"
No, you fucking moron, I'm standing here with a basket, behind these other people in the line, for the sheer bollocking joy of it.
The man then compounded his idiocy by saying to the woman at the checkout, "I can't get used to the queueing system here". Why not? It's the same as every other fucking shop in the country - you stand in a line, and wait your turn.
I remember starting this blog as a small effort to save the world. I sometimes wonder if I still want to. I hate people. All of them. Twats, the lot of 'em. Including you. And me. Especially me.

Moral equivalence bollocks

2007-02-26T22:52:00.000Z

And whilst we're on the subject...
Today's Guardian carried one of the more abjectly craven pieces of writing I've seen in a long time. Presented as an article about the stand-off between theist superstition and rationality, it staked its position from the start, by quoting an expert in fairies at the bottom of the garden, or some such, Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark, who believed that there existed a triangulation between fundamentalist theists, "fundamentalist atheists", and reasonable theists (like himself, obviously) who represented the only reasonable course.
This, of course, ignores the obvious objection that nobody blows up aeroplanes in the name of rationality. But also tries to place superstition and rationality on the same level. No!!! Atheism is simply the statement that there is not enough evidence to support the "My imaginary friend created the universe" hypothesis. Theism can come in many guises, but they can all be divided into one of two camps - either those which directly contradict evidence and don't care (cf. Creationism), or those which try to maintain a scientific approach, and then add a layer of god on top. The second of which is no more rational than the first - it ignores the principle of parsimony (one of the basic things to take into account when trying to explain anything). If there is no evidence that fairies live at the bottom of your garden, you don't remain neutral on the subject, according people who believe that they do the same respect as people who think it's daft. You say it's daft. If those people then claim that the fairies have written down a moral code about how to live your life, you laugh at them, and ask how it has any effect on reality.
And don't forget - for a theist like Colin Slee, all it takes is a voice in his head telling him that he must go out and blow up tube trains or murder prostitutes, and he's in a real dilemma. Does he do his duty to god, as Abraham did when god told him to murder his son? Or does he ignore god, thus repudiating all his moral beliefs? All theists are only such a voice away from psychopathy. Scary, eh?

Is it possible for a theist to behave in a moral way?

2007-02-26T22:43:00.000Z

Here's today's question. Well, above, in fact - read it yourself. Is it possible? It does seem that the answer is no, and for two good reasons.
Firstly, moral acts need to have some moral intent behind them. For instance, if you are a theist with a backpack full of explosives, ready to blow up the tube, but you unfortunately trip, but in doing do, drop your backpack down a manhole, where it blows up and destroys a reservoir of smallpox which was about to infect the city, you have saved countless lives, but no one would claim you performed a moral act - the intent was to do harm, the lives were saved only by accident. Similarly, if you obey the "Do not kill" commandment, or the "Love thy neighbour as thyself" instruction, but do so only because you're frightened your imaginary friend will be cross with you if you don't, you are also not performing a moral act, simply an act of cowardice inspired by irrationality.
However, there is a deeper element to it than this. That is the fact that theism itself actually prevents people from performing acts with positive outcomes by preventing them from determining what positive outcomes are. For instance, if we could experiment on stem cells, we could save countless lives, and improve the quality of life for millions. Whilst doing no harm - nothing with a central nervous system suffers. And yet theists will oppose this simply because it is beyond the comprehension of the people who wrote various books between 2500 and 1700 years ago. And this very stance - that of preventing people from doing good, or even of understanding more about how to do good - is the essence of this superstition. Surely, the prevention of doing good is nothing more than a definition of evil?

Hibernation

2007-02-26T22:41:00.000Z

No, not a nation of hibers, but merely the state I attain over the winter. A ginger cat needs her sleep, you know.
But I am roused, now. At least temporarily, by the sight of more blogging cats. Hello, Tolstoy.

George Michael

2006-10-02T18:34:00.000Z

I don't know if anyone saw the photo of George Michael on the front page of today's Daily Mirror, but it bore more than a passing resemblance to self-proclaimed fat-bastard, novelist and some-time comedian, Alexie Sayle. Hmmm...
The years obviously take their toll on us all...

Has it really come to this?

2006-10-02T18:19:00.000Z

The grotesque chaos of a Labour Home Secretary - a Labour Home Secretary - condemning the Tories for not being resolute enough to ditch civil liberties. John Reid - a man of very limited intellect, who somehow has acquired a reputation as a "political heavyweight" - mainly, it seems, through shouting at opponents to shut them up, rather than answering any criticism - is out-Torying the Tories. Given the complete lack of any difference in economic policies, who, exactly, are the Labour Party trying to appeal to? Evil old Thatcherites, decaying in their misanthropy and bitterness? It seems so.
What, one wonders, is the point? Really? Watching people disgrace the party of Keir Hardy and Nye Bevan by shoving their snouts in the public trough and gobbling until they're stuffed. Then crapping on the working class, and arresting them if they complain.
A disgrace. There are no other words.

Oh, the irony....

2006-09-18T23:45:00.000Z

Oh look. People who have been accused by one nutter of using violence to spread their particular branch of superstition have reacted by threatening to kill people.
So they're not violent.
Laugh? I nearly shat...

My imaginary friend's better than your imaginary friend...

2006-09-16T23:43:00.000Z

Ah, children, children - put the toys down, and listen.
It seems that Pope Benedict the whatever (I really can't be bothered looking up his number - somewhere in the teens. Does it matter? Really?) has condemned Islam. And done it rather strongly, quoting a Byzantine Emperor who described Islam as "evil and inhuman". This, remember, is a man who genuinely believes that a small cracker and a cup of watered-down cheap red wine transform into human flesh and blood whenever the correct magical words are spoken over them. Although, oddly, he'll never let said supposedly transformed items be taken away for testing, which could confirm his claim beyond the scepticism of the likes of me. It's also a man who believes that condoms are evil, and it's preferable to let AIDS spread throughout Africa - and lie about the causes of AIDS - than allow consenting adults to wear them whilst having sex. So clearly a sick mind. Some may say an evil mind (however, let's leave that for another blog - I will, some day soon, discuss the case of whether or not there can ever be a "moderate" theist, and whether the word "evil" can be applied to them all... When I can really be bothered.)
However, as is ever the case when superstitions clash, reason can't be brought into the fray - it would undermine both sides equally. So the whole "debate" becomes a matter of name calling - "My god's better than your god", and doesn't get us anywhere (as an aside - a simple way to defeat a theist in an argument: ask them for evidence. They get very confused - you're not supposed to do that...)
Ultimately, then, the whole charade becomes rather laughable. Or it would, were there not large numbers of wealthy and powerful people supporting either side, and large numbers of deluded and desperate people seemingly willing to die for either side. Then the stake becomes the future of the world. And the retreat from reason seems more frightening.

Freedom of speech versus the oil companies...

2006-09-12T00:22:00.000Z

OK, this is vaguely important. American journalist Greg Palast has been threatened with gaol for filming a refugee camp near an oil refinery in Louisianna (the American equivalent of a refugee camp - full of people made homeless by the broken levees in New Orleans - a thoroughly preventable disaster).
Anyway, visit his website at www.gregpalast.com, and here's the story, in full, in his words, rather than mine:

Palast Charged with Journalism in the First Degree
Published by Greg Palast September 11th, 2006 in Articles

September 11, 2006
by Greg Palast

It's true. It's weird. It's nuts. The Department of Homeland Security, after a five-year hunt for Osama, has finally brought charges against … Greg Palast. I kid you not. Send your cakes with files to the Air America wing at Guantanamo.

Though not just yet. Fatherland Security has informed me that television producer Matt Pascarella and I have been charged with unauthorized filming of a "critical national security structure" in Louisiana.

On August 22, for LinkTV and Democracy Now! we videotaped the thousands of Katrina evacuees still held behind a barbed wire in a trailer park encampment a hundred miles from New Orleans. It's been a year since the hurricane and 73,000 POW's (Prisoners of W) are still in this aluminum ghetto in the middle of nowhere. One resident, Pamela Lewis said, “It is a prison set-up" -- except there are no home furloughs for these inmates because they no longer have homes.

To give a sense of the full flavor and smell of the place, we wanted to show that this human parking lot, with kids and elderly, is nearly adjacent to the Exxon Oil refinery, the nation's second largest, a chemical-belching behemoth.

So we filmed it. Without Big Brother's authorization. Uh, oh. Apparently, the broadcast of these stinking smokestacks tipped off Osama that, if his assassins pose as poor Black folk, they can get a cramped Airstream right next to a "critical infrastructure" asset.

So now Matt and I have a "criminal complaint" lodged against us with the feds.

The positive side for me as a journalist is that I get to see our terror-busters in action. I should note that it took the Maxwell Smarts at Homeland Security a full two weeks to hunt us down.

Frankly, we were a bit scared that, given the charges, we wouldn't be allowed on a plane into New York last night. But what scared us more is that we were allowed on the plane.

Once I was traced, I had a bit of an other-worldly conversation with my would-be captors. Detective Frank Pananepinto of Homeland Security told us, "This is a 'Critical Infrastructure' … and they get nervous about unauthorized filming of their property.

Well, me too, Detective. In fact, I'm very nervous that this potential chemical blast-site can be mapped in extreme detail at this Google Map location: http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=4045+Scenic+Hwy+70805+East,+Baton+Rouge,+LA

What also makes me nervous is that the Bush Terror Terriers have kindly indicated on the Internet that this unprotected critical infrastructure can be targeted -- I mean located -- at 30º 29' 11" N Latitude and 91º 11' 39" W Longitude.

After I assured Detective Pananepinto, "I can swear to you that I'm not part of Al Qaeda," he confirmed that, "Louisiana is still part of the United States," subject to the first amendment and he was therefore required to divulge my accuser.

Not surprisingly, it was Exxon Corporation, one of a handful of companies not in love with my investigations. [See "A Well-Designed Disaster: the Untold Story of the Exxon Valdez." [nb. this was a hyperlink to this address http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=269 in the article, but was unavailable when I clicked on it when adding this - Puskas.]]

So I rang America's top petroleum pusher-men and asked their media relations honcho in Houston, Marc Boudreaux, a simple question. "Do you want us to go to jail or not? Is it Exxon's position that reporters should go to jail?" Because, all my dumb-ass jokes aside, that is what's at stake. And Exxon knew we were journalists because we showed our press credential to the Exxon guards at the refinery entrance.

The Exxon man was coy: "Well, we'll see what we can find out…. Obviously it's important to national security that we have supplies from that refinery in the event of an emergency."

Really? According to the documents our team uncovered from the offices of Exxon's lawyer, Mr. James Baker, the oil industry is more than happy to see a limit on worldwide crude production. Indeed, the current squeeze has jacked the price of oil from $24 a barrel to $64 and refined products have jumped yet higher -- resulting in a record-busting profit for Exxon of nearly $1 billion per week.

So this silly "criminal complaint" has nothing to do with stopping Al Qaeda or keeping the oil flowing. It has everything to do with obstructing news reports in a way that no one would have dared attempt before the September 11 attack.

Dectective Pananepinto, in justifying our impending bust, said, "If you remember, a lot of people were killed on 9/11."

Yes, Detective, I remember that very well: my office was in the World Trade Center. Lucky for me, I was out of town that day. It was not a lucky day for 3,000 others.

Yes, I remember "a lot" of people were killed. So I have this suggestion, Detective -- and you can pass it on to Mr. Bush: Go and find the people who killed them.

It's been five years and the Bush regime has not done that. Instead, the War on Terror is reduced to taking off our shoes in airports, hoping we can bomb Muslims into loving America and chasing journalists around the bayou. Meanwhile, King Abdullah, the Gambino of oil, whose princelings funded the murderers, gets a free ride in the President's golf cart at the Crawford ranch.

I guess I shouldn't complain. After all, Matt and I look pretty good in orange.

Thanks

2006-09-09T23:32:00.000Z

Good people rarely get thanked for their selfless turns. So, tonight, I'd like to thank the nice young lady sat next to me on the Northern Line, who kept elbowing me every time I fell asleep, and thus saved me an unscheduled trip to Morden and back.
You are, indeed, one of life's greats.

Signs....

2006-09-08T16:22:00.000Z

The things you see. A sign, on a wall in a South London internet cafe:
"You are forbidden to do anything illegal here". Really? I thought, internet cafes were, like, neutral zones, man - anything goes.
And there then followed the three main prohibitions: child porn, financial fraud and terrorism. Followed by a warning that anyone caught using their computers for that would be turned over to the police.
Hmmm.

Oh, bollocks....

2006-09-05T18:02:00.000Z

Oh look. Summer's over (this isn't actually true, as it'll carry on until the autumnal equinox - it just feels over. Always does after the August Bank Holiday). But it still seems far too hot. Wonder why?
Anyway, back. Do my absences get longer? And my spells of actually writing anything get shorter? I have no idea. Wouldn't be suprised, though. I can see the limit case...
Not as if I've missed anything, though is it? Not like there's been more terrorist threats, further attacks on civil liberties and a war in the Middle East, or anything. Pah.
Ho hum. Today's thoughts - privatisation. Does anybody really believe the private sector is more efficient? If so, I would suggest you try making a train journey. I'll grant you, private enterprise is much better at making money - it does this, largely, by simplyfying problems, and then selling you the easy solution. OK if you have software (well, in fact, it isn't, because you'll end up with something that doesn't do what you need it do to, but that's a whole other kettle of badgers), but not as useful for, say, organising a public transport system, or running the NHS.
I could also write about senior managers who have discussions which involve them drawing boxes with the words "outcome", "budget" and "difficulties" written on them, with various arrows connecting them, and then pretending they've done anything other than spend an hour talking bullshit. But that's another topic entirely.
Pah. Blogging. Rubbish.
So, what did you get up to on your summer holidays? I mostly spent mine mainlining heroin, and watching hardcore pornography. Although not talking to myself. I save that for when I write this drivel....

Too hot to blog....

2006-07-26T22:58:00.000Z

A phrase which must surely put everyone in mind of the Dead Kennedys,Too Drunk To Fuck.
'Cept this isn't my fault, honest. Normal service will be resumed as soon as climate change reverses. Or possibly sooner. Who knows? Who cares?

Syd Barrett

2006-07-11T22:36:00.000Z

Sad news that the great Syd Barrett died over the weekend. An enigma, who hadn't recorded any music for over thirty years, he still had a loyal band of fans who loved the whimsy, playfulness and charm of his early Pink Floyd material, and the sparse, stoned weirdness of his solo albums. Much of the solo material was flawed, but it all had a quintessentially English charm to it. Goodbye, Syd. He will be remembered.

Recommended website

2006-06-24T20:53:00.000Z

Things that make you go "aahh" - they're all recorded on http://www.thingsthatmakeyougoaahh.com/
they have been for ages, in fact. Wonder why I've not linked to it before...

Pronouncements

2006-06-21T21:34:00.000Z

Once again, superstitious nutters are trying to force the social agenda. This time, it's Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of that paedophile ring known as the Catholic Church. For some reason granted a private meeting at the Department of Health, he used it to urge a "rethink" on current abortion law. Now let's acknowledge here that our laws are not immutable. Maybe the current limit is too late. Maybe it's not. But the question is one that must be decided by empirical evidence and rational enquiry - when can we call a clump of cells a human being? Clearly, it isn't at the moment of conception - a view which is purely founded on dogmatic adherence to religious text, and a concurrent dislike of sex outside the realm of procreation.
Indeed, we should make a more general point, one which is possibly the underlying theme to many entries on WWPD - people who try to make such judgements based purely on dogma - faith, if you will - and not on reason and evidence, are ethical cretins, holding back not merely our understanding of the world, but our ability to do good. How can we decide what actions are ethical in the light of more evidence about the world if that evidence is discarded in favour of a book written something like 2000 years ago?

Confusion

2006-06-19T19:15:00.000Z

Reading the paper this morning, I found an article about a man named Derek Ogilvie. He claims to be able to read babies' minds. I wondered at first if I'd bought the Daily Mail by mistake. But no, definitely the Guardian. And there it was: a story about a man who can do a few sub-Paul Daniels parlour tricks involving cold-reading being treated seriously. Why? The interviewer says "I have met and interviewed a galaxy of psychics over several years, but he is somehow from a different mould". And? The same sort of remarks were made about Uri Geller, the former stage magician who realised he could make more money, and didn't need to be as talented, if he pretended it was real. And no one takes him seriously any more (Noel Edmonds caught him cheating, for fuck's sake!)
Yet the Guardian - a newspaper that likes to pretend it's serious - expresses not a word of scepticism towards this man. Hmmm. I wonder what'll be in the Independent tomorrow...

Government funded information

2006-06-14T20:25:00.000Z

The government, bless their little cotton socks, have funded an information pack from Fathers Direct, telling men what to expect, and how to behave, when having children. Aside from such gems as not having an affair when your wife is pregnant (really? I thought it was de rigeur...), it explains how children are expensive, messy and stressful. Which is all very obvious, but we do need the government to take that extra step and say what nobody's willing to admit: Having children ruins your life. You have no social life, no money, all your free time is spent looking after it, and then it gets older, demands more and more consumer goods and ends up mugging old ladies. Parents often come back with the "It's stressful but it's worth it" argument, trying to explain how the smile, or the first words make up for it. Bollocks, do they. They may be pleasant moments, but they're set against a backdrop of misery. How many of them think "I wish I'd never had children"? All of them, at some stage or other, but they can't afford to admit it, least of all to themselves. We need more honesty in this. Unfortunately, we're not going to get it, least of all from a government desperate to keep the next generation of tax-payers coming. But everybody else needs to think about it, and think hard. Having children ruins your life. Don't do it.

Will they never learn?

2006-06-13T22:45:00.000Z

Theists - damn them all. Various "church groups" - those particular theist nutters who describe themselves as Christians - have been calling for an enforcement of the law requiring schools to provide a collective act of (Christian, obviously) worship. It seems to be fairly lax amongst secondary schools (thank god...), and they want it tightened up. It will, apparently, be good for the spiritual health of children. I may have asked before, but I shall ask again, and will keep asking - how can it be good for any form of their health for them to sit listening to fairy stories, presented as though they were true, and be told that they mustn't question them, or ask for any sort of supporting evidence whatsoever (look what happened to Doubting Thomas! What a terrible man he was...)
How on earth is that good for anyone? And, more than ever, we live in age in which various flavours of loons are willing to blow up other people who don't share their superstitions. Yet, still, people persist in trying to breed more of them, by brainwashing children. Is there a greater stupidity than that?
On a related note, I notice that a television programme called "The Convent" is being advertised, in which various women go to escape earthly pressure, seeking something "more spiritual" - presumably biblical superstition drip-fed to them. A similar programme was aired last year, featuring men in a monastery. Now seeking greater enlightenment is all very admirable, but do they really think they'll find it by shutting themselves away from the world, listening to people who shut themselves away from the world, and probably aren't aware of any writers after Thomas Aquinas? If you want enlightenment, go out. Meet other people. Travel. See how life is lived. Don't hide from it, shielding yourself from painful reality with comfortable lies. That's not enlightenment, it's delusion.

Quote Unquote

2006-06-08T22:56:00.000Z

Ah, it seems so long ago since I was last here. Still, not much has happened, has it? Eh? Oh, well...
One thing I did note was the the Leader Of Her Majesty's Opposition, Mr Tony Cameron (or was it Mr David Blair, the Prime Minister? I forget) made a speech in which he uttered the immor[t]al line: "It's time we admitted that there's more to life than money, and it's time we focused not just on GDP, but on GWB - general wellbeing."
Marvellous. Wise words. Especially when coming from a millionaire. I suspect most single mothers, struggling to feed their children, will appreciate being lectured that there's more to life than money, and they shouldn't be so obsessed by it.
Such admonitions are always welcome from people who have never had the chance to see the opposite side. Although personally, I've always rather enjoyed the quote from the great Steven Patrick Morrisey: "There's more to life than books you know, but not much more..."

The legitimising of the BNP

2006-04-27T22:28:00.000Z

An interesting debate occurred this morning. It was in response to a letter by Norman Tebbit in the Daily Telegraph. Yes, the Chingford Skinhead himself, making one of his rare appearances in modern life, explaining how the BNP are, in fact, a dangerously left wing organisation. He was countered by Billy Bragg (eh? Since when have pop singers been the main voice of opposition to peers? Oh... But I digress...) who eloquently pointed out how most of his stance was just Norm trying to shore up support for the Tory right, which is leaking away to UKIP and the British Nazi Party. But he did miss a key point, which was to emphasise the difference between Socialist economics and Fascist economics. And whilst both may advocate nationisation, the point is that with Fascism, this is to use the resources of the state to shore up Capitalism, whereas with socialism, it is as part of taking control of the economy out of the hands of a small number of people, and placing it in the hands of the majority of society.
Which, of course, is another aspect missed by the BNP - they completely ignore the needs of huge swathes of society, based upon wholly pseudo-scientific beliefs about "race".
And this is to completely ignore the obvious argument that the so-called "British" Nationalist Party has no connexion with Britain - it espouses a philosophy developed in central Europe sixty-odd years ago, and which Britain fought against in the last world war.
A harder line needs to be taken in the media against Nick Griffin and co. They've been getting away with spreading their lies for too long. Unfortunately, the likes of the Daily Mail seem to propogate the same opinions, demonstrating that Fascism is, essentially, a middle-class disease.
But that probably deserves an entry all to itself....

When dominant ideologies are challenged...

2006-04-07T00:07:00.000Z

It's instructive to observed the reaction of adherents to dominant ideologies when their orthodoxy is challenged. They not merely don't like it, they like to pretend that they're defending a minority position, and are assailed from all sides by legions. Thus, we can have racist bigots pretending they are simply defending their "right" to be "politically incorrect" when people complain.
Or, more trivially, we can have pop singers whinging. This week, Louise Wener, the former singer with 90s student band, Sleeper, was given a column in the Guardian to defend parenthood. Now I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't seen parenthood under attack much. There's plenty of books from "lifestyle" columnists about how to cope with having babies and writing newspaper columns, and so on (precious little about how to be a single mum and hold down a job in Tescos, with possibly a second job somewhere else, since your first one isn't paying you enough to bring up your child, but that's a whole different kettle of squirrels).
However, amongst all these books, Louise took offense at two, which called into question whether parenthood was all that great. That's right, two books amongst countless show that parents are an oppressed minority.
Well boo-fucking-hoo, Louise. I really feel for you. I feel for you, as your child screams its way over Europe on my plane. I feel for you as your child races up and down the railway carriage, stealing everything and yelling, as I'm trying to have a conversation. I feel for you as your child mugs another pensioner. But please, leave the fucking victimhood to those who it really applies to...

Guardian Article

2006-04-02T19:33:00.000Z

I would like to recommend the following piece by Ian McEwan which appeared in Saturday's Guardian.
Apart from his espousal of David Deutch's book "The Fabric Of Reality" which was flawed by his lack of understanding of mathematical logic, and relative computability in particular. But I won't go into that here.
The article is at:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1743898,00.html

Why.....?

2006-03-28T21:46:00.000Z

The news.
Striking local government workers are condemned by the self-styled "Sir" Digby Jones. No, he's not the worlds biggest dog. He's the head of the CBI. And a man who looks like he doesn't go short at mealtimes. Unlike former local-government worker pensioners, who may be on as little as £35 a week. On what fucking planet does the fat-bastard multi-millionaire Jones get to criticise these people, each and every one a better human being than him? Can I move to another one?
Other news: rich parasite falls off a chair. Laugh? I nearly puked.
To quote Chris Morris, "Those are the headlines, God I wish they weren't..."

More whining liberals...

2006-03-27T17:12:00.000Z

You see, this is where your whining liberalism gets you. Thatcher-worship. Ok, so this is a few days old, and should have been written at the end of last week. But I've been busy. And no one reads this shit anymore, anyway. So who's complaining?
Nonetheless, I digress. Last week, a programme entitled "Tory, Tory, Tory" was aired. Nowt wrong with that, you may think. Someone's bound to watch it. I didn't, but Guardian columnist Rupert Smith did, and had this to say: " Watching Tory! Tory! Tory!, I found myself in a situation that I could never have imagined in my 20s, when the action was unfolding - I was largely in agreement with Thatcher and her robust solutions to the problems of the day." Eh? Why? Are you some sort of idiot? Extreme right-wing nutter? Inordinately rich crook? But, no, let young Rupe continue: "So we were given a clear overview of privatisation, share-culture and right-to-buy, all of them dirty words at the time but now a familiar part of the landscape". Ah, I see. So certain aspects of Thatcher's self-serving agenda are adopted by Blair's Boys. That means, because they're "part of the landscape" they're OK? Let's forget how disastrous privatisation has proven itself to be on this country's infrastructure (caught a train, recently, Rupe? No, thought not...), or on how unscrupulous banks pushed people into taking out mortgages they couldn't afford and repossessed the houses they'd been living in all their lives. It's all "part of the landscape", so it must be OK.
But he continues, descending from what is merely complacent idiocy into mind-blowing snobbery and offensiveness, fuelled entirely be stupidity and ignorance: "I can't be the only person who has finally admitted after all these years of pretending otherwise that Arthur Scargill was a ghastly little man who needed to be trodden on". Ah, I see. So forget how Scargill's prognosis was entirely accurate and everything he predicted turned out to be true. Let's concentrate instead on the fact that he was a "ghastly little man" - no doubt because of his offensive northern accent, and the fact that he didn't go to the right school. Probably would be blackballed by the Garrick, too. Crimes far greater than Thatcher's out-and-out assault on the very fabric of British society, and well worth destroying the coal industry for.
Liberals, eh? Who needs 'em?

Sense, for once

2006-03-08T08:38:00.000Z

It seems the European Court has made a sensible judgement. Why I feel this is sufficiently unusual to write on it is unclear, but I think a few things need to be said. A young woman thought it would infringe her human rights were she not permitted, against the wishes of her former partner, who fertilised them, to use frozen embryos to have a baby. Against her human rights? Her rights, surely, are such things as not being tortured, being able to speak freely in criticism of those in power, having enough food and a roof over her head, and so on. Having a family is a lifestyle choice, much like owning a Ferrari, or spending your summer travelling around Europe. Some people, whether for financial or biological reasons, don't have that choice, and it's possibly sad, but not a case for the European Court.
The other thing that must be stressed here, and that seems to be overlooked in most commentary, is the right to not have a family. It takes two people to create a child, and if one of those people doesn't want to, then their wishes must be taken into account. After all, they are the ones who are arguing for the status quo, as opposed to some radical, probably unpleasant, disruption to their life. And the voices of those of us who don't want to have families are often ignored. After all, we pay our taxes to support the education and care of other people's children, we're often left at work carrying on when the parents have had to leave because little Jonny's got a cold, we're the ones who get mugged by hoody-wearing teenage thugs and have to pay for their time in borstal, and so on. And we leech nothing out of the economy. Who's going to stand up for us?

Guest rant

2006-02-19T11:07:00.000Z

It has been suggested that WWPD is a one-man-and-his-cat operation. Well, to counter this accusation, I here present our first ever guest rant, written by the prolific-in-bursts pub_pooter. Enjoy:
---------------------------------------------------------

There's nothing like a positive experience or two, for rekindling your native faith in humanity. This evening, after a grim afternoon of viewing flats to rent, I chanced across an old-fashioned pub right in the heart of town. Snug underneath a motorway flyover, old men wore caps and talked fishing. When I left, sprinting for a bus, the driver waited, stationary, for at least 5 seconds (in Greater London, this is pretty damn impressive).

All the pleasant things that happened today were the result of arbitrary acts of good-feeling, and the bad ones were almost entirely due to the ongoing obligation we feel to barter our way to happiness. It did occur, walking around over-priced shoeboxes in the company of an estate agent, that things would be a lot simpler if landlords were not propertied blighters on the make, but individuals who got a kick out of, felt drawn to, creating reasonable spaces to live in.

So what, you prefer nice things to nasty things, you might say. But it's not that straightforward. My ongoing negotiations in real estate necessarily take place in the deal-making paradigm, since nearly all properties are let via estate agents. The landlord pays them to do their dirty work, they screw me for extortionate 'admin' fees, while I try to haggle down the rent, pathetically. This is the way captimalism, which we are encouraged to think of as the best of all possible worlds, works. Any fool can realise that the whole thing stinks - at least once they've experienced the business end of the cash-chain. Mainstream political parties, however, continue to embrace the "free market" without criticism.

I have no ready alternative to offer, and realise that the current state of affairs, whilst far from perfect, is, in general, a lot better than it has been in the past. But it is not a statesman's job to bask in the zeitgeist and claim that everything is as sunny as can be: complacent acceptance of the current economic system should offend every right-thinking person who isn't wearing blinkers. Politicians need votes, but should get them by identifying the profound flaws in the way things currently operate, and suggesting changes, rather than blathering about ID cards and public smoking. There's nothing wrong with setting high aims, and nothing wrong with criticising the way things are. I can't be the only one who'd rather believe in a gentle intangible then resign myself to capitalist dystopia.

SUBMITTED BY PUB_POOTER

Know your saints, part 486

2006-02-14T00:14:00.000Z

St Valentine. Died approximately 269AD, after being severely beaten, and then beheaded.
Too fucking good for him, by half, if you ask me...

Cartoons and the like

2006-02-04T00:24:00.000Z

Hmmm. Some nutters have been getting hot under the collar. Cartoons mocking some of their favourite superstitions have been published. Well, how awful. Obviously we musn't mock idiots. Of any persuasion. Let them flourish. That seems to be the motto - even Home Secretary Straw has been weighing in with idiocies involving how we must allow nutters to get away with believing crap without pointing it out to them. Obviously, said nutters can spew all manner of bile about homosexuals, and so on. But their deeply held superstitions must be respected.
Well, bollocks. I have a film proposal. I want to make a porn film. In fact a gay porn film. Actors in it would portray various "prophets" from the past - Moses, Abraham, Elijah, Jesus, Mohammed, etc. These characters would then get violently buggered, and obviously enjoy the experience. I don't think the film itself would be a great work of art, but it would certainly irritate a few people who deserve to be slapped.
Also, the contraversy would mean it would make a fortune at the box office. Probably.

The death of the NHS...

2006-01-30T22:59:00.000Z

I would write something about the new white paper on health, which is encouraging private companies to come in and take over the National Health Service. I would wonder about the final blows to its thrashing corpse being struck by a government which pretends to be of the same party which created it. I would wonder those things, but I seem to have lost the will to live.
Could the last person to leave this blog please turn the lights out?

Aren't theocracies fun?

2006-01-30T22:53:00.000Z

Oh look. Those nice folk of Hamas have won the Palestian elections. With their fundamental doctrine of not recognising the state of Israel. Hooray! Meanwhile Israel help matters along by refusing to negotiate with the Palestinian authority whilst Hamas are on in charge. Double Hooray! And the great and good of the world - Jack Straw and Condi Rice, so it seems - make demands of Hamas which they refuse to accept. How good is religion? It allows you to make all sorts of unreasonable and pointless statements, because god has told you you're right. He's told Israel that it's his chosen country. He's told the Muslims of Palestine that in fact Israel is really theirs. And he's told Mr Tony and George W. that not only were the WMDs in Iraq, but that they need to utilise all the skills they showed there in sorting out other world troublespots.
A small message for god - make your fucking mind up. Or shut the fuck up.

In praise of German women

2006-01-28T15:23:00.000Z

Apparently 30% of German women are now choosing not to have children - a figure which rises to 40% amongst university educated women. This seems to create panic amongst the political class, but is it really all that suprising? It seems fully understandable that educated, intelligent women, leading enjoyable and fulfilling lives, don't want to ruin them with 9 months of discomfort and pain, several years of cleaning up someone elses shit, then even more years of subordinating their own lives to those of a mewling brat or a petulant adolescent.
Futhermore, there are plenty of good reasons for not having children. The planet is over-populated with humans as it is, all demanding more resources to consume. Why add to that burden? And is it even moral to bring another consciousness into existence? People are unhappy for most of their lives - I'd guess about 80%. Our time is spent trying to find ways to blot that out - how can anyone justify inflicting that on anyone else?
Finally, of course, we suffer the pandemic of behooded, gun-toting youths, rampaging across our towns and cities, mugging, raping and murdering all that cross their paths. Put together, along with other factors, we can call these issues The Child Problem. However, I have a solution. My, as yet unwritten, manifesto - "Towards a child-free utopia" spells it out. Compulsory sterilisation for everyone living in the UK. Combined with a completely free immigration policy for anyone over the age of 21, provided they consent to be sterilised, too. That way, within a small number of years, the country will be entirely child-free, and the money saved in educating, protecting and punishing them can be put to use making life more tolerable for adults. I can't see a flaw in it, myself.

Humour

2006-01-26T00:52:00.000Z

It has been suggested that we at "What Would Puskas Do?" are humourless, holier-than-thou types, with giant chips on our shoulders, and a paraniod self-righteousness which overspills into all aspects of our lives. This is self-evidently true, but even so, we present the following joke, topical for tonight. Or, rather, last night, since it's gone midnight. Dusted down once a year, for its annual outing. Just don't expect us to approve...

Tony Blair is being shown around a hospital. Towards
the end of his visit,
he is shown into a ward with a number of people with
no obvious signs of
injury. He goes to greet the first patient and the
chap replies:
"Fair fa' your honest sonsie face,
Great chieftain e' the puddin'.race!
Aboon them a' ye tak your place,
Painch, tripe, or thairm:
Weel are ye wordy o' a grace
As lang 's my arm."
Tony, being somewhat confused grins and moves on to
the next patient and
greets him. He replies:
"Some hae meat, and canna eat,
And some wad eat that want it,
But we hae meat and we can eat,
And sae the Lord be thankit."
The third starts rattling off as follows:
"Wee sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beastie,
O, what a panic's in thy breastie!
Thou need na start awa sae hasty,
Wi bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to rin an chase thee,
Wi murdering pattle!"
Tony turns to the doctor accompanying him and asks
what sort of ward this
is. A mental ward?
"No," replies the doctor,
"It's the Burns unit."

Kebab Machine

2006-01-26T00:36:00.000Z

Spotted in London's fashionable, and not-at-all-seedy Kings Cross district, the memorable "Kebab Machine" take-away. Which creates images of a vending machine, much like the sort which may sell soft-drinks, or crips, with a giant elephants leg, rotating, dripping with healthy, life-affirming grease, and with razor-sharp knives, which every now and then slice of strips, which drop into salad-filled pitta breads to be coated in chilli sauce, and dispensed on insertion of £2.50.
Sadly, such a machine wasn't in the shop. It remains one of the last great gaps yet to be automated in our lifetimes. But there's the idea, if someone wants to patent it. You can buy me a pint with your profits.

Mel And Kim

2006-01-25T18:36:00.000Z

There seems to have been some talk of philosophy on here, recently. Let's continue with that theme, by bringing up two of the greatest philosophers of the ancient world, Mel and Kim, and, specifically, one of their most famous tenets - "Take or leave us, only please believe us, we ain't ever gonna be respectable". Cocking a snook (and I don't even know what a snook is) at bourgeois society, they positively mocked the whole idea of respectability.
Now, traversing onwards through the ages, to the present, we live in a world where the 7 inch single has vanished, replaced by the downloadable MP3, and where the talented artist is replaced by the vacuous celebrity, famous for merely having sex live on television. Which brings us nicely to Big Brother, and it's current spin-off, Celebrity Big Brother. The fact that many of those celebrities only became celebrities by being in other, non-celebrity surreality television programmes only goes to show the cannibalistic nature of the beast. But that's not our concern now. We stop to pause and stare at possibly one of the most self-obsessed egotists in the whole show. Step forward (ex??) Stalinist and friend of the fundamentalist, George Galloway MP. Let's not consider here what the rights and wrongs are of a democratically elected public servant ignoring his constituents and promoting himself in the hope of a television career once he's removed from parliament at the next general election. Let's not even concern ourselves with the accusations of financial impropriety which have once again surfaced. Let's simply look at the effect he has on the beliefs he supposedly espouses. He becomes the target of attacks himself, making it easy for right-wing pundits to mock criticism of government policy, simply by mocking George. Indeed, read the likes of Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens, and so on, and this is precisely what they do. The rest of us are then obliged to disassociate ourselves from him, which is difficult when not merely the man himself, but the whole of the right-wing media, wants to present him as a spokesman of the left.
Meanwhile, whilst we're on George, consider his party. Emphasis on "his". Respect. Respect for whom? George seems to show precious little of it to his constituents, or indeed, to his fellow celebrities. It seems the only person we're meant to respect here is George (and possibly his former friend, Saddam, but that's another matter).
But the respect theme allows us to segue nicely to out glorious Prime Minister. Who wants to foster a culture of respect. Ah, respect. When we all doff our caps to him, I imagine. But it's a riff he's played before. Back to when he was first elected, the lack of respect in society causing criminality. Overtones of the Victorian gentleman. Everyone knowing their God-given place, and being content with it. But, sadly, in this age where anyone can be a celebrity, we don't respect people for simply being born "better". Indeed, healthily, respect has to be earned, and it is very difficult to respect Thatcher's ideological heir, particularly when Thatcher had the excuse that she was driven by sociopathy, and a hatred of life and beauty, whilst all that motivates Blair is a small-minded, money-grubbing mentality, desperately trying to enrich himself as quickly as possibly.
So we return to Mel and Kim. And with them, looking at Mr Tony wants, I too ain't ever going to be respectable. Sadly Mel died a of cancer some years back, and I have no idea what happened to Kim. Looking at Mr Tony's Britain, we seem left merely with a profound sense of Mel and Colly.

Whining liberals and Puritans.

2006-01-11T00:05:00.000Z

I have spent the past few days/weeks/months etc becoming more and more irritated with the newspapers I've been reading. For a start, one of them used to be a broadsheet, before becoming a pseudo-tabloid.
But more than that, there's a strong streak of goody-goody liberal shite to them. The Guardian, for example, is fond of a "Is it ethical to...." column. "Oh, dear guardian, is it ethical to breathe air that may have been ripped from the lungs of Columbian peasants?" "Is it ethical to eat food when, instead, it could have been shipped in environmentally friendly fashion, to Africa, and used to feed a starving village?" "Is it ethical to utilise huge fucking amounts of paper to sell at what is now 70p a shot, when you could put it on the web for nowt?"
And so on. The great dilemma of the liberal - how to live a life which doesn't cause anyone else harm, whilst still maintaining a house in Islington, a second home in Devon and a holiday villa somewhere south of Spain.
Well, I'm sorry, but you can't. Make your fucking choice. Either you're happy with capitalism, and everyone getting screwed so you can have your luxury goods, or you're opposed to it. Your attempted middle ground won't wash.
And connected to these Liberal types are the new model puritans. Most Sunday broadsheets have covered these. Humourless types who hate the world, and every form of fun available in it. You like to drink? How dare you - you have a drink problem. You enjoy sex? Weirdo! Traitor! To hell with you.
Me? I just hate the world, and get on with it.

Superstition, reason and happiness...

2006-01-09T23:09:00.000Z

So yes, happy new year, and so on. Despite it no longer being particularly new. Or happy. I did think about writing a review of the year, but I did that gag last year. Then I pondered turning my hand to futurology, but realised the futility of that gesture - either a collection of grandiose, but pointless pronouncements, or, even worse, a "2006 Perspectives" document, written as though by the Central Committee of some small Trotskyist group. So no, let's avoid that too. Let us, instead, go back to our favourite themes - rationality, superstition and religion.
On television tonight, the ever-excellent Richard Dawkins presented a programme entitled "Root of all evil" giving us his arguments why society can never progress sensibly with religion, since there will always be people unwilling to compromise what they "know" to be the truth, that revealed to them, and them alone, by God. Generally, of course, that they are God's chosen people, and that everyone else is unworthy to share the planet with them. So far, so uncontroversial.
He did say one interesting thing early on, though, raising a point I've thought about quite a lot, and had several discussions on, generally after a lot of beer. In a pub. Late at night. His proposition, stated without comment: that it is better to accept a harsh truth than a comforting lie. Hmmm. Is it? On what moral obligation do I need to accept the truth, if falsehood makes me happy? If I were capable of abandoning reason to such an extent that I could accept I had some imaginary friend who would look after me, so long as I did what I thought he told me, and would make everything better after I died, why shouldn't I believe that? It sounds nice. Or, to take matters on step further, if I could have a lobotomy, turning me into a drooling idiot, but a happy idiot, would it be worth taking?
I think there are several problems with this. The first one is the practical argument. How do I know I would be happy? Real life isn't a thought experiment. But surely there's a better answer than that? I think the answer comes down to the meaning of life. To live a good (ha!) life. We need to give ourselves some purpose, surely some of which would be to help others live happier lives. And, no matter how comforting the lie may be, it won't help other people improve their lives. You can't feed the starving of the world if you base your agricultural principles on falsehoods, for instance. The only way we can really make the world a better place is to understand it properly. And why is it incumbent upon me to make the world a better place? Well, it isn't. But we do need some purpose to our lives. Otherwise we may as well give up. So we carry on. Battling for reason and rationality over superstition and the comforting lie. Maybe it isn't worth it, but what else can we do?

Democracy in action

2005-12-07T22:43:00.000Z

Oh look. Tony Blair now seems to be in charge of both of Britain's main political parties. Hooray - there's a choice for the next election.
And what's that noise in the background - that drunken, senile gurgling? Why, it's the ghost of Margaret Thatcher, barking her approval of her two ideological heirs, whilst occasionally punctuating it with bouts of howling her hatred of life, truth and beauty.
Depressing isn't it? And, to make things worse, it's nearly Christmas.
Makes you lose the will to live...

Dead footballers' wives

2005-11-27T09:51:00.000Z

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....

2005-11-23T00:08:00.000Z

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?

2005-11-18T02:18:00.000Z

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

2005-11-09T20:09:00.000Z

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

2005-11-09T19:54:00.000Z

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

One question....

2005-11-08T06:42:00.000Z

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...?

2005-11-04T01:22:00.000Z

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.

Railtrack

2005-10-14T01:07:00.000Z

And I have to say this. I've just heard another story that various shareholders are taking the government to court over Railtrack going into administration. Whilst I am no lover of the current government, these people need to understand what they were doing - buying into stolen property. If I buy a video on the cheap from some bloke in the pub, and then the police come around and tell me it was stolen from a house down the road, I don't really have a leg to stand on when it's taken back. Similarly, if I buy shares in a company that was previously nationalised, and thus owned by everyone, and then it gets taken back into public ownership, I have no right to complain that my selfish attempting at profiteering was beaten off in the face of the "public good".
We need more, and indeed, genuine, renationalisation. And sod the greedy, money-grabbing bastards who bought the shares in the first place. As the warning says "share prices can go down as well as up"...

A birthday tribute

2005-10-14T00:16:00.000Z

A friend once told me a story about a musician friend of his (yes, I know, friend of a friend, but he actually gave the names, and I've met said person, so I'm inclined to believe it's true...), going out to a music shop just off Oxford Street. A fairly informal place, the owner was drinking tea with other customers, and suggested to the newcomer that he, too, may like to join them in a cuppa, and that he should go to the kitchen, and sort himself out with one. Whilst in there, he noticed there was a bottle of champagne in the fridge, so asked the owner if he was celebtrating something. "No", he replied, "It's just waiting there until Thatcher dies". Well, I, too have a bottle of champagne in my fridge, waiting for something worth celebrating, and that seems as good as any other excuse. Sadly, however, she's just turned 80 today. And, furthermore, her bastard son seems to have taken over as Prime Minister, revelling in the same Fundamentalist neo-liberal dogmas that she used to espouse. What is it that makes people believe this nonsense. In a science, a hypothesis is rejected when it is falsified. In economics (the dismal science, as someone I can't remember described it), someone can claim that unrestricted "free market" capitalism is good for a country, it can be implemented in full, by Milton Friedman's "Chicago Boys", in Chile, when General Pinochet more or less handed his economic policy over to them in the 1970s, and it can destroy the country, which only recovered thanks to a hefty dose of Keynesian interventionism - surely as effective a refutation as is needed. And yet, it is still espoused by various acolytes and priests, who view it as the only way forward.
Nonetheless, I digress. Thatcher's still alive. And 80. Whilst, if she died, it would change nothing, and her ridiculoud opinions and ideologies are still alive and well with our current corrupt Prime Minister, her death would be, if nothing else, an excuse for a party. And a group trip to piss on her grave...

People watching - story fragment

2005-10-04T20:28:00.000Z

Just because someone is not seen, it does not mean that they see nothing.

The man works in a club, part of a chain. Most of his nights follow the same pattern: he is alone, with his dreams. The music is muffled until the door opens. Then it blasts through for a couple of seconds, dragging him back to the world. He is forced to be aware of the man who has walked into the toilets, watch as he approaches the urinal and smile as he turns to wash his hands. He has seen all the reactions; he simply tries to do his job. They walk in and are surprised, annoyed or nonplussed to see him. He smiles at them all, turns on the taps for them, offers them soap and towels. If there is a significant clunk from the coin they drop in his dish, he offers them something from the range of colognes and aftershaves. He may spray them with something. He may not. Either way he will still smile. He smiles as he watches them head out, back into the movement, the chaos outside the door. He smiles as he surveys his once-again quiet domain. He knows it will not remain quiet for long. But for this brief moment, he retreats, out of this white-walled prison, back into his dreams. For another few moments, he is free.
His is the world of dreams: of being himself when alone, of politeness, of quiet observation, of seeing when others are present. Even worlds such as this may be transitory, though. They need to be defended on occasions. Tonight may be just such a time.
People often leave things. He has found much over the years but very few people ask for things back. Who would they ask? Him?! He is an embarrassment at best – nobody wants to talk to him. And yet today’s find is different … more significant, somehow.
He has seen this man before. He always struts arrogantly in a suit and walks through doors marked “Private”. He is clearly a man who warrants respect. Either that, or a man with a small amount of power who expects respect, which in practical terms can amount to the same thing. The man has left a folder behind, though. Very forgetful of him. It contained some contracts, some notes, and a letter. Maybe the letter has an address. Maybe, for once, he can return something to its owner. He reads the letter.
“Dear Tom,
I received your proposals this morning – thank you. As you are aware, the need for savings is even greater than when we last spoke. We will obviously have to halve the bar-staff. The rest will simply work longer. We can also hand many of them cleaning duties, to further reduce our expenditure. I believe more streamlining can be performed on top of this – you have already made some proposals, and I have faith in your ideas in this area. Regards,
Jerry”
Another piece of paper is attached by a clip – the words are scrawled in an impatient hand: “P.S. Off, the record, whilst nobody would ever suggest watering down the drinks, could they not be made to, as it were, last longer? Given the eminent stupidity of most of the punters, combined with the fact that they’re already three-sheets to the wind when they arrive, they would never notice the difference. We can also get rid of our “bathroom hosts”, as they seem to like to be called. To be frank, it’s almost not worth the bother, the amount they’re paid isn’t a huge saving. But that bloke in the men’s freaks me out. Just do it.”

He reads the letter two or three times. Obviously this requires further action. He surveys his room once again - the bottles of coloured liquids, the hand towels. The mysterious cubicles. This cannot be rushed. He must give the matter further thought. Thought is, after all, what he is good at. Thought, along with seeing – and he has seen much over the years. Managers, executives, letter-writers – they all need to use toilets on occasion. Sometimes they spend longer in here than is necessary. Sometimes they leave behind traces of white powder in cubicles, lines that lead to conclusions, lines that could be written about – lines on lines. He has seen important men, men with power, men who strut and deserve respect, men with families, enter cubicles with women, with other men. He does not talk about it. That is not his place. He is simply the silent observer. Smiles and politeness are his means of communication, his profession. Desperate circumstances are the mother of change, however. When a world needs defending, all assets must be employed. There is power in the written word; as a short letter can destroy a world, so a short letter may yet defend it. He finds some blank paper within the forgotten folder, some space in between the crowd of bottles, and begins to write, “Dear Sir…”

My first kitten - an autobiographical fragment

2005-10-04T20:12:00.000Z

It is, of course, the dream of every young boy to have a kitten of his own, and thus it was with great excitement that we drove to the RSPCA centre in Leeds to pick ours up. My housemate, the bearded and peculiar Dr Harry was driving. I sat next to him, tense, nervous and eager as a new parent waiting for good news.
Technically, it wasn’t a kitten we were picking up, but a young cat. However, such details are trivial. He was ours.

The RSPCA was staffed by severe looking nurses. After viewing us disapprovingly, one such nurse gave us our instructions. The cat was dazed, owing to the “operation” he’d had. We winced. No details necessary. He was drugged up. We could understand that. He’d need feeding scrambled eggs. This was less intelligible. But people wearing white coats said it with authority, and who were we to argue?

We took him home. His name was already decided upon – Glorious Five Year Plan. A fine name for a cat. If a touch long. A shorter nickname would be applied later.

He was released into the living room. Watching it was a truly magical experience. It is not every day that one can say one has seen a stoned cat stretch to his full length and stagger out of a cardboard box, before stumbling around and collapsing. Drugs and no balls. That’s enough to leave anybody in a vulnerable position. I went to cook his eggs.

Perhaps the salt and pepper weren’t necessary. I felt, however, it was important to give our new guest the best. My other housemate, the fallen angel Steve, watched, with some bemusement. It was he who had challenged our requirement for a cat.

“What do you want one for, anyway?” he had asked, weeks ago, non-plussed at the prospect of feline company.

“So we can get stoned, and it can sit on us,” was my response, stating, what I thought, was the obvious.

Later on, Steve and Glorious Five Year Plan failed to see eye-to-eye on many issues…to such an extent that the cat’s nickname became Steve. Dr Harry and myself considered it amusing to refer to Steve as “T’Other Steve”.

“Have you seen Steve? His girlfriend’s on the phone.”

“Yes, he’s sat in front of the telly, licking his arse.”

“Sorry, I mean T’Other Steve.”

Glorious Five Year Plan failed to enjoy his scrambled eggs. He disappeared several months later – on the morning, indeed, of Mr Tony Blair’s first election victory. I like to believe he was carried away by the thought of helping to usher in a glorious new Socialist dawn, and headed to Downing Street, plans for the nationalisation of leading monopolies clutched firmly in his paws. Given later events, I can only surmise he never made it there.

By way of explanation

2005-10-04T20:09:00.000Z

The next couple of posts are something of a departure from the usual rants about corrupt politicians and religious lies. I have been attempting to keep different strands of writing separate. However, the editor of my other work has threatened to resign unless I put it up here, and since she's dead good, and I couldn't do it without her, here it is. One autobiographical fragment, one fragment of a short story. The story will be expanded upon - whether here or elsewhere is another matter....

Zombies, politics and christianity

2005-09-25T23:15:00.000Z

I went to the cinema, today, to see the marvellous George Romero's new film, "Land Of The Dead". I can highly recommend it to everyone - what modern horror films should be about, with paranoia, politics and bloodthirsty zombies ripping people's faces off and eating them. I may get around to writing a full-length review at some point soon. Although I may not.
Nonetheless, before the film started, there was an advert. A montage of images of people struggling to climb mountains, play football, and walk along catwalks, before reaching a sucessful conclusion, and asking the camera, "Is this all there is?"
Well, obviously it's not all there is. The footballers could take up mountaineering, the climbers could become models, the models could sign for Hearts. Or they could all read a book, masturbate over internet pornography or mainline heroin. There are a myriad of things to do, most of them better than my suggestions above.
The point being that the advert was for "The Alpha Course", a slightly sinister organisation who run what is basically a fundamentalist Christian brainwashing group. So why aren't they obliged to say that on their advertising literature? They pretend to be offering a course in philosophy, when that is the last thing they want - heaven forfend that any Alpha Course attendees should actually think. And there's no point in arguing with these people, as logic, evidence and rationality don't come into the equation - "It says so in the bible, so it must be true".
The sort of "thought process" which leads people to plant bombs on buses...

It's getting worse...

2005-09-10T09:35:00.000Z

...as Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller (wonder which comprehensive school she attended...), erstwhile head of MI5, announces that "Some erosion of what we all value may be necessary". More attacks on civil liberties. I ask again - why is this erosion necessary? Manningham-Buller claims to be concerned that partial evidence held by the security services may not be enough to secure convictions. Oh - and? Why not gain more evidence, then? Surely that's the point of the "intelligence" services? Keep the suspects under surveillance? Is that unreasonable? Employ more than one person to watch them, so that you don't end up missing someone leaving the house, and shoot the wrong person. For example.
Democracy has always been hated by the ruling classes. Ever since the days of the Chartists, and even before, each gain has had to be won through bitter struggle, and now, more than ever, these gains are under threat, not from some nebulous "terrorist network" from overseas - that facile stock response of many liberals that "we can't do this or the terrorists have won" is obviously wrong, the terrorists haven't won until their ridiculous objectives have been implemented. The people who have won are the people who own and rule the country, the people who want to continue making their money, and holding onto their power, at the expense of the rest of us.
And, whilst talking of Dame Manningham-Buller, she was "disappointed" that her security service didn't stop the attacks on London in July. Well, I'm glad you're disappointed (indeed, since I'm guessing you don't use public transport much, it's very magnanimous of you to feel that way!) however, shouldn't such a serious failure be a resigning matter? Oh, I forgot, people in power don't resign anymore. They're too important.

In the meantime....

2005-09-08T19:39:00.000Z

I suggest you read this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1564369,00.html
And think, and learn. Particularly today, when the Daily Mail had a headline reading something like "Unborn babies at risk from certain chemical death, and it's all your fault for being alive in the 21st Century". I paraphrase, slightly. Scaremongering, if ever there was. But the need for critical thought, in all walks of life is becoming ever more important, particularly as our government wants to scare us with the fact that we're all at risk from Maniac Bombers, and the only way to stop them is to have the number 666 tattooed across our heads. Or something like that. But I digress.
Anyway, Ben Goldacre should be in charge of all newspapers. Ever. Or at least made chairman of the Press Complaints comission, or something. Interesting complaints would abound.

Whilst I still can....

2005-09-07T23:20:00.000Z

Before the new laws come in, preventing anyone from criticising religion whatsoever, I'd like to take a moment to attack mad mullahs, bonkers bishops, raving rabbis, and indeed any theistic moron who happens to cross my path. You're all stupid. It is important to remember that. I was in a pub last night, recalling a time when, many years ago, I lived in Leeds, and used to argue with a bunch of bible-bashers of one flavour or another, who gave away tea outside a pub, after closing time. Obviously, after a few pints on a Friday night, they seemed like fair game, and the tea was always welcome. However, as my friend pointed out, argument is just giving these idiots publicity, and, indeed, the sheen of respectability. As soon as they accept the theistic doctrine, they're immediately arguing from a position of irrationality, and the best you can do is laugh at them contemptously, and walk away, as they are incapable of responding to reason.
However, one thing still grates. If people are stupid and want to believe in idiocy, they have that right. But why should they be given positions of responsibility in governement, purely on that basis? Why should bishops have seats in the House Of Lords? Just because they're less bright than normal people? Isn't that just perverse? And, possibly even more pertinently, why should they be allowed to sit on committees, discussing scientific ethics? When most of them hold opinions that are in direct contradiction to modern scientific knowledge, sometimes, in extreme cases, even trying to contradict the most basic of evident facts, such as evolution. This, in itself, should, for any rational person, be enough to exclude them from any debate on how, for example, genetic engineering should proceed. Sadly, it seems, it's more likely to get them included in the debate.

What John Humphreys Should Have Said....

2005-09-07T22:35:00.000Z

It seems John Humphreys has been "disciplined" by the BBC, for making a few mildly unflattering remarks about various government ministers. I could take some time here to ponder upon a broadcasting organisation that expects someone to make a show based around current affairs, and then, seemingly, not have any opinion on the matter - and the obvious perceived slight on us as listeners, who are apparently so stupid and sheeplike that we can't make up our own minds on these matters. But they've been done to death - and if not now, then when the former Today Programme producer, Rod Liddle, was sacked, for writing in his Guardian column that Tories are fairly offensive. So, instead, lets contemplate what Humphreys could have said, indeed, should have said, which really could have brought the ire of the authorities down on him. How about, instead of the relatively innocuous "some politicians don't seem to care whether or not they tell the truth", the much more hard-hitting, "Charles Clarke is a fat, lying shit".
Unreasonable? I wouldn't say so. Not when Mr Clarke has said, according to a Reuters report, that the EU must accept some erosion of civil rights to fight terrorism. This website (well, you know, me, but let's try to make it sound important...) has conclusively shown, in recent weeks, that the whole rights/security debate is a false dichotomy, and Mr Clarke is simply restating basic falsehoods, in an attempt to win support from the right-wing media. Quite what civil rights must we give up, eh, Charlie? The right to be chauffeur driven to meetings, at which I get told what to think by Blair/Bush? The right to leave government and walk straight into a highly paid consultancy job with a large multinational which has a vested interest in the area of the government I used to work in? The right to sell out every last principle you ever once proclaimed, and crap on the working class from a great height? No, those rights will remain untouched. The only rights we'll see abolished are those of the poor, the desperate, the bottom end of society, from going about their business unchallenged. And of course, if people think that those in power are after them, they're more likely to harbour grudges. And maybe become terrorists. Hmmm. Interesting, that, isn't it?
If we need to put the lie to Clarke's comments any further, how about: "It seems to me we have to give the same rights to those humans who want to travel without being blown up on an underground train", which he apparently said, again according to Reuters (see http://uk.news.yahoo.com/06092005/325/eu-must-accept-erosion-civil-rights-clarke.html if you're interested - always need to cite my sources...). Well, excuse me, Mr Clarke, but don't we already have laws which protect people who wish to do just that, without recourse to pissing on us further? I was under the impression that murder was illegal. I may be wrong. After all, Mr Tony's government seem to be getting away with There you go, John Humphreys - get me to write your after dinner speeches in future. My rates are very reasonable...

"They're locking them up today, they're throwing away the key..."

2005-08-12T20:56:00.000Z

And as the man said, so long ago, "we're all normal when we want our freedom". In an attempt to pose the unstated question as to what normality is, our good friend, Mr Tony Blair, is reviving that most dangerous of false dichotomies - security or freedom. So some lunatic Islamist has been banned from the country. So what? Well, is nobody else concerned that a man who has, whilst admittedly expressing views that any sane person would hold as obnoxious, committed no crime, has been banned from entering the country? Have we really reached a point at which expressing opinions has become a criminal act? Who's next? Do we really trust the current government to say, "Oh, but they're bad people - you have your opinions, which we disagree with, but you're OK"?
And the move to revive the treason laws. According to my dictionary, treason is a "violation or betrayal of the allegiance that a person owes his sovereign or his country". So my supporting of the removal of the royal family would count as treason under this definition. Assuming I owe my sovereign any allegiance (which I would maintain I don't - why should I? I didn't vote for her...)
We live in dangerous times. Making it easier for the government to lock up people who disagree with them isn't going to make them any less dangerous, no matter what the idiotic-populist right wing press may claim. It just means there is a greater risk for the rest of us - we have to worry about being locked up by our own country as well as being blown to bits by insane religious nutters.

Robin Cook

2005-08-12T20:40:00.000Z

A bit of shock, the death of Robin Cook. A man who has since been described, by people who should really know better, as "the intellectual conscience of the Labour Party". And such-like guff. OK, so it all gets wheeled out for the dead, and yes he did quit his cabinet post over the Gulf War (although how much of that was an attempt to position himself as the most likely rallying point for any "left opposition" should Blair get it in the neck is debatable). But let's talk about a far more pertinent political input, which probably says more about his character. Way back in the mists of time, when the UK was still governed by the Conservative Party (that's the other Conservative Party...), Cook proudly boasted of Labour's "Ethical Foreign Policy" commitments. No more arms sales to repressive regimes. No more turning a blind eye to torture and human rights abuses committed by "our allies". Marvellous. Something we could all support. Skip forward to Robin Cook, first Foreign Secretary of the New Labour Regime. First test of the Ethical Foreign Policy - should we allow Scorpion tanks to be sold to President Suharto's murderous Indonesian government? Hmmm, let's think about that one, shall we? Obviously, that nice General Suharto wouldn't do anything bad with them - OK, he may have been responsible for genocide in East Timor, but that was the bad old days. In the end, Cook cowardly allowed the tanks to be shipped, claiming the government could be sued if he didn't. Erm, who by? Alvis, the tank's manufacturers? Here's an interesting thought. We all agree that some form of defence is necessary. Sad, but true. But why does the manufacture of the requisite weaponry have to be in private hands? No one in their right mind is thinking of privatising the army, so why should arms manufacturers be out to make a profit? Nationalise them, use them purely for national defence purposes, and this sort of thing can be avoided. And whilst we're at it, nationalising the leading drugs companies would prevent them from screwing the NHS, and allow further government medical research spending to be more efficiently planned and used, rather than huge swathes of profit going into the back pockets of shareholders.
Anyway, I digress. Robin Cook - not quite the saint he was made out. On the other hand, it seems Mr Tony has snubbed his funeral, so he must have done something right...

Pangur Ban

2005-08-01T22:34:00.000Z

I liked this. Read it in Trinity College, when doing touristy things (looking at the Book of Kels exhibition, specifically...) Written by a 9th Century Irish monk in St Gallen, Switzerland, it's a poem called "Pangur Ban". And I have no particular reason for setting it down, either. Apart from, "Why not?"
Anyway, Pangur Ban:

I and Pangur Ban my cat
'Tis a like task we are at:
Hunting mice is his delight,
Hunting words I sit all night.

Better far than the praise of men
'Tis to sit with book and pen;
Pangur bears me no ill will
He too plies his simple skill

Oftentimes a mouse will stray
Into hero Pangur's way;
Oftentimes my keen thought set
Takes a meaning in its net.

'Gainst the wall he sets his eye
Full and fierce and sharp and sly;
'Gainst the wall of knowledge I
All my little wisdom try.

Practice every day has made
Pangur perfect in his trade;
I get wisdom day and night
Turning darkness into light
-----
I presume it wasn't written in English, but I've no idea who translated it.

God shaped holes

2005-07-31T17:38:00.000Z

The phrase "God shaped hole" was recently used in a comment. I have to say that I disagree with the whole (or, hole, if you prefer...) image here. It's worth explaining why. God isn't some sort of fixed concept, even for theists. One of the reasons the word lacks any real meaning is that it's applied to all sorts of areas that people don't understand. Initially, the word "god" could explain everything - why we're here, how the universe was created, why we behave as we do. Then, after humans began studying the world, the spaces for god became smaller, as science began to explain. So now, when we can explain the evolution of human life, much of how the mind works, the way the atoms build up matter, the creation of the universe from a matter of microseconds after the big bang, and so on, the "god shaped hole" seems to have become smaller. Do we just say "well, god programmed the world to continue in this way after the big bang"? If so, it dismissed the notion of free-will - something that is important to religion (if you have no free will, how can god punish you - after all, you're only doing what he's made you to do. A problem for them, anyway, but one worthy of its own topic). But where else is the hole that he's supposed to fit, now we can explain so much else? And isn't it worth assuming that we can explain the rest as well, since we've had so much success so far? The god-shaped hole gets smaller and smaller...
However, that's not really the point that was being made. It was that people tend to fill this hole with other things (cf. Chesterton here, although he's thoroughly deluded...) - material goods, "New Age" nonsense, and so on. But again, the hole image fails - I believe that god is, and always has been, some sort of ontological Polyfilla - something to shove in cracks in your picture of the world. The cracks were once larger, now they become smaller - perhaps too small for people to want to really refer to god. So they choose something else.
So the image of a hole is too large for the purposes people use god for.

Edward Heath

2005-07-18T10:24:00.000Z

So old Ted's dead. And of course, the tributes are pouring in. He was, of course, considered amongst the absolute worst of the Tory party before Thatcher, but let's forget that. He was, again, a friend of Mao Tse Tung, Deng Xiaoping, and an apologist for the Tiannaman Square massacre, but don't mention that. Did you know he was good at yachting? He liked music? And he wasn't as bad as Thatcher. So that's OK, then.
And, of course, there was a newspaper headline, reprinted in Private Eye, and available in one of their compilations of amusing newspaper cuttings. Responding to hypocrisy amongst MPs regarding homosexuality, and the status of Hampstead Heath, North London, as a gay cruising ground, the headline read "Gay group claim many MPs use Heath for sex". Probably the best way to remember him...

Opiates and so on

2005-07-17T22:45:00.000Z

Hmmm. Hmmm, indeed.
It seems that various Islamic clerics have, as part of their condemnation of the bombings in London last week, decided to specifically start telling their "flock" (sheep is as apt a description of the religious as any I can think of) that killing people is bad, and results in going to hell.
Welcome as condemnation of bombing is from any human being claiming to be civilised, I can't help but wonder at the mindset that believes one can only not perform evil acts if one is threatened with eternal torment for doing so. This isn't an attack on Islam per se - all religions are guilty of it. As some portentous pop singer or other bellowed, "Is goodness hard to come by without lying?" And surely it's time to reflect on the harm that religion does to society. Not simply the suicide bombers (who are always religious - how could anyone who didn't believe in an afterlife - whatever that means, they're always a tad unclear on the subject - think that blowing themselves up to take down a few other people is a good thing?), but the whole "philosophy" of "We're god's chosen people, she's chosen to reveal her divine secrets to us, not you, so we're better than you..." It's from this starting point - the basis of all religion - that the idea of killing other people because they have different superstitions from you stems.
So what to do? Well, obviously, you can't outlaw religion. In a democracy nobody should be imprisoned simply for being wrong or stupid. But Mr Tony was very fond of promoting something he called "faith-based schools". Surely these must be abolished? The fact that my taxes go to pay for the propagation and promulgation of half-backed superstitious idiocy annoys me intensely. Indeed, banning religions from running schools, and thus protecting young, impressionable minds from being brainwashed, has to be a basic minimum. And rather than teaching RE - still compulsory in schools - perhaps we could teach Philosophical Studies, or some such.
Secular Humanism will maybe be the dominant world view one day. It's worth putting in the effort to make that day sooner rather than later, for all our sakes.

Further dispatches from the front line of the class war

2005-06-23T22:35:00.000Z

Back to Wimbledon. There's a flower stall just by the station. You can buy roses there for Tim. His favourite. Maybe they'd make a nice commiseration gift? Thousands of lower-middle class half-wits, taking a short break from their innate misanthropy to shower the great loser with rose blossom.
Anyway. This flower stall offers you free smells. The free is underlined, they're that proud of it. That's right - they don't charge you for breathing near their flowers. What sort of insane business model is that? Everyone will just go up, smell their flowers, and not pay. Madness. They're bound to go bust within weeks.
Or maybe days. However long it takes before the last remaining English bloke is knocked out, and the hordes of Daily-Mail-istas abandon their pretense of being interested in sport, and return to more natural bigotries.
And damn this heat, too.

Wimble-done...

2005-06-21T22:48:00.000Z

As a resident of London's popular SW19 borough, I am often grumpy at this time of year. Everywhere is full of Americans, or, even worse, Daily Mail readers who, for 2 or 3 weeks, are suddenly fully-fledged tennis fans, cheering on whichever no-hoper happens to be English, and losing at tennis, that particular year. Recently it's been Tim Henman. Proir to that, it was Jeremy Bates. Before him - I don't know, probably the National Front supporting Buster Mottram.
Why? Why do this bunch of braying Hoorays congregate every year around what seems now to be known as "Henman Hill" to cheer on yet another loser in the one of the most dull sports on the planet? OK, some of it I can appreciate. There's something in me that is attracted by the almost insatiable "naffness" of it all - the air of bumbling incompetence that always seems to be bubbling under the surface. A Woosterish Englishness. But always overridden by the sheer unpleasantness of the audience, who you know will be happy, once the tournament is over, worrying about falling house prices and racially abusing asylum seekers. And of course, the game is very boring.
I believe that George Orwell once wrote something along the lines of "If you want to wipe out fascism in England, plant a bomb under the main stand at Twickenham" (I may have the quote slightly wrong, but it's something like that). The modern day equivalent, now Rugby Union has become professional (although it still is dominated by the public-schoolboy "Let's drink beer out of each other arses, then beat up some working-class types" drone), must surely be Wimbledon.
And that's before we've even got onto the subject of Cliff Richard...

Celebrity Cat Island

2005-06-21T22:35:00.000Z

I have seen the future of broadcasting. It is my new show "Celebrity Cat Island". Eight cat celebrities are transported to an island, where they swan around, purring, performing various spurious tasks and sleeping, whilst the Great British Public vote on which one they like, and which they want to see thrown off the island. Ultimately, we are left with one cat, who's prize is a year's supply of tuna, and the job of Chief Political Correspondent at the BBC.
The only problem anyone has managed to point out to me with this show is the lack of eligible cat celebrities. My initial suggestions - Bagpuss, Custard, Henry's Cat and Top Cat - were all knocked back on the (I thought rather churlish) basis that they weren't real. I could say much the same about many celebrities. However, on the basis that we can't really make Celebrity Cat Island with cartoons and puppets, here are the final cats who made the cut:
1) The cat at the start of Coronation Street;
2) The white, long-haired cat stroked by Blofeld in the Bond films;
3) Felix - the first cat to go into space;
4) The Cat From Outer Space - eponymous hero of the 1970s Disney film;
5&6) Jack and Jill - Blue Peter cats from the days when I used to watch Blue Peter;
7) Socks - former US presidential cat;
8) Humphrey - (possibly former) Downing Street cat - status currently unknown, as apparently Cherie Blair didn't like him, and had him thrown out. Or that may just be a Daily Mail lie...
On the basis that not all these cats are alive, their offspring will be used, justified by virtue of what I believe is known as the Callum Best Principle - that you are a celebrity as long as you have a parent who was, no matter how talentless, pointless and vaccuous you may be. Thus. Celebrity Cat Island. Enjoy it - you know it'll happen.

By popular demand....

2005-06-13T20:37:00.000Z

Well, one person. I have a friend (no, really, I do...) who liked this short story I wrote. I entered it in a competition (100 words on the theme of time) - needless to say, it didn't win, but I was asked to put it up here. So here it is...

Time

Physicists will say that time is a vector, its direction indicated by increasing entropy, a growth of universal disorder. On a smaller scale, the man sits at his desk. He knows the deadline is only a day away, he has much to do. Yet he is bored. He prevaricates: reads email, does crosswords – anything to avoid the necessary task. He dreams of his holidays – only two weeks away. He wishes the time would pass more quickly. He dreads the approach of his birthday in a month, another year older. Another year of life gone. He has so much to do.

European fun

2005-06-06T23:55:00.000Z

Let's stay with major news stories, shall we?
Apparently, both the French and the Dutch have rejected the proposed European constitution. Which is as it may be, but is instructive in the way it's reported. Apparently Jacques Chirac, noted French conservative (connected, I believe with the UMP) was oppposed to what he viewed as "Anglo-Saxon" elements in it - mainly its dogamtic neo-liberal economics - Chirac was concerned with maintaining France's welfare and social policies. Meanwhile Mr Tony Blair, apparently leader of the Labour Party (note for younger readers - this was once considered the primary force for socialism in Britain) was a great supporter of these economic "reforms".
Is there some irony here? Some strangeness? Or have we all just grown used to this by now?

Reality television

2005-06-05T20:46:00.000Z

I was around at a friend's house the other day. We thought we'd watch the news - see what was happening in the world. That sort of thing. Unfortunately, there didn't seem to be any news on television. Merely reality tv. Something called "Celebrity Love Island" in fact. According to the cognoscenti (to whose membership I constantly aspire - unfortunately that bastard Paxman keeps blackballing me...) this is generally recognised as the nadir of the genre. Although with their track-record in the area, I'm sure the programme makers can surpass (subpass?) it soon enough. A group of "celebrities" (people you probably haven't heard of, unless you watch other programmes with "celebrities" in them - I think Private Eye had the best definition of them, as people who weren't famous but had slept with people slightly more famous) are plonked on an island and expected to sleep with each other for the entertainment of the viewing public. Deplorable, eh? Much better to watch Big Brother where a bunch of exhibitionists with serious personality problems are so desperate to be the next "celebrities" (see above) that they'll do pretty much whatever their "captors" tell them. Charlie Brooker's Guardian Screen Burn column has a fairly nice overview, at http://snipurl.com/fdqd for those unfamiliar. This is, of course, the respectable face of pornography. More blatant in the 'Love Island' show where people are only tuning in in the hope of seeing some sex, but also in Big Brother, where the voyeuristic obsession with watching someone else's life in minute detail is played out. And it doesn't seem remotely healthy. But more than that - as not merely are TV news programmes being dropped in favour of these, but we can't open even serious newspapers without learning about the latest moves of the island celebs/housemates/whatever. It's been written about before - entertainment replacing news. Who cares what happens in Iraq or Afghanistan when we can learn who's been evicted. Who cares whether our government wants to charge us 100pounds each for the privilege of storing our biometric details on cards, and being able to access them whenever they like, the woman who once masturbated a pig on television has just shagged a footballer's son.
As Chris Morris said on "The Day Today": Those are the headlines. God, I wish they weren't...

Spit or swallow?

2005-06-01T22:38:00.000Z

I have, with a degree of interest, been reading about the revelations of the identity of the Watergate mole, "Deep Throat" today. I was going to write something about it, but I received the following email from American investigative journalist Greg Palast, (if you want to get them, you can subscribe to his mailing list too - go to his website, www.gregpalast.com) who put it far better than me. So I'm simply going to reproduce his work. Enjoy...
=================================================================
Deep Throat Cover Blown
Washington Post Still Sucks
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
By Greg Palast

I've been gagging all morning on the Washington Post's self-congratulatory preening about its glory days of the Watergate investigation.

Think about it. It's been 33 years since cub reporters Woodward and Bernstein pulled down the pants of the Nixon operation and exposed its tie-in to the Watergate burglary. That marks a third of a century since the Washington Post has broken a major investigative story. I got a hint of why the long, dry spell when I met Mark Hosenball, "investigative" reporter for the Washington Post's magazine, Newsweek.

It was in the summer of 2001. A few months earlier, for the Guardian papers of Britain, I'd discovered that Katherine Harris and Governor Jeb Bush of Florida had removed tens of thousands of African-Americans from voter registries before the 2000 election, thereby fixing the race for George Bush. Hosenball said the Post-Newsweek team "looked into it and couldn't find anything."

Nothing at all? What I found noteworthy about the Post's investigation was that "looking into it" involved their reporters chatting with Florida officials -- but not bothering to look at the voter purge list itself.

Yes, I admit the Washington Post ran my story -- seven months after the election -- but with the key info siphoned out, such as the Bush crew's destruction of evidence and the salient fact that almost all those purged were Democrats. In other words, the story was drained of anything which might discomfit the new residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Let's not pick on the Post alone. Viacom Corporation's CBS News also spiked the story. Why? "We called Jeb Bush's office," a CBS producer told me, and Jeb's office denied Jeb did wrong. End of story.

During the Clinton years, the Washington Post and Newsweek allowed reporter Mike Isikoff to sniff at the President's zipper and write about our Commander-in-Chief's Lewinsky. But when it came to a big story about dirty energy industry money for Clinton's campaigns, Mike told me his editors didn't "give a sh--" and so he passed the material for me to print in England.

Today, Bob Woodward rules as the Post's Managing Editor. And how is he "managing" the news? After the September 11 attack, when we needed an independent press to keep us from hysteria-driven fascism, Woodward was given "access" to the president, writing Bush at War,a fawning, puke-making fairy tale of a take-charge president brilliantly leading the war against Terror.

Woodward's news-oid story is a symptom of a disease epidemic in US journalism. The illness is called, "access." In return for a supposedly "inside" connection to the powers that be, the journalists in fact become conduits for disinformation sewerage.

And woe to any journalist who annoys the politicians and loses "access." Career-wise, they're DOA.

Here's a good place to tote up part of the investigative reporter body count. There's Bob Parry forced out of the Associated Press for the crime of uncovering Ollie North's arms-for-hostages game. And there's Gary Webb, hounded to suicide for documenting the long-known history of the CIA's love-affair with drug runners. The list goes on. Even the prize-laden Seymour Hersh was, he told me, exiled from the New York Times and now has to write from the refuge of a fashion magazine.

And notice someone missing in the Deep Throat extravaganza? Carl Bernstein, the brains and soul of the All-the-President's-Men duo, is notably absent from the staff of the Post or any other US newspaper.

But before we get too weepy about the glory days of investigative journalism gone by, we should remember that the golden era was not pure gold.

Newspapers are part of the power elite and have never in US history gone out of their way to rock the clubhouse. Let's go back to Hersh's stellar story of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

The massacre was first uncovered by the greatest investigative reporter of our era, the late Ron Ridenhour. Then a soldier conducting the investigation on his own, Ridenhour turned over his findings to Hersh, hoping to give it a chance for exposure. That wasn't so easy.

Ridenhour told me that he and Hersh pushed the story -- with photos! -- at dozens of newspapers. No one would touch it until Ridenhour threatened to read the story from the steps of the Pentagon.

It's only gotten worse. After all, Hersh's latest big story, about Abu Ghraib prison, was buried by CBS and other news outlets before Hersh put it in the New Yorker.

The Washington Post has no monopoly on journalistic evil. If anything, the Post is probably better than most of the bilge contaminating our news outlets. This is about the death-march of investigative journalism in America; or, at least, its dearth under the "mainstream" mastheads.

Why don't we read more "Watergate" investigative stories in the US press? Given that the Woodwards of today dance on their hind legs begging officialdom for "access", news without official blessing doesn't stand a chance.

The Post follows current American news industry practice of killing any story based on evidence from a confidential source if a government honcho privately denies it. A flat-out "we didn't do it" is enough to kill an investigation in its cradle. And by that rule, there is no chance that the Managing Editor of the Washington Post, Bob Woodward, would today run Deep Throat's story of the Watergate break-in.

And that sucks.

advertising

2005-05-30T09:11:00.000Z

In the latest "amusing" story, the Catholic church have announced that they are going to advertise for new priests on posters and, for some reason, beer mats. This, one suspects, will pose something of a challenge for whichever advertising agency is lucky enough to get the account. How do they sell it? There's the unappealing - "Give up sex, become a priest"; the contraversial - "Paedophiles, need help covering your tracks? Become a priest" or just the prosaic truth - "Do you like lying to people about how the world works? Become a priest." Although they may lose out to politics in the last case. Nonetheless, it does cast some doubts on the claim that people are called to the priesthood by God. If less people are coming forward, perhaps She's just calling less people. And who are the church to query that?

Don't it make you feel good

2005-05-24T21:35:00.000Z

Appreciation. That's what I like. My MP appreciates me. I know this. Before the election, she wrote to me. Which was very nice of her. What was even nicer was the opening "Dear first time voter". About 15 years too late, but nonetheless, it showed the care she takes in researching her constituents.

welcome home...

2005-05-24T19:37:00.000Z

Arriving back in the country from a short holiday, I was greeted by the front page of the Sun depicting 3 children, all of whom had children of their own. The scandal here, according to Murdoch's rag, was that "we" are paying about 31,000pounds a year for these children. Hmmm. That's about 10,000pounds per child. I don't have children, and, if all my planning and precautions hold out, never will. However 10,000pounds doesn't sound like a huge amount to raise a child for a year. What does the Sun expect - that these children (the babies as well as the child mothers) should starve?
There are greater scandals here. Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation has been raking in huge profits, yet, thanks to imaginative accounting which is, sadly, still legal, hasn't paid tax in years. He has robbed the country of well over 1million pounds. Isn't that a bigger scandal than people claiming benefits to survive?
And what of these under-age mothers? Quite clearly they didn't understand what they were doing, and didn't appreciate the consequences. If the fathers were of a similar age, the same can be said of them. But we live in a society in which children seem to be sexualised at an early age. One of the main offenders here is the Sun newspaper - always willing to print pictures of scantily clad teenage girls to titillate their borderline-paedophile readership, who then demand blood when anyone is caught acting on this.
So what's the answer? Better sex education, better social support. Nothing easy. Nothing the Sun would like.

excitement.

2005-05-04T23:12:00.000Z

It's now polling day. Midnight has been and gone.
I'm so excited, I'm sure I'll never sleep...
Mr Tony has been warning me about how if I vote for a Liberal, I'll end up with a Tory. I was under the illusion that if I voted for him, I'd end up with a Tory - an economic neo-liberal, intent on privatising everything that moves, pocketing as much cash as he can cream off and removing what civil liberties we have left. Habeas corpus is for wimps, you hear me.
I wonder exactly how many people will fall for his "I'm not quite as bad as Michael Howard" routine. And why there's no one challenging it.

Pope II

2005-04-20T00:45:00.000Z

And what's more, why did the new pope state the following in his speech: "The fact that the Lord can work and act even with insufficient means consoles me"
Surely, "The Lord" is omnipotent, and therefore the idea that he should ever have "insufficient means" is completely ridiculous?
They should have given me the job - I would never have made such a basic error...

Keith Chegwin

2005-04-20T00:16:00.000Z

White smoke, new pope, etc. Benedict XVI apparently. Cardinal Schweinhund to anyone who's been reading Steve Bell this week. An "Arch-Conservative". Hates women, gays, and life. Almost certainly a repressed homosexual. The last desperate stand of a desperate superstition, trying to halt the turning tide of rationality? We can but hope. Probably not, though...

Electile dysfunction and so on

2005-04-06T23:21:00.000Z

Oh dear. It's all happening, isn't it? Mr Tony shocks the nation by declaring a general election on May 5th. So, let's deal with that first. Has anybody spotted a difference between him and young Mickey Howard, yet? If so, can you let me know, please. Amusingly, today's Guardian had the front page headline: "Blair warns of 'rather nasty rightwing campaign'". I can only assume that's what he's threatening us with himself. So. Why is it thought reasonable that the government in power decides when elections should be held? Why not fixed term parliaments? The Chartists wanted one year - I'm currently inclined to believe that's too long... But fixed term parliaments would also do away with the need for the queen to disolve parliament. Think we live in a democracy? Then why is it necessary for some unelected, in-bred German to appoint the government?
And on the subject of royals, it seems one of them is getting married this weekend. Apparently, I can't go. Even though it's my money that's paid for it. If I'm paying for these useless anachronisms, at least I should be able to get my pound of flesh out of them. I want something approaching value for money...
Finally, it seems the pope has died. Sadly, I've not got round to sending my CV off to the vatican, yet, but it's only a matter of time. The job is surely mine...

Some remarks on pandas

2005-03-29T18:14:00.000Z

According to today's Guardian, China's entire population of wild pandas are facing extinction because the fussy buggers refuse to eat bamboo, which is coming into flower (as it apparently does once every 60 years). Pandas, you see, are, as we scientists put it, rubbish. They should be carnivores - they have the metabolism for it - but they eat bamboo, and so have to eat half their body-weight of the stuff each day simply to survive. This to my mind, is the clinching argument (should another be needed) against creationism. If they were designed by a rational creator, surely they wouldn't be so crap. They'd be carnivores, and thriving. As it is, they've found an evolutionary niche, which allowed them to develop into where they are, but had nowhere to go beyond - not unexpected, given that natural selection solves immediate problems as cheaply as it can, with no regard for the future.
A similar argument has been posited concerning Ichneumon wasps - wasps that lay their eggs in a living host. How could a rational creator permit such an unpleasant method of reproduction? This falls down, however, on its assumption that said creator is moral - this, to me, is one of the weakest assumptions theism makes. Why should he/she/it be? On the evidence I've seen so far, I'd suggest a complete amorality is far more likely.
I suppose the panda argument could, of course, fall down, if we were to argue that the creator is a bumbling moron. But other problems arise from that tack...
Still, pandas - rubbish. Remember that. It's important!

so where are we now?

2005-03-18T00:25:00.000Z

Lots has been happening. Not all of it has had its significance recognised. It seems to me that Cosmopolitan magazine, not a publication I would normally read (and in fact I haven't read it now, merely read of it) is performing a very useful task in asking the leaders of the political parties their views on abortion. Particularly when they all seem to want to turn the clock back. I read that the last election in the USA was largely argued on 'moral grounds'. Weasel words, if ever there were. Right-wing bigots seem to want to claim their half-baked prejudices, usually against gays and women (or at least women's rights to control their own bodies, which amounts to the same thing) are in some senses 'moral' when, it is patently obvious, they are just old-fashioned bigotry. If this is to be avoided in the UK, it must be understood, and the fact that Cosmo is pointing this out can only be a good thing. Meanwhile, on the moral front, the head of the Catholic Church in England, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor (is he taking the piss with that name? "I'm more Irish than you, you know!") commends Michael Howard's desire to restrict abortions, as a first step to making them illegal altogether. This is, of course, the same Cardinal O'Connor who, as Bishop of Arundel, moved a priest he knew to be a paedophile to a new chaplaincy, rather than informing the police, thus allowing him to continue to abuse children for several more years. Just the sort of man to be telling the rest of us how to live our lives.
And as a final remark on morality (yes, I am the new head of the Ethics Police) it appears that our glorious former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has taken a new job, at a company called Indepen - a management consultancy which is bidding for contracts from various government departments, including the Ministry of Education, Blunkett's old stamping ground. Now let's ignore, for the moment, the fact that he took the position with them in January (according to the latest Private Eye) - only a month after his resignation from the cabinet, when ex-ministers are obliged to wait three months before accepting these private sector appointments, and simply consider the matter of whether MPs, who are paid £57,485 per year (plus expenses and allowances which the more corrupt pocket, and the more trustworthy use to pay researchers, etc), should even be allowed to take private sector jobs. Most people in the country would consider the wage a decent one, and if they're meant to be representing our interests, isn't there some sort of conflict when they're paid by some private company (who will, presumably, want their interests looked after, for the money...)
Still, I'm sure all these people are acting completely ethically. After all, if they weren't, there'd be hell to pay - right? Erm....

dawdling

2005-03-14T23:22:00.000Z

I wanted to write something about the Queen meeting an Italian fascist, but somehow the opportunity seems to have passed me by. And the royal family supporting fascism is hardly a new story, be it Edward VIII and his support for Hitler, or the late, unlamented Queen Mother, and her support for apartheid in South Africa. So let's think of something else. And the only thing that springs to mind is religion.
A thought I had today. Doubt is one of the most useful human traits. Imagine what people would be like if they didn't know doubt - if they were convinced they were always right, regardless of the evidence. Then take a look at Prime Minister Blair...
But also, consider the way that religion treats doubt. Doubting Thomas is the obvious example. A man who, when presented with an implausible claim ("Jesus has risen from the dead") came back with a very reasonable response ("Prove it to me"). And yet he's castigated as some sort of pariah in the Christian Church for not accepting the truth of what he's told, without question. Which shows, ultimately, the problem of religion. No room for doubt. No room to say, "But what if we're wrong?" So they condemn people to hell, blow up hospitals, and so on, in the sure and certain knowledge that they are doings God's will. And if two of them are doing God's will, but contradicting each other...? Erm....
Still, mustn't doubt, eh? God told us not to...

Political correctness gone mad...

2005-03-13T17:04:00.000Z

"Freed!" screamed the headlines of those august organs, the Mail and the Express, on Friday. Yes indeed - 8 men who have committed no crime have been freed. This is, apparently, A Disgrace. Why should innocent people be allowed to walk our streets? What sort of insanity is this? Still, on the bright side, Mr Tony has at last managed to get parliament to pass his "Terrorism Act", allowing the government to have people who haven't done anything tagged, curfewed and have their movements seriously restricted.
Hooray! Less freedom for all! Vote Labour/Conservative. Etc...

Are you feeling scared yet?

2005-03-06T11:26:00.000Z

Apparently, according to an article written by "Sir" John Stevens, in that most trustworthy of journals, The News of The World, there are "over 100" terrorists, trained by the bogeyman de-nos-jours, Osama Bin Laden, out there, on our streets. No evidence seems to be presesnted for this claim, although these brown-skinned assasins of Allah are intent on our destruction, living only to bring chaos, anarchy and the downfall of civilisation. So quake, little people. Hide away in your homes, cower under your beds, and sign away the last remaining threads of your civil liberties. Only then will you be safe under the new Junta...

The triumph of the trivial

2005-03-05T11:43:00.000Z

Today, I shall be adding my voice of complaint to the 9 - yes 9, out of a population of around 60million - objectors to the marriage of Mr Charles Saxe-Coburg-Windsor to Ms Camilla Parker-Bowles. Having a divorcee on the throne, and married to the head of the Church of England, is utterly reprehensible. After all, it's not as if one of the reasons for the schism of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic church was the desire of a king to get a divorce and remarry, was it? So yes, I feel it important to make myself heard. And be yet another nutter to whom reams of press space is given, when clearly nobody is interested.
I feel it in all your best interests that I speak out in favour of family values and morality, before heading off to a brothel, and then popping to the chateau in the south of France where I keep my mistress.
Question: Which is worse here - the banality, or the hypocrisy?

The latest mass-debate in the Mr Tony vs Mr Michael popularity poll

2005-03-05T00:22:00.000Z

You can almost hear the shouts "Our NHS policy is better than yours" "No! Ours is better than yours..." With nothing to back up the claims. It's all very exciting, isn't it? Who do you prefer, the baldy foreign-type from the right-wing party with racist undercurrents, or the smarmy public-schoolboy from the right-wing party with racist undercurrents? Who has the most fluid - Punky Meadows or Jeff Beck? (No, I don't understand either, I've just been listening to Frank Zappa...)
So we now have the edifying spectacle of a pensioner's wait for her shoulder operation becoming the latest political football. But more intriguing was the comment from a Radio 5 "expert" that this was all signifying we were lining up for one of the most "ferociously fought" election campaigns in history. Intriguing because, one has to ask, what exactly are they fighting over? Where are the battle lines? Where do the differences lie? As the Tories - a party who have always opposed the NHS since it was first founded - now feel they can challenge Labour on their health policies, whilst Mr Tony is doing his "I'm more neo-Liberal than you" act to anyone who cares about his obsession with deranged, provably false economic dogma, the rest of us are bound to feel a tad confused.
Still, at least they're sending a firm message on immigration out, eh?

Es tut mir leid

2005-03-04T00:33:00.000Z

I always seems to rant. In fact, I do little else. So for that I apologise. But some things need to be ranted about. This morning, or, indeed, yesterday morning, given it's now gone midnight, there was some woman on the radio, being asked to talk about MMR and autism. Except that it wasn't some random woman. Oh no, she's some sort of anti-MMR campaigner. Now that's her proactive, and I'm sure it's all fine and good, but when she starts coming out with lines like [in response to being told that the latest Japanese study casts further doubt on the already flimsy MMR-autism link] "Well, it's all just statistical rubbish". So how, then, are we expected to determine the truth or falsity behind many of these claims, if not by "statistical rubbish"? She then went on to admit that nothing would convince her that there wasn't a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. In which case, why was she asked to talk about these things on a radio show? Surely a debate is meant to be an exchange of opinions. She did say that she saw her child slowly degenerate after being given the MMR vaccine. Which is of course very sad. But simply because event one happened after event two doesn't mean that it was caused by it.
A certain degree of detatchment is required to comment upon these issues - people who have already made up their minds, and then say that no amount of evidence would convince them to change them, are not reliable witnesses...

First lines

2005-02-23T01:01:00.000Z

I've just bought the Good Beer Guide 2005, and was intrigued by a quote on the back. Its predecesor, The Good Beer Guide 2004, opened with the line "A beer revolution is taking place in Britain," and, apparently, that august organ, The Sun, has chosen this as one of "the most famous first lines" in literature (I quote the blurb here, so it may be misleading, but still...) Ranked alongside this are, apparently, The Bible, Harry Potter and Nineteen Eighty-Four. In that order (at least on the back, as I said). Now whilst I can agree that the bible has a fairly well-known opening line, and I know the first line from 1984 ("It was a bright, cold day in April and the clocks were striking thirteen") who on earth knows the opening line to Harry Potter? Which Harry Potter, for a start - there are about 7 of them, aren't there? And whilst, yes, they sold a lot, and yes, I'm even prepared to admit they are entertaining and distracting (well, the ones I read - I gave up on the later ones, because they were too long, and I have other things to do with my time...) they are hardly memorable.
Having said that, whilst its a nice opening line from the Good Beer Guide, its hardly that memorable itself - I didn't remember it, and I have the 2004 edition, too! However, re-reading it, the opening line it most brought to mind was another famous one - more famous than Harry Potter, I would say - both in style, and in its reference to "revolutions". That line is, of course, "A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of Communism". Which was translated in its first English edition as the marvellous line "A frightful hobgoblin is stalking through Europe..." - sadly, this was superceded by the more well-known line above...
Still, I don't suppose we can expect The Sun to have "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" amongst its famous first lines, can we? Not when there's Harry Potter to compete with....

"I do not advocate the use of dangerous drugs, wild amounts of alcohol and violence and weirdness -- but they've always worked for me"

2005-02-21T19:24:00.000Z

Bob Dylan penned the line "To live outside the law you must be honest" for his song "Absolutely Sweet Marie", and Hunter Thompson seemed to take it to heart - he used it to berate both Nixon and Dubya Bush - both men who try (or tried!) to ignore the rule of law, but lacked any sort of integrity - and, as a modern-day outlaw himself, living on a fortified farm with a large supply of drugs and guns, he understood its truth.
I've spent the day trying to read his obituaries. I won't try to write one myself, because I couldn't do him justice. What do you say? A precis of his life can be found anywhere. A summary of his work? How? For instance, Jon Ronson - a splendid and entertaining writer - wrote an article in today's Guardian. Much of it was, I thought, valid - how many aspiring journalists want to be Thompson, but get distracted by the whole drugs/alcohol thing, whereas the importance is an involvement in the story - a genuine passion, often driven by anger or a feeling of righteous indignation, a desire to right injustice. This is what Hunter had. Ronson, however, I thought, was overly dismissive of his later work. True, some of it - indeed quite a bit of it - lacks the quality of his earlier writing. But not all of it - I would contend that his polemics against GW Bush are amongst some of his finest, and his book, "Kingdom of Fear" is as perceptive an analysis of modern-day America and its paranoia as has been written. Meanwhile other writers have tried to summarise his opinions through the use of isolated quotes - always a bad idea with Hunter, who could say something he didn't even remotely believe, merely to elicit a reaction in his audience.
Ultimately, though, I still feel saddened by his death. I don't normally get like this with people I didn't know. I just feel that another of the great writers and fighters has been taken from us when we still needed him.

No......

2005-02-21T06:11:00.000Z

I woke up this morning to the sound of the news on the radio telling me that Hunter S. Thompson had died. Shot himself. For some reason, this has shocked me deeply.
One more American who understood where things were going has gone. One more voice of reason is silenced. We have to fight on with one less warrior. And we have all lost a truly great writer.
I feel profoundly depressed - even more so than a normal Monday morning. Goodbye Doc, the world is a poorer place.

Scary things I've read today...

2005-02-08T01:41:00.000Z

Home Secretary Clarke's remark, reported in the Guardian: "I'm all in favour of human rights, but I'm even more in favour of our national security being protected." I wonder why he thinks there's a conflict between the two. I also wonder what he thinks he's protecting with the second by denying the first. Who exactly would want to live there? Why bother trying to defend freedom against terrorism if in doing so, you remove freedom? It seems obvious, but, looking at the media, it seems it must be repeated over and over again, to get the message through...
Then again, we can compare the main parties and their attempts to put forward the most bigotted, racist immigration policies - is it some sort of competition? Coming home tonight, I passed a poster for the Tories saying something like "Is it really racist to restrict immigration?" Well, yes, it is - you're stopping people coming into the country on the basis of where they're from - what else could it be? What next - "Is it really racist to deny someone a job because they're black?". Hmmm.... So consider instead Mr Tony and Mr Clarke's proposition to stop people coming into the country unless they can amass enough points on some arbitrary scale. The one's who don't can be held in detention camps - presumably with some inspiring message above the gates about how work makes you free?
I sometimes wonder if this country's lost it's claim to be civilised. Maybe I should leave. But then I wonder where I can go...
The whole planet is heading down the shitter, and no one cares.
Still, mustn't grumble, right?

Western Medicine? What is it?

2005-02-03T01:19:00.000Z

As you are unlikely to know, I am a subscriber to various e-mail mailing lists. On one of which, tonight, some chap (I presume it was a chap, and will henceforth refer to this person as "he" despite the fact it may not have been - I don't have the patience to type anything else) said he was opposed to "Western Medicine".
This is one of the most stupid things I've ever seen anyone write. Why? And what exactly are you opposing? Could you, for example, go and get a prescription for antibiotics, if you had a bacterial infection, as long as you lived in Hull? Or would you have to live further East, like China? Of course, if you keep going East, you get back to what we might call the West, again, so maybe Western medicine should be more qualified.
I presume he wasn't in favour of chopping up tiger penises (as is considered highly medicinal in China - although those opposed to "Western Medicine" don't like to be thought of as wiping out endangered species...)
What I assume he meant was he was opposed to large drugs companies and the power they wield. Which is, in fact, a reasonable position to hold. But you have to be able to draw the line between said drugs companies, and the scientific produce they sell at their inflated prices. Otherwise, you can become just "anti-science" which does no one any good... And, in fact, does a lot of people harm, when they suffer from easily curable diseases, but are told not to take the requisite drugs because they're sold by big, bad drugs companies, and instead they should take carrot juice and ground tiger penis. And then die.
I sent this chap a mail, with a similar rant in it to this. I'd be intrigued to see if he (or anyone else on the list) replies. I'm already a pariah for suggesting that Nik Turner's band might be better than Dave Brock's, so we'll have to see how many more people I can irritate....

Careering off the rails

2005-02-03T01:11:00.000Z

It is with a vague interest that I note the current pope is ill. Quite ill, in fact. Purely because, as I may, or may not (I can't quite remember, and can't be bothered to go and check) I want his job. I like the idea of Papal Infallibility, you see. The celibacy that people talk about is clearly optional - I could get shot of that by standing on a "Let's Get Back To Renaissance Values" ticket, and reminding them all of what the Borgias were like when they held the papacy. I can even hold regular orgies round the Vatican, if anyone wants to come along...
But no, the College of Cardinals - I reckon I can convince them. I went to college, after all, and know more about cardinals than most people - how many people can discuss transfinite cardinals, and the power-set of Aleph_0, after all? Woodin Cardinals? I have Set Theory covered, damn it.
But Papal Infallibility, imagine the power. I could go down the pub, and shout at the football, "Damn it, ref, Wayne Rooney should have been sent off for that", and, when the chap next to me says, "What for? He hasn't done anything, yet...", I can respond, "Because I'm infallible, and I know he should be sent off".
That'd see them packing. Papal infallibility - give it to me, now...

Although

2005-02-01T01:50:00.000Z

At times like this (after midnight, after the pub, alone but for a small ginger cat...) I get to wondering if this whole writing crap on the internet business isn't some sort of technological equivalent of downing several purple tins and shouting at trees.
I hope it isn't. But I can't convince myself all that often.

What would Puskas do?

Hibernation

School uniform debacle...

And now for something completely different

But, more seriously....

God Hates Fags

On and on and on they go

Confused

Snivelling cowardice

Respect, etc

More intolerant ranting...

Moral equivalence bollocks

Is it possible for a theist to behave in a moral way?

Hibernation

George Michael

Has it really come to this?

Oh, the irony....

My imaginary friend's better than your imaginary friend...

Freedom of speech versus the oil companies...

Thanks

Signs....

Oh, bollocks....

Too hot to blog....

Syd Barrett

Recommended Article

Recommended website

Pronouncements

Confusion

Government funded information

Will they never learn?

Quote Unquote

The legitimising of the BNP

When dominant ideologies are challenged...

Guardian Article

Why.....?

More whining liberals...

Sense, for once

Guest rant

Know your saints, part 486

Cartoons and the like

The death of the NHS...

Aren't theocracies fun?

In praise of German women

Humour

Kebab Machine

Mel And Kim

Whining liberals and Puritans.

Superstition, reason and happiness...

Democracy in action

Dead footballers' wives

Education, education, education....

What? Eh? What?

Comments

New Look - New Danger

One question....

And where do we go...?

Railtrack

A birthday tribute

People watching - story fragment

My first kitten - an autobiographical fragment

By way of explanation

Zombies, politics and christianity

It's getting worse...

In the meantime....

Whilst I still can....

What John Humphreys Should Have Said....

"They're locking them up today, they're throwing away the key..."

Robin Cook

Pangur Ban

God shaped holes

Edward Heath

Opiates and so on

Further dispatches from the front line of the class war

Wimble-done...

Celebrity Cat Island

By popular demand....

European fun

Reality television

Spit or swallow?

advertising