I want my money back!

Apparently the Queen/Royal Family only costs each person in Britian 62p a year. Not a lot, I hear you say. Well, I don't care. It is my 62p and I want it back.

It is not often that you hear the Nameless Tory express a left wing opinion, just as (thankfully) you don't often hear the Nameless Tory refer to himself in the third person. But here it is - I don't like the Royal family. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the Queen, aside from the fact that she appears to be strikingly dull. Her husband is a boorish loudmouthed racist, but I guess with his background you can't expect anything else. Likewise Prince Charles - a wet, unrealistic toff - but what else could he be when he is the heir to the throne? No, my problem lies with the concept of the Royal Family.

I mean, for Christ's sake, we live in the twentieth century people! Why are we still funding a family whose sole qualification for their immensely priviliged position is that they were born to it? Why should we this family command £37.4m of public funds owing to an accident of birth?

The argument you often hear is that the Royal Family are good for tourism. Well, you could have opened up 25 Cromwell Street to the public, and I am sure that people with a love of the macabre would have flocked to it. Being good for tourism is not enough of a reason to spend public funds on something.

And here is the fundamental question - if the Royals are so good for tourism, and if they are so cheap to the public, why can't they fund themselves?

Because with the increasing problems in the NHS, the failing education system, the poorly equipped troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the multitude of other problems in the UK, I really think we could find something else to spend that £37m on.

Anyway, that is my red moment over with. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.

Hell hath no fury...

...like a Sweaty Baboon scorned - the ever thuggish Charles Clarke openly questions his former boss's future at the same time as lashing out at John Reid.

Which is all tremendous fun. I love watching NuLabour MPs bitch at each other when their unrealistic aspirations are ended by their control freak Prime Minister. In the words of Guido, they are "fighting like ferrets in a sack."

But there is a danger that Clarke takes on almost cult status, as he is actively attacking an unpopular Prime Minister. We all (and I do mean the vasy majority of the population) dislike Blair, and as soon as someone has a go at him it is tempting to feel affection for that person. However Clarke remains a reprehensible, miserable excuse for a human being - the kind of politician who would not be out of place in Stalin's Russia (except Stalinism might be too left wing for Clarke). The fact that he has now stood up against Blair is neutered by his odious personality, his lust for ID cards, the foreign prisoner scandal, his refusal to back an enquiry into the 7/7 murders and the fact that it is only when he gets sacked that he realises that Blair is a waste of space who is desperately, and fruitlessly, clinging to power (in fact, fairly similar in many ways to Clarke himself up until May 5th).

As great as it is to see a former ally rip into Bliar, Clarke comes across as little more than a frustrated, bitter, little office Hitler who is throwing his toys out of the pram because no-one likes him anymore. Think David Brent in The Office Christmas Specials, only with added evil.

Because the truth is (and as much as it pains me to say this) Blair was right to sack Clarke. He was an incompetent, ham fisted, ignorant Home Secretary. Of course, whether it was right to wait until after the local elections solely for reasons of political expediency to dump the baboon is a completely different question. As is whether it was right to make the brazenly populist and constantly aggressive Reid Home Secretary...

Why I Love Beer and American TV

"Well ya see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers."

Cliff Clavin in the awesome Cheers.

Rum, Sodomy and the Libs

Charlie Kennedy is not ruling himself out of becoming Liberal Leader again. Sorry, Charles, but I don't think it is going to happen. Surely even the Lib Dems wouldn't elect a known drunk as a leader? I mean, it looks as if we will have a nuclear deterrent for the forseeable future, and the last thing we need is a Prime Minister with their finger shaking on the button.

But the idea of Charlie returning to power after resigning, like a Labour Minister seeking a second chance, made me think. With all the disgraced/damaged Liberals through history, you could have quite a Shadow Cabinet:

- Jeremy Thorpe, Home Affairs Spokesperson
- Mark Oaten, Health Spokesperson, with a special brief for dealing with prostitution
- Jenny Tonge, Foreign Affairs Spokesperson
- Simon Hughes, Shadow Minister for Inclusion
- Maundy Gregory, Constitutional Affairs

Not bad going, eh? I mean, Charles Kennedy leading a man accused of murder, a coprophiliac, a sympathiser with suicide bombers, a bi-sexual who also appears to be homophobic and a man imprisoned for selling peerages would be a team that makes even the current Labour cabinet look effective and capable.

The Sins of Spin

Leo Tolstoy once noted "To sin is a human business, to justify sins is a devilish business."

Lord alone knows what he could make of the modern spin doctor, but I think you can see the devil's influence on the likes of Alastair Campbell and Jo Moore.

Happy Happy Happy

Apparently today is the Happiest Day Of The Year.

You could have fooled me.

Why Megan's/Sarah's Law Is Wrong

Doctor John Reid, in a shameless attempt to win approval from the News of the Screws, embraces Sarah's Law.

There are any number of reasons as to why Sarah's Law is a bad idea. It does create a lynch mob atmosphere, it undermines the effectiveness of the police and removes any chance for the rehabilitation of the sex offenders. But there is a far more fundamental question that needs to be answered - if these paedophiles are so dangerous that they have to kept away from all schools and the public has to be warned about their presence, then why the hell are they being released from prison?

Paedophiles do offend again, with Roy Whiting's crime offering a terrible example. Yes we should look to rehabilitate people but if they still pose a risk to the public, they should stay locked away from the public. All Sarah's Law does is allow the state to abdicate it's responsibility to protect society from the likes of Roy Whiting, and instead puts the responsibility squarely in the hands of a lynch mob. This is not a question of sharing information, it is about adjusting sentences and how the criminal justice system works to ensure dangerous predators are not allowed back into the community.

Football...

...or Chavball as the Moai has called it in the not so distant past.

I am in the office and, although I cannot claim I am trying to work, I am equally not watching the TV. The football is on in the background and I am not watching it with an almost religious zeal. I have my back to it, I can hear it, I know what is going on and I drinking a *football office beer* but I'll be damned if I am going to turn around and watch it.

Don't get me wrong, it is not that I don't care. I would like England to win this match, and I would like them to win the World Cup. I just don't want to be involved in the long, boring road to England getting there.

So it is not that I don't care, it is just that I can't be bothered. Can't be bothered to listen to all the hype, can't be bothered to worry about Wayne Rooney's foot, and above all can't be bothered to sit through 90 minutes plus of meterosexuals throwing themselves to the ground whenever someone tries to trip them up. It is not entertainment, it is just pure hype.

So please don't make me watch the matches, I just want to know in the event that England wins the World Cup or in the (much more likely) event that we bomb out at an early stage.

That said, I would rather watch football than the execrable Big Brother.

Comrade Blair

It has long been noticed that many of the key figures in NuLabour have, ironically enough, far left backgrounds. Alan Milburn once ran a Trotskyite bookshop called Rays of Hope (or Haze of Dope). The authoritarian David Blunkett was once head of the nuclear free zone that was the “People’s Republic of South Yorkshire” (mind you some of his policies as Home Secretary were pseudo Stalinist). And now it has been revealed that “Dear Leader” Blair was once part of the Labour Left.

As this article shows, he praised Tony Benn and advocated the ongoing leadership of Michael Foot. But perhaps most surprising in his letter to Foot is this assertion:

“I would indicate firmly that you believe the party needs radical, socialist policies; that the scale of the problems we face as a nation in 1982 means a different approach to previous years"

Riiiiigggghhht, good to see Tone has stuck to those principles. I mean, the invasion of Iraq, the relentless brown nosing of a far right US President, the attempted privatisation of both the Health Service and the Education system, ID cards and the attempts to stifle free speech with the Religious Hatred Bill are all classic socialist policies. As long as you are defining socialist as “somewhere to the right of Margaret Thatcher".

I guess you could say this proves the old adage that people move to the right as they get older. Personally I reckon that this proves that Blair is a hypocritical arsehole with no ideological beliefs at all who will drop his pants and embrace any policy that might make him popular, either with the party leadership or the public as a whole.

Celebrating George W (no, really)

Last week I tried to guess what the legacy of Tony Blair would be. Ok, I was being intentionally negative to make a point, but it got me thinking. There has been a lot in the media recently about the fact that both Bush and Blair are lame ducks, serving out the remainder of their terms with low approval ratings and more speculation over who will replace them than their current agendas. So, I thought, how will Bush be judged?

Not well, in a nutshell. In fact, I would say he will be judged as one of he worst in recent history. If not the worst. Whilst other Presidents have taken their country into illegal wars (Johnson and Vietnam, Nixon and Cambodia), have severally damaged the economy (inflation under Ford/Carter, budget defecits under Reagan), have been utterly incompetent (Carter and the Iranian embassy seige) and have been dogged by scandal (Nixon and Clinton), Bush Junior is the only one to achieve all four. His tax cuts and spending has created crippling budget defecits. His incompetence led to the catastrophe that was the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Aides in his White House have been arrested and quizzed by grand juries, whilst his Vice President shot a man. And then there is the horrific quagmire that he created with the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq.

So saying Bush has not done well as President is easy. Hell, it is too easy. So, as a challenge I thought I would try and name some of the 43rd President's achievements. And here we have it - two (count them) achievements from Dubya.

1. He won. Not in 2000. Gore won the popular vote then, and had the recount continued, he would have won the White House. But Bush did win conclusively in 2004. Yes, Democrats, take a deep breath and say it - Bush won the last US Presidential Election. In fact, with 62,040,610 votes, Bush won more votes than any other Presidential candidate in history (Ok, Kerry, with 59,028,111, has the second most of any presidential candidate but he still had less than Bush). Say what you like about Bush, and his campaign, but whilst he was fighting an unpoular war and whilst he was seen as inferior intellectually to Kerry, he still managed to mobilise his supporters and beat the Senator. Perhaps this is a cynical way to assess achievements, but it is also valid. At the end of the day, Bush won. It is Bush who is sat in the White House, leading the country, whilst Kerry sits in the Senate.

2 The Aftermath of September 11th. Yes, he did very little prior to 9/11. And the links between invading Iraq and finding Bin Laden are non existent. But in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 he did extremely well in uniting the nation. Perhaps the defining, positive moment of his presidency was responding to the statement "we can't hear you" at Ground Zero. His improvised reply, relayed through a megaphone, is justly the stuff of legend. "Well, I hear you. And the world hears you. And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." In the days after 9/11, Bush united his country and the world. He would later lose all that sympathy, but gaining it in the first place was a superb achievement.

So even from the detritus of the Bush administration, there are some successes to acknowledge, some achievements to celebrate.

Great Quotes #1

Some of my favourite quotes:

"I could have been a politician or a piano player in a whore house. And to tell you the truth, there ain't much difference." - Harry S. Truman

"I recall writing (and the words now make me shudder) that the only meaningful sacrament left to human beings was for them to gather in the streets in order to be sick together, splashing vomit on the paving stones as the final and most eloquent plea to an apparently deaf, dumb and blind God." - Dennis Potter

"No, no. No, see this is a really shit idea. You know why? Because it's really obviously a shit idea." Jim, in 28 Days Later

"There are no favorites in my office. I treat them all with the same general inconsideration." - Lyndon B. Johnson

And, of course:

"You can't conceive, nor can I, the appalling strangeness of the mercy of God" - Graham Greene

Foot in Mouth Disease

Via Mr Eugenides, the lastest ramblings from Baroness Jenny Tonge. For those who don't know her, she was the Lib Dem Fronbencher who was asked, in rare moment of clarity, by Charles Kennedy to step down after saying she would consider being a suicide bomber if she was Palestinian. She is the same Jenny Tonge who knifed her leader in the back as soon as Charlie Boy admitted he had a drink problem. Like Jeremy Thorpe and Mark Oaten, she is an excellent example of why I for one will never vote Liberal.

Her most recent effort is this letter to The Independent. It is difficult for me to explain just how stupid her comments are, but I will give it a go anyway. She asserts that she is not surprised that suicide bombers in Iraq are from Palestine. And then she gives the reason:

"Israel's security wall is forcing them to export themselves to another arena to fight"

Hmmm. So the security wall that Israel built to stop suicide bombings in Israel is stopping suicide bombings in Israel. In other words, it is working. Ok, the suicide bombers are just going elsewhere. Which is terrible for the people of Iraq, but probably comes as some relief for the people of Israel. The main upshot of the security wall is that suicide bombers have to travel further to kill innocent people. And frankly, I am not that worried if suicide bombers - cold blooded killers - are inconvenienced by the Security Wall. In fact, I hope the longer journey is really miserable for them.

Moving on:

"The injustices to Palestinians, following the creation of the state of Israel and the subsequent brutal occupation by that country lies at the very roots of the causes of terrorism and the ideology of Osama bin Laden."

I dare say Osama bin Laden is upset by the conflict between Israel and Palestine. And honestly, I'm not that bothered if he is unhappy. But I think you misjudge Mr bin Laden, Jenny. The roots of Al Qaeda lie not in the specifics of the Palestine/Israeli conflict, but more in the desires of bin Laden to return the world to a medieval extremist theocracy. He wants a world where women are effectively the property of men, where the likes of Baroness Tonge would be hidden in doors and unable to be seen - let alone speak - in public. The logical extension of what Tonge is saying is that if Israel gave Palestine everything they want then the bin Laden jihad would end. Which is at best shortsighted, and at worst utterly, utterly crass. But she goes on anyway:

"In desperate attempts not to be accused of anti-Semitism, our leaders refuse to accept this and carry on supporting the USA and its military base in the Middle East called Israel."

Well, our leaders probably refuse to accept it because, as I mentioned earlier, it is not true. But let's move on. Let's look at the assertion that Israel is a US military base. Erm, again, no. Israel has a very effective military, but then again so would any nation surrounded by other countries that want to "wipe it off the map". And whilst it does look to the USA, Israel remains a fiercely independent nation. And that last word - nation - is the crucial one. Israel is not a military base, Tonge. It is a nation. It is a country. It is a home. Don't patronise and insult the people who live there.

Finally, we have:

"If someone in power does not do something to restore Palestine, even if only to acknowledge that Israel must withdraw to the pre 1967 borders, and allow the Palestinians to form a viable country, we shall have no peace."

The logical extension of what Tonge is saying is that we have peace in the Middle East if we reverse the actions that ended the Six Day War. What utter, utter toss. Why do you think the Six Day War happened? There has been conflict in that area since the Attlee administration set up Israel. It was the constant, hostile actions of Jordan, Egypt and Syria that made Israel launch their pre-emptive strike. Hell, there has been conflict in the Middle East since the time of Jesus, and even before. It is astoundingly naive for any senior figure in one of the UK's major parties (even the Liberal Democrats) to see a Palestinian state as a cure for all the ills that affect the Middle East.

I am a passionate believer in the freedom of speech, and realise that passion means that I have to allow the likes of Jenny Tonge to spout their twaddle. But the great thing about freedom of speech is that I can reply. So, in a nutshell, I say "shut up, you cretin. You have no idea what you are talking about."

Shooting Blues

The police have released the two suspects arrested after the Lansdowne Road raid. As the BBC points out, this is going to raise some interesting and concerning questions, not least because of the shooting of the apparently unarmed Mohammed Abdul Kahar.

It is worth pointing out that, as with the de Menezes shooting, that all the facts are not in the public arena yet. There are rumours that the gun went off accidentally, there are rumours that is may have gone off in a scuffle, and there are rumours that one of the suspects may have shot the other. This is all conjecture, until there is some sort of investigation it is impossible to see where the blame lies.

What is known is that the raid was not carried out under Operation Kratos, meaning that whilst Mr Kahar was shot, there was little likelihood of a repetition of the de Menezes tragedy. The police arguably had to be armed, in light of the murder or DC Oake and the actions of the Madrid Bombers when they were cornered.

It is also clear that, if there was credible evidence of a chemical weapon, the police had to act. They failed to with Khan and his league of lethal losers, and 52 innocent people died. Furthermore, a chemical attack could be just as, perhaps even more, lethal than 7/7. Look at the Tokyo Subway attack, and then think about this scenario. The police/MI5 had intelligence about a chemical weapon, but owing to a lack of resources did not act on that intelliegence. Then imagine there was a chemical weapon, and this afternoon, as England celebrates an own goal, an anonymous looking young man walks into a heaving London pub, wearing an unusually bulky jacket for one of the hottest days of the year. Moments later, innocent people are dead and wounded.

Which makes me almost glad, in spite of the shooting and in spite of the Stockwell tragedy, that the police are acting on intelligence about potential terrorism. The reality is that I would rather have an innocent man arrested than another 52 commuters dead.

But then again I live in a posh part of London, I have an English name, and I am (nominally) a Christian. Perhaps most crucially, I am white. There is very little chance of the police kicking in my door at 4am and very little chance of them pushing me to the floor of a tube train and shooting me repeatedly in the face (not least as I seldom use the tube). I really don't know how I would feel if I was a young Muslim male, and at risk of arrest or worse in spite of my innocence.

So in a sense the terrorists have won. The police are acting on potentially dubious intelligence as they are frightened of the consequences if they don't. And innocent people are being arrested, shot and even killed. Which makes others lose faith in the police and the government, and pushes them into the arms of extremists. The Lansdowne road shooting seems to point to us living in a state of terror.

Peeves

Two things that really irritate me.

1. People who stop me on the street. No I don't have any loose change. No I don't want a Big Issue. No I don't want to give to your charity. There is a reason why I am walking down the street with a scowl on my face and ear phones in - I don't want to talk to people. But the ones who really irritate me, to the point of swearing at them, are the people advertising paintballing outside my office.

Picture the scene. I am walking back from Tesco and the paintballing scum, dressed in their blue pseudo-army uniforms, are stood outside my office. There is no way for me to avoid them, they are literally outside the office. So I walk up to my office door, thinking that given I looked tired, pissed off (and yes, a little hungover), am wearing a suit and am carrying a sandwich in a Tesco bag that they cannot possibly think that I am in the mood or even able to go paintballing. But no. Doesn't seem to occur to them. So this slack jawed, bald headed fucknut (who probably believes that his job is marketing when actually what he is doing is corporate begging that is beneath most people with an IQ of, you know, more than 4) stands right in front of me, blocking my path. When I try to go round him, he moves again so he is directly in my way. That's why I told him to "fuck off out of my way". If you can pardon my French.

2. My company's e-mail filters. We cannot receive any files with pictures in. Presumably to stop people sending me porn (chance would be a fine thing). But it also means that if my clients have a logo in their autosignatures, it doesn't get through. If somone sends in a CV with a picture on, it doesn't get through (although that is generally a good thing as most people who put a picture on their CVs aren't worth talking to). However the filters do not pick up on swear words. So this morning I did not get a vital e-mail from a customer but did get an e-mail from a mate that simply had "twat" in the subject field.

Good work, IT! You have managed to support a friend insulting me but have managed not to support me talking to someone who wants to give the company money! Fuck me, this is redefining the phrase "support services."

I think the heat is getting to me. What a shame we can't drink in the office.

Beer, I mean.

Poor Old Ming

Emphasis on the "Old", obviously.

100 days as Liberal leader and to say things aren't going too well.

But I suppose we expect too much. He didn't so much win the Leadership Election as not lose it - mainly as he was up against a balding customer of rent boys, a man who lied about his sexuality and someone who nobody has ever heard of. The choice was terrible, but it is now clear that Ming is a caretaker leader who may not even make it to the next election.

Bless 'im, but it would make more sense if he was claiming his pension rather than leading a political party.

Three Fat Pigs And Tarzan Get Mauled By The Devil

Here - The Devil's Kitchen takes on John Prescott and Roy Hattersley with swipes at Michael Heseltine and Nicholas Soames. Frankly, this is ranting of the very highest calibre.

Not least because he is absolutely right. As he writes about John Prescott:

"he is entirely unfit: he is an idiot, a bully, a violent sex-fiend and a mannerless oaf who disgraces this country wherever he goes."

I wholeheartedly agree. I hate Prescott, and the reason why has nothing to do with class or his union links or anything like that. I hate him as he is a pig ignorant, violent man who cannot string a sentence together. The past few weeks/months have shown what many thought about Prescott is absolutely true. He is a boorish, arrogant, sexist oaf. The fact that he has been Deputy Prime Minister for nine years - and in spite of all that has happened still has that position - is yet another indictment of the compromised Blair regime.

Greatest Hits

I was pondering, given the day of resignation (and celebration) draws ever closer, what the legacy of Blair will be. My guess is the *Greatest Hits* of the Blair years will be:

- the Iraq War/Crisis
- the Petrol Crisis
- the Foot and Mouth Crisis
- the multiple resignations of Peter Mandelson
- the multiple resignations of David Blunkett
- Cherigate
- the death of David Kelly
- the surrender of the EU rebate
- the constant, relentless, wearying bickering with his dour Scottish Chancellor
- Cherigate #2
- sexing up dossiers
- brown nosing the worst US president since James Buchanan

Erm... that's about it. Giving him a enviable record. If you are another failed PM like Anthony Eden who took the nation into a international conflict under false pretences. Otherwise - well, I think the historical verdict on Blair will be harsh to say the least.

One of the reasons that I am always hearing as to why Blair stays on is to ensure his legacy. In which case he should resign today. I mean, short of curing cancer there doesn't seem to be a great deal he could do to recitfy the egregious errors and scandals of his administration.

Tony Benn was right

At least when it came to this - spearheading the "No" campaign with (future failed Labour leader) Michael Foot. Even Thatcher supported the "Yes" campaign at that time (although that obviously changed over the years...)

31 years on, with the moves to decentralisation and the no votes from France and the Netherlands, I would love to see what the result of a similar referendum on the EU would be in the UK today.

Musical Tastes

Now, I love listening to music. It is one of the things that keeps me (vaguely) sane. But when I was chatting to someone yesterday about music it occurred to be just how odd musical tastes and preferences are. The person who I was having the chat with is three years younger than me but she likes the same music as my dad. Which struck me as really strange - why would someone of a similar age to me want to listen to jazz music from the 1930's?

And then it struck me that everyone's musical taste is fundamentally idiosyncratic and irrational. For example I never listened to classical music until I was 21, and then I only ever listened to it in the bath (Classic FM on a little Simpsons transistor radio, natch). Outside of that environment, I never listen to classical music and since I know longer have a radio in the bathroom (The Simpsons radio is listed as Missing In Action, a victim of the numerous house moves I have made over the past two and a half years) I don't listen to it at all. Therefore my musical taste is dependant on environment as well as mood and hundreds of other factors.

Also, I can love one band and not like a very similar band. Take The Smiths and Gene. Gene are frequently compared to the Smiths, especially with their first two albums. Martin Rossiter is capable of writing some excellent lyrics, and some up with some striking imagery - take Where are they now? - a wonderfully poetic song about loss and depression which ends with "I'm lost in the fog". Now compare that to How Soon Is Now?, one of Morrissey's many lamentations about being unpopular that includes the lyric "And you go home, and you cry and you want to die" - about a subtle as a sledgehammer. But I love the Smiths - they remain one of my favourite bands. Gene, even though I think are a slightly better band musically and lyrically, I can take or leave. For me this just reinforces the feeling that musical taste is irrational. Logically I should like Gene more given what I have written above, but I don't. And it also reinforces my feeling that musical taste is idiosyncratic - I just asked my Jazz loving friend what she thinks of the Smiths. Her expression was one of someone who has just sucked on a lemon...

There is no real point to this post, but I am still wondering - what does condition people's musical preferences?

Man Attacked By Fat Pig

No, nothing to do with John Prescott. Read the full story here.

I am informed that this is major news in North Wales...

2008 #2

Yet more on a presidential contest that is still years away.

But this is quite a striking website - Christopher Walken for President. Not entirely sure that it is for real but if it is, then I do not see how on earth he could ever stand a chance. Aside from the fact that the death of Natalie Wood would almost certainly come up and cause some major problems for Walken, it is difficult to imagine even America electing a completely inexperienced man as President. Yes, Reagan was an actor as well but he was also a reasonably successful two term governor of California. The last President with no experience of elected office was Dwight Eishenhower, and he was instrumental in the victory in World War Two - so therefore he had extensive foreign policy and administrative experience. Prior to him, Herbert Hoover was the last Pres to be elected without holding elected office and let's face it, his term did not go very well.

However what really strikes me about the Walken website is on the quote on the Home Page. It reads: If you want to learn how to build a house, build a house. Don't ask anybody, just build a house.

What? Say that again?

I'm sorry, but that is utter bollocks. If I went to try to build a house with my complete lack of building/construction experience and my complete ineptitude when it comes to anything remotely practical then the result would be a complete, and total, disaster. I would need to not only ask someone, but get them to do all the planning and building as well. That comment, apparently from Mr Walken himself, demonstrates why he would be unelectable. The leader of the free world needs to know what he is doing, and electing Walken, with his *extensive* knowledge of the White House (well, he played a would be assassin of a potential Presidential candidate in The Dead Zone, that's about it) would be a massive error.