Halloween

Now, I like celebrating stuff. I have always been a big fan of Christmas (although when I worked in retail it did all pass by in a blur - and there is nothing as depressing as working on Boxing Day with a roaring hangover) and celebrate my birthday with some sort of night out. Which normally involves drinking stupidly large amounts and generally behaving like a fool. For example, my last birthday ended with me managing to convince a tramp/wino/beggar to give me a cigarette. Which is utterly pointless as I don't smoke - and if I did, I didn't have a lighter. Although it did lead to an interesting moment the next day when I turned to one of my best mates, with only the haziest of recollections of the end of the previous evening, and demanded to know why I had a fag in my pocket.

My point is this - some occasions do warrant celebrating. Halloween isn't one of them.

Let's be honest, it is an also ran event. Just before Bonfire Night and Christmas, and generally celebrating the dark side of life, it is difficult to get too excited about. Thinking about my days in retail, I remember we would have an aisle dedicated to Christmas from September onwards, and as the 25th December neared, Christmas would take over the entire store. As for Halloween, you would be lucky if we bothered with a plinth at the end of one of the aisles. And rather than increasing the profile of Halloween as the 31st October loomed, we would be more concerned about the unsold merchandise. I mean, what the hell do you do with an unsold, cheap, tacky skeleton mask on the 1st November?

But something seems to have happened to this non-event. It seems to have become an opportunity for begging. And not just beggars begging, but everyone. This evening, on my way home from work, I was stopped by grown adults wearing stupid costumes and asked whether they wanted to give me any money. I'm sorry, what? I'm supposed to give you money because you are dressed like a witch who is reduced to shopping in the discount section of Primark? Not a hope. The fact that it is Halloween makes no difference to me whatsoever. You're dressed like a twat. There is no way I am going to encourage you by giving you money.

However it is worse than just stupid behaviour on one night of the year. Two weeks ago I was on Old Street, on my way to meet an old friend (and was, perhaps inevitably, running two hours late and calling my friend frantically so I could get directions) and I was stopped by a group of kids, probably about ten years old, asking me for money for Halloween. Their parents were nowhere to be seen. It is somewhere between insulting and laughable that these pre-teen kids would be allowed out to "trick or treat" for money two weeks prior to Halloween. It is not so much as case of America exporting her trick or treating customs to this country, but rather us taking those traditions and turning them into something comical and terrible at the same time. In the US kids go out looking for sweets on the night of 31st October. In this country, kids go out two weeks before, looking for money. Which is kind of understandable, given on Halloween itself, it is the adults who are out, dressed like failed stage school applicants, looking to scab money from me even though most of them probably earn more than me anyway.

So Halloween has become a night to stay in and not do anything, for fear of being hassled by an army of beggars that seem to come straight from a cheap rip-off of a George A. Romero film. If you want to know how I will be spending Halloween, then it is watching a film in bed, trying to recover from a hacking cough caught from a friend at work.

And which film will I be watching? Why, Halloween, of course...

Impending Armageddon

Once again, we are facing certain doom in the face. There is a global apocalypse just around the corner. According to this anyway.

Now, I have no intention of going in to the ins and outs of the report and what it is telling us about the world we live in. Sure, there seem to be some alarming stats in there, and winter does seem to be warmer these days, but climate change was occurring a long time before greenhouse gases. This planet has had ice ages that have turned into our current climate, and I have yet to be convinced that any changes to the environment are anything other than completely natural climate changes. It may be the climate is changing, and it may also be this is a natural phenomenon that we cannot control.

My point is this - throughout my life, the human race has been on the brink of extinction. Through nuclear war, through flesh eating viruses, through meteors striking the earth (although that could have just been to promote a couple of dodgy Hollywood films), through AIDS, through bird flu and, yes, through the environment. Christ, I'm surprised that no-one has seriously suggested our immediate extinction through rage infested monkeys. Either we are a very lucky race to have avoided all of these calamaties, or people are prone to exaggerating the threats we are facing. It actually gets on my tits, really, because people seem insistent on being negative about the future. I'm a pessimist, but I don't gain any pleasure through shouting from the roof tops "We're all going to die!" I actually think that the human race is resourceful and adaptable, and can probably cope with almost anything that happens to us, short of the planet falling into the sun (and before any wild internet rumours start happening, no, I am not saying the earth is going to fall into the sun...)

There is something about the Stern report that reminds me of the sandwich board man who wanders around with "The End of the World Is Nigh" plastered all over him. And I cannot help but note that we treat the sandwich board man as a joke, something to be smiled at then ignored.

From Adviser to President?

So, Al Gore is now a special adviser for Gordon Brown? Bit of a comedown for the man who was, for eight years, a heartbeat away from being the most powerful man in the world. There are a number of different ways to view this, two of the most amusing takes being this and this.

But to me is seems fairly obvious what is behind all this. Gore has raised his media profile through releasing his film, now he is rebuilding his political profile by becoming an adviser for Gordo. He's preparing to run for President again, as far as I can see. He has spent the past seven years checking off all the boxes he needs to run in 2008 - he conceded the election in 2000 even though he won the popular vote and could well have won a recount, he was relatively supportive of the Iraq War initially, he avoided running again in 2004, he has released a film dealing with typically Democrat concerns and now he is advising the would-be British Prime Minister on the environment. And above all, he has claimed that he is not going to run again. And let's be honest, when a politician claims he or she is not going to do something it almost always means they are going to do it.

The only question that remains is exactly when Gore drops the facade and announces his candidacy.

Racist Musical Taste?

"Does it bother you that your musical taste is almost exclusively white?"

A friend of mine asked me that question many moons ago in a terrible pub in the Midlands. The question was completely out of the blue and somewhat surprising - this particular friend is not one for deep, thought-provoking questions about music and the pub (which was so bad that they actually had to lower the height of the bar for all the under-age drinkers) was not the sort of venue where you do any thinking. And as a result I really couldn't think of answer. Initially I wanted to contradict him and point out that my musical taste is not exclusively white, but, barring a few albums by Massive Attack and The Specials (who are mixed race bands), his assertion is fundamentally right. I have never liked rap, and I have never liked reggae. So at the time I spluttered an answer about how I had never really thought about it and how it didn't really matter to me anyway. But every now and again, in a slow or boring moment, I have found my mind returning to that question.

And finally I have reached an answer. Of sorts.

I'm not racist - I see racism as not only grossly unfair and counter-productive but also extremely ignorant. It is true that I have no issue with disliking some people, but any dislike is always based on what I think about their personalities and the way they act. Not based on their race, skin colour, sex, religious beliefs or anything else. So I do not think my musical taste is in anyway racist, even though it is almost exclusively white.

Now, given my background, it is hardly surprising that I like music that I tend to describe as being made by "four pasty white boys earnestly clutching guitars." My musical taste tends to be either Indie or Prog rock. I love the likes of Pink Floyd, The Smiths, The Who, The Arcade Fire, The Clash, New Order - the list goes on and on. And given my background - white, public school and red-brick university educated, with much of my childhood living in a small village listening to the likes of the Beatles, it makes sense that I would listen to guitar based music backed up with lyrics that can relate to. I can't relate to urban music because I am not from an urban background. Equally, I cannot stomach country music but may have been able to if I had grown up in the American Mid-West.

And I would actually argue that it would be more patronising for me to claim that I love rap or reggae when I don't. It would almost imply that those who produce that sort of music require me to like them - that me admiring their type of music would in some way vindicate their artistic work. And I know my opinions of them and their music is wonderfully irrelevant to them. They do not gain anything by me pretending to like their music. Just as I would not gain anything other than soothing my liberal ideals by pretending to like their music. I like music based on my background and music that I can relate to. There is nothing racist in that.

Furthermore, I would now argue that the question itself is, on some levels, racist. It highlights colour, and it highlights race. I firmly believe that racism only ends when people stop thinking about race and colour when asking questions and making choices. It is racist to stop someone getting a job based on the colour of their skin, just as positive discrimination/affirmative action is inherently racist. By giving someone a job because they are a particular race is racist because it is using race as the selection criteria for the job, rather than suitability for the job. So it is racist to chose music based on the race of the people who write and perform it. It is not racist to chose music based on what you like, even if that means that your musical collection is more based around your own race rather than other races.

So, to answer the question, no, it does not worry me that my music taste is almost exclusively white.

Of course, I concede that answer, and reasoning, would be a little more convincing if I had come up with it five and a half years ago. Rather than reaching the above conclusions earlier today, whilst doing the ironing.

Poetic Profanity

This morning I wrote a post about Patsy Hewitt wanting to curb binge drinking amongst teenagers by raising the taxes on booze. Ignoring the fact that I was irritable anyway as I was hungover, the story angered me *just slightly* as the thought of paying even more for my booze horrifies me. And since Hewitt makes me doubt that humanity has actually evolved away from the primates, I may have used one or two naughty words. Swearing may not be big or clever, but it is funny and fun.

But my efforts just do not compare with the irate, mad-eyed ranting of other bloggers. You can normally rely on The Devil's Kitchen to be angry and profane, and on the wonderful day that swearing is finally recognised as an artform DK will be regarded as a master of his craft. And he does not disappoint today, coming up with this very accurate description of our Health Secretary:

"Go fuck youself, you stinking apology for a cunt of a human being; did I say human being? I meant hideous chicken-brained whore of a monkey's arse dipped in aubergine surprise—the surprise being that it is made of aubergines and shit, shit, shitty-shit-shit-shit—and mashed up with the pus-filled discharge of a diseased, eighty-year-old whore's raddled, smelly and very badly-packed kebab. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you cunting cunt cuntitty cunt cunt. Tit."

It may not be pithy, but it certainly is punchy. In fact, it must be, for Patsy, the equivalent of being trampled by a rhino. Which, let's face it, she deserves. Especially if the rhino has the trots and cannot stop itself from shitting on her ugly corpse.

But DK is out-performed today by the poor, little greek boy. Who comes up with this tremendous outpouring of uncontrollable rage:

"Fuck you, Patsy. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. FUCK OFF."

Expressing my sentiments exactly.

I find it life affirming to see that there are people other than the Moai and me who are prepared not only to point out every mistake this fucktarded government makes but also do it using words, phrases and images that are controversial. Because, frankly, this government is like the gaping cunt of a disease ridden whore. The more people who stand up and say so, the better. We'd better off with a government of Cenobites, because at least the Cenobites are honest and say that they want to fuck you over and hurt you in the process. Blair, Hewitt et al are not only dishonest about it but also want to charge you for the privilege.

Drowning in a vat of alcoholic urine is too good for them.

Saving the nation's teenagers - through taxes!

Patricia Hewitt wants Brown to “really increase” the taxes on alcohol to stop teenage binge drinking. She says:

"We've got enormous numbers of young people, particularly on a Friday and Saturday night, ending up in the casualty department of hospitals because they're drunk. They've fallen over and bashed their heads in because they're drinking too much.”

It is too time consuming to list the fundamental flaws with Hewitt’s argument, which can be summed up with this phrase:

"I think putting taxes up on alcohol would help discourage young people from spending too much money on alcohol."

When you listen to unmitigated toss like this you have to wonder whether Hewitt herself was binge drinking last night and ended up falling over and "bashing" her head. As I said earlier, it would take too long to properly go through all the different reasons as to why Hewitt is spouting shite from her arse shaped mouth.

But I will make two points – firstly, raising taxes and putting hysterical warnings on cigarettes has not diminished the appetite for fags, particularly amongst teenagers, so fuck knows why Hewitt thinks that it will be different with booze. Perhaps it is the fact that she is a brain dead idiot. But the second, and more crucial point is the fact that surely drinking amongst most teenagers is illegal anyway? As some who has held a liquor licence in the past, I can categorically state that the law does not allow people under the age of 18 to be sold or to buy alcohol or drinks with alcohol in. So how about this – perhaps we could enforce the existing laws?

But that isn’t very NuLabour, is it? Why enforce and existing law when you can raise taxes instead? Ignore the law and try to up the funds going to Gordo and the rest of the spendthrift mongs in the Treasury. Maybe they can use the money gained from increased taxes on booze to fund their own election campaigns.

And they wonder why we fucking hate them…

"Uncovered Meat"

Every now and again, a Muslim says or does something that appalls me utterly and makes me question my ideological commitment to free of religion. Today's fucktard is Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali. He has apologised for his comments but quite frankly that is not good enough. The sickening misogyny spouted by this shameless shithead has no place in a twenty first century liberal democracy.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?"

Interesting how some who claims to be a cleric regards women as "meat" to be "eaten". The analogy gives away a lot - Hilali sees women not just as inferior to him but as not even human. Come on, Hilali, say what you think - you see women as "fuck meat." Which is fine, because I see you as an open, oozing, infected sore on the face of the world - a leaking, feculent sewer on legs.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred,"

Unless she fell victim to an honour killing. Or to incestous rape. Which of course would *never* happen in a Muslim household.

"Sheikh Hilali also condemned women who swayed suggestively and wore make-up, implying they attracted sexual assault.
"Then you get a judge without mercy... and gives you 65 years," he added."

I cannot think of any Western country that gives out a 65 year sentence for rape, but exaggerating really is the least of Hilali's sins. The assertion that by dressing attractively and wearing make up makes a woman a viable target for rape is the thinking of a stone age man. And Hilali is an important figure in the Australian Muslim community - as Pru Goward, an Australian prosecuter, points out:

"Young Muslim men who now rape women can cite this in court, can quote this man... their leader in court"

In his apology Hilali says:

"I had only intended to protect women's honour"

Is Hilali really so goddamned ignorant that he thinks we will be fooled by this utter shite? How can someone who sees a woman wearing a skirt and make-up as a piece of meat possibly talk about honouring women?

The Lebanese Muslim Association apparently condemns Hilali's words and may ban him from speaking in Mosques. Good. Because if they do not condemn, and then take action against, this man then they are condoning his words as the words of Islam. And the only way to bridge the religious and cultural divides is to ostracise the likes of Hilali and ultimately force them to go to a society that is compatible with their atrocious views are acceptable. In the 1980's those in the far left were told to "piss off back to Russia". These days, we should be saying to the likes of Hilali "piss off to a Middle Eastern backwater".

Torchwood

As I have mentioned before I am a big fan of Doctor Who. So I have been waiting for the start of the spin-off, Torchwood, for quite some time (particularly since Sunday - I had planned to watch it on BBC3 then but since our cheap as hell digibox wouldn't transmit BBC3 I have had to wait to see it last night on BBC2). I really couldn't be sure what it would be like - after all, the last Doctor Who spin-off was hardly a roaring success. But Russell T Davies did great work in resurrecting Doctor Who, so there was/is every chance that Torchwood could be very good as well. And is it? Well, yes and no. I mean, it is quite an entertaining and diverting programme. It reminds me a bit of Touching Evil, Millenium and Ultraviolet. After the initial massive success dies down it has all the hall marks of a cult classic. It may not be that long lasting, but it will be fondly remembered by fans.

But the big problem lies with the fact that this is a spin off from Doctor Who. The last time Captain Jack was in Cardiff, he was a small part of a larger crew who fought and defeated a Slitheen, at the same time as being involved in a debate on capital punishment and ultimately giving the monster a second chance at life. In the pilot of Torchwood Captain Jack gets shot by one of his colleagues (just as well he is immortal, eh?). The monsters in Doctor Who include an empty child who changes people into his own image with the words "are you my mummy?" He is spooky as fuck. Torchwood has the Weevils, who rip out people's throats. Violent and unpleasant they may be, spooky they are not. To date the new series of Doctor Who has been about love - especially between the Doctor and Rose. Episode Two of Torchwood is about an alien who shags people to death. The Doctor is an enigmatic, charismatic time travelling hero - Captain Jack is a bisexual James Bond wannabe.

Ultimately Torchwood is OK - it is fiercely generic cult TV. It is probably unfair to compare it to a TV programme that has been around for 43 years. But since it is a spinoff, comparisons are inevitable. Oh, and the hand in Episode 2 (Day One) is the Doctor's.

Odious, Hypocritical Piece Of Scum

George Galloway that is. Take a look at this from Guido - the socialist, friend of the people wannabe owns a house that is beyond the means of most normal people in this country. The cigar chomping cockbag is a hypocrite who really defies comparison. The good people of Bethnal Green and Bow must be so happy with their choice for MP. I'll bet Galloway considers himself to be a man of the people. In touch with the Common Man etc etc ad fucking nauseam. Yeah, George, you're a man of the people. Just like Uncle Joe was.

It seems to me that there are two types of socialist - the principled, coherent type like Tony Benn. Ok, they are wrong about just about everything and get on my tits with their highly shrill, incessant whining but at least you know they stand for something. Then there is the other type of socialists. You could call the champagne - or, if you will, cigar - socialists but, perhaps inevitably, I would call them something else. They are lying, preening, evil, hypocritical, despicable turds who should be buried alive.

Guess which category Gormless George fits into?

Of course, any right minded person who has thought of George for a prolonged period of time tends to think about his future. And is that person is truly right minded, they will inevitably have thought about Galloway's (hopefully premature) demise. And exactly how they would like to see Galloway leave this mortal coil. Hanging him for treason is quite a good choice, but probably too easy. When I think of Galloway not only would I say that I would not piss on him if he was on fire is an understatement - frankly I would like to douse the fucker in petrol and drop a lit match on him just to make the point that I would not waste my worthless urine on extinguishing the agonising inferno that would be wiping the Wrong Dishonourable Galloway of the face of this earth.

"No future for herself..."

I despair of this country sometimes, I really do. This story has me goggle-eyed with incredulity and silent, glowering anger - a woman who burnt her baby to death is spared prison.

Sorry, come again?

Wait, that's too polite.

What the flying fuck? What in the name of holy crap is going on? This woman started a fire that killed her baby. In most cultures this would be considered a crime worthy of life imprisonment at the very least - perhaps even the death penalty. In this country, in this day and age, starting fire that kills your baby you get "a three-year community order with a period of supervision." The judicial equivalent of having your pocket money stopped.

There are mitigating factors. But of course, in this day and age, you have to expect extenuating circumstances. "Excuses" would be another way of putting it. According to this, one in ten women suffer from post-natal depression. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but there is not a nationwide epidemic of baby burning going on. No doubt this reprehensible excuse for human being had serious post-natal depression, but she had a choice. She had a choice between starting that fire and not starting that fire. And she chose to do the wrong, the totally evil and disgusting, thing. And she should be punished for it.

This is what is fundamentally at the heart of this killing - she chose to do it. She chose to remove the smoke alarm batteries, she chose to concoct an elaborate and deeply unconvincing story about being attacked. She planned this. She may have been suffering from mental illness at the time, but she still made a choice. And her baby, a living, breathing person who depended on her totally, died as a result of her choice.

I would have far more sympathy for this pigdog of a woman if she was made up to face up what she has done, and if she was forced to take responsibility for killing her own offspring. As it stands, the simple message that has been sent out is that the life of Alexander Gallon is worth fuck all.

Clare Short Resigns The Labour Whip!

Wow! What an incredible non-story for a Friday afternoon! I think I speak for everyone when I say "oh".

Clare has many political flaws, not least because she is a hysterical moron who wouldn't understand pragmatism if it came up and bit her on her not insubstantial arse. Listening to Clare has always left me with the feeling that whilst deafness would be terrible, it would at least have some sort of upside in that I would never have to listen to the whining of this terrible frog woman again. I am hard pressed to say which would be more irritating - a brief sentence from Clare or two hours of listening to that mechanical voice on dustbin lorries saying "warning, this vehicle is reversing" in the small hours of the morning when I am trying to sleep.

But Clare's biggest flaw as a politician is her complete inability to time anything correctly. She resigned over the Iraq war after it had started. She has resigned the Labour Whip weeks after announcing her intention to stand down as a Labour MP. Her former party would be well within their rights to shrug their shoulders and say "and?" about this news. Whilst I think the post of International Development Secretary is a bit like a wooden spoon prize in the Cabinet, it is probably not a bad achievement for someone as pigheaded and politically retarded as Clare. But Clare, in her oh, so finite wisdom, managed to take the minimal amount of influence that she had clawed for herself and spunked it all up against the wall. Had she wanted to be a figure of historical interest then she should have resigned from the Cabinet and the Labour Party at the same time, prior to the start of the Iraq Invasion. Given what she did and when she did it, she is at best a historial irrelevance, and at worst the butt of future political jokes. It is a real challenge for a well known party rebel who is standing down at the next election to make themselves less relevant to their party. But by resigning the Labour Whip Short has managed just that. You can almost imagine Jacqui Smith, Labour's Chief Whip, raising a toast to her staff, and commenting "well, thank fuck we don't have to worry about that old trout anymore".

BBC News has a very interesting photo of Miss Short:

Doesn't she look like a demented bag lady who has been forced into a hideous jacket to try and make it through some sort of panel to be released back into the community? And her facial expression - it looks like she has sat, without realising it, on a broom handle and has found she quite like the sensation of having a big stick up her arse.

Bye bye, Clare. You have managed to beat a well deserved path to future obscurity. Which, given your inability to say anything worth hearing during your 23 years in parliament, should suit you very, very well.

Media Whore With A Heart?

There seems to be some sort of debate in the newspapers about Madonna adopting a child. Now, I normally ignore any story about Madonna on principle (the simple principle that I cannot stand her or sodding awful music) but since the dead tree press is shrieking about this I thought I would make some sort of comment.

I think Madonna is the epitome of a media whore - some seeking publicity for the sake of getting attention - and too much of this feels like a publicity stunt. If Madonna wanted to adopt a child from an ethnic minority and from a deprived background, then she could have found one in this country very easily. The fact that she has gone to Africa, has taken the media with her and had no real problem with the media shit storm that has enveloped her since the adoption got controversial makes me think that she is still partly in this to get attention.

But then I think that she is doing some good, even if this is on some levels a publicity stunt. Because David Banda will have a far better life as the receiver of Madonna's maternal instincts than as an orphan (yes, he has a father but this is the "loving" father who dumped his son in an orphange) in Malawi. His adoption may be a drop in the ocean of ending child poverty but at least it achieves something good.

And it all puts Madonna streets ahead of this other week's media whore - Lady Heather McCartney Mills or whatever the hell she calls herself these days. *Leaked documents* from her camp suggest that Paul McCartney is a wife beating drunk. Now, whilst I think that McCartney is a pretentious, stupid, self-absorbed dick head I do not think that he is someone who would stop his wife from breast feeding his daughter with the words "those are my breasts" and I don't believe that the man who lived with the miserable, dour faced Linda McCartney for years, would push his pregnant wife into the bath. And I struggle to believe that the man who wrote the musical abortion that is The Frog Chorus would stab his wife with a broken wine glass. I have no idea what is going to happen in the McCartney divorce case but I sense that things will go in the general direction of Paul rather than Heather. And whilst Madonna will end up helping someone through her publicity stunt, Heather will end up achieving nothing.

Falling Off The Wagon

Oh dear. It seems those predicting the return of Charlie K to the forefront of Lib Dem politics may have been a tad premature. It seems his on-off love affair with the bottle is most definitely back on - according to this, anyway.

Apparently he still doesn't think of himself as an alcoholic. Hmmm, maybe time to get a new shrink to help with the drink problem, Charlie boy. And maybe stick to the soda water next time, eh?

Hip Priest

I have been on holiday this week and as well as doing the requisite holiday things like going to the beach, sleeping in late, growing a beard and heavy drinking, I have also been listening to music and albums that I have not heard for ages. One stand out album is Hex Enduction Hour by the Fall.

For those of you who don't know the Fall, they are a prolific, ramshackle band lead by the idiosyncratic, mercurial Mark E. Smith. Smith is the only member of the original line up, and the band are perhaps as famous for their ever-changing line up as they are for their unique, fiercely uncommercial, music.

Hex Enduction Hour is widely regarded as one of their best albums. In this day and age of identikit, pointless pop pap it is wonderful to hear a fierce, highly original album. The Fall are one of the best exponents of post punk, a hugely under-rated band and a crucial link between post punk bands sich as Joy Division and the hugely successful Madchester scene of the early nineties.

And it is tempting to say that if there was any justice in the world then Mark E. Smith would be a mutli-millionaire rock star, and the Fall a record breaking, global force in music. But when the best, and most accessible, track on the album (The Classical - number 38 in John Peel's All-Time Festive 50, fact fans) contains the lyric "where are the obligatory niggers? Hey there, fuck face, hey there fuck face" you can kind of understand why The Fall never really got the air play they deserved.

Oh, what great company we are keeping these days

This article from yesterday's Times amused me. The Council of Europe is investigating Britain for abuse of human rights. Relating to postal vote fraud. We are on a par with "newly toppled dictatorships." Again, the policies of Blair have brought us international embarrassment and condemnation. Thanks, Tony.

And the best bit of the article? Belarus - a country with a fairly interesting human rights record to say the least - is able to challenge the UK. They stated at recent international meeting:

“Our delegation is concerned about the current postal voting system in the UK, in which there exists a potential risk of violations of the principle of equal elections and of extensive abuses.”

Let's get this clear - this is the govenment of Lukashenko, this is the last dictatorship in Europe - and they are able to score points off us over elections. It is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry.

But perhaps Lukashenko and his cronies can offer Nu Labour some advice on electoral fraud. After all, Lukashenko managed to get 82.4% of the vote in his last election. Nu Labour, despite having some local elections that "would disgrace a banana republic", can only muster 22% support from the electorate. Nu Labour are so crap that they cannot be competently corrupt.

There really is evil in this world.

See here for an example.

Life in prison is too good for this fucker. Particularly since life seems to mean 12 years, rather than dying in prison.

JP2, Film Star

A cartoon film is being made about the late John Paul II.

Hmmmm, got to be honest, I think I will pass on it. Watch the trailer. "Defender of freedom and truth" the pen (no really) says. I don't think they are going to mention the more controversial aspects to the papacy of John Paul II. Such as the long, crippling illness. Or the failure to do anything about the mounting HIV crisis amongst Catholics in the third world. Or the one that never ceases to appall me - hiding paedophile priests in the church.

...when the revolution comes.

The Reactionary Snob muses who he would put first against the wall when the revolution comes, and his choices seem to me to be excellent in every respect. Go and have a read - anyone who calls the ferret faced Hazel Blears "the Capo de Capi of New Labour Harridan cunt-witches" has a way with profane prose. And I would agree with his selections, but would have to add one more person. A person who does not just deserve to be first against the wall, but who actually deserves to be pulled apart by a pack of rabid, wild dogs. A person so odious that the depths of hatred I feel for him scare me slightly. And who is that person? Why, Simon Hughes, of course.

Why? Well, put simply Simon Hughes is a cunt. He is a lisping, preening, pseudo-leftie prig who deserves to drown in his own urine. Not only does he give the Liberal Democrats a bad name, but he gives the British people a bad name and indeed the human race as a whole. He is self serving, hypocritical tosser who deserves to have his lips stapled shut and be zapped with a high voltage electric cattle prod ever time he dares to try to open that effluent spouting, malformed mouth of his.

The evidence? Well, let's look at the 1983 campaign in Southwark. I have no problem with Hughes being bisexual - frankly he can prefer the company of goats for all I care. It is the hypocrisy that gets to me. He ran a homophobic campaign against Tatchell. Look at the election leaflets. And please don't come back with any crap about how Hughes didn't know about it, or didn't mean it. You know why? He apologised for it. And people don't apologise for stuff they haven't done. Hughes ran a vitriolic, hate-filled campaign to win his seat. He proved himself to be intolerant of his own sexuality. And this from a supposed Liberal.

And this is a Lib Dem who whispers against his leaders. He was instrumental (although not as much as Minger Campbell) in the fall of Charlie K, and was trying to stab Ming the Merciful in the back just months after he was elected leader. He is power hungry, but cannot even win the leadership of a minority party in spite of repeated attempts. There is the old story told by William Jennings Byran about not running for the Presidency of the United States again after three defeats - the story of the drunk who goes into a bar, gets thrown out, stands up, goes back in again, gets thrown out, stands up, goes back in again only to be thrown out for the third time. Then the tramp stands up, dusts himself down, and says to a passer-by "you know what, maybe they don't want me in there". Hughes doesn't even have the self awareness of the drunk in that story - the only way to stop him from undermining his leaders and to stop him running for the leadership again is for the Lib Dem leadership to drag him outside, beat him half to death with baseball bats, stuff him in a sack full of bricks and dump him in the river. It is only then - when he is drowning in the feculent water of the Thames - that he might get the hint that he is not wanted as leader.

Hughes is quoted as saying that he has considered marriage but has not found anyone willing to marry him. Frankly I am not fucking surprised - marrying Hughes would be a life sentence - not just the crushing boredom of being married to such a sanctimonious twat but also the literal life sentence passed down by a high court judge on whoever would be unlucky enough to be his spouse after they have run him through with a kitchen knife for not being able to talk anything other than utter bollocks.

An Epidemic of Free Newspapers

Now, I have a bit of an ambivalent relationship to free stuff. On the one hand, I love a free drink. At work occasions, where the wine or the beer (or both) are free, I will stay to the bitter end. Even when I lose the power of speech, even when I lose the ability to stand upright, I will stay. In fact, the only thing that will get me to leave the work party is when the free alcohol runs out.

So, on some levels, I love free stuff. But generally speaking anything given away free is crap, and I don’t want it.

The other day I was in a shop, buying a newspaper, and the shop assistant – who seemed to be a smiley, if over-earnest, fella – offered me a free poster. I asked him what the poster was of. He told me Battlestar Galactica. I grimaced slightly, and said no. He looked at me incredulously, and asked me whether I was sure. I said I was, and he spluttered “but it is free!”

Yes. Very true. But the fact it is free does not make it any good. In fact, if someone is giving something away free, generally speaking it is utter crap and they can’t get rid of it any other way.

There is a plague in London at the moment. A plague of free stuff; an epidemic of free newspapers.

The Metro is bad enough, but at least it attempts, on some level, to be a newspaper. The pretenders to the crown, thelondonpaper and The London Lite, are so reprehensibly bad that they make The Sunday Sport look like the work of Woodward and Bernstein.

Plus The Metro at least has the common decency to restrict itself to being handed out at stations, and being found dumped in buses and tubes. Not so the new London rags. They are literally everywhere. Like bubonic sores on the already pock marked face of London.

Seriously, I will walk out of the office onto the street and someone – a person paid to hand out a free newspaper – will thrust a newspaper that you wouldn’t use to wipe a dog’s arse (if, indeed, wiping canine anuses is your thing) at me. Even though I am wearing my “whatever you do, don’t get in my way” scowl, even though I am listening to music on my headphones and have my hands thrust in my pockets and therefore I am unable to hear them offer me the newspaper and unable to take the newspaper even if I could hear them, they still feel the need to thrust this worthless waste of a tree at me.

Which is bad enough, but part and parcel of living in London. What really pisses me off is the fact that there is someone, 100 metres down the street, to thrust another free piece of crap at me. They are everywhere, literally everywhere, I go - always looking to palm their terrible, rancid, gossip rag on me. And the worst thing is they never, ever notice the fact that I have refused a free newspaper 100 metres – and a few seconds – ago. They see me ignore the newspaper, but still think that, less than a minute later, I will be looking to take the same free piece of shite away with me. I mean, what do they think? That I regret turning down the free newspaper? That I have spent the past few seconds beating myself up about the fact that I have down the rag? That I am waiting for some, brave, heroic newspaper distributor to give my life meaning again and give me the chance to take the retard version of The Metro? Or perhaps they just don’t think, which may explain why they are doing a job that makes toilet cleaning look glamorous.

The other day I saw a free newspaper distributor pack a bin bag full of his free crap and dump it into a public bin. And that made me smile, in spite of myself. I sense he wasn’t making a comment about the content of the newspaper, but rather his inability to get rid of his copies, even though the cost to the punter was nil. And I think that distributor deserves a big hand. If all of his peers followed his example, and dumped their wares in the nearest bin before pissing off the pub, London would be a much better place.

It's the end of the world as we know it...

...And I feel fine.

North Korea, the very definition of a rogue state, has nuclear weapons. Which, given I have seen Threads and The War Game (both of which deal with the aftermath of a nuclear attack), can be no good thing.

Still, you've got to smile. Seriously, let's look at the comedy value of this. And that mainly comes in the form of North Korea's statement. I know it was meant to be taken seriously, but the levels of self deception and utter nonsense make me smile.

"...at a stirring time when all the people of the country are making a great leap forward in the building of a great, prosperous, powerful socialist nation."

Stirring? Try scary. Or terrifying. And I am not sure how building a device that could wipe out North Korea (which, let's face it, does not have a great track record when it comes to storing weapons) constitutes a great leap forward.

"It marks a historic event as it greatly encouraged and pleased the KPA (Korean People's Army) and people that have wished to have powerful self-reliant defence capability."

I'd imagine that if you asked a North Korean what he thought he probably would be encouraged and pleased. Mainly because if he dissented, he would be imprisoned, tortured and executed. However if you asked them how they felt and they were free to talk, they might reveal that they would be more "encouraged and pleased" if the government spent money on food for the population rather than Weapons of Mass Destruction that may attract the unwanted attentions of the UK.

"It will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the area around it."

Brilliant, just brilliant. Pure, unadulterated comedy genius. The nuclear test risks not just the Korean Peninsula, but the stability of the world. This could be the event that pushes us towards nuclear conflict. To claim that is has something to do with peace is beyond irony, almost beyond satire.

A tragic flaw? Which flaw?

Just finished reading Greg Hurst's biography of Charles Kennedy. All very interesting, not least because it is about revisiting all those telltale signs that Charlie Boy had an alcohol problem. Now, until he actually confessed that he was an alcoholic, I really didn't believe he was one. Yes, there were a lot of signs, and some journalists directly suggested it (such as Paxman's wonderful "You're interviewing Charles Kennedy, I hope he's sober" question) but I could not believe that in this modern age of 24 hour media and post Watergate investigative journalism that a leader of a major party in the UK could be an alcoholic for many years and the story not come out. Just goes to show how wrong I can be.

And some of the stories are entertaining, in a sick, trying-not-to-look-at-the-car-crash-as-you-drive-past-it kind of way. The junior MP who clocks him as drunk at a party speech, the manifesto launch, the *illness* at the party conference… on some levels, Kennedy’s time as Lib Dem leader was a catalogue of disasters, as the party lurched from one drink induced crisis to another. You could argue that Kennedy did have a tragic flaw, that his drinking led to his resignation. But I’d disagree.

Sure, the reason why the Liberal Democrats eventually moved against Kennedy was because of his drinking. But Campbell, Taylor, Stunell and Rennard knew about his alcoholism prior to the 2005 election. Rennard asked Kennedy point blank whether he was an alcoholic, and Kennedy replied in the affirmative. It was apparently an open secret in Westminster that Kennedy has a drink problem for years – perhaps even before he became leader. Sandra Gidley relates his lacklustre performance – and general aroma of alcohol – in the 1999 leadership election. Had they wanted to, then the Lib Dem leadership could have got rid of Kennedy several years ago. His alcoholism was nothing new to them. Whether or not he could have survived as party leader after his admission of a drink problem is pure conjecture – the fact that he fell so swiftly after admitting a problem many knew he had was entirely down to the fact that his Shadow Cabinet failing to support him as he made his statement. Whatever their conscious motivation, I am convinced that, on a subconscious level, the Liberal Democrats did not depose Kennedy because of his drinking.

Alcoholism is a flaw in Kennedy – I guess it could be tragic if he doesn’t put it behind him and continues to destroy his health with it. But it is not the flaw that led to him being ousted as Lib Dem leader. His flaw as a politician is that he doesn’t actually seem to believe in anything. He is a politician without policies, without conviction, without the ability to make – and then stick to - a difficult decision.

In the book he comes across as a procrastinator, as someone who will avoid any choice for as long as possible and only really make those choices when he had to. Witness his thoughts on the Alliance/SDP merger. His choice on the Iraq War. Allowing the Union between the Lib Dems and Labour to “wither away on the vine” is typical of the way Charlie K thinks – he wants to avoid tough choices, and instead let events take their natural course. He is not a leader, he never was and will probably never will be. Showman, vote winner, amiable chap he may well be – conviction politician, well, no. Not now, not ever.

This is his key flaw. Kennedy is/was the epitome of the protest vote. He was a likeable leader of his party, someone who you wanted to vote for if you wanted to vote for the most human of the candidates. However, if you want to vote for someone who you think has the ideas and the convictions to run the country, it will never be the perpetually amiable Kennedy.

In today’s Times, Matthew Parris makes a very interesting point: calling for David Cameron to come out and stand for something – anything – to make him into a conviction politician. For Cameron to have a belief. Cameron should heed the warning offered by the coup against Kennedy – you can try to sell yourself as a nice chap and try to be everything to everyone but ultimately it won’t work. You have to stand for something. Whilst it may sound like the pot calling the kettle black, Blair was right to respond to Kennedy in the run-up to the Iraq War with the quip “Ah, yes, of course. The Liberal Democrats – united, as ever, in opportunism and error.”

Kennedy was opportunistic throughout his career, and whilst voters liked him, they had no idea what he stood for. Kennedy was the ideal third party leader – someone to vote for if you didn’t like the main party leaders. He was never a candidate for Prime Minister in his own right, as he stands for nothing.

I think, on some subconscious level, the Liberal Democrats offloaded Kennedy as they knew that, with him as leader, they would never move beyond third party status. They had the chance to push ahead dramatically in the 2001 and 2005 General Elections but ended up resolutely in third place. Kennedy failed to offer any real alternative to the two main parties, other than being a bloke you might want to have a beer with (bad taste, I know). I think there is ambition within the Lib Dems to become the Opposition, and then maybe the government, and also an understanding that a prevaricating populist like Kennedy cannot achieve that.

Whether Ming The Merciful can remains to be seen. But Kennedy’s drinking was a problem for him as Lib Dem leader, not the fatal flaw. It was the complete lack of political belief behind his leadership that led to his downfall. So even if he does overcome the alcohol problem, he will never be an effective party leader. Those who want Kennedy to make a comeback as leader are missing the point. He never was, and, unless he has a radical change in the future, will never be a leader.

BBC One's Robin Hood

Well, that was a big old bag of bollocks, wasn't it?

Hyped as the new Doctor Who, the only real similarity they seemed to have to me is the same time slot on Saturday evenings. The new Doctor Who is energetic, well written, well acted and generally full of fun. Robin Hood was drab, slow-moving, poorly written with some awful attempts at political comment and comedy.

I do have a bias to declare - I love Doctor Who, I have done since I was a kid and probably always will do. Can't stand sci-fi normally but there is something about Doctor Who that always makes me smile. Sure, the original series produced some absolute toss, but also produced some awesome and ground-breaking drama. And the new series represented an excellent - almost text book - way of introducing an established cultural icon in a fresh light. In the same way that the first episode of Robin Hood really didn't.

Compare Rose with Will You Tolerate This?. For a start, the titles. Rose is punchy, a little mysterious and memorable. Will You Tolerate This? is too long, too hysterical and too political. Moving on from there, look at how the leading characters are introduced. The Doctor is entirely seen through the eyes of Rose, and is at first a complete enigma. He drifts in and out of scenes, with Rose trying to figure out who he is. You want to learn more about him. Robin however, is in every scene. And his back story is is crammed into the story at every moment. Any chance of Robin being enigmatic or mysterious is completely ruined by the fact that we know everything about him at the end of the episode. At the end of Rose you want to know something more about the Doctor, whereas at the end of Will You Tolerate This? you pretty much know everything about Robin Hood. And the lead characters are very different as well. The Doctor is convincingly alien - he is mercurial, he is intelligent, energetic and fun. The Doctor is alone, seeking out adventure and relishing it. Robin Hood is arrogant, he comes with a servant, he is trying to escape from adventure and only intervenes when he has to - when he is watching men hang. The stories - Rose is about a shop girl who meets a strange man and helps him save the world from alien invasion. Will You Tolerate This? is about so many different things it almost hurts - about a man coming home from war, about a brutal dictator, about justice, about a million billion different characters all vying from screen time. And finally, look at how the episodes end. Rose has a jubilant Rose Tyler rushing towards the TARDIS with the promise of future adventure. Will You Tolerate This? ends with Robin Hood and his collection of grubby peasants being confronted with another group of grubby peasants.

If you want to see a good screen representation of Robin Hood, have a look at Robin of Sherwood. Don't waste your time with the new Robin Hood. The chances of it making to a second series based on the content of that first episode is highly unlikely, and soon the new Robin Hood will be replaced by Celebrity Come Dancing And Masterchef On Stilts Whilst Skating On Ice or whatever populist toss the BBC choose to foist on us next.

The Demon Headmaster Strikes

Jack Straw has "astonished" and "appalled" the Muslim Community with his request that Muslim women visiting his surgeries remove their veils - see here for details. Well, he has offended part of the Muslim Community. The hysterical parts. The Muslim Council of Britain has said they understand where Straw is coming from and that Muslim women can remove their veils. But obviously the loudest voices are the hysterical ones.

Now I fucking hate supporting Nu Labour and the shit awful, incompetent piss midgets that they call their leadership. I hate Jack Straw for his odd mix of stupidity, brown-nosing and general air of idiocy. But here he hasn't really done a great deal wrong. He has asked Muslim women who come to see him if they can remove their veils. He isn't forcing them to, he isn't wrestling them to the ground and wrenching the veils from their faces. He isn't saying that their religion is wrong - he is making a comment about social intergration and social interaction. Letwin is right to say telling people what to wear is a "dangerous doctrine", but Jack Straw is just making a comment.

We live in a free country. People can say what they like and can make requests. Particularly if they are relatively innocent requests. I mean, if I was meeting with Jack Straw, I would ask him to cover his face because I think his ugly, craggy face is so slappable that if I had to look at him for a prolonged period of time, I would probably end up twatting the fucker.

Is Gordon Brown Autistic?

Well, is he?

Osborne has got himself into trouble at the Tory Party conference for dropping a veiled hint that the drab Brown might be autistic. Needless to say he has denied it, though in fairness he did make an aside about Brown to answer a question about him being autistic.

I'm not going to get into the semantics of who said what when about Brown, Osborne and autism - partly because I don't know, but mainly because I don't care. But I think he might be on to something here. Perhaps Brown is autistic.

Now, whilst I think Brown is an intolerable, incapable wanker who spends his time sulking about the fact that he is not PM, I am not insulting him by speculating about him being autistic. Let's clarify terms - there are very different forms of autism, but Brown does display a lot of the symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome, which is an autism spectrum disorder. The criteria used to define Apserger's syndrome include problems with social interaction, restricted but highly developed interests and poor communication skills. Those with the syndrome are often seem to be distant, aloof, and are often mistaken for being arrogant. This is not the case at all - people with Asperger's syndrome have a developmental disorder that damages their interaction and relationships with others.

Now, Brown is known as someone who is distant with the people he works with, who struggles to build strong relationships, who has been so interested in politics that it is pretty much all that has driven his life to date. He struggles with the social interaction involved with modern politics, and when he tries to make himself popular and electable he often comes across as awkward and pained. I don't know the man personally, but from where I am sat he checks off a lot of the symptoms/characteristics associated with Asperger's Syndrome.

And actually it shouldn't be a major problem for Brown. If he does have the Syndrome, it would almost be worth telling people about it so they understand why he appears to be so awkward in most social situations. Furthermore, having Asperger's Syndrome is not a crippling disability. Hans Asperger, who first identified the syndrome, called the four children he was observing "his little professors" and there have been many famous, successful people who have had the Syndrome or are suspected of having it, including Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Stanley Kubrick and Gary Numan. It would be argued that the narrow interests of those with the Syndrome can work to the advantage of the sufferer.

The charities that have rushed to condemn Osborne may be missing the point - this could be an opportunity to raise the profile of the condition and fight the prejuidice that people have about autism/Asperger's syndrome. By all means criticise Osborne for using autism to score a cheap political point, but explain why he is being ignorant.

And before anyone who reads The Appalling Strangeness regularly and is concerned by the lack of abuse and swearing in this post, I wanted to end this post by commenting on Nick Hornby's contribution to the debate:

"George Osborne doesn't seem to have noticed that most people over the age of eight no longer use serious and distressing disabilities as a way of taunting people."

Yes they do, they do it all the time. They know it is offensive and they know it is wrong, which is part of the reason why they do it. And if you don't believe me, well, Hornby you are a fucking retard who writes like a spastic (with apologies to retards and spastics everywhere).

Bring Me Sunshine, Fuck the Policies

...Cameron makes his speech at the Tory Party Conference. And what does he say?

"...let sunshine win the day".

Oh dear Lord, oh Holy Mother of Jesus, help me. Why, why oh why oh why, when we have the chance for the first time since 1992 to win a General Election, have we elected this vacant, absent, hippy dickhead as our leader? Why? A Tory leader talking about sunshine? What about talking about being a fucking opposition party? You know, being different to the party of government. About having policies that people might even vote for? Instead of spouting off about sunshine in a way that sounds like John Lennon on Prozac.

We have a leader who pays lip service to crucial issues like terrorism and social responsibility. We have a leader who is afraid to commit to policies. We have a leader who is afraid to be a fucking Conservative.

Read the coverage on the BBC. This is the best comment they quote:

"...government that governs best, governs least".

And who was it? Cameron in a rare flash of brilliance?

No. Senator John McCain.

Can he be Tory leader instead?

Tories and Taxes

Cameron and Osborne have finally managed to come up with something that they plan to do with the Tory party. Or rather, something they are not going to do with the Conservative party. They are not going to pledge to reduce taxes prior to the next election. The Times reports Osborne as saying:

“Let’s get some things absolutely clear: economic stability will come before tax cuts. If it comes to a choice between the stability of the economy, people’s interest rates and mortgage rates, and cutting taxes, then we will choose economic stability. That’s the first thing people need to know about us.”

Hmm, well, I would argue that the first thing that people need to know about the Tories under Cameron is what they actually stand for. Other than winning elections. But that is merely a petulant aside. There is a lot of validity in what Osborne is saying, but also a lot that illustrates my increasing frustration with the Conservatives at the moment. Crucially, Osborne is saying what he won't do. He isn't illustrating what he will do in government.

Let me confess a bias at this point. I think the Conservative Party should be offering tax cuts - for two reasons. First of all, on a purely mercenary level, it is something that will help win the next election. The figures quoted in The Times article indicate that 55% of voters in a poll wanted tax cuts from the Tories.

But there is a deeper, and more fundamentally ideological reason, for the Conservatives to offer tax cuts. I don't favour tax cuts for tax cuts sake, but instead see them as a way in which the government can reduce their impact on our lives. Taxes are a essential to our society, but are not a right of the government. I strongly feel that New Labour regards spending our taxes - our money - as their right, and if there is a shortfall, then it is their right to takes more money from us. This is restricting our freedom, as the government is not allowing us to decide how to spend a substantial section of our income. The Conservative party should - must - pledge to reverse this thinking and this culture in government. Sure, a future Conservative administration will still have to take taxes from us, hell, may even have to raise taxes. But let us assert a fundamental philosophy here - it is our money that we allow the government to spend, and the government - as our elected representatives - should be looking to spend as little as possible of that money whilst maintaining the core functions of the state.

The article also states:

"We won't fall into the same old election trap, says George Osborne."

This is what is really at the heart of Osborne's statement. It is all about electioneering, which is a shame, because he is getting it wrong. Yes, making direct promises to cut taxes has not helped the Tories recently, and people do not want to think that their health and education systems are going to suffer to fund electoral bribes. But Osborne's comment is simply a knee jerk reaction, and is not anymore sensible than pledging to slash taxes on day one in Number 11, Downing Street.

People don't want to hear about taxes cuts coming from reduced spending. However, people do have an issue with the government wasting tax money. So let's restate the Conservative proposal for tax cuts in popular but sensible language.

The next Conservative Government will work from day one to reduce government wastage. That money will then be used to reduce taxes. The Conservative Party cannot offer definite figures until it gets into power and starts assessing the levels of wastage. But if there is a million pounds of government wastage, then the government will reduce taxes by one million.

It will be interesting to see how Cameron etc get on the conference, and to have flagged the highly contentious issue of taxes just before the party conference may prove to be a strategic error. But I think the greater error will be missing the chance to set some clear blue water between Labour and the Conservatives and start attacking Labour for being the party that wants to waste the electorate's taxes, with the Tories wanting to return any money being wasted.